Sable Communications of California, Inc. v. FCC, CV 88-3353 AWT.
Decision Date | 19 July 1988 |
Docket Number | No. CV 88-3353 AWT.,CV 88-3353 AWT. |
Citation | 692 F. Supp. 1208 |
Parties | SABLE COMMUNICATIONS OF CALIFORNIA, INC., etc., Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
Richard K. Simon, Lee L. Blackman, Lucia E. Coyoca, McDermott, Will & Emery, Los Angeles, Cal., Lawrence E. Abelman, Norman S. Beier, Abelman, Frayne, Rezac & Schwab, New York City, for plaintiff.
John R. Bolton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D.C., Robert C. Bonner, U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., Theodore C. Hirt, Robert C. Chesnut, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendants.
Effective July 1, 1988, 47 U.S.C. § 223(b) was amended by the Telephone Decency Act to provide:
Plaintiff, a major purveyor of 976 IAS dial-a-porn messages, has moved for a preliminary injunction (the parties having stipulated that pending the hearing, defendants will not enforce § 223(b) against plaintiff).
A concrete controversy exists. See Sable Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 827 F.2d 640 (9th Cir.1987) ( ). In fact, plaintiff has been "chilled" — it has "softened" its messages. Since invasion of First Amendment rights is at issue, plaintiff has unquestionably met the irreparable injury requirement. Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 2689, 49 L.Ed. 2d 547 (1976).
What is at issue is the breadth to be given to FCC v. Pacifica Found., 438 U.S. 726, 98 S.Ct. 3026, 57 L.Ed.2d 1073 (1978). The Court concludes that Pacifica does not reach § 223(b); thus, that in the final analysis the statute in its present form is overbroad and unconstitutional, at least insofar as it applies to "indecent" communications.
First, Pacifica itself emphasized its own narrowness. Id. at 750-51, 98 S.Ct. at 3041. The narrowness of Pacifica's holding was reiterated by the Court in Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prod. Corp., 463 U.S. 60, 103 S.Ct. 2875, 77 L.Ed.2d 469 (1983). As the Second Circuit noted:
Bolger thus singles out the broadcasting media as subject to a "special interest of the federal government in regulation" that "does not readily translate into a justification for regulation of other means of communication."
Carlin Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 749 F.2d 113, 120 (2d Cir.1984) (quoting Bolger, 463 U.S. at 74, 103 S.Ct. at 2884). See also Cruz v. Ferre, 755 F.2d 1415 (11th Cir. 1985) ( ).
This narrow reading of Pacifica is consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent. "The First Amendment does not permit a flat-out ban of indecent as opposed to obscene speech; the adult population may not be reduced to `hearing only what is fit for child.'" Carlin Communications, Inc. v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 827 F.2d 1291, 1296 (9th Cir.1987) (quoting Butler v. Michigan, 352 U.S. 380, 383, 77 S.Ct. 524, 526, 1 L.Ed.2d 412 (1957)), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 108 S.Ct. 1586, 99 L.Ed.2d 901 (1988).
While the government unquestionably has a legitimate interest in, e.g., protecting children from exposure to indecent dial-a-porn messages, § 223(b) is not narrowly drawn to achieve any such purpose. Its flat-out ban of indecent speech is contrary to the First Amendment. Mountain States Tel., 827 F.2d at 1296.
On the other hand, obscene speech is unprotected by the First Amendment. Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973). Plaintiff does not argue against this well-established proposition. Rather, plaintiff contends that § 223(b) abolishes Miller's community standard requirement and, in effect, establishes a single national standard, subjecting its dial-a-porn messages to the most puritanical standard that exists anywhere in the country. The Second Circuit has already addressed this contention and found it wanting:
We are also unpersuaded by Carlin's remaining facial constitutional challenge to section 223(b). The statute does not create an impermissible national obscenity standard any more than do the federal laws prohibiting the mailing of obscene materials, or the broadcasting of obscene messages.
Carlin Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 837 F.2d 546, 561 (2d Cir.1988) (addressing preamended § 223(b)) (citations omitted). In light of this square holding (the amendment of § 223(b) does not affect the validity of the Second Circuit's analysis), the Court concludes that plaintiff cannot meet even the alternative test — that a serious question is raised. American Motorcyclist Ass'n v. Watt, 714 F.2d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1983). More importantly, if a preliminary injunction were to issue, it would mean that plaintiff would be free to transmit obscene dial-a-porn messages. Beyond doubt the public interest would be disserved by such a preliminary injunction and effect on the public interest is a factor which the Court must consider. Id. at 967.
In view of these divergent conclusions on the two parts of § 223(b), the Court must next consider whether the "obscene" and "indecent" components of the statute are severable from each other — whether Congress would have enacted the one without the other. An...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sable Communications of California, Inc v. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission v. Sable Communications of California, Inc
...no constitutionally acceptable less restrictive means to achieve the Government's interest in protecting minors. Pp. 126-131. 692 F.Supp. 1208 (C.D.Cal.1988), WHITE, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court with respect to Parts I, II, and IV, and the opinion of the Court with respec......
-
Unwanted Speech and the State's Interest in Protecting Religious Free Exercise: Drawing First Amendment Lines in Olmer v. City of Lincoln
...269. Sable, 492 U.S. at 117-18. 270. Id. at 117-18. 271. Id. at 118. 272. Id. 273. Sable Communications of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 692 F. Supp. 1208, 1208 (C.D. Cal. 1988), prob. juris. noted, 488 U.S. 1003, and aff'd, 492 U.S. 115 (1989). 274. Sable, 492 U.S. at 118. 275. Id. 276. Id. 277. Sabl......
-
Unwanted Speech and the State's Interest in Protecting Religious Free Exercise: Drawing First Amendment Lines in Olmer v. City of Lincoln
...269. Sable, 492 U.S. at 117-18. 270. Id. at 117-18. 271. Id. at 118. 272. Id. 273. Sable Communications of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 692 F. Supp. 1208, 1208 (C.D. Cal. 1988), prob. juris. noted, 488 U.S. 1003, and aff'd, 492 U.S. 115 (1989). 274. Sable, 492 U.S. at 118. 275. Id. 276. Id. 277. Sabl......