Miller v. California - 413 U.S. 15, 93 S. Ct.

2607
(1973)
RULE:

The basic guidelines in determining whether material is obscene are: (a) whether the average
person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a
whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a
patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and
(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific
value.

FACTS:

Defendant mailed brochures that contained pictures of sexually explicit activities to

individuals who had not requested the material, and the individuals notified the police. A
case was filed against him for violating Cal. Penal Code § 311.2(a) by knowingly distributing
obscene matter. The court convicted him and defendant sought review.

ISSUE:

Were the proper standards used during defendant's trial?

ANSWER:

No

CONCLUSION:

The court vacated the state court's decision and remanded the case for further
proceedings. The Court defined the standards that were to be used to identify obscene
material that a state might regulate without infringing on the First Amendment, applicable to
the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court held that the standard to
determine whether material was obscene was whether the average person, applying
contemporary community standards, not national standards, would find that the work
appealed to the prurient interest, whether the work depicted sexual conduct defined by state
law, and whether the work lacked serious literary, artistic, or scientific value. The Court
vacated and remanded the state court's decision.

Facts of the case

Miller, after conducting a mass mailing campaign to advertise the sale of "adult" material,
was convicted of violating a California statute prohibiting the distribution of obscene
material. Some unwilling recipients of Miller's brochures complained to the police,
initiating the legal proceedings.

Question
Is the sale and distribution of obscene materials by mail protected under the First
Amendment's freedom of speech guarantee?

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that obscene materials did not enjoy First
Amendment protection. The Court modified the test for obscenity established in Roth v.
United States and Memoirs v. Massachusetts, holding that "[t]he basic guidelines for the
trier of fact must be: (a) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community
standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest. . .
(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct
specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a
whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." The Court rejected the
"utterly without redeeming social value" test of the Memoirs decision.