Facts: Miller was found guilty by a jury for breaking California’s obscenity law. Miller was mailing brochures that advertised four different adult films and books. Not only did Miller’s brochures advertise the selling of this content, but they also had visuals of groups of men and women participating in sexual acts. A state appellate court affirmed Miller’s conviction, to which he petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari.
Issue: Does the First Amendment protect the advertisement and sale of obscene material through the mail under freedom of speech?
Holding: Chief Justice Burger delivered the 5-4 decision of the court that the First Amendment does not protect obscene material.
Rationale: The court starts its majority opinion by pointing out that the California statute in question incorporated the Memoirs test, which is no longer used. They continue by noting that the court has previously decided that the First Amendment does not protect…show more content… Still, they do understand the possible dangers of regulating any form of expression. Because of this potential danger, the court says that states must create their obscene material statutes carefully and limit them. To keep the state statutes on obscene material limited, the court confines the scope of regulation to material that involves depicting or describing sexual conduct. The court used a modified three-pronged test to use in this case. The court states that the conduct has to be specifically defined in state law and must also be limited to works that portray sexual conduct in an offensive way that has no obvious political, scientific, literary, or artistic value. The court stated that for material that has sexual images or description to be protected by the First Amendment, it must hold political, scientific, literary, or artistic value. The court then continues by saying that based on their decision today to prosecute for the sale or
