<P> The Supreme Court has established a complex framework in determining which types of false statements are unprotected . There are four such areas which the Court has been explicit about . First, false statements of fact that are said with a "sufficiently culpable mental state" can be subject to civil or criminal liability . Secondly, knowingly making a false statement of fact can almost always be punished . For example, libel and slander law are permitted under this category . Third, negligently false statements of fact may lead to civil liability in some instances . Additionally, some implicit statements of fact--those that may just have a "false factual connotation"--still could fall under this exception . </P> <P> There is also a fifth category of analysis . It is possible that some completely false statements could be entirely free from punishment . The Supreme Court held in the landmark case New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) that lies about the government may be protected completely . However, this category is not entirely clear, as the question of whether false historical or medical claims are protected is still disputed . </P> <P> Under the Miller test (which takes its name from Miller v. California), speech is unprotected if (1) "the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the (subject or work in question), taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest" and (2) "depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, contemporary community standards, sexual conduct defined by the applicable state law" and (3) "the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value". Some subsidiary components of this rule may permit private possession of obscene materials at one's home . Additionally, the phrase "appeals to the prurient interest" is limited to appeals to a "shameful or morbid interest in sex". </P> <P> The Court has also held that a person may only be punished if he knows the actual "contents of the material". In Smith v. California (1959), the Supreme Court thus gave a defense of "reasonable ignorance" to an obscenity charge . The basis for this exception is that justices have believed that obscenity has a "tendency to exert a corrupting and debasing impact leading to antisocial behavior". </P>

What types of speech are not covered by the first amendment