Heller v. New York, 413 U.S. 483 (1973), was a United States Supreme Court decision which upheld that states could make laws limiting the distribution of obscene material, provided that these laws were consistent with the Miller test for obscene material established by the Supreme Court in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973).

[1] Heller was initially convicted for showing a sexually explicit film in the movie theater which he owned, under New York Penal Law § 235.0 which stated that and individual “is guilty of obscenity when, knowing its content and character, he 1.

"[2] Heller appealed this ruling to the supreme court, claiming that his first amendment rights had been violated due to the broad nature of New York's obscenity laws.

The defendant also claimed that his 14th amendment rights had been violated due to the fact the film was seized prior to him receiving a hearing of any kind.

Heller was the manager of the New Andy Warhol Garrick movie theater in Greenwich Village, New York city.

[4] The judge thus issued John Doe warrants for the arrest of the not only the theater manager, but also the projectionist and ticket tacker.

Heller also argued that films shown exclusively to consenting adults in private are free speech protected by the constitution.

that the privacy granted in the home does not necessarily extend to the theatre and that even consenting adults can be subject to governmental restrictions for the “legitimate state interests at stake in stemming the tide of commercialized obscenity".

[8] Furthermore, the New York Court of Appeals applied correctly the precedent set in Lee Art Theatre v. Virginia, which ruled that as long as the judge's procedure prior to issuing the warrant was "designed to focus searchingly on the question of obscenity”, the judge did not have to even see the film himself.

Also the protection of seizure set forth in Quantity of Books v. Kansas 378 U.S. 205 (1964), only applied to obscene materials being seized for the expressed purpose of being destroyed.

Justice Douglas dissented on the grounds that he would have preferred to outright reverse the decision as he felt as though the underlying obscenity law for which Heller was charged was unconstitutional and violated the first amendment.

Justice Douglas referenced his dissenting opinion in United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film, in which he stated that “I know of no constitutional way by which a book, tract, paper, postcard, or film may be made contraband because of its contents”,[11] as well as his dissenting opinion in Miller v. California in which he argued that the court should not try to define obscenity by itself as there are no constitutional guidelines for what should be considered obscene.