President Biden Should Pardon D.M. Bennett
Issuing a posthumous pardon for Bennett would reaffirm our nation’s commitment to free expression and intellectual freedom.

With the stroke of his pen, President Joe Biden could take a stand against authoritarian restrictions on free speech by issuing a posthumous pardon to D.M. Bennett, the freethought publisher convicted of violating the Comstock Act in 1879.
Over the past year, judges have revived the long-dead Comstock Act to justify restrictions on speech and abortion drugs. Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas even approvingly cited the moribund law in recent arguments.
For these reasons, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) has submitted a petition to the president seeking Bennett's pardon both to address the personal injustice resulting from this 145-year-old conviction and also to put the administration on record in opposing the resurgence of this law that threatens the rights of all Americans.
Comstock's Crusade Against Immorality
D.M. Bennett's story highlights the importance of First Amendment protections that have rendered the Comstock Act obsolete. Bennett was the founder and publisher of The Truth Seeker, a freethought journal still in circulation today. He was prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to a year of hard labor for distributing Cupid's Yokes, a pamphlet attacking the institution of marriage, written by free love advocate Ezra Heywood.
Although the charge was obscenity, Bennett was targeted for opposing the Comstock Act—an 1873 law prohibiting the mailing of any "obscene, lewd, or lascivious" material, anything "designed or intended for the prevention of conception or procuring of an abortion," or anything intended for "any indecent or immoral use." Anthony Comstock, the law's namesake and an anti-smut crusader, lobbied for and personally enforced the law as a special agent of the U.S. Postal Service. Under the law's broad mandate, everything that Comstock considered immoral was by definition obscene and, therefore, illegal.
Comstock's concept of immorality included blasphemy, sensational novels and news stories, art, and even scientific and medical texts. Near the end of his four-decade career as an anti-vice crusader, Comstock claimed he convicted enough people to nearly "fill a passenger train of sixty-one coaches," and also destroyed 160 tons of literature and four million pictures. Most shameful of all, he boasted of causing at least fifteen suicides.
Bennett, whom Comstock described as a "ringleader," became a special target because he actively sought to repeal the Comstock Act and collected signatures for a repeal petition in The Truth Seeker. He also offered to distribute Cupid's Yokes after Comstock prosecuted Heywood. Despite not agreeing with Heywood's free love advocacy, Bennett was outraged that anyone in America could be prosecuted for expressing their views.
Comstock prosecuted Heywood three times for writing and distributing Cupid's Yokes. After an 1878 conviction, President Rutherford B. Hayes pardoned Heywood, writing in his diary that "it is no crime by the laws of the United States to advocate the abolition of marriage" and he did not consider Cupid's Yokes to be obscene. However, Hayes would later deny a pardon to Bennett, who merely distributed the pamphlet, after Comstock personally intervened to block the clemency request. At age 60, Bennett was confined to Albany prison, and the forced labor while there cut short his life.
Abuses like Bennett's conviction spurred a sea change in the law, eventually leading to stronger First Amendment protections. In 1957, the Supreme Court in Roth v. United States declared that "sex and obscenity are not synonymous" and set a high bar for government censorship, nullifying much of the Comstock Act. It has been a dead letter since the mid-twentieth century.
Until now.
The Urgency of Correcting Historical Injustices
Recent decisions threaten to revive the Comstock Act as a vehicle for restricting speech and access to contraceptives and pharmaceutical abortions. Now is the time to recognize and remedy past abuses while reaffirming our commitment to the principles of free expression.
The president is uniquely positioned to do so through the power to pardon. Posthumous presidential pardons are rare but have been granted to correct past injustices and signal future values. It is particularly fitting for President Biden to use the pardon power to highlight the importance of First Amendment rights that have been abridged under an unjust law.
President Thomas Jefferson used executive clemency to undo the damage caused by the Sedition Act of 1798—the law that criminalized expressing any "false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government," and which was used aggressively to punish political opponents of the Adams Administration. And even though the act expired and was never tested in court, the consensus of history is that it was fundamentally at odds with the First Amendment. Jefferson's pardons reinforced this judgment. He would later write that he considered the Sedition Act "a nullity, as absolute and as palpable as if Congress had ordered us to fall down and worship a golden image."
And so it is with the Comstock Act.
The need for a posthumous pardon for Bennett is even more compelling because of the ways the Comstock Act is being used today to threaten individual rights. Bennett was convicted 145 years ago but President Biden should pardon him now; there is never a wrong time to do the right thing.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
He'll be too busy with Hunter.
If he really supported free speech he could pardon James Mackey.
But Biden and the rest of the sub human trash don't.
You other articles include stories about how the pro terrorists treating jews should be good. I'm guessing you would change your tune if people were threatening the ragheads cancers.
And how pro life protesters are the same as pro censorship. Despite the fact that a 72 year old was mocked in court for being a Christian.
Yet you have no word on how the feds a literally jailing people on the right for speeking
You need to kill yourself. You are a horrible cancer, and have no capability to become human
1. FFS.
2. Why would Biden pardon a long dead guy when he's all on board with the government having the power to censor?
Yes Anthony Comstock--together with every other sucker-fleecing Republican prohibitionist ever to turn Congress into a girl-bullying mob of bigots needs to have his vicious laws struck down. But to instead grovel before Biden the prohibitionist to resurrect Lazarus' dead rights is plain submissive necrophilia. What's wrong with instead voting for Chase Oliver and other non-MAGAt libertarians, tossing or at least spoiling a few of them onto the street in full view of their fake "adversaries"? https://libertariantranslator.wordpress.com/2018/05/16/republicans-banned-all-birth-control/
I just knew you'd comment on this one.
Look, a post-humus pardon might be nice, but it's a meaningless gesture. As Biden and the DNC has been actively engaged in outsourcing the Ministry of Truth since at least the 2016 election. There are multiple lawsuits about their coercion of different groups into censoring content the government thought harmful.
So no, I don't think an empty wave of a pen is important or will send a message at all.
How about we start with people who are alive today who should be pardoned for their speech, such as Julian Assange and Edward Snowden?
Maybe after THAT we can get around to addressing pardons for long-dead people.
Snowden should be given the Medal of Freedom.
Not sure about Assange.
What are we saying here? That Biden should perform an intentionally ironic empty gesture?
Well, that sort of thing is right up his alley.
Isn't a posthumous pardon a little bit late?
Sends a bit of a mixed message to pardon this guy while your administration prosecutes whistleblowers and internet trolls.
i get the sentiment, but there are current attacks on the first amendment that seem to have more priority than virtue signalling.
I will never understand what you people have so against basic decency and human morality.
Yea, you can say Comstock was overbroad - sure. But that's not what you do. Instead you attack morality itself. As if it's something that shouldn't ever be the subject of legislation. Conveniently ignoring that EVERY law is one that has a moral basis.
Which is absurd, and heavily suggests you just want no laws and total anarchy.
Really silly stuff here. We've come something like full circle since Comstock and one of the primary reasons is the Biden regime. Even if Biden pardoned this guy he would have no credibility.
He should also pardon Trump.
I’m sorry that a pro-abortion guy is FIRE’s chief counsel, and like many pro-abortion types, he makes historically mistaken claims.
The Sedition Act *was* tested in court. IIRC, three out of six Supreme Court justices helped preside over trials where Sedition Act defendants were convicted. The Supreme Court *as a body* never ruled on it, but people did go to prison thanks to lower courts (lower courts with Supreme Court justices on them).
Congress repealed the contraceptive part of the Comstock Act. In the 1970s, of course.
That leaves the part of the Act forbidding the sending of abortifacients by mail or by express company – Biden watered that part of the law down to homeopathic levels and it’s no longer enforced.
If it *were* enforced, why would that be FIRE’s business? Aren’t they supposed to be a nonpartisan free-expression group? When did they become part of the abortion lobby?
FIRE’s mission according to its Web site:
“FIRE’s mission is to defend and sustain the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought—the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.”
https://www.thefire.org/about-us/mission
Nothing about promoting abortion.
Scratch a Leftist, find a Marxist.
I see the gooner squad has made their way into FIRE, so sad for the death of that institution. Go peddle your pro-abortion and pro-pedo arguments somewhere without a grasp on morality, like the DNC convention.