Facts
- Marvin Miller operated a mail-order business distributing sexually explicit books and films.
- Miller conducted a mass mailing campaign advertising “adult” material; the brochures graphically depicted sexual activity.
- Some brochures were mailed to a restaurant, and the owner and his mother complained to police as unwilling recipients.
- California charged Miller under Penal Code § 311.2(a) for knowingly sending obscene matter into the state for sale or distribution.
- A jury in the Superior Court of Orange County convicted Miller after being instructed to apply contemporary community standards of California.
- The conviction was summarily affirmed on appeal within the state court system.
- Miller sought review, arguing the instructions conflicted with then-prevailing obscenity doctrine requiring material to be “utterly without redeeming social value.”
Issues
- Whether the sale and distribution of obscene materials by mail is protected by the First Amendment.
- What constitutional test defines “obscenity” that may be regulated consistent with the First Amendment.
- Whether the Constitution requires the “utterly without redeeming social value” requirement for an obscenity conviction.
Decision
- The Supreme Court held, 5–4 (Burger, C.J.), that obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment.
- The Court rejected the “utterly without redeeming social value” requirement as a constitutional standard.
- The Court announced a new three-part test for obscenity and directed that prurient appeal and patent offensiveness be evaluated using contemporary community standards in the forum.
- The judgment was vacated and remanded for further proceedings under the newly announced standard.
Legal Principles
- Obscenity is outside First Amendment protection and may be regulated by the states.
- A work may be found obscene if: (1) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find the work taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest; (2) the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law; and (3) the work taken as a whole lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
- States must define the regulated sexual conduct with specificity to limit vagueness and overbreadth.
- Independent appellate review of constitutional claims serves as a safeguard for First Amendment interests in obscenity determinations.
Conclusion
The Court replaced prior obscenity doctrine with the Miller test, permitting regulation of sexually explicit material meeting its three criteria, using local community standards for key factual determinations and requiring that prohibited sexual conduct be specifically defined by state law.