Miller V California 1973 Case Brief
Raven Bradford
Chinerika Smith
P.6th 1082014
Miller v California 1971 Case: Miller v California decided on June 21st 1973 Facts: Marvin Miller was a owner of a business that was considered to be sexual in nature. In
1972, Mr. Marvin started advertising his business through mail. One day a mother and a daughter received the brochure and found it offensive towards them. Soon there was a complaint filed by them to the California Police Department. After investigating it they arrested
Mr. Marvin because his material was obscene. Miller found that the arrest violated his 1st amendment, the right to speech and press.
The brochures were full of explicit pictures and drawings. Men and women both had their private parts showing and many sexual activities were shown also. There were thousands of these sent out. New to the generation of the time period made all the true freaks come out.
Making sure kids would never watch pornography was another problem with his campaign. Children had easy access to porn but adults never knew how to stop it. Those types of things were only meant for adults to see and watch. Issue: Whether the obscenity presented in the case is prohibited by the applicable state statute? Holding: Millers 1st amendment rights were not violated, his campaign did not meet the requirements for the population.
Majority Opinion Reasoning: 5 to 4 ruled in favor of State of California. Guilty of misdemeanor, because the material mailed to the public was not meant for kids to see.
Rights were Trumph in a certain manner. Rule: Miller was in the wrong. The way he handed out his brochures brought harm to the population. So the verdict of the Miller case created the “Miller Test”. The test is used to define what obscene or unsuitable for the public. They take a publication or any type of communication and evaluate it. If it looks to dirty or offensive or can not be protected under the 1st amendment then its not okay
Chinerika Smith
P.6th 1082014
Miller v California 1971 Case: Miller v California decided on June 21st 1973 Facts: Marvin Miller was a owner of a business that was considered to be sexual in nature. In
1972, Mr. Marvin started advertising his business through mail. One day a mother and a daughter received the brochure and found it offensive towards them. Soon there was a complaint filed by them to the California Police Department. After investigating it they arrested
Mr. Marvin because his material was obscene. Miller found that the arrest violated his 1st amendment, the right to speech and press.
The brochures were full of explicit pictures and drawings. Men and women both had their private parts showing and many sexual activities were shown also. There were thousands of these sent out. New to the generation of the time period made all the true freaks come out.
Making sure kids would never watch pornography was another problem with his campaign. Children had easy access to porn but adults never knew how to stop it. Those types of things were only meant for adults to see and watch. Issue: Whether the obscenity presented in the case is prohibited by the applicable state statute? Holding: Millers 1st amendment rights were not violated, his campaign did not meet the requirements for the population.
Majority Opinion Reasoning: 5 to 4 ruled in favor of State of California. Guilty of misdemeanor, because the material mailed to the public was not meant for kids to see.
Rights were Trumph in a certain manner. Rule: Miller was in the wrong. The way he handed out his brochures brought harm to the population. So the verdict of the Miller case created the “Miller Test”. The test is used to define what obscene or unsuitable for the public. They take a publication or any type of communication and evaluate it. If it looks to dirty or offensive or can not be protected under the 1st amendment then its not okay