This site is a developmental version of Wiki Law School. To go to the production site: www.wikilawschool.org
Miller v. California: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
(Created page with "{{Infobox Case Brief |court=Supreme Court of the United States |date=June 21, 1973 |subject=First Amendment |case_treatment=No |holding=Simply appealing to a person's prurient...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
|holding=Simply appealing to a person's prurient interest doesn't make a content obscene. | |holding=Simply appealing to a person's prurient interest doesn't make a content obscene. | ||
|reasons=SCOTUS majority announced, an obscenity must | |reasons=SCOTUS majority announced, an obscenity must | ||
portray sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, | #portray sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, | ||
have no serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. | #have no serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. | ||
|rule=Miller test | |rule=Miller test | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 20:56, February 11, 2023
| Miller v. California | |
| Court | Supreme Court of the United States |
|---|---|
| Citation | |
| Date decided | June 21, 1973 |
| Followed by | |
| Roth v. United States | |
Holding
Simply appealing to a person's prurient interest doesn't make a content obscene.
Reasons
SCOTUS majority announced, an obscenity must
- portray sexual conduct in a patently offensive way,
- have no serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Rule
Miller test
