The Case Miller V. California
The case Miller v. California (1973) was determined by the Supreme Court, which redefined the meaning of obscenity. The word obscene is hard to define and could be seen as
“You will know it when you see it.” The Miller case determined if something was obscene, the average person, applying the standards must find the entire work, as obscene, the work depicts offensive sexual conduct defined by state law, and that the work as a whole lacks literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Marvin Miller, owned and operated a mail order pornography business out of California, which he applied to distribute pornographic books, folders, and photographs. Miller sent out tons of pornographic material to citizens of California. The majority of
the people who received the material never asked for the content and the police were contacted. Miller was charged and convicted of violating a California law against 'obscene matter.' In response to the charges, Marvin Miller appealed his case and the fact that the material was as seen “obscene.” He claimed the arrest violated his first amendment rights. The Supreme Court upheld California’s obscenity law 5-4 and found Miller guilty on charges of obscenity. The Court decision led them to create the Miller test. The material may constitutionally be deemed obscene only if
1. The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest.
2. The work depicts or describes in a patently offensive way sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law.
3. The work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value (Zelezny, 454).
All three parts of this test must be proven in court before the material can be labeled as obscene, stripped of its constitutional protection, and punished. The Miller test clarified that obscenity should not be judged on a national standard, but rather it be judged by the community’s standard. Miller v. California is a landmark case that
“You will know it when you see it.” The Miller case determined if something was obscene, the average person, applying the standards must find the entire work, as obscene, the work depicts offensive sexual conduct defined by state law, and that the work as a whole lacks literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Marvin Miller, owned and operated a mail order pornography business out of California, which he applied to distribute pornographic books, folders, and photographs. Miller sent out tons of pornographic material to citizens of California. The majority of
the people who received the material never asked for the content and the police were contacted. Miller was charged and convicted of violating a California law against 'obscene matter.' In response to the charges, Marvin Miller appealed his case and the fact that the material was as seen “obscene.” He claimed the arrest violated his first amendment rights. The Supreme Court upheld California’s obscenity law 5-4 and found Miller guilty on charges of obscenity. The Court decision led them to create the Miller test. The material may constitutionally be deemed obscene only if
1. The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest.
2. The work depicts or describes in a patently offensive way sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law.
3. The work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value (Zelezny, 454).
All three parts of this test must be proven in court before the material can be labeled as obscene, stripped of its constitutional protection, and punished. The Miller test clarified that obscenity should not be judged on a national standard, but rather it be judged by the community’s standard. Miller v. California is a landmark case that