Editing Miller test (section)

==Criticism==

===''Miller'' test may lead to greater censorship===
Because it allows for community standards and demands "serious" value, [[William O. Douglas|Justice Douglas]] worried in his dissent that this test would make it easier to suppress speech and expression. ''Miller'' replaced a previous test asking whether the speech or expression was "utterly without redeeming social value".<ref>''[[Roth v. United States]]'', 1957.</ref> As used, however, the test generally makes it difficult to outlaw any form of expression. Many works decried as pornographic have been successfully argued to have some artistic or literary value, most publicly in the context of the [[National Endowment for the Arts]] in the 1990s.<ref>{{cite web |date=February 1996 |url=http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/public-funding-of-controversial-art |title=Public Funding of Controversial Art |publisher=The First Amendment Center |access-date=2011-11-16 |archive-date=2014-04-08 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140408110145/http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/public-funding-of-controversial-art |url-status=dead }}</ref>

The first two prongs of the ''Miller'' test – that material appeal to the prurient interest and be patently offensive – have been said to require the impossible: "They require the audience to be turned on and grossed out at the same time".<ref>[[Kathleen Sullivan (lawyer)|Sullivan, Kathleen]] (September 28, 1992). "The First Amendment Wars", ''The New Republic'', vol. 207, no. 14, pp. 35–38.</ref>

===Problem of jurisdiction in the Internet age===
The advent of the [[Internet]] has made the "community standards" part of the test even more difficult to judge; as material published on a [[web server]] in one place can be read by a person residing anywhere else, there is a question as to which jurisdiction should apply. In ''[[United States v. Extreme Associates]]'', a pornography distributor from [[North Hollywood, Los Angeles|North Hollywood]], California, was judged to be held accountable to the community standards applying in western Pennsylvania, where the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit|Third Circuit]] made its ruling, because the materials were available via Internet in that area.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://adflegal.org/detailspages/press-release-details |title=3rd Circuit ruling in Extreme obscenity case praised by director of Reagan porn commission, now ADF CEO |date=2005-12-08 |website=Alliance Defending Freedom |access-date=2019-05-31 |df=mdy-all}}</ref> The [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit]] has ruled in ''[[United States v. Kilbride]]'' that a "national community standard" should be used for the Internet, but this has yet to be upheld at the national level.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17927549797826193178|title=584 F.3d 1240 (2009) / UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey A. KILBRIDE, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Robert Schaffer, Defendant-Appellant|date=8 June 2009|access-date=8 March 2011|publisher=Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit}}</ref>