Miller v. California (1973)
Sunday, January 10, 2010 at 10:31PM Read the opinion here.
Issue. Is a law that makes it a crime to distribute obscene matter unconstitutional under the First Amendment and what exactly is "obscene matter"?
Background. Miller had sent an advertisement for the sale of "adult" materials. The advertisement contained some descriptive printed materials including sexually explicit matter. Miller was convicted under California law for knowingly distributing obscene material. Miller appealed.
Court's Analysis. Once again, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether material is "obscene" for First Amendment purposes. Once again, the Court decided to articulate a clear standard for the States to prosecute the sale and/or distribution of obscene material. In order for something to be obscene, the material must be:
- Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interest
- Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law
- Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value
The Supreme Court only created guidelines for law makers. It would not create a standard law for the States to adopt because of the local nature (community standards) of obscenity laws. Local juries and judges, as well as law makers, can flesh out what depictions of sexual conduct is patently offensive.
The Court held that its standard would only apply to "hardcore" material with communities determining what is "hardcore."
Afterword. In another case decided in 1973, Paris Adult Theatre Inc. v. Slaton, the Supreme Court guided the Georgia legislature to frame its obscenity laws as articulate in Miller. In that case, the trial court dismissed an indictment against a move theatre owner because the materials being shown were only for consenting adults.
The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the fact that only consenting adults had access to the materials gave it First Amendment protection. The Supreme Court also refused to decide whether obscenity laws were unconstitutional because there has been no proof that obscene materials lead to anti-social behavior. The Georgia legislature is to determine whether such a connection exists and the Supreme Court will not question that conclusion just because "there is no conclusive evidence or empirical" data.