Case: Miller v California 413 U.S. 15 (1973)
Decision: 5-4, delivered by Chief Justice Burger
Facts: Marvin Miller mass mailed a brochure advertising four illustrated adult books and an adult film. These brochures contained images of men and women during sexual activity and nude. One of these advertisements was sent to a restaurant in Newport Beach, California, where it was opened by the restaurant’s manager and his mother. They in turn contacted the policing and Miller was sued by the state of California for violating the California Penal Code §311.2 by knowingly distributing obscene material.
Procedural History: The Superior Court of California, Orange County held a jury trial where Miller was found guilty. He then appealed to Appellate …show more content…
The appellate court’s decision was vacated and the case was remanded.
Rule of Law: States shall regulate the limits of obscene material and decided what is consider “hard core” sexual conduct that is seen as obscene, as well as following basic guidelines set forth by the Supreme Court of the United States. These guidelines include: the average person thinks the material appeals to prurient interests, the work depicts sexual conduct offensively defined by the state, and the work lacks literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Reasoning: There can not be a national standard regarding obscene material because of the diversity of the United States, what may be considered obscene in Kansas is different from New York standards. Sex and nudity can not be exploited with limit by films and pictures through the exhibition or selling in places of public accommodations any more than live sex and nudity can be exhibited or sold in public places. Suppression of obscene material that is unprotected by the First Amendment is permissible to avoid exposures to juveniles and nonconsenting adults.
Concurring Opinions:
Decision: 5-4, delivered by Chief Justice Burger
Facts: Marvin Miller mass mailed a brochure advertising four illustrated adult books and an adult film. These brochures contained images of men and women during sexual activity and nude. One of these advertisements was sent to a restaurant in Newport Beach, California, where it was opened by the restaurant’s manager and his mother. They in turn contacted the policing and Miller was sued by the state of California for violating the California Penal Code §311.2 by knowingly distributing obscene material.
Procedural History: The Superior Court of California, Orange County held a jury trial where Miller was found guilty. He then appealed to Appellate …show more content…
The appellate court’s decision was vacated and the case was remanded.
Rule of Law: States shall regulate the limits of obscene material and decided what is consider “hard core” sexual conduct that is seen as obscene, as well as following basic guidelines set forth by the Supreme Court of the United States. These guidelines include: the average person thinks the material appeals to prurient interests, the work depicts sexual conduct offensively defined by the state, and the work lacks literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Reasoning: There can not be a national standard regarding obscene material because of the diversity of the United States, what may be considered obscene in Kansas is different from New York standards. Sex and nudity can not be exploited with limit by films and pictures through the exhibition or selling in places of public accommodations any more than live sex and nudity can be exhibited or sold in public places. Suppression of obscene material that is unprotected by the First Amendment is permissible to avoid exposures to juveniles and nonconsenting adults.
Concurring Opinions: