Apresentando
Seu novo assistente de apresentação.
Refine, aprimore e adapte seu conteúdo, obtenha imagens relevantes e edite recursos visuais com mais rapidez do que nunca.
Buscar populares
In art there is a double standard. A nude males upper body is seen as appropriate but a females is sexual and inappropriate. This photo shows that double standard.
Precedent:
Three Prong Standard also known as The Miller Test!
Redetermines what is obscene.
In the case Miller versus the state of California, Marvin Miller was accused of distributing sexual material on campaign ads to individuals that did wish to receive them. Mr. Miller appealed the charges from the California police department saying that the material distributed was not obscene and claimed that his first amendment rights of the Constitution were being violated. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the State of California on June 17th 1968, saying that “The court found Marvin Miller guilty of the misdemeanor because the material was deemed unsuitable for the general population. The Supreme Court found that the material Miller was handing out and distributing to the public was not meant for children to see. Therefore, Miller’s 1st Amendment rights were trumped in this particular matter.” In addition a “Miller Test” was developed in the case of Miller v. California. The Miller Test has three parts that are included within it. The first part is “whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.” The second part is “whether the work depicts or describes in a patently offensive way sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law;” as well as “whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” The Miller Test is used to decide if certain material is to be considered “too obscene” if it meets all the three required parts. http://kids.laws.com/miller-v-california
As a US citizen we have the right to freedom of speech, press, and religion that is guaranteed by our constitutional right of the first amendment. This specific case of Miller versus California is controversial as Mr. Miller is a US citizen and has the right to express his campaigns through speech, press, and religion; however the material he exposed through press may or may not have been seen as inappropriate content that could be considered highly offensive to young children. Although Marvin Miller claims the material was not anything that would cause distraught to the public, there are individuals who may find it to be too scandalous for the public eye.
Due to the Supreme Court’s decision of ruling in favor of the state of California and disregarding Mr. Miller’s appeal of it violating his first amendment constitutional rights, this could potentially cause a result of other arguments relating to other cases that are in similarity to Miller versus California. Depending on the individual, they may find the material to be too sexual or they may not be bothered by it at all. Although we have a right to the freedom of speech, press and religion, that does not mean we are allowed to necessarily say whatever comes to our minds.