November 7, 2011
Link: Miller v. California 413 u.s. 15 (1973)
And http://supreme.justia.com/us/413/15/case.html
1. Facts of the Case- On June 21, 1973, Marvin Miller was convicted for violating a California law which prohibits the distribution of obscene material. Miller mailed out a campaign that advertised the sale of adult material. He was tried before a jury, and was convicted of violating California Penal code 311, a misdemeanor of “knowingly distributing obscene matter.” The Appellate Department, Superior Court of California, County of Orange, confirmed the conviction.
The case was first argued on January 18-19, 1972 after some people who received some of Miller’s brochures complained to police. He sent five “obscene” brochures in an envelope in the mail to a restaurant in Newport Beach, California. The manager of the restaurant and his mother, whom had not requested the brochure, brought it to the police.
Included in the brochures were advertisements for books called “Man-Woman,” “Sex Orgies Illustrated,” and “An Illustrated History of Pornography,” and also a film called “Martial Intercourse.”
2. The Issue- The legal issue concerning this case is whether obscene material is protected by the First Amendment.
3. The Decision- A state appeals court upheld the conviction. Miller lost his appeal and the court ruled that the First Amendment does not protect obscene materials. The case Roth v. United States was cited in the reasoning.
4. Analysis- The court said a piece of work is subject to state regulation when it is related to sex, offensively portrays sexual conduct, and does not have legitimate “literary, artistic, political, or a scientific value.”
The court decided there are three guidelines which the person up for conviction must face:
a) Would an average person in the community find the material indecent or salacious?
b) Does the material obviously describe sexual conduct as it is defined by the state law
c) Does the material lack artistic, political, scientific, or literary value?
5. Questions-
– Do you agree with what the court ruled? Do you think it is fair? Why or why not?
– Should “obscene material” be a protected freedom? In what instances? Or do you believe this kind of material should never be allowed?
– Do you think this issue would be handled the same way today?
One thought on “Miller v. California 413 U.S. 15 (1973)”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
November 10th, 2011 at 1:56 am
1. I do agree with what the court ruled. The brochures in my opinion clearly meet all three guidelines that the court made. An average person in the community did find the material indecent and salacious, it obviously descrived sexual conduct and the material lacked any real value.
2. I dont think that obscene material should be protected. I understand and agree that it is ok if you have it in your own home and are not broadcasting or distributing it you should be able to have it. However, it should not be protected when young children could easily gain access to it.
3. Im not totally sure if this issue would be handled the same way or not. I feel as though as a society we are becoming more and more accepting of things that in the past would have been considered very sexual and inappropriate. Clearly the same guidelines used in this case would be used, but I think that perhaps the issue would be handled not quite as seriously.