Miller v. California

 Marvin Miller, sent five unsolicited brochures by mail to a restaurant which advertised four adult book titles and an adult movie. The material included sexual languages, photographs and art work of men and women in a sexual activity. The manager of the restaurant and his mother complained to the police, and Miller was convicted of violating a California statute which prohibited the distribution of obscene and inappropriate material.
Miller claimed that California's definition of obscenity conflicted the definition of obscenity of the U.S. Supreme Court and that he should be allowed to spread adult materials, because it is allowed by the first Amendment of freedom of speech. He believed that his conviction should be overturned.

The court ruled that adult materials did not apply to the First Amendment. The court sampled the test for obscenity decided in Roth v. United States and Memoirs v. Massachusetts.

The court stated that one must apply contemporary community standards, appeal to the prurient interest, apply the state law and must have serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

This decision stated that material can be judged by the public not the presenter only and this case gave a new detail to the first amendment. I think the ruling was fair because adult or offensive materials can be harmful to the society, causing conflicts.

This decision does not respect every single freedom but it respects the majority and the public.