| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Miller v. California article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 21, 2008, June 21, 2009, June 21, 2010, June 21, 2019, and June 21, 2021. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 October 2018 and 12 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Avivaw23.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignmentbyPrimeBOT (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignmentbyPrimeBOT (talk) 04:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the main Miller v. California case back here because it's invariably the case intended. The others are at the bottom just in case someone sees a reason to create them. Jamesday 03:26, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia and this article contain no entry on Pope v. Illinois, which clarifies and restricts the "community standards" test described here significantly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.16.59.182 (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems paragraphs 5 & 6 of the "History" section in this article is a word-for-word duplication of paragraphs 6 & 7 of the "The case" section in Roth v. United States. I don't know if this is acceptable Wiki-policy or not, but I thought I'd mention it in case it's not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.129.94.61 (talk) 19:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added the Synthesis template for whole article. This article contains large amounts of analysis based solely on primary sources (the case opinions) not independent analysis (secondary sources). - Stillwaterising (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some citations for New York v. Ferber, Ashcroft V. Free Speech Coalition, Ashcroft v. ACLU, and a citation for Justice Potter Stewart rulings and quotes.
I have added text concerning Justice rulings prior to the miller case, and text pertaining to community standard and the Internet.Ron Q Craig (talk) 02:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Miller v. California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the "case law" section because it repeated verbatim the 3 prongs of the Miller test that were already established in earlier sections multiple times.
Avivaw23 (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also separated last section into "Definition of obscenity post-Miller" and "Effects of the decision" to separate legal and other effects. Agree with above user that the Pope v Illinois decision is important but doesn't have a page.
Avivaw23 (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
