In the case of Miller vs California, Miller is charged because he began sending obscene material to a restaurant owner in which they were sensitive to the specific material that they received. To determine what obscene material really is, took two court cases to give a meaning what people or a community perceived some material as obscene. The biggest argument about portrayed obscene material is, what is covered by the First Amendment. The first amendment protects our right of free speech and representation of expression. Some people may view expression of sexually obscene material as right given to them by that First Amendment. Those people who have that certain view are described as prurient, which means that one has an excessive interest
…show more content…
He truly believed that it was okay. He also did not understand the consequence of his actions therefore making that action not immoral. It is not moral either though, it is neutral. Miller thought it would benefit himself in some way which in Plato’s terms would be moral. Plato would say that Miller is taking part in his unjust soul and he is indulging himself in all his materialistic and power hungry desires. However being unjust is said to be rational by Plato. Being unjust is more pleasurable that the just life. In the unjust life you can give into your desires and not have to worry about being immoral and doing bad. In the just life you must control your desires and think about what is good and what is bad and what the consequences of those actions are. Miller in that sense is living the unjust life. He is giving into all of his sexual and materialistic desires. Plato also says that people live the just life because they are scared to face the consequences of justice. Although Miller believed he was protected by the the First Amendment, he had to have known that it was unjust in some way. Living the just life allows one to live a happy and full life. On the other hand someone whos gives into their desires and lives an unjust life would get everything they want that is materialistic but they would not have true happiness. Plato’s main argument to the Miller vs California case would be that Miller is giving into his desires and living the unjust life. Miller does not have true happiness which Plato values the
He truly believed that it was okay. He also did not understand the consequence of his actions therefore making that action not immoral. It is not moral either though, it is neutral. Miller thought it would benefit himself in some way which in Plato’s terms would be moral. Plato would say that Miller is taking part in his unjust soul and he is indulging himself in all his materialistic and power hungry desires. However being unjust is said to be rational by Plato. Being unjust is more pleasurable that the just life. In the unjust life you can give into your desires and not have to worry about being immoral and doing bad. In the just life you must control your desires and think about what is good and what is bad and what the consequences of those actions are. Miller in that sense is living the unjust life. He is giving into all of his sexual and materialistic desires. Plato also says that people live the just life because they are scared to face the consequences of justice. Although Miller believed he was protected by the the First Amendment, he had to have known that it was unjust in some way. Living the just life allows one to live a happy and full life. On the other hand someone whos gives into their desires and lives an unjust life would get everything they want that is materialistic but they would not have true happiness. Plato’s main argument to the Miller vs California case would be that Miller is giving into his desires and living the unjust life. Miller does not have true happiness which Plato values the