In June 21, 1973, Miller was convicted on the ground of advertising the sale of what was considered by the court as adult material. He was found guilty as he broke the California Statute. The California Statute forbids citizens from spreading what is considered offensive in societal standards. The question that was being asked was that if the action of Miller was Constitution thus is protected under the law. However, he lost the case due to a vote of 5 - 4. The court noted that the material that Miller distributed by Miller was not protected under the first Amendment. The court said that the materials Miller distributed were offensive to people, therefore violates the California Statute. (“Miller v. California.")This is a similar argument that is used …show more content…
Feelings cannot be used as argument since they are not facts. For example, if a person walking at night feels that they are in danger, it doesn't mean that they are indeed in danger or that they are not in danger. In order for this to be a valid argument feelings have to be objective, which they are not thus makes the argument invalid. In addition to this weak argument, the state actually have created a rule in order to suppress citizens freedom, which is a direct violation of the First Amendment that specifically states “Congress shall make no law….abridging the freedom of speech”("First Amendment”(ratified 1791). This Amendment was added to the Constitution to protect the citizens from the government, and letting the government take this right from the citizens is very dangerous and concerning. The fact the founding fathers of the United States, risked their lives traveling on a dangerous journey in a hope of finding a place where they can express themselves freely without any punishment indicates how valuable this Amendment is and it is sad that it is not