Search results
Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court clarifying the legal definition of obscenity as material that lacks "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value". [1]
Miller was arrested, charged, and convicted under a California law that banned selling, possessing, distributing, or publishing obscene materials. The law had been specifically crafted to comply with the Supreme Court's decision on obscenity and the First Amendment in Roth v.
Miller was convicted of distributing obscene materials by mail. The Court held that obscene materials are not protected by the First Amendment, but defined obscenity by a three-part test based on community standards.
28 mar 2017 · Case summary for Miller v. California: Marvin Miller produced a mass mailing campaign advertising adult books and films he had available for sale. Miller was convicted under the state’s criminal obscenity laws and appealed claiming his conduct was protected under the First Amendment.
After a jury trial, he was convicted of violating California Penal Code § 311.2(a), a misdemeanor, by knowingly distributing obscene matter, [n1] and the Appellate Department, Superior Court of California, County of Orange, summarily affirmed the judgment without opinion.
2 lip 2024 · Learn about the Supreme Court case that established the three-part test for obscenity, based on prurient interest, patently offensive, and SLAPS prongs. Find out how the Court rejected the national community standard and applied local community standards to obscenity cases.
26 sie 2021 · California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) was an important United States Supreme Court case involving what constitutes unprotected obscenity for First Amendment purposes. The decision reiterated that obscenity was not protected by the First Amendment and established the Miller test for determining what constituted obscene material.
