Miller v. California 413 US 15 (1973), was an important decision by the United States Supreme Court in which the court redefined its definition of obscenity from "utterly devoid of social value of redemption" for those who do not have "literary, artistic value , politically, or scientifically serious ". This is now referred to as the three-prong or Miller standard, with the third branch informally known by initialism and the "SLAPS" mnemonic device or the term "SLAPS test".
Video Miller v. California
​​â € <â €
In 1971, Marvin Miller, owner/operator of a California e-mail business specializing in movies and pornographic books, sent out book brochures and movies depicting sexual activity between men and women. The brochures used in the letters contain graphic images of books and movies. Five flyers were delivered to a restaurant in Newport Beach, California. The owner and his mother opened the envelope and saw the brochure, called the police.
Miller was arrested and accused of violating California Criminal Code 311.2 (a) which says in part, "Anyone who knowingly sends or causes to be sent, or carries or causes is brought to this state for sale or distribution, or in this case the state owns, prepares, publishes , producing, or printing, in order to distribute or to demonstrate to others, or who offer to distribute, distribute, or exhibit to others, every obscene thing is for the first offense, guilty of minor offenses. "California lawmakers wrote invited under two previous Supreme Court obscenity cases, Memoir v. Massachusetts and Roth v. United States .
Miller was tried by a jury at Orange County High Court. At the end of the proof phase, the judge ordered the jury to evaluate evidence based on California community standards, that is, as defined by law. The jury returns a guilty verdict.
Miller appealed to the Appeals Division at the Court of Appeal, arguing that the jury's instruction did not use the standards set forth in Memoirs v. Massachusetts which says that to be considered indecent, the material must be "absolutely devoid of social value". Miller argues that only national standards for obscenity can be applied. The appeals division rejected the argument and confirmed the jury's verdict. Miller then appealed to the California Court of Appeals for the Third District, who refused to review. Miller applied to the Supreme Court for certiorari, which was given. Oral arguments were heard in January 1972.
Maps Miller v. California
Previous Supreme Court ruling on obscenity
The US Supreme Court provided a certiorari to Miller because California's law is based on two previous cases of obscenity that the Court would like to revisit. Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger came to the Court in 1969 with the conviction that Court jurisprudence was misguided and the government should be given more leeway to ban obscene material. In consideration of Miller in May and June 1972, Burger managed to push for a more lenient definition of "obscenity" that would allow local prosecution while Judge William J. Brennan, Jr., who now also believes < i> Roth Test and Memoir should be abandoned, leading the charge to protect all "obscenity" unless it is shared to minors or exposed offensively to disrespectful adults. The case decision was controversial, and Miller was suspended for reargument for the period of October 1972, and did not descend until June 1973, with Burger valid with 5-4 votes.
Since the Court's decision on Roth v. United States , 354 U.S. 476 (1957), the Court has struggled to determine what constitutes unprotected material that is not constitutionally protected. Under the prevailing Comstock legislation before Roth , the most famous articulated in the case of England 1868 Regina v. Hicklin , any material that tends to "damage and damage those whose minds are open to such immoral influences" is considered "indecent" and may be prohibited on that basis. Thus, Balzac, Flaubert, James Joyce and D. H. Lawrence's works are banned on the basis of the isolated parts and effects they may have on children. Roth rejects Hicklin's test and defines obscenity more strictly, as a matter of which "the dominant theme is taken as a whole attracts rash interest" to "the average person, applying the standards of contemporary community." Only material that now meets this test can be prohibited as "obscene".
In Memoir v. Massachusetts, 383 US 413 (1966), a number of assemblies further redefine the Roth test by holding back unprotected only the "overtly offensive" and "utterly devoid of social value , "but there is no opinion in the case that could command the majority of the Court either, and the legal circumstances in the field of obscenity remain confused. In Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 US 184 (1964) in 197, concrete opinion of Justice Stewart said that Courts in previous pornographic cases "are faced with the task of trying to define what may not be prescribed", and that criminal law is constitutionally limited to "hard-core pornography," which he did not try to define: "I may never succeed in doing that, but I know that when I see it." Other judges, including Judge Hugo Black at Mishkin v. New York , did not want to clearly define what pornography could be banned by the First Amendment.
Supreme Court Decision
Miller has based his appeal in California on Memoirs v. Massachusetts . The court rejected the argument. The question before the court is whether the sale and distribution of obscene material is protected under the First Amendment Freedom of Speech. The court ruled that it was not true. This suggests that "obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment", especially hardcore pornography, thereby reaffirming the portion of Roth .
However, the Court acknowledges "the inherent dangers of attempting to regulate all forms of expression", and says that "State laws designed to regulate obscene material must be carefully curtailed." The courts, in the effort to establish such limits, constitute a set of three criteria that must be met for a work that is lawfully subject to state regulations:
- whether the average person, applying the contemporary "community standard", will find that the work, overall, attracts an energetic interest;
- Does the job describe or describe, in an offensive manner, sexual behavior or excretory function, as specified by applicable state law (the syllabus only mentions sexual behavior, but the excretory function is explicitly mentioned on page 25 of majority opinion); and
- Does the job, in its entirety, have no serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
This obscenity test reverses the definition of obscenity defined in the Memoirs decision, which states that "all ideas that have the slightest benefit of social redeeming... have full protection of [First Amendment] assurances" and that obscenity is what is "completely devoid of social interest".
Miller's decision cleared the jury's verdict and returned the case to the California Superior Court.
Decision effect
Miller provided greater freedom in prosecuting suppliers suspected of "indecent" because, for the first time since Roth, the majority of Courts approved the definition of "obscenity". Hundreds of "obscenity" prosecutions advanced after Miller , and the Supreme Court began to deny the review of this country's actions after years of reviewing many of the "obscenity" beliefs (more than 60 appearing in court files for 1971 - Term 72, pre - Miller ). A companion case for Miller , Theater Adult Paris I v. Slaton , providing countries with greater leeway to cover adult movie houses. The controversy arose above the community standard analysis of "Miller" , with critics accusing Miller of encouraging forum spending to prosecute national producers about what some believe to be "obscene" in the local where community standards differ substantially from other parts of the country. For example, under the "community standards" standard of the Miller test, what may be considered "indecent" in Massachusetts may not be considered "indecent" in Utah, or otherwise may be true; in any case, prosecutors tend to file charges in places where they believe they will win.
The "community standard" part of the decision has particular relevance to the emergence of the Internet, because material that some people believe is "obscene" can be accessed from anywhere in the country, including places where there is greater concern about "obscenity" From other regions of the country. Enforcing and enforcing obscenity laws to the Internet has proved difficult. Both the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) and the Online Child Protection Act (COPA) have had sections that were crossed out as unconstitutional in cases such as Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition and Ashcroft v. ACLU
In the years since Miller, many places have overthrown adult theaters and bookstores, and naked dance, through rigorous zoning procedures and general nudity laws. These types of actions have been upheld by the Supreme Court.
Following Miller vs. decision California , the criteria for applying obscenity exceptions are much more difficult. As a result, the number of prosecutions for obscenity is reduced resulting in the widespread growth of the adult film industry.
In addition, in 1982 New York v. Ferber The court declared child pornography not protected by the First Amendment, enforcing the New York state ban on the material. In the case of 2002 Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition , however, the Court stated that sexually explicit material that appears to depict minors may be constitutionally protected.
In the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland , plaintiff American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, joined publishers, resellers, and website operators, sued Ohio Attorney General and Ohio District prosecutors in the United States District. Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The Plaintiff alleges that Ohio Revised Code Ã,§2907.01 (E) and (J), which prohibits dissemination or display of "material harmful to teenagers", violates the Constitution in an unconstitutional manner both the First Amendment and the Constitutional Trade Clause. The Plaintiffs specifically challenged the definition of the law as "harmful to teenagers", as well as the provisions governing the Internet's dissemination of such materials. The courts hold unconstitutional laws because the definition of the law on "hazardous material for minors" is inconsistent with Miller . The defendant appealed the decision to the Sixth Circuit.
The base case law generated from this case
Obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment and thus may be governed by the state. However, the state must adhere to the three-part test of Miller v. California :
- Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, will find that work, overall, attracts a reckless interest;
- Whether the work describes or describes, in an offensive manner, sexual behavior or excretory function, which is specifically determined by applicable state law; and
- Whether the work, taken entirely, has no serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
See also
- List of US Supreme Court cases, volume 413
- Sex-related court case
- Miller Test
References
Further reading
- Tuman, Joseph (2003). "Miller v. California". In Parker, Richard A. (ed.). Speech Free Speech: Communication Perspective on Landmark Decision of the Supreme Court . Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press. pp.Ã, 187-202. ISBNÃ, 0-8173-1301-X. CS1 maint: Additional text: editor list (link)
External links
- Works related to Miller v. California (413 U.S. 15) on Wikisource
- Text Miller v. California , 413 US 15 (1973) is available from: Ã, Cornell CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Ã, Ã, OpenJurist Oyez
- First Amendment Library Entry for Miller v. California
- Audio recording or oral arguments and rearguments, from Oyez.org
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments