Miller v. California

Marvin Miller was an operator of one of the largest mailing orders for sexually explicit material in 1973.  He sent out brochures that contained sexual photographs and drawings, also known as pornography. Miller was later arrested and prosecuted under California's obscurity laws. He was then found guilty in the court case Miller v. California.

In this case Miller had argued under the first amendment, everyone has the right to free speech. Even though the material was grotesque it was still advertisement for the company. His job was to get the word out about the company and he was doing just that. One arguable thing is whether he put a warning or not. The front of the brochures should state whether the content should be seen by children or not. If he did not put that then he has the right to be prosecuted by the obscurity laws, but if there was a clear warning about the materials in the brochure then he has all the right to advertise. He is not hurting a soul by pitting grotesque pictures in a pamphlet, and he is not hurting anyone's reputation, so the first amendment does back up his cause.

In the end the court's decision was charged and found guilty under California's obscurity laws in a vote of 5 to 4. The court argued that the the material should be banned, but there was no physical harm from it at all. It should be the people's choice whether to watch it or not; it is their decision not the court's. Although, Miller's actions were a little too rash. he defiantly could have found a different way to advertise by putting warning and signs that there is adult material in the brochure.