Miller v. California By: Brian Hennen Da Facts • Miller had conducted a mass mailing advertisement of “adult” material. He was convicted of violating a state statute prohibiting the distribution of obscene material. • The case was brought to Supreme Court to decide whether the distribution of obscene material was protected under the First Amendment. Da Issue • The right that was at issue in this case was freedom of speech. • Miller argued that the distribution of flyers, no matter the material, was protected under freedom of speech. The Decision • The Supreme court decided in a 5-4 vote in favor of California. • The Supreme court ruled that obscene material did not enjoy protection of the First Amendment. The Changes • This case reaffirmed Roth v United States, which states obscene material is not protected by First Amendment rights. • The Constitution is now interpreted: If the average person finds the material appeal to prurient values. • Also “whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” (Very broad) Dissenting Views • Missing!!!!!!