Miller v. California
Headline: Court establishes a new three-part obscenity test, lets states regulate hard-core pornography, and permits prosecutions for unsolicited explicit mailings that offend unwilling recipients.
Holding: The Court held that states may criminally regulate "hard-core" sexual material under a three-part test—state community standards, specifically defined patently offensive sexual conduct, and lack of serious value—and remanded the case.
- Allows states to prosecute sellers of hard-core sexual material under a new three-part test.
- Treats community standards as state-level, so outcomes will vary by state.
- Eases punishment of unsolicited explicit mailings that reach unwilling recipients.
Summary
Background
A man ran a mass mailing campaign advertising illustrated "adult" books and a movie and caused five unsolicited brochures to be mailed to a restaurant in Newport Beach. The manager and his mother opened the envelope, complained, and the man was convicted under California's obscenity law for knowingly distributing obscene material. The state appellate department affirmed, and the Supreme Court took the case to clarify obscenity standards.
Reasoning
The Court addressed how to decide when sexual material falls outside First Amendment protection. It rejected the old requirement that material be "utterly without redeeming social value" and announced a clearer three-part rule. To be punishable, a work must, taken as a whole: (1) appeal to the prurient interest of the average person using contemporary community standards, (2) depict or describe sexual conduct in a patently offensive way as specifically defined by the law, and (3) lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The Court also held that juries may apply state (not national) community standards. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment and sent the case back to state court to apply these standards.
Real world impact
The decision gives states a concrete test to regulate "hard-core" sexual material and to prosecute distributors, especially when mailings reach unwilling adults or could reach juveniles. Results will vary by state because local community standards guide juries. The ruling sets the constitutional framework but is not a final finding on the man's guilt; lower courts must reapply the new test.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Douglas dissented, warning the new tests are vague and risk criminalizing speech without fair warning. Justice Brennan (joined by Stewart and Marshall) argued the California law is overbroad and would have reversed the conviction.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?