Miller v. California

Definition

Miller v. California is a landmark Supreme Court case from 1973 that established the modern test for determining what constitutes obscenity under the First Amendment. The case involved Marvin Miller, who was convicted for distributing explicit materials, and it set a precedent for how courts assess whether material is obscene and thus not protected by free speech rights. This decision refined the definition of obscenity by introducing the 'Miller test', which evaluates whether the average person would find that the work appeals to prurient interests, whether it depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and whether it lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The 'Miller test' created a three-pronged standard for determining whether material is considered obscene.
2. In the Miller case, the Supreme Court ruled that obscenity is not protected under the First Amendment, allowing states to regulate it.
3. The decision in Miller v. California overturned previous rulings on obscenity, including Roth v. United States, which had a broader standard.
4. Miller argued that his distribution of adult materials was protected free speech; however, the court found otherwise based on community standards.
5. The ruling emphasized that standards for determining obscenity can vary by community and that local jurisdictions have some discretion in regulating obscene material.

Review Questions

• How did Miller v. California change the legal landscape regarding obscenity and free speech?
  • Miller v. California significantly changed how obscenity is defined legally by introducing the 'Miller test', which replaced the broader definitions used previously. The case clarified that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment and established specific criteria to determine what constitutes obscene material. This ruling shifted the responsibility to local communities to set standards for obscenity based on prevailing community standards, thus making it easier for states to regulate such content.
• Discuss how the 'Miller test' can lead to varying interpretations of what is considered obscene in different communities.
  • The 'Miller test' allows for a subjective evaluation of obscenity based on community standards, meaning that what one community may find acceptable could be deemed offensive in another. This subjectivity can result in differing legal outcomes across various jurisdictions as local standards dictate what is permissible or not. Consequently, the ruling empowers states with authority to enforce their own interpretations of obscenity, leading to a patchwork of regulations throughout the country.
• Evaluate the implications of Miller v. California on future cases related to free speech and expression.
  • Miller v. California set a crucial precedent that continues to influence cases related to free speech and expression today. By establishing specific criteria for obscenity, it has allowed courts to navigate complex issues surrounding sexually explicit content while balancing individual rights against community standards. Future cases often reference the 'Miller test' as a foundation for their arguments, demonstrating its lasting impact on debates about censorship, artistic expression, and personal freedoms in an increasingly digital age where content dissemination transcends local boundaries.

Related terms

First Amendment: The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition.

Obscenity: Obscenity refers to any material that meets the criteria established in Miller v. California and is deemed inappropriate or offensive and therefore not protected by free speech.

Prior Restraint: Prior restraint is a legal doctrine that prohibits government actions from preventing speech or publication before it occurs, typically deemed unconstitutional under the First Amendment.