Miller v. California

Brief Fact Summary.

Miller mass mailed obscene content and was subsequently convicted under California’s obscenity law.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

States may regulate obscene material, as determined by an inquiry into the following: (a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest (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 literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Facts.

Miller, after conducting a mass mailing campaign to advertise the sale of “adult” material, was convicted of violating a California statute prohibiting the distribution of obscene material. Some unwilling recipients of Miller’s brochures complained to the police, initiating legal proceedings. Miller was convicted under California’s obscenity law. Miller argued that California’s obscenity law is unconstitutional, per the First Amendment’s freedom of speech guarantee.

Issue.

Is the sale and distribution of obscene materials by mail protected under the First Amendment’s freedom of speech guarantee?

Held.

No, the sale and distribution of obscene materials by mail is not protected under the First Amendment.

Dissent.

Justice Douglas

Obscenity is a hodgepodge, which we cannot define with precision. It would be patently unfair to send people to jail for violating standards they cannot understand, construe, and apply.

Justice Brennan

All obscenity should be protected, unless distributed to minors or exposed offensively to unconsenting adults.

Discussion.

Obscene material is unprotected by the First Amendment. However, given the dangers of undertaking to regulate any form of expression, state statutes designed to regulate obscene materials must be carefully limited. As such, the Court confines the permissible scope of such regulation to works that abide by the following guidelines: (a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest (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 literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.