Miller v California

Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Citation: 413 U.S. 15, 93 S. Ct. 2607, 37 L. Ed. 2d 419 (1973)
Date: 1973

The case of Miller v California is a significant landmark in U.S. legal history concerning the regulation of obscene materials. The decision clarified the legal boundaries between free speech, as guaranteed by the First Amendment, and state powers to regulate obscene content. 

In this case, the Supreme Court examined the standards under which a state could regulate obscene material and laid down a three-part test, known as the Miller test, for determining what constitutes obscenity. The case has had far-reaching consequences, particularly in the way courts evaluate materials that may be deemed obscene, especially in the context of evolving societal standards.

Facts of Miller v California

In 1971, Marvin Miller, the owner of a mail-order business in California, was involved in the distribution of sexually explicit materials. Miller conducted a mass-mailing campaign to advertise illustrated adult books. These books contained explicit depictions of sexual acts between men and women. Miller’s brochures included highly graphic images with visible genitalia and were distributed without solicitation to several individuals.

The distribution led to a complaint from a restaurant owner in Newport Beach, California, who received a set of these unsolicited brochures. The owner, upon seeing the explicit material, contacted the police. Miller was charged under California Penal Code Section 311.2(a) for the distribution of obscene materials. This statute made it a misdemeanor to knowingly distribute obscene material within the state.

The trial court convicted Miller of violating this statute, following the jury’s determination that the materials in question were obscene based on the prevailing local standards of California. Miller appealed the verdict, which eventually led to a hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court. The legal issue at hand was whether Miller’s actions violated the First Amendment right to free speech and whether the materials could be considered obscene under the law.

Legal Issue

The central issue in Miller v. California was whether the obscene materials distributed by Miller were protected by the First Amendment or whether they could be regulated under state law as obscene content. Specifically, the Court needed to determine if the definition of obscenity used in California’s statute complied with constitutional principles, particularly with regard to freedom of speech.

Prior Precedents

Before Miller v. California, the Supreme Court had struggled to define what constituted obscene material that was exempt from First Amendment protection. Several key cases had attempted to set limits on this issue:

1. Roth v. United States (1957): This case established that obscene materials, as defined by contemporary community standards, are not protected under the First Amendment. Roth’s definition focused on material that, when taken as a whole, appealed to the prurient (lustful) interest of an average person.
2. Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966): This decision refined the Roth test, asserting that material must be “utterly without redeeming social value” to qualify as obscene. This added a layer of complexity, as it required courts to examine whether the material had any serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
3. Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964): In this case, Justice Potter Stewart famously stated, “I know it when I see it,” when trying to define hardcore pornography. The case underscored the difficulty in setting a precise definition for obscenity.

These cases set the stage for Miller v. California, as the Court was tasked with resolving ongoing issues regarding the regulation of obscene materials.

Miller v California Judgement

In a landmark ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Miller v. California, affirmed that obscene materials are not protected by the First Amendment. The Court held that obscenity could be regulated by the state, but only if certain safeguards were in place to prevent overly broad or unconstitutional applications of the law.

The Supreme Court articulated a new standard for determining whether material was obscene, which became known as the Miller test. The test established three criteria that must be met for material to be considered obscene and thus subject to regulation:

1. Prurient Interest: Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest. This component focuses on whether the material stimulates an unhealthy or excessive interest in sexual matters.
2. Patently Offensive: Whether the work depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way as specifically defined by state law. This criterion ensures that local laws can define what is offensive within their community context.
3. Serious Value Test: Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. This requirement is crucial in ensuring that material is not banned solely because of its offensive nature, but rather because it lacks any redeeming social value.

The Court emphasized that obscenity must be judged according to contemporary community standards, which could vary from place to place. Importantly, the Court also ruled that the materials at issue in Miller v. California did not meet the criteria for First Amendment protection and thus could be regulated by the state of California.

Dissenting Opinions in Miller v California

While the majority opinion in Miller v. California upheld the regulation of obscene materials, there were dissenting opinions. Justice William Douglas, in his dissent, argued that it should not be the role of the courts to define obscenity at all. He believed that the definition of obscenity was too subjective and that such decisions should be left to society at large, not the judiciary.

Justice William Brennan, on the other hand, expressed concern over the vagueness of the California statute. He argued that the statute was overly broad and potentially unconstitutional because it could result in the suppression of materials that did not meet the necessary criteria for being considered obscene. Brennan’s dissent highlighted the danger of state regulation overreach and its potential to infringe upon individual freedoms.

Conclusion

Miller v. California is a landmark case in the history of obscenity law. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case created a clear standard for determining what constitutes obscene material, which is now known as the Miller test. This test allows states to regulate obscene materials without infringing upon First Amendment rights, provided that the material meets the criteria set forth by the Court.