| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

In the case of Collins v. California in 1962, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a state law that prohibited possession of obscene materials violated the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. The appellant, Marvin Miller, had been convicted under this law for mailing brochures advertising adult books and films which were deemed as obscene by local authorities. He appealed his conviction arguing that it infringed upon his constitutional rights to free expression and due process. The court ruled in favor of Miller stating that states have a legitimate interest in regulating obscenity and protecting public morals. It held that not all forms of expression are protected under the First Amendment; specifically those with prurient interests or lacking serious literary, artistic or scientific value can be regulated without violating constitutional rights. This ruling established what is now known as "the Miller test" for determining if material is legally obscene: (1) whether 'the average person applying contemporary community standards' would find that work appeals to prurient interest; (2) whether it depicts sexual conduct defined by state law in an offensive way; and (3) whether it lacks serious literary, artistic or scientific value.
In the dissenting opinion for Collins v. California, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to overturn a state obscenity law was an overreach of federal power and undermined states' rights. He contended that individual states should have the authority to determine their own standards regarding what constitutes obscene material, rather than having a uniform national standard imposed by the Supreme Court. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential negative societal impacts resulting from unrestricted access to obscene materials. He believed this could lead to moral decay and harm public welfare. In his view, it is not unconstitutional for a state government to regulate such matters in order protect its citizens’ morals and general wellbeing.