1 / 8

Miller v. California 1973

Josh Lamberson. Miller v. California 1973. Historical Background. Under the First Amendment, every American is given the freedom of expression. But can freedom of expression be taken to far.

meara
Télécharger la présentation

Miller v. California 1973

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Josh Lamberson Miller v. California1973

  2. Historical Background • Under the First Amendment, every American is given the freedom of expression. But can freedom of expression be taken to far. • Case decisions involving obscenity and censorship are hard for courts to decide. In the previous cases, Roth 1957 and Ginzburg 1966, the Supreme Court decided carefully and was able to make these cases examples for others in the future.

  3. Circumstances of the Court • Because of complaints of pornographic advertisements in the mail, the city of Newport Beach applied a state obscenity law. • Miller was arrested for violating portions of this law, but then appealed twice to get to the U.S. Supreme Court. • A police witness testified on what other communities see as obscene. He was considered an expert on obscenities, because he had testified 26 times before in other trials.

  4. Constitutional Issues • This case involved the rights that the 1st Amendment protects and whether or not pornography is protected under it. • The California state law against it also came into questioning. Is it constitutional to have such a broad law on an issue that can mean different things or should it be refined.

  5. Arguments For… • Miller’s attorneys argued that under the precedent cases, Roth and Ginzburg, that the material was not obscene. • His attorneys also argued that California’s law against it was unconstitutional and violated the 1st Amendment.

  6. Arguments Against… • Citizens of Newport Beach argued that the materials should not be showing up in their mail unwanted. • They also claimed that the California law against the materials protects public morals.

  7. Decision and Rationale • The final verdict was for the obscenity law in a 5-4 decision. The court upheld the precedent cases in that the materials were not protected under the 1st Amendment. • For the people that said that this was repression of the government, Chief Justice Burger stated that "to equate the free and robust exchange of ideas and political debate with commercial exploitation of obscene material demeans the grand [idea] of the First Amendment."

  8. My Opinion • The 1st Amendment does give the people the freedom of expression and I think that obscene material shouldn’t be illegalized just because some people view them as offensive. Some people don’t see them as obscene at all and they have that freedom. However, I agree with Chief Justice Burger. These materials shouldn’t be protected under the Constitution. To protect pornography under the documents that started this nation doesn’t seem right at all.

More Related