Miller v. California

In 1973, Miller sent out advertisements of "adult" books and films that were unrequested. The brochures had sexually explicit photographs and drawings. Miller was found guilty under California's obscenity laws.
When I think of the First Amendment, I always wonder why we can't say things on live television or on the radio. I wish we were allowed to have an actual freedom of speech because they are just words. But in this case I do think that the decision was right. Those types of things shouldn't be allowed because they could get into the hands of impressionable kids that are to young to understand. I think that the state should have legitimate interest in prohibiting dissemination or exhibition of obscene material.

Obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment. 

The new guidelines that Chief Justice Warren Burger suggested  were; First was would the average person find that a work, when viewed as a whole, appealed to "prurient interest"? Second, does the work depict or describe certain specifically defend conduct in a patently offensive way? Third does the work lack "serious literacy, artistic, political, or scientific value"?

I think that the decision as a whole was good. Protecting innocence is good and little kids being exposed to that isn't fair to them. They may want to see that, but their parents don't. Little kids get persuaded very easily and this is good becuase it is one less influence out there.