Join NCAC Now

» art» media» literature» science» internet» education» entertainment

EXPRESS YOURSELF!


 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

 
CASE NAME: Pope v. Illinois
CITATION: 481 U.S. 497 (1987)
Topics: Obscenity

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!