Miller v. California

Definition

Miller v. California is a landmark Supreme Court case from 1973 that established the modern standard for determining what constitutes obscene material unprotected by the First Amendment. The ruling created a three-part test to evaluate whether speech or material can be classified as obscene, thereby limiting the scope of free expression in journalism and media.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The three-part test established by Miller v. California includes whether the average person would find the work, taken as a whole, appealing to prurient interests; whether it depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way; and whether it lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
2. This case arose after Marvin Miller sent unsolicited sexually explicit materials through the mail, leading to his arrest and conviction for violating California's obscenity laws.
3. Miller v. California modified earlier standards set by Roth v. United States, which had defined obscenity but was deemed too broad in its application.
4. The decision emphasized the role of community standards in determining what is considered obscene, which has implications for journalists and publishers across different regions.
5. Miller v. California has had lasting effects on how courts assess obscenity cases, influencing media regulations and censorship debates in journalism.

Review Questions

• How did Miller v. California change the legal landscape regarding obscenity and free speech?
  • Miller v. California significantly changed the legal landscape by introducing a specific three-part test for determining whether material is obscene and thus unprotected by the First Amendment. This test shifted the focus from broader definitions of obscenity to a more structured approach that considers community standards. As a result, this case has influenced how courts evaluate similar cases in journalism, balancing the need for free expression with societal norms about decency.
• Discuss the implications of the community standards aspect of Miller v. California on journalists operating in different regions.
  • The emphasis on community standards in Miller v. California means that what is deemed obscene can vary greatly depending on local values and norms. This presents challenges for journalists who may face different legal thresholds based on their geographical location. As a result, reporters and publishers need to navigate these varying standards carefully when producing or disseminating content that could be perceived as controversial or explicit.
• Evaluate how Miller v. California has shaped contemporary debates over media censorship and freedom of expression in journalism.
  • Miller v. California has played a pivotal role in shaping contemporary debates over media censorship and freedom of expression by establishing legal benchmarks for obscenity that still resonate today. The case illustrates the ongoing tension between protecting societal values and ensuring robust free speech protections for journalists. As new forms of media emerge, such as digital platforms and social media, discussions surrounding what constitutes obscenity continue to evolve, necessitating a reevaluation of existing laws in light of technological advancements and cultural shifts.

Related terms

Obscenity: Obscenity refers to material that is considered offensive or inappropriate according to community standards, often leading to legal restrictions on its distribution.

First Amendment:

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

Safe Harbor: A regulatory provision that allows broadcasters to air potentially indecent content during certain hours when children are less likely to be in the audience.