
in support of free expression
The information presented here by the National
Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) may be freely redistributed in its entirety,
provided that readers are informed that the information was obtained from
NCAC's World Wide Web site and that credit is given to the appropriate source
of whatever information is used. Permission is expressly granted for the information
obtained to be made available for file transfer from installations offering
unrestricted anonymous file transfer on the Internet. Information found here
may not be sold for profit or incorporated in commercial documents without
the written permission from the National Coalition Against Censorship.
©Copyright 2005 NCAC
WEB DESIGN
Jeanne Criscola Criscola Design
free speech first amendment censorship
|
|
|
|
|
Pope
was an attendant at an adult bookstore, where
he sold certain magazines to the police. He was
charged with the offense of obscenity
under Illinois law.
The proper test for determining obscenity is the
three-part test set forth in the case Miller v.
California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973):
| • |
The
average person applying contemporary community
standards would find that the work, taken
as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
|
| • |
The
work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive
way, sexual conduct specifically defined by
state law; and |
| • |
The
work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary,
artistic, political or scientific value. |
At
Pope’s trial, the judge instructed the jury
that, to convict, they must determine whether
an ordinary member of the state of Illinois would
find serious literary, artistic, political, or
scientific value in the material.
The appeals court found this was in error, holding
that community standards should apply only to
the first and second prongs of the Miller obscenity
test. The Court ruled that the proper jury instruction
for the third prong of the Miller obscenity test
should be whether a reasonable person would find
value in the material, taken as a whole, not whether
an ordinary member of any given community would
find serious value in the allegedly obscene material.
The basis of the Court’s ruling was that
the ideas represented in a work do not have to
win approval from a majority of the community
to be protected and the value of the work does
not vary from community to community based on
how much local acceptance it has won. |
|
Significance: |
| This
case is significant because it establishes an objective,
nationwide prong of the Miller obscenity test. |
|
| These
materials are not intended, and should not be used, as
legal advice. They necessarily contain generalizations
that are not applicable in all jurisdictions or circumstances.
Moreover, court decisions may be superceded by subsequent
rulings, and may be subject to alternative interpretations.
Corrections, clarification, and additions are welcome.
Please send to ncac@ncac.org. |
|
Action Alerts
» National
» Eastern
» Central
» Mountain
» Pacific
» email alert sign-up
» report censorship!
|