Miller v. California

Facts

Miller conducted a mass mailing campaign to advertise the sale of illustrated books, euphemistically called “adult” material. He was convicted of knowingly distributing obscene matter in violation of California Penal Code § 311.2 (a), a misdemeanor. The conviction rested on five unsolicited advertising brochures that he caused to be sent through the mail in one envelope addressed to a restaurant in Newport Beach, California. The restaurant's manager and his mother opened the envelope. They had not asked for the brochures, and they complained to the police. The brochures advertised four books and a film. They contained some printed description, but mostly they consisted of pictures and drawings that very explicitly showed men and women, in groups of two or more, engaging in a variety of sexual activities, with genitals often prominently displayed. The case was tried on the theory that the California statute approximately incorporated the three-part test of Memoirs v. Massachusetts, which asked, among other things, whether material was utterly without redeeming social value. The judge told the jury to apply the contemporary community standards of the State of California. Defense counsel never objected to that instruction at trial. Miller first argued on appeal that national standards should apply.

Issues

1. What standards must a State's law and its trier of fact use to identify obscene material that the State may regulate without violating the First Amendment, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment?
2. May a jury judge obscenity by the contemporary community standards of the State, or must it apply a single national standard?

Holding

The Court reaffirmed that obscene material is unprotected by the First Amendment and held that States may regulate it, subject to the safeguards it set (a law limited to specifically defined sexual conduct, and the three guidelines for the trier of fact), without a showing that it is utterly without redeeming social value. Obscenity is judged by contemporary community standards, not national standards, so California's instruction to apply state standards was not constitutional error.