Miller v. California

View this case and other resources at:

Brief Fact Summary.

The Defendant, Miller’s (Defendant) conviction for mailing advertisements for “adult” books to unwilling recipients was vacated and remanded in an effort to shift the burden of obscenity determinations to the state and local courts.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

In determining whether speech is obscene, the basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether “the average person, applying contemporary community standards” would find the material, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest of sex, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literacy, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Facts.

The Defendant was convicted under the California Penal Code for mailing advertisements for “adult” material to non-soliciting recipients.

Issue.

Whether state statutes may regulate obscene material without limits?

Held.

No. Judgment of the lower court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. In determining whether speech is obscene, the basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether “the average person, applying contemporary community standards” would find the material, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest of sex, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literacy, artistic, political, or scientific value. The Supreme Court of the Untied States (Supreme Court) does not adopt as a constitutional standard the “utterly without redeeming social value” test. If a state law that regulates obscene material is thus limited, as written or construed, First Amendment constitutional values are adequately protected by the ultimate power of appellate courts to conduct an independent review of constitutional claims when necess
ary.

Dissent.

To send men to jail for violating standards that they cannot understand due to vagueness, denies them of due process.
The statute in question is overbroad and thus, unconstitutional.

Discussion.

This case attempts a new definition and clarification of obscenity while also trying to shift the burden of obscenity determinations to the state and local courts.