Introducing
Your new presentation assistant.
Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.
Trending searches
Miller v. California
Summary of majority opinion (the winning side)
The 1st Amendment Rights does not protect a citizen when they are doing something that puts others in any sort of harm. The material was seen to be inappropriate for children.
Two significant outcomes of the case
It created a test to define what is considered obscene or unsuitable.
How was the constitution used to prove majority point? How did the Judicial branch interpret the constitution?
It was said that in this situation the material was inappropriate and therefore did not follow the guidelines set forth for the 1st amendment.The Judicial branch believed that the material was of harm to others and therefore it did not fall under the 1st Amendment.
The test consists of 3 parts.
First: Whether an average person would take the material they received as offensive to them and their standards. The material they received might be acceptable to a few, but not to the general public.
Second: Did the sexual conduct that was depicted in the material
follow the applicable state laws concerning sexual content
Third: Was the material that was being distributed to the general public of any value and did it lack literary literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
What is the result?
The United States Supreme Court in Miller v. California ruled in favor of the state of California.
The guide lines for decisions.
What is the background info?
Explanation of why you agree or disagree with the opinion
Marvin Miller
What is the conflict? Why a trial?
The conflict was whether or not the police arrested him in violation of his 1st Amendment Rights, because he had no appeal.
Date: January 19,1972
End Date: June 21,1973
Marvin Miller, who was part owner of a business, was considered to be lewd and sexual in nature. He sent out advertisements to random citizens of California. When a mother and her child received them they became enraged and filed a complaint with the police department. Marvin Miller was found guilty because the information was considered to be unsuitable for the general population. He appealed saying the arrest was a violation of his 1st Amendment Rights. This case would be Miller v. California.
I agree with the opinion because I don't feel that people should be allowed to do things that are inappropriate then think they can use the the 1st Amendment to protect them.