Miller v. California
E425626
Miller v. California is a landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that redefined the legal test for obscenity and allowed greater regulation of pornographic materials.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Miller v. California canonical | 7 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T4267639 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Miller v. California Context triple: [United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court, hasNotableCase, Miller v. California]
-
A.
Bridges v. California
Bridges v. California is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly expanded First Amendment protections by limiting the power of courts to punish out-of-court publications as contempt.
-
B.
Whitney v. California
Whitney v. California was a 1927 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld a conviction under a state criminal syndicalism law and became historically significant for Justice Brandeis’s influential concurrence on free speech before later being overruled.
-
C.
Miller v. Johnson
Miller v. Johnson is a 1995 U.S. Supreme Court case that further developed the doctrine on racial gerrymandering and the Equal Protection Clause in legislative redistricting.
-
D.
Rochin v. California
Rochin v. California is a 1952 U.S. Supreme Court case that held evidence obtained by methods that "shock the conscience," such as forcibly pumping a suspect’s stomach, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
E.
Cantwell v. Connecticut
Cantwell v. Connecticut is a 1940 U.S. Supreme Court case that first applied the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause to the states, striking down a state law that improperly restricted religious proselytizing.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Miller v. California Target entity description: Miller v. California is a landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that redefined the legal test for obscenity and allowed greater regulation of pornographic materials.
-
A.
Bridges v. California
Bridges v. California is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly expanded First Amendment protections by limiting the power of courts to punish out-of-court publications as contempt.
-
B.
Whitney v. California
Whitney v. California was a 1927 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld a conviction under a state criminal syndicalism law and became historically significant for Justice Brandeis’s influential concurrence on free speech before later being overruled.
-
C.
Miller v. Johnson
Miller v. Johnson is a 1995 U.S. Supreme Court case that further developed the doctrine on racial gerrymandering and the Equal Protection Clause in legislative redistricting.
-
D.
Rochin v. California
Rochin v. California is a 1952 U.S. Supreme Court case that held evidence obtained by methods that "shock the conscience," such as forcibly pumping a suspect’s stomach, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
E.
Cantwell v. Connecticut
Cantwell v. Connecticut is a 1940 U.S. Supreme Court case that first applied the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause to the states, striking down a state law that improperly restricted religious proselytizing.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (49)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
landmark obscenity case ⓘ |
| arguedDate | 1972-01-18 ⓘ |
| chiefJusticeAtDecision | Warren E. Burger ⓘ |
| citation | 413 U.S. 15 ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted | First Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ |
| country |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| createdTest | Miller test ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1973-06-21 ⓘ |
| effect |
allowed greater regulation of pornographic materials by states
ⓘ
redefined the constitutional definition of obscenity ⓘ |
| fullName | Miller v. California ⓘ |
| holding |
Obscenity is to be determined by applying contemporary community standards, not national standards
ⓘ
The First Amendment does not protect obscene materials from regulation by the states ⓘ The trier of fact must determine whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work appeals to the prurient interest ⓘ The trier of fact must determine whether the work depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way as defined by state law ⓘ The trier of fact must determine whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value ⓘ |
| joinedByInMajority |
Byron White
ⓘ
linked to:
Byron R. White
Harry A. Blackmun ⓘ Lewis F. Powell Jr. ⓘ Potter Stewart ⓘ Thurgood Marshall ⓘ William H. Rehnquist ⓘ William J. Brennan Jr. ⓘ William O. Douglas ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| languageOfProceedings | English ⓘ |
| legalArea |
communications law
ⓘ
constitutional law ⓘ criminal law ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | Warren E. Burger ⓘ |
| modifiedPrecedent | Roth v. United States ⓘ |
| originatingCourt |
California state court
ⓘ
linked to:
California Superior Courts
|
| overruledPrecedentInPart | Memoirs v. Massachusetts ⓘ |
| petitioner | Marvin Miller ⓘ |
| rearguedDate | 1972-10-18 ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
Memoirs v. Massachusetts
ⓘ
Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton ⓘ Roth v. United States ⓘ |
| reporter | United States Reports ⓘ |
| respondent |
State of California
ⓘ
linked to:
California, United States
|
| standardEstablished | three-part obscenity test ⓘ |
| subjectMatter |
First Amendment
ⓘ
freedom of speech ⓘ obscenity ⓘ pornography regulation ⓘ |
| volume | 413 ⓘ |
| year | 1973 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Miller v. California Description of subject: Miller v. California is a landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that redefined the legal test for obscenity and allowed greater regulation of pornographic materials.
Referenced by (7)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.