FACTS:

To promote the books he wrote, the petitioner sent five unsolicited brochures to people in
California. These brochures contained pornographic material. The manager of a restaurant and
his mom received the brochures and reportee the incidence to the police. The petitioner was
charged with misdemeanor, by distributing obscene matter.

The petitioner claimed that his brochures were protected by the First Amendment of the US
Constitution. He cited the case of Memoirs v. Massachusetts where it was held that for a
material to be considered obscene, it must be utterly without redeeming social value. And the
prosecution failed to prove that the brochures, inappropriate as they are, are completely devoid
of social value.

ISSUE/S:
W/N the brochures in question are protected by the First Amendment?

RULING:
No, because obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press. The
Court also rejected the ruling in Memoirs requiring that an obscene material is one without any
redeeming social value. Then, the Court established the guidelines to be followed in determining
whether a matter is obscene. The guidelines are

1. Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find
that the work as a whole appeals to the prurient interest;
2. Whether the work depicts or describes sexual conduct or excretory functions, as defined
by state law, in an offensive way; and
3. Whether the work as a whole lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Establishing a national standard for determining obscene materials is not necessary. Triers of
facts should be allowed to evaluate evidence based on the prevailing standards in their local
community.

HELD:
The case was remanded to the lower court for further proceedings not inconsistent with the First
Amendment standards established in this opinion.