Miller v California
Case: Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)
Jurisdiction:
Supreme Court of the United States
Background:
Miller, the owner of a mail-order business, conducted a campaign to advertise adult material, including brochures and explicit films. He sent unsolicited brochures depicting sexual content to individuals.
California authorities charged Miller with violating state obscenity laws because the materials were considered obscene under California law.
Miller was convicted, and the case went up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which had to decide what constitutes obscene material and what protections, if any, the First Amendment provides.
Legal Issues:
What is the standard for determining whether material is obscene and therefore not protected by the First Amendment?
How to balance freedom of speech with the government's interest in regulating obscenity?
Supreme Court Judgment:
The Court ruled in favor of California, affirming Miller's conviction but also established a new standard—the “Miller test”—to determine what constitutes obscenity.
The Miller Test:
The Court created a three-pronged test for determining obscenity, which must be met for material to be considered obscene and not protected by the First Amendment:
Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.
"Prurient interest" means an excessive or unhealthy interest in sexual matters.
Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law.
Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Key Points:
The Court rejected the previous “utterly without redeeming social value” standard used in Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966), replacing it with the current test.
“Community standards” means that the evaluation of obscenity may vary depending on the local community's views, not a national standard.
The work must be judged as a whole, not just isolated parts.
Material failing this test may be regulated or banned, as it is considered outside First Amendment protection.
Related Case Law:
Roth v. United States (1957): First U.S. Supreme Court case to define obscenity and exclude it from First Amendment protection but with a less specific test.
Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966): Held that material must be "utterly without redeeming social value" to be obscene; this standard was replaced by Miller.
Jenkins v. Georgia (1974): Applied the Miller test in a film obscenity case.
Significance:
Miller v. California remains the leading U.S. precedent on obscenity law.
The Miller test is widely used by courts to determine obscenity.
The decision balances free speech rights with public interest in regulating harmful material.
It allows states flexibility based on local community standards, which means what is obscene in one community might not be in another.
Summary:
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Issue | Definition and regulation of obscenity under First Amendment |
| Held | Obscene material not protected by First Amendment; Miller test established |
| Miller Test | 1. Appeals to prurient interest by average person using community standards 2. Patently offensive sexual conduct defined by law 3. Lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value |
| Impact | Standard for obscenity cases; allows local community standards; balances free speech and regulation |
RELATED Blog
0 comments