Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court wherein the court redefined its definition of obscenity from that of "utterly without socially redeeming value" to that which lacks "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value".
What was the result of the Miller v California case?
The Supreme Court case of Miller v. California, 1973, was an attempt by the Court to define the scope and nature of obscenity, and to create a principle that can apply to future cases. The result was known as the three-prong standard, generally called the Miller test.
What was the effect of the Miller v Roth decision?
The Miller decision vacated the jury verdict and remanded the case back to the California Superior Court. Miller provided states greater freedom in prosecuting alleged purveyors of "obscene" material because, for the first time since Roth, a majority of the Court agreed on a definition of "obscenity."
Why did the US Supreme Court grant certiorari to Miller?
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to Miller because the California law was based on its two previous obscenity cases which the Court wanted to revisit. Chief Justice Warren Burger came to the Court in 1969 believing that the Court's obscenity jurisprudence was misguided and governments should be given more leeway to ban obscene materials.
What is the significance of the California v California case?
California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court where the court redefined its definition of obscenity from that of "utterly without socially redeeming value" to that which lacks "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value".
What amendment is Miller vs California?
Speech that is obscene and thus lacking First Amendment protection must be without serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
What ruling did the Supreme Court make on obscenity?
The Supreme Court decision in United States v. Reidel, 402 U.S. 351 (1971), affirmed that laws forbidding the distribution of obscene materials were constitutional despite the Court's ruling in Stanley v. Georgia (1969), which held that persons had a right to possess obscene materials in the privacy of their own homes.
What is the basic test established by the Court in the 1973 Miller v California decision to determine whether expression is obscene?
The Miller test for obscenity includes the following criteria: (1) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, 'taken as a whole,' appeals to 'prurient interest' (2) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically ...
Why did the Court agree to hear Miller v California?
Previous Supreme Court decisions on obscenity The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to Miller because the California law was based on its two previous obscenity cases which the Court wanted to revisit.
What is the significance of Miller v. California quizlet?
Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court wherein the court redefined its definition of obscenity from that of "utterly without socially redeeming value" to that which lacks "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." It is now referred to as ...
Was California overturned Miller?
While the test set down for defining obscenity in Miller v. California has been modified and expanded by subsequent court cases since the original decision was handed down in 1973, it has never been overturned and forms the starting point for nearly all U.S. court cases dealing with obscenity prosecutions.
What is the Miller case about?
R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union is a United Kingdom constitutional law case decided by the United Kingdom Supreme Court on 24 January 2017, which ruled that the British Government (the executive) may not initiate withdrawal from the European Union by formal notification to the Council of ...
What is the primary purpose of the Miller test?
The Miller Test is the primary legal test for determining whether expression constitutes obscenity. It is named after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. California (1973).
What is wrong with the Miller test?
Another important issue is that the Miller test asks for an interpretation of what the "average" person finds offensive, rather than what the more sensitive persons in the community are offended by, as obscenity was defined by the previous test, the Hicklin test, stemming from the English precedent.
When was Miller v California decided?
June 21, 1973Miller v. California / Date decided
What are the three parts of the test created in Miller v California 1973?
In Miller v. California (1973), it devised a three-part test to determine whether a work was obscene: (1) “the average person, applying contemporary community standards,” would judge that the work appeals primarily to prurient interests; (2) “the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way,…
What does the Miller standard define?
Miller's three-part test. •(1) whether average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find work, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interest. •(2) whether work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct defined by applicable state law.
What is the Supreme Court definition of obscenity?
1) A thing must be prurient in nature. 2) A thing must be completely devoid of scientific, political, educational, or social value. 3) A thing must violate the local community standards.
What was the Court's decision in Texas v Johnson?
Decision: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision in favor of Johnson. The high court agreed that symbolic speech – no matter how offensive to some – is protected under the First Amendment.
Which Supreme Court case ruled on the criteria used to define obscenity quizlet?
The Supreme Court articulated in 1973 in Miller v. California a test still used by all courts for determining when speech is obscene.
What Court case provided a legal definition of obscenity?
The major obscenity decision in Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957), provided the basis for an important test that the Supreme Court used to determine whether material was obscene or constitutionally protected.
What law did Miller violate?
Miller was arrested, charged, and convicted under a California law that banned selling, possessing, distributing, or publishing obscene materials. The law had been specifically crafted to comply with the Supreme Court's decision on obscenity and the First Amendment in Roth v. United States.
Is child pornography a constitutional right?
Ferber (1982) that child pornography is a categorical exception to the First Amendment, like obscenity, although not all sexually explicit material that appears to depict children might be outside constitutional protections.
What is the meaning of Miller v. California?
15 (1973), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court modifying its definition of obscenity from that of "utterly without socially redeeming value" to that which lacks "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.".
When did Miller v Burger come down?
Decision of the case was contentious, and Miller was put over for reargument for October term in 1972, and did not come down until June 1973, with Burger prevailing with a 5–4 vote. Since the Court's decision in Roth v.
Why did the Supreme Court grant certiorari to Miller?
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to Miller because the California law was based on its two previous obscenity cases which the Court wanted to revisit. Chief Justice Warren Burger came to the Court in 1969 believing that the Court's obscenity jurisprudence was misguided and governments should be given more leeway to ban obscene materials. In consideration of Miller in May and June 1972, Burger pushed successfully for a looser definition of "obscenity" which would allow local prosecutions, while Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., who by now also believed the Roth and Memoirs tests should be abandoned, led the charge for protecting all "obscenity" unless distributed to minors or exposed offensively to unconsenting adults. Decision of the case was contentious, and Miller was put over for reargument for October term in 1972, and did not come down until June 1973, with Burger prevailing with a 5–4 vote.
What is the meaning of obscenity post Miller?
Definition of obscenity post-Miller. Miller provided states greater freedom in prosecuting alleged purveyors of "obscene" material because, for the first time since Roth, a majority of the Court agreed on a definition of "obscenity.".
What was the question before the court in Memoirs v. Massachusetts?
The Court rejected that argument. The question before the court was whether the sale and distribution of obscene material was protected under the First Amendment's guarantee of Freedom of Speech.
Which court case argued that the suppression of obscenity is too vague to enforce in line with the First and
Justice Brennan, author of the Roth opinion, argued in his dissent for Paris Adult Theatre that outright suppression of obscenity is too vague to enforce in line with the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The standards established by Miller were elaborated upon in Pope v. Illinois in 1987.
What is the community standards portion of the decision?
The "community standards" portion of the decision is of particular relevance with the rise of the Internet, as materials believed by some to be "obscene" can be accessed from anywhere in the nation, including places where there is a greater concern about "obscenity" than other areas of the nation.
What was the charge against Miller?
Miller was charged with violating a California law against 'obscene matter.'.
What is the Miller test?
California, 1973, was an attempt by the Court to define the scope and nature of obscenity, and to create a principle that can apply to future cases. The result was known as the three-prong standard, generally called the Miller test.
What did the Supreme Court rule about obscene material?
More to the point, the Court ruled that obscene material (which could now be branded as such much more freely, given the new Miller test) did not have First Amendment protection, and thus could be regulated or even prohibited by the state. The Decision's Impact.
Where did Marvin Miller start his business?
Marvin Miller operated a mail-order business in California in 1971. His company primarily distributed pornographic books and films, and that year he sent out a brochure advertising his products which contained graphic depictions of sex acts.
When did the Supreme Court create the definition of ambiguous legal terms?
The Supreme Court in 1973 tried to create a definition of a surprisingly ambiguous legal term, and ended up creating a new rule that changed the nature of the First Amendment. Create an account.
What did Marvin Miller do?
Marvin Miller produced a mass mailing campaign advertising adult books and films he had available for sale. Miller was convicted under the state’s criminal obscenity laws and appealed claiming his conduct was protected under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court set out a new three-part test for determining whether or not material is obscene ...
Is California's criminal statute overbroad?
Dissenting (Brennan): California’s criminal statute is overbroad and unconstitutional. Dissenting (Douglas): Criminal prosecutions for obscenity should not be available unless the defendant publishes or distributes work previously deemed obscene in a civil proceeding.
Is the court of appeals vacated?
The decision of the court of appeals is vacated and remanded for further consideration under the new test announced by the Court. The decision of the court of appeals is vacated and remanded for further consideration under the new test announced by the Court.
Did the California state court of appeals convicted Miller?
California had a criminal obscenity statute which prohibited distribution of obscene materials. Miller was convicted under the state statute and appealed his conviction to the state court of appeals.
Why did the Ohio Supreme Court rule that local community standards would run the risk of preventing dissemination of materials in some places
184 (1964), two Justices argued that application of "local" community standards would run the risk of preventing dissemination of materials in some places because sellers would be unwilling to risk criminal conviction by testing variations in standards from place to place.
What was the appellant's conviction?
15, 18] based on his conduct in causing five unsolicited advertising brochures to be sent through the mail in an envelope addressed to a restaurant in Newport Beach, California. The envelope was opened by the manager of the restaurant and his mother.
What was the meaning of the Miller v. California case?
Slaton, 413 U.S. 49, 93 S. Ct. 2628, 37 L. Ed. 2d 446, (1973), marked the culmination of a period when the Supreme Court laid down several tests for obscenity, the most famous and succinct of which was Justice Potter Stewart's comment in his concurrence in Jacobellis v. State of Ohio 378 U.S. 184, 84 S. Ct. 1676, 12 L. Ed. 2d 793 (1964), "I know it when I see it." For years, U.S. courts had generally followed the definition of obscenity contained in the 1868 British case, Regina v. 3 L.R.-Q.B. 360 (1868). That case said the definition of obscenity was "whether the tendency of the matter charged is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall." Courts differed as to whether just one passage of the material was sufficient to prove this tendency or whether the work had to be examined as a whole.
Why was Marvin Miller convicted?
Under a California obscenity statute, Marvin Miller was convicted for mailing illustrated brochures advertising "adult" books. The California appeals court used the tests previously enunciated by the court to uphold Miller's conviction. The Supreme Court took up the case as an opportunity to reconsider its previous holdings.
What is the Supreme Court's final word on pornography?
Arguably the most important in a series of late-twentieth-century Supreme Court cases laying down the definition of Obscenity and setting down the boundaries as to how and when communities could regulate obscene materials. Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S. Ct. 2607, 37 L. Ed. 2d 419 (1973) remained the Supreme Court's final word on most types of Pornography into the twenty-first century. While the test set down for defining obscenity in Miller v. California has been modified and expanded by subsequent court cases since the original decision was handed down in 1973, it has never been overturned and forms the starting point for nearly all U.S. court cases dealing with obscenity prosecutions.
Facts of the case
Miller, after conducting a mass mailing campaign to advertise the sale of "adult" material, was convicted of violating a California statute prohibiting the distribution of obscene material. Some unwilling recipients of Miller's brochures complained to the police, initiating the legal proceedings.
Question
Is the sale and distribution of obscene materials by mail protected under the First Amendment's freedom of speech guarantee?
Conclusion
Obscene materials are not protected by the First Amendment, but the definition of "obscene material" is lessened.
Overview
Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court modifying its definition of obscenity from that of "utterly without socially redeeming value" to that which lacks "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." It is now referred to as the three-prong standard or the Miller test.
Background
In 1971, Marvin Miller, an owner/operator of a California mail-order business specializing in pornographic films and books, sent out a brochure advertising books and a film that graphically depicted sexual activity between men and women. The brochure used in the mailing contained graphic images from the books and the film. Five of the brochures were mailed to a restaurant in Newport Beach, California. The owner and his mother opened the envelope and seeing the broch…
Previous Supreme Court decisions on obscenity
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to Miller because the California law was based on its two previous obscenity cases which the Court wanted to revisit. Chief Justice Warren Burger came to the Court in 1969 believing that the Court's obscenity jurisprudence was misguided and governments should be given more leeway to ban obscene materials. In consideration of Miller in May and June 1972, Burger pushed successfully for a looser definition of "obscenity" which woul…
Supreme Court decision
Miller had based his appeal in California on Memoirs v. Massachusetts. The Court rejected that argument. The question before the court was whether the sale and distribution of obscene material was protected under the First Amendment's guarantee of Freedom of Speech. The Court ruled that it was not. It indicated that "obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment," especially that of hardcore pornography, thereby reaffirming part of Roth.
Definition of obscenity post-Miller
Miller provided states greater freedom in prosecuting alleged purveyors of "obscene" material because, for the first time since Roth, a majority of the Court agreed on a definition of "obscenity." Hundreds of "obscenity" prosecutions went forward after Miller, and the Supreme Court began denying review of these state actions after years of reviewing many "obscenity" convictions (over 60 appeared on the Court's docket for the 1971–72 term, pre-Miller).
Effects of the decision
In the years since Miller, many localities have cracked down on adult theatres and bookstores, as well as nude dancing, through restrictive zoning ordinances and public nudity laws.
Additionally, in 1982's New York v. Ferber the Court declared child pornography as unprotected by the First Amendment, upholding the state of New York's ban on that material. In the 2002 Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition case, however, the Court held that sexually explicit material that only app…
See also
• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 413
• Sex-related court cases
• United States obscenity law
Further reading
• Tuman, Joseph (2003). "Miller v. California". In Parker, Richard A. (ed.). Free Speech on Trial: Communication Perspectives on Landmark Supreme Court Decisions. Tuscaloosa, Alabama: University of Alabama Press. pp. 187–202. ISBN 0-8173-1301-X.