Miller v. California

https://www.casebriefs.
com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-stone/freedom-
of-expression/miller-v-california-3/
Miller v. California
413 U.S. 15 (1973)
Argued January 18-19, 1972 / Reargued November 7, 1972 / Decided June 21, 1973
FACTS:
In this case, the Appellant, Miller (Appellant), conducted a mass mailing campaign to advertise
the sale of illustrated adult material books. The Appellant’s conviction was specifically based on his
conduct in causing five unsolicited advertising brochures to be sent through the mail. The brochures
consist primarily of pictures and drawings very explicitly depicting men and women in groups of two or
more engaging in a variety of sexual activities, with genitals often predominantly displayed. This case
thus involves the application of a state’s criminal obscenity statute to a situation in which sexually
explicit materials have been thrust by aggressive sales action upon unwilling recipients.
ISSUE: Whether the obscenity presented in this case is prohibited by the applicable state statute?
HELD:
In sum, the Supreme Court: (a) reaffirmed the Roth holding that obscene material is not
protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution (Constitution), (b) held that such
material can be regulated by the States, subject to specific safeguards, without a showing that the
material is “utterly without redeeming social value and (c) held that obscenity is to be determined by
applying “contemporary community standards.” As a result, the majority determined that the material
at issue in this case was not protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution and that the
California state statute could regulate the matter. Furthermore, the requirement that a California jury
evaluate the materials with reference to “contemporary standards” is constitutionally adequate.
Dissent. Dissenting opinions were offered by both Justice William Douglas (J. Douglas) and Justice
William Brennan (J. Brennan).
J. Douglas: It should not be the role of the court to define obscenity.
J. Brennan: The state statute in this case is unconstitutionally overbroad.
DISCUSSION:
The Supreme Court focused much of its decision on the role of a jury in this type of matter. The
Supreme Court found that, despite the guidelines that it established, it is nearly impossible to articulate
a national obscenity standard. As a result, the Supreme Court noted that each state should be free,
through state statute, to construct obscenity laws that are representative of their communities.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court noted that the publication at issue in this case h ad no literary, artistic,
political or scientific value. The Supreme Court found that hard-core portrayal of sexual conduct, for its
own sake and for the ensuing commercial gain, does not fit the articulated standard.
IMPORTANT POINTS:
This Court has recognized that the States have a legitimate interest in prohibiting dissemination
or exhibition of obscene material when the mode of dissemination carries with it a significant danger of
offending the sensibilities of unwilling recipients or of exposure to juveniles.
Three-stage Memoirs Test
Memoirs v. Massachusetts, articulated a new test of obscenity. The plurality held that, under the Roth
definition,
"as elaborated in subsequent cases, three elements must coalesce: it must be established that
(a) the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to a prurient interest in sex;
(b) the material is patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to
the description or representation of sexual matters; and
(c) the material is utterly without redeeming social value."
A state offense must also be limited to works which, taken as a whole, appeal to the prurient
interest in sex, which portray sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and which, taken as a whole,
do not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
WHAT IS CONSIDERED OBSCENE?? MILLER TEST

The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: ALL THE THREE MUST BE PRESENT
(a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the
work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically
defined by the applicable state law; and
(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
We do not adopt as a constitutional standard the "utterly without redeeming social value" test of
Memoirs v. Massachusetts.
At a minimum, prurient, patently offensive depiction or description of sexual conduct must have serious
literary, artistic, political, or scientifc value to merit First Amendment protection.
This Court has agreed on concrete guidelines to isolate "hard core" pornography from expression
protected by the First Amendment.
To require a State to structure obscenity proceedings around evidence of a national "community
standard" would be an exercise in futility.
The jury, however, was explicitly instructed that, in determining whether the "dominant theme of the
material as a whole . . . appeals to the prurient interest," and, in determining whether the material
"goes substantially beyond customary limits of candor and affronts contemporary community standards
of decency," it was to apply "contemporary community standards of the State of California."
When the Court said in Roth that obscenity is to be defined by reference to 'community standards,' it
meant community standards -- not a national standard, as is sometimes argued.
The First Amendment protects works which, taken as a whole, have serious literary, artistic, political, or
scientific value, regardless of whether the government or a majority of the people approve of the ideas
these works represent.
”prurient” – lewd; lustful already

Miller v. California

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Miller v. California

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Miller v. California

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

https://www.casebriefs.

413 U.S. 15 (1973)

J. Douglas: It should not be the role of the court to define obscenity.

J. Brennan: The state statute in this case is unconstitutionally overbroad.

Three-stage Memoirs Test

(c) the material is utterly without redeeming social value."

WHAT IS CONSIDERED OBSCENE?? MILLER TEST

”prurient” – lewd; lustful already

You might also like