opinion in Ginzburg v. United States
E130699
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
United States Supreme Court case
United States Supreme Court opinion
judicial decision
publisher
The opinion in Ginzburg v. United States is a U.S. Supreme Court decision authored by Justice Potter Stewart that addressed the standards for determining obscenity in mailed publications.
All labels observed (2)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Ginzburg v. United States | 1 |
| opinion in Ginzburg v. United States canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T1136127 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: opinion in Ginzburg v. United States Context triple: [Potter Stewart, notableWork, opinion in Ginzburg v. United States]
-
A.
Debs v. United States
Debs v. United States was a 1919 U.S. Supreme Court case in which socialist leader Eugene V. Debs’s conviction for antiwar speech was upheld, reinforcing broad limits on free speech during wartime.
-
B.
Printz v. United States
Printz v. United States is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel state or local officials to implement federal regulatory programs.
-
C.
Schenck v. United States
Schenck v. United States is a 1919 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the “clear and present danger” test, allowing the government to restrict speech during wartime.
-
D.
Gitlow v. New York
Gitlow v. New York is a 1925 U.S. Supreme Court case that marked a major step in applying First Amendment free speech protections to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
E.
Katz v. United States
Katz v. United States is a landmark 1967 Supreme Court case that redefined Fourth Amendment protections by establishing that the amendment safeguards people’s reasonable expectations of privacy, not just physical places.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: opinion in Ginzburg v. United States Target entity description: The opinion in Ginzburg v. United States is a U.S. Supreme Court decision authored by Justice Potter Stewart that addressed the standards for determining obscenity in mailed publications.
-
A.
Debs v. United States
Debs v. United States was a 1919 U.S. Supreme Court case in which socialist leader Eugene V. Debs’s conviction for antiwar speech was upheld, reinforcing broad limits on free speech during wartime.
-
B.
Printz v. United States
Printz v. United States is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel state or local officials to implement federal regulatory programs.
-
C.
Schenck v. United States
Schenck v. United States is a 1919 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the “clear and present danger” test, allowing the government to restrict speech during wartime.
-
D.
Gitlow v. New York
Gitlow v. New York is a 1925 U.S. Supreme Court case that marked a major step in applying First Amendment free speech protections to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
E.
Katz v. United States
Katz v. United States is a landmark 1967 Supreme Court case that redefined Fourth Amendment protections by establishing that the amendment safeguards people’s reasonable expectations of privacy, not just physical places.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (46)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court case ⓘ United States Supreme Court opinion ⓘ judicial decision ⓘ publisher ⓘ |
| appliesStatute |
18 U.S.C. § 1461
ⓘ
18 U.S.C. § 1465 ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
constitutional law
ⓘ
criminal law ⓘ postal law ⓘ |
| argued | 1965-11-16 ⓘ |
| author | Potter Stewart ⓘ |
| bench |
Warren Court era
ⓘ
surface form:
Warren Court
|
| citation | 383 U.S. 463 ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
First Amendment to the United States Constitution
ⓘ
Fourteenth Amendment ⓘ
surface form:
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
|
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decided |
1966-03-21
ⓘ
1966-03-21 ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1966-03-21 ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 58 ⓘ |
| focus |
obscenity in mailed publications
ⓘ
role of advertising in obscenity determinations ⓘ |
| holding |
materials may be found obscene based in part on the manner of their advertising and promotion
ⓘ
pandering to prurient interests is relevant to determining obscenity ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| language | English ⓘ |
| legalEffect | affirmed convictions for mailing obscene advertising and materials ⓘ |
| legalSubject |
First Amendment to the United States Constitution
ⓘ
surface form:
First Amendment
freedom of speech ⓘ mailing of obscene materials ⓘ obscenity law ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy |
Potter Stewart
ⓘ
Potter Stewart ⓘ |
| pageInUnitedStatesReports | 463 ⓘ |
| partOf |
opinion in Ginzburg v. United States
self-linksurface differs
ⓘ
surface form:
Ginzburg v. United States
|
| party |
Ralph Ginzburg
ⓘ
United States of America ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| relatedCase |
Memoirs v. Massachusetts
ⓘ
Roth v. United States ⓘ |
| relatedDoctrine | Roth test for obscenity ⓘ |
| standardAddressed |
contemporary community standards
ⓘ
pandering doctrine ⓘ prurient interest ⓘ |
| volumeOfUnitedStatesReports | 383 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: opinion in Ginzburg v. United States Description of subject: The opinion in Ginzburg v. United States is a U.S. Supreme Court decision authored by Justice Potter Stewart that addressed the standards for determining obscenity in mailed publications.
Referenced by (2)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
opinion in Ginzburg v. United States
→
partOf
→
opinion in Ginzburg v. United States
self-linksurface differs
ⓘ
this entity surface form:
Ginzburg v. United States