Miller v. California: Speech that is obscene and thus lacking First Amendment protection must be without serious literary, artistic, political, ...

Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court clarifying the legal definition of obscenity as material that ...

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

After a jury trial, he was convicted of violating California Penal Code § 311.2(a), a misdemeanor, by knowingly distributing obscene matter, and the Appellate ...

1 янв. 2009 г. · A jury then convicted Miller under a California law prohibiting the distribution of obscenity, and his conviction was affirmed by a California ...

In Miller v. California (1973), it devised a three-part test to determine whether a work was obscene: (1) “the average person, applying contemporary community ...

The Appellant's conviction was specifically based on his conduct in causing five unsolicited advertising brochures to be sent through the mail. The brochures ...

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...

This Court has recognized that the States have a legitimate interest in prohibiting dissemination or exhibition of obscene material2 when the mode of ...