Pope v. Illinois

Background

Pope v. Illinois is a significant U.S. Supreme Court case that addressed the application of the Miller Test, which is used to determine whether certain materials are obscene and therefore not protected by the First Amendment. The case was decided on May 4, 1987, and is often cited in discussions regarding the legal boundaries of obscenity and free speech.

The case arose from the conviction of two bookstore clerks in Illinois, who were charged with selling obscene magazines. The legal question centered on whether the jury should consider community standards or a national standard when determining the value of the material in question.

Legal Context

The legal framework for obscenity in the United States is largely derived from the Miller v. California decision in 1973, which established a three-part test to determine whether material is obscene. The Miller Test requires that the material in question:

1. Appeals to the prurient interest, as determined by the average person applying contemporary community standards. 2. Depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law. 3. Lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

The third prong of the Miller Test was central to the Pope v. Illinois case, as it questioned whether the "serious value" of the material should be judged by community standards or by a more objective standard.

Case Details

In Pope v. Illinois, the defendants were charged under Illinois law for selling magazines that were deemed obscene. The trial court instructed the jury to consider whether the magazines lacked serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value based on community standards. The defendants argued that this instruction was incorrect and that the value should be determined based on a national standard.

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that the jury should not use community standards to determine the serious value of the material. Instead, the Court ruled that the value should be assessed using a "reasonable person" standard, which is more objective and not confined to the views of the local community.

Majority Opinion

Justice Byron White delivered the majority opinion, emphasizing that the third prong of the Miller Test requires an objective evaluation of the material's value. The Court reasoned that using community standards could lead to inconsistent results, as what is considered valuable in one community might not be seen the same way in another. The reasonable person standard, therefore, provides a more uniform approach to determining the serious value of potentially obscene material.

Dissenting Opinion

The dissenting opinion, led by Justice Antonin Scalia, argued that the decision undermined the role of community standards in determining obscenity. Scalia contended that the community standards approach was a fundamental aspect of the Miller Test and that the Court's decision in Pope v. Illinois effectively altered the established legal framework for obscenity cases.

Impact and Significance

Pope v. Illinois is a landmark case in the realm of obscenity law, as it clarified the application of the Miller Test's third prong. The decision reinforced the importance of an objective standard in assessing the value of potentially obscene material, which has implications for both legal practitioners and those involved in the production and distribution of expressive content.

The case is frequently cited in subsequent obscenity cases and legal discussions, as it highlights the tension between local community standards and national norms in the context of free speech and expression.