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!!!!!!