Was Miller v. California overturned?
Asked by: Dr. Kendrick Kautzer MD | Last update: November 6, 2025Score: 5/5 (15 votes)
In its holding, the five-member majority upheld California's obscenity law and cited existing precedent in its refusal to overturn Miller's misdemeanor conviction. Further, it established The Miller Test, still used today to determine obscenity that is ineligible for First Amendment protection.
Is Miller v California still the federal test for obscenity?
Obscenity is evaluated by federal and state courts alike using a three-part test established by Miller v. California . The Miller test for obscenity includes the following criteria: Whether the average person sees the material as having/encouraging excessive sexual interest based on community standards.
What was the outcome of the Miller v. California case?
In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that obscene materials did not enjoy First Amendment protection.
Is the Miller test still used?
The Miller test remains the dominant test in obscenity law to this day. In fact, nearly all state obscenity laws are modeled after its requirements. However, a serious question remains as to whether state obscenity laws make sense when sexual material is disseminated online nationally, if not globally.
What was the lasting impact of Miller v California?
Miller provided states greater freedom in prosecuting alleged purveyors of "obscene" material because, for the first time since Roth, a majority of the Court agreed on a definition of "obscenity." Hundreds of "obscenity" prosecutions went forward after Miller, and the Supreme Court began denying review of these state ...
Miller v. California Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
Who won in Miller v. California?
The result of the ruling was that the Supreme Court overturned Miller's criminal conviction and remanded the case back to the California Superior Court for reconsideration of whether Miller had committed a misdemeanor.
What was the verdict of the United States v Miller case?
The Supreme Court reversed the district court, holding that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual the right to keep and bear a sawed-off double-barrel shotgun.
What is a major criticism of the Miller Test?
Miller test may lead to greater censorship
Because it allows for community standards and demands "serious" value, Justice Douglas worried in his dissent that this test would make it easier to suppress speech and expression.
Is Heckler's veto legal?
In First Amendment law, a heckler's veto is the suppression of speech by the government, because of [the possibility of] a violent reaction by hecklers. It is the government that vetoes the speech, because of the reaction of the heckler. Under the First Amendment, this kind of heckler's veto is unconstitutional.
Are profanity laws constitutional?
The First Amendment protects our right to free speech, but the U.S. Supreme Court has determined this protection doesn't extend to several categories of unprotected speech, including obscenity.
What amendment is Miller v California?
In lieu of the obscenity criteria enunciated by the Memoirs plurality, it is held: 1. Obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment. Roth v.
How is obscenity defined today?
Obscene material is material which deals with sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest. The portrayal of sex, for example, in art, literature and scientific works, is not itself sufficient reason to deny material the constitutional protection of freedom of speech and press . . . .
What was the dissent in Miller v California?
Justice William O. Douglas dissented, writing that obscenity cases “have no business in the courts.” Justice William J. Brennan Jr., joined by Justices Potter Stewart and Thurgood Marshall, also wrote a dissent, referring readers to his dissent in the companion case of Paris Adult Theatre I v.
What is the Miller Amendment?
Amendment Description: This amendment changes the definition of hemp in the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to only include naturally occurring, naturally derived, and non-intoxicating cannabinoids.
What is the significance of Miller v. California Quizlet?
Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court wherein the court redefined its definition of obscenity from that of "utterly without socially redeeming value" to that which lacks "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." It is now referred to as ...
Is obscenity unconstitutional?
The Supreme Court has ruled that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment, but the courts must determine in each case whether the material in question is obscene.
Which veto Cannot be overturned?
Congress cannot vote while in adjournment a pocket veto cannot be overridden. 42% of all Presidential vetoes from 1789-2004 have been pocket vetoes.
What is a chilling effect in law?
The "chilling effect" refers to a phenomenon where individuals or groups refrain from engaging in expression for fear of running afoul of a law or regulation. Chilling effects generally occur when a law is either too broad or too vague.
Do counterprotesters have free speech rights?
Do counter-demonstrators have free speech rights? Yes. Although counter-demonstrators should not be allowed to physically disrupt the event they are protesting, they do have the right to be present and to voice Page 3 their displeasure.
What is not protected by the First Amendment?
The categories of unprotected speech include obscenity, child pornography, defamatory speech, false advertising, true threats, and fighting words.
What is the imminent lawless action test?
Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely. While the precise meaning of "imminent" may be ambiguous in some cases, the court provided later clarification in Hess v.
What is the Hicklin rule?
Hicklin (1868), in which the court held that obscene material is marked by a tendency “to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall.” It was understood that…
Are sawed-off shotguns illegal?
California state law prohibits manufacturing, possessing, selling, or importing short-barreled shotguns or rifles. Manufacturing includes sawing the barrel from a shotgun to make it a “sawed off” model. Possession charges can still be filed even if the weapon is in pieces as long as it can easily be reassembled.
What did Miller v California decide?
Speech that is obscene and thus lacking First Amendment protection must be without serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Is the NFA unconstitutional?
The Supreme Court indicated it could not take judicial notice of such a contention. The Supreme Court reversed the District Court and held that the NFA provision (criminalizing possession of certain firearms) was not in violation of the Second Amendment's restriction and therefore was constitutional.