In Miller v. California (1973), the Supreme Court established a new test for determining obscenity, which remains influential today. Here’s a summary:

Case: Marvin Miller, a California publisher, was convicted of distributing obscene materials through advertising brochures for his adult books and films.

Issue: Whether the materials were protected by the First Amendment or considered obscene and subject to regulation.

Decision: The Court, in a 5-4 decision, upheld Miller’s conviction and established the “Miller test” for obscenity:

The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest. The work portrays, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law. The work, taken as a whole, does not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Significance:

The Miller test provides a more specific framework than previous standards for determining obscenity. It balances the First Amendment protection of free speech with the government’s interest in regulating obscenity. The test has been applied in numerous subsequent cases to determine the obscenity of various materials.

Points to note:

The Miller test is not without its critics, who argue that it is subjective and can be applied inconsistently.

The definition of “community standards” and “prurient interest” can vary depending on the location and time period. The Miller test does not apply to child pornography, which is considered illegal regardless of its artistic or social value.

Further information:

You can find the full text of the Supreme Court’s decision in Miller v. California here: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/413/15/

For more information on the case and its impact on free speech, you can visit the following resources:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/413/15/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California