Miller v. California case brief summary
413 U.S. 15 (1973)
CASE FACTS
Defendant mailed brochures that contained pictures of sexually explicit activities to individuals who had not requested the material, and the individuals notified the police. After a trial, defendant was convicted of violating Cal. Penal Code § 311.2(a) by knowingly distributing obscene matter. The Court defined the standards that were to be used to identify obscene material that a state might regulate without infringing on the First Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
DISCUSSION
The Court held that the standard to determine whether material was obscene was whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, not national standards, would find that the work appealed to the prurient interest, whether the work depicted sexual conduct defined by state law, and whether the work lacked serious literary, artistic, or scientific value. The Court vacated and remanded the state court's decision.
CONCLUSION
The court vacated the state court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.
413 U.S. 15 (1973)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Defendant sought review of the judgment
from the Appellate Department, Superior Court of California, County
of Orange, affirming his conviction for violating Cal. Penal
Code § 311.2(a)by knowingly distributing obscene matter.CASE FACTS
Defendant mailed brochures that contained pictures of sexually explicit activities to individuals who had not requested the material, and the individuals notified the police. After a trial, defendant was convicted of violating Cal. Penal Code § 311.2(a) by knowingly distributing obscene matter. The Court defined the standards that were to be used to identify obscene material that a state might regulate without infringing on the First Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
DISCUSSION
The Court held that the standard to determine whether material was obscene was whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, not national standards, would find that the work appealed to the prurient interest, whether the work depicted sexual conduct defined by state law, and whether the work lacked serious literary, artistic, or scientific value. The Court vacated and remanded the state court's decision.
CONCLUSION
The court vacated the state court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.
No comments:
Post a Comment