Ariel Ahr AJRL 225 Law Paper Miller v. California is a Supreme Court case that was considered to be landmar!.

" #n $%&'( this case chan)ed the standard of how unprotected obscenit*" is defined under the +irst Amendment. ,he definition was bro!en down into three parts( each )oin) into )reat detail about such a simple word. ,his case had a ma-or impact on the media bac! then and continues to do so toda*. Marvin Miller was the operator of one of the lar)est mail.order porno)raph* business on the /est Coast of the 0nited States. #n order to promote his business( Miller be)an sendin) out advertisements for boo!s that were labeled adult". ,he* contained illustrations that were considered to be se1uall* e1plicit. Miller was brou)ht under investi)ation( because the advertisements failed an obscenit* test that California alread* had in place from a previous Supreme Court Case. ,he -ur* was ordered to stud* the standards that California had in place about obscenit*. After thorou)h investi)ation( it was determined that the material Miller sent out was in fact obscene( due to its se1uall* e1plicit nature. 0nder the +irst Amendment( Miller2s wor! could not be protected because it was not considered to be a freedom of speech. ,he -ur* ruled that the advertisements were not artistic( political or of a scientific value. ,he conscientious distribution of material considered to be obscene is considered a misdemeanor. Miller2s conviction was based upon the fact that he had mailed out a number of his e1plicit brochures to a restaurant in California. ,he mana)er received the pac!a)e( confirmed that he had not re3uested the brochures and then notified police. After bein) e1amined in court( the brochures were confirmed to have contained depictions of men and women involved in various se1ual acts. /arren 4ur)er( Chief Justice at the time of this case( felt that the term obscenit* should be redefined. 5e also felt that the test used to determine obscenit* should not be used an*more. #n the end( it was decided that the +irst Amendment does not protect obscenit*. 5owever( the Court did a)ree that tr*in) to re)ulate freedom of e1pression posed dan)ers. #t was decided that a set of criteria should be

met if somethin) is )oin) to be re)ulated b* the state. ,his criteria was bro!en into three parts. ,he first criteria to be met is as follows( whether the avera)e person( appl*in) contemporar* communit* standards( would find that the wor!( ta!en as a whole( applies to the prurient interest." ,his means that the avera)e person would find a particular wor! to be encoura)in) of an interest in se1ual material( to an e1cessive de)ree. ,he second criteria is( whether the wor! depicts or describes( in a patentl* offensive wa*( se1ual conduct or e1cretor* functions specificall* defined b* applicable state law." ,his means that a wor! shows se1ual content in an offensive wa*. ,he third criteria is( whether the wor!( ta!en as a whole( lac!s serious literar*( artistic( political or scientific value." ,his case was particularl* controversial because ever*one has their own view on what is obscene." Some people don2t find se1uall* e1plicit material to be all that offensive( while others are ver* much bothered b* it. ,he fact that a clear cut definition for obscenit* was laid out as a result of this case is )reat because it meant that in the future( the lines would not be blurred. Althou)h this rulin) proved to be somewhat helpful( it also had its downfalls. States that are more conservative would view somethin) to be more obscene in a court settin) than states that are more liberal. A true balance would need to be created in which all states and courts could fall upon. #t would not be fair to be tried for somethin) re)ardin) obscenit* in a state that crac!s down ver* heavil* on the issue( because there is no wa* *our trial would actuall* be completel* fair. ,he same )oes for the opposite side of the spectrum. Althou)h the Miller case brou)ht about man* chan)es and new concepts( it isn2t fool proof6 ,his case has an impact on the world of -ournalism because once a)ain( it provides -ournalists with creative limitations. ,his is not to sa* that all -ournalists want to write stories involvin) obscenit*( or use photo)raphs deemed to be se1uall* e1plicit. #t -ust means that the creative outlet for people in the media field is once a)ain challen)ed. ,he fact that this case also deals with +irst Amendment ri)hts( particularl* freedom of speech( is also ver* relevant. As -ournalists( people must !now their ri)hts and protect them. /hen those ri)hts )et challen)ed( or come under fire( it is important to !now how to

wor! with that. Miller was challen)ed because of the wa* that he was tr*in) to promote his business. Since this case( there have been man* other incidents similar to the Miller case. Man* cities crac!ed down on adult movie theaters and boo!stores sellin) e1plicit material. #ssues also arose with the popularit* of the #nternet( because people can search whatever the* want. 7bscene" content can be accessed this wa* throu)hout the countr*. #t becomes a problem when places that are more strict about obscenit* )et involved. /ith this case man* chan)es about how we view se1uall* e1plicit content came about. Some feel that obscenit* isn2t all that obscene( while others find it to be abhorrent. #t all boils down to freedom of speech. #f it can2t be proven that *ou were e1ercisin) *our ri)ht to free speech( it won2t hold up in court. Miller learned that the hard wa* because he was sendin) his e1plicit content to people who did not as! for it. ,he advertisements he used were seen as unnecessar* and inappropriate. ,his case will have an impact on -ournalism for *ears to come. #t is more than li!el* that as our culture chan)es and people become more rela1ed about certain thin)s( the laws of obscenit* will be sub-ect to chan)e. +or now thou)h( the criteria set in place as a result of Miller v. California( sets the precedent for obscene content throu)hout America.