Miller was arrested, charged, and convicted under a California law that banned selling, possessing, distributing, or publishing obscene materials. The law had ...

3 In the absence of a. majority view, this Court was compelled to embark on the practice of summarily reversing convictions for the dissemination of materials ...

Miller v. California, 413 US 15 (1973), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court clarifying the legal definition of obscenity.

1 янв. 2009 г. · The Court affirmed his conviction 5-4. Burger established three-part obscenity test. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Warren E. Burger ...

Appellant was convicted of mailing unsolicited sexually explicit material in violation of a California statute that approximately incorporated the obscenity ...

Appellant was convicted in the Orange County, California Superior Court of distributing obscene matter in violation of California Penal Code 311.2.

In the majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Warren Burger, the Court held that obscene materials enjoy no special protection under the First Amendment. Miller v. California Ruling · Miller v. California: Lasting...

Obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment and authorities may punish obscene material without infringing upon First Amendment rights.

In sum, the Supreme Court: (a) reaffirmed the Roth holding that obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution ( ...