Obscenity and Protected Speech

The Miller test refined the concept of contemporary community standards for obscenity and set specific guidelines for what could be considered legally obscene. It stressed the relevance of local community standards and includes a three-part test for determining obscenity.

The Supreme Court unanimously outlawed child pornography, even if the pictures were not obscene under the Miller test.

The Ferber decision focused on preventing sexual exploitation of children and was limited to photographs and movies, not merely verbal descriptions.

In 1996, Congress made it illegal to use computer technology to depict children in sexual situations.

The aim of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 was to criminalize the use of telecommunications devices to transmit obscene or indecent communications to minors.

The Supreme Court held that the Communications Decency Act was unconstitutional because it restrained protected adult speech too much.

CEOS works with the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Offices to investigate and prosecute violations of federal obscenity law. It recognizes the importance of local community standards in obscenity enforcement and works with local U.S. Attorney's Offices to coordinate nationwide investigations.

The study found a direct relationship between viewing sexually explicit material and aggressive behavior toward women.

The study found a link between viewing non-violent sexually explicit material and discrimination against women in society.

The three-part test to determine obscenity involves assessing whether the work as a whole appeals to prurient interest, depicts hardcore sexual activity in a patently offensive way, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or social value.

The Hicklin test, followed from 1879 to the early 1930s, deemed a work obscene if any part had the tendency to deprave and corrupt individuals.

The federal Anti-Obscenity Act (Comstock Act) of 1873 made it illegal to send or possess obscene materials, leading to widespread censorship of materials referencing sex.

In the Roth v. United States case (1957), the Supreme Court rejected the Hicklin test and defined obscenity based on whether the material's dominant theme appeals to prurient interest.

The Stanley v. Georgia case (1969) affirmed the right to possess obscene materials in one's own home, emphasizing individual freedom in consuming such content.

Miller v. California (1973) established the Miller test, which is still used today to evaluate obscenity, focusing on community standards and the work's literary, artistic, political, or social value.

The Miller case involved a pamphlet advertising 'Intercourse' and 'Sex Orgies Illustrated,' leading to a conviction under California Penal Code 311 for sending unsolicited obscene advertising through the mail.

Justice Marshall's opinion in Stanley v. Georgia emphasized that the First Amendment protects individuals from government control over their private consumption of books and films.

In the Jacobellis v. Ohio case (1964), the Supreme Court ruled that obscene material must be 'utterly without redeeming social value.'

The Roth case established a five-part structure for evaluating obscenity, considering an ordinary person's perspective, contemporary community standards, the work's entirety, and its tendency to excite prurient interests.

The Miller test focuses on community standards and the work's literary, artistic, political, or social value.

The Miller test continues to be used to evaluate whether material is considered obscene, taking into account contemporary community standards and the work's value in literary, artistic, political, or social aspects.