Miller sent out unrequested mailings containing advertisements for "adult" books and films. These brochures showed sexually explicit photos and drawings. Miller was prosecuted for violating California's obscenity laws and was found guilty. His appeal addresses whether or not the state is violating the First Amendment when prosecuting publishers for "obscene" materials.
The Court ended up voting 5 to 4 in favor of California. I agree with this decision. Although I feel that the rights granted to citizens in the First Amendment are important, the state should also have some control over the things people publish. This kind of material can be offensive to some people. It is difficult to have a concrete definition of what exactly is crossing the line when it comes to obscene material. Because of this dilemma, the Court proposed three guidelines that should be followed.
This topic will always remain an issue in society today because it is so difficult to determine what is and is not obscene. It is important to keep offensive materials from being published but at the same time the First Amendment is supposed to protect our right to free speech and free press.
No comments:
Post a Comment