Miller v. California

Definition

Miller v. California is a landmark Supreme Court case from 1973 that established the modern legal definition of obscenity, which is not protected by the First Amendment. The decision set forth a three-part test to determine whether material is obscene, focusing on whether the average person would find it appealing to prurient interests, whether it depicts sexual conduct in an offensive way, and whether it lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. This ruling significantly influenced how courts evaluate cases involving obscenity.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The case originated when Marvin Miller mailed brochures advertising adult materials, which led to his conviction for distributing obscene materials.
2. The Supreme Court's ruling in Miller v. California overturned the previous standards set by Roth v. United States and created a more structured approach to defining obscenity.
3. The three-part test established in Miller requires consideration of community standards, which means what is deemed obscene can vary based on local norms.
4. This ruling was pivotal because it allowed states more authority in regulating obscene material without violating free speech rights.
5. Miller v. California remains a foundational case in obscenity law and continues to influence decisions regarding adult content and First Amendment rights.

Review Questions

• What are the key components of the three-part test established by the Supreme Court in Miller v. California for determining obscenity?
  • The three-part test established in Miller v. California includes assessing whether the average person would find the material appealing to prurient interests, determining if it depicts sexual conduct in an offensive manner, and evaluating whether it lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. This framework is crucial for courts as it provides a clear guideline for differentiating between protected speech and obscenity that can be regulated.
• Discuss how the decision in Miller v. California affected the balance between First Amendment rights and community standards regarding obscenity.
  • The decision in Miller v. California created a significant shift in how obscenity is evaluated under the First Amendment by allowing states to define community standards for what constitutes obscene material. This means that local norms can influence legal interpretations of free speech, leading to variability in how obscenity laws are applied across different jurisdictions. This balance aims to protect individual freedoms while recognizing the need for communities to uphold certain standards of decency.
• Evaluate the impact of Miller v. California on contemporary legal cases involving adult content and censorship.
  • Miller v. California has had a lasting impact on contemporary legal battles over adult content and censorship by establishing a clear framework that courts continue to rely on when adjudicating such cases. The emphasis on community standards allows for ongoing debates about what constitutes acceptable content based on changing societal views, while also raising questions about artistic expression versus community morality. As technology evolves and new forms of media emerge, this case remains relevant as courts navigate the complexities of free speech and obscenity in today's digital landscape.

Related terms

Obscenity: A category of speech not protected by the First Amendment due to its offensive nature and lack of societal value.

First Amendment: An amendment to the U.S. Constitution that protects freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition.

Prurient Interest: A term used in law to describe a tendency to be aroused by sexual content, which plays a role in determining whether material is deemed obscene.