|
|
<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
|
|
|
<case id="50643" source="Oyez API" schema="simple-legal-case-xml-v1"><name>Miller v. California</name><docketNumber>70-73</docketNumber><term>1971</term><court><name>Burger Court (1972-1975)</name><identifier>burger4</identifier><href>https://api.oyez.org/courts/burger4</href></court><parties><firstParty role="Appellant">Marvin Miller</firstParty><secondParty role="Appellee">California</secondParty></parties><dates><date type="reargued">1972-11-07</date><date type="decided">1973-06-21</date><date type="argued">1972-01-18</date><date type="argued">1972-01-19</date></dates><citation><volume>413</volume><page>15</page><year>1973</year><href>https://api.oyez.org/case_citation/case_citation/14571</href><justia_url>https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/413/15/</justia_url></citation><jurisdiction>Appeal</jurisdiction><facts><html><p>Miller, after conducting a mass mailing campaign to advertise the sale of "adult" material, was convicted of violating a California statute prohibiting the distribution of obscene material. Some unwilling recipients of Miller's brochures complained to the police, initiating the legal proceedings.</p>
|
|
|
</html><text>Miller, after conducting a mass mailing campaign to advertise the sale of "adult" material, was convicted of violating a California statute prohibiting the distribution of obscene material. Some unwilling recipients of Miller's brochures complained to the police, initiating the legal proceedings.</text></facts><questions /><conclusion><html><p>In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that obscene materials did not enjoy First Amendment protection. The Court modified the test for obscenity established in <em>Roth v. United States</em> and <em>Memoirs v. Massachusetts</em>, holding that "[t]he basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest. . . (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." The Court rejected the "utterly without redeeming social value" test of the Memoirs decision.</p>
|
|
|
</html><text>In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that obscene materials did not enjoy First Amendment protection. The Court modified the test for obscenity established in Roth v. United States and Memoirs v. Massachusetts, holding that "[t]he basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest. . . (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." The Court rejected the "utterly without redeeming social value" test of the Memoirs decision.</text></conclusion><advocates><advocate for="Reargued the cause for the appellant"><name>Burton Marks</name><href>https://api.oyez.org/people/burton_marks</href></advocate><advocate for="Reargued the cause for the appellee"><name>Michael R. Capizzi</name><href>https://api.oyez.org/people/michael_r_capizzi</href></advocate><advocate for=""><name>Mark</name><href>https://api.oyez.org/people/mark</href></advocate></advocates><decisions><decision type="majority opinion" winning_party="Marvin Miller"><description>Obscene materials are not protected by the First Amendment, but the definition of "obscene material" is lessened.</description><votes majority="5" minority="4"><vote opinion_type="majority" vote="majority" seniority="1"><justice>Warren E. Burger</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/warren_e_burger</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="dissent" vote="minority" seniority="2"><justice>William O. Douglas</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/william_o_douglas</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="dissent" vote="minority" seniority="3"><justice>William J. Brennan, Jr.</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/william_j_brennan_jr</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="none" vote="minority" seniority="4"><justice>Potter Stewart</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/potter_stewart</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="none" vote="majority" seniority="5"><justice>Byron R. White</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/byron_r_white</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="none" vote="minority" seniority="6"><justice>Thurgood Marshall</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/thurgood_marshall</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="none" vote="majority" seniority="7"><justice>Harry A. Blackmun</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/harry_a_blackmun</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="none" vote="majority" seniority="8"><justice>Lewis F. Powell, Jr.</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/lewis_f_powell_jr</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="none" vote="majority" seniority="9"><justice>William H. Rehnquist</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/william_h_rehnquist</justice_href></vote></votes></decision></decisions><source><href>https://api.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-73</href><raw_file>D:\PyCharm Community Edition 2024.3.1.1\PythonProject\IBM Z Datathon\json_data\api.oyez.org_cases_1971_70-73.json</raw_file></source></case> |
