Opinion ID: 1985270
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Miller v. California Obscenity Test

Text: The Court in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 24, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973), defined obscenity as those materials which, taken as a whole, appeal to the prurient interest in sex, which portray sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and which, taken as a whole, do not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Accord, Smith v. United States, 431 U.S. 291, 97 S.Ct. 1756, 52 L.Ed.2d 324 (1977); Jenkins v. Georgia, 418 U.S. 153, 94 S.Ct. 2750, 41 L.Ed.2d 642 (1974) (Brennan, J., concurring in result). Satisfying this definition involves a three-part conjunctive test. State v. Harrold, 256 Neb. 829, 593 N.W.2d 299 (1999). First, a matter is not obscene under Nebraska law unless, taken as a whole, an average person applying contemporary community standards would find that the work ... predominantly appeals to the prurient interest or a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion. § 28-807(10)(a). See, also, Miller v. California, supra . To decide this question of fact, the trier of fact must look to the work depicting sexual conduct as a whole to determine whether its dominant theme is one which goes substantially beyond customary limits of candor in appealing to a shameful or morbid interest in sex. See, id.; Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 77 S.Ct. 1304, 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 (1957). Second, even though a matter depicts hardcore sexual conduct, which appeals to the prurient interest, it is not obscene unless, taken as a whole, the work depicts or describes in a patently offensive way sexual conduct specifically set out in sections 28-807 to 28-829. § 28-807(10)(b). As discussed above, the Court in Miller v. California , gave various examples of the type of sexual conduct that may be regulated by state law, and the Legislature took occasion to enumerate similar other acts of sexual conduct which may be classified as patently offensive. See § 28-807(15). Third, even though the material appeals to the prurient interest and is patently offensive, it cannot be obscene, constitutionally, unless the work, as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. § 28-807(10)(c). Accord Miller v. California, supra. Material dealing with sexual conduct in a manner which advocates ideas, which contributes to or illustrates scientific discussion, or which adds to the general body of art and literature in our culture is protected by the 1st and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. See Miller v. California, supra . Therefore, appellate courts examine decisions on this third prong more closely in order to ensure that First Amendment protection of ideas, however unpopular, is maintained. See Smith v. United States, supra .