California Newspaper Publishers Assn., Inc. v. City of Burbank

• Decision Date: 28 August 1975
• Citation: 51 Cal.App.3d 50,123 Cal.Rptr. 880
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: CALIFORNIA NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION, INC., a California Corporation, et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. The CITY OF BURBANK, Defendant and Appellant. Civ. 45944.

Page 880

123 Cal.Rptr. 880

51 Cal.App.3d 50

CALIFORNIA NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION, INC., a California Corporation, et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. The CITY OF BURBANK, Defendant and Appellant.

Civ. 45944.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5, California.

Aug. 28, 1975.

Hearing Denied Oct. 23, 1975.

Samuel Gorlick, City Atty., and Richard L. Sieg, Jr., Senior Asst. City Atty., for appellant

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Theodore B. Olson, Gordon A. Schaller, Los Angeles, for respondents (other than Respondent American Civil Liberties Union).

Fred Okrand and Michael G. Dave, Los Angeles, for respondent American Civil Liberties Union.

KAUS, Presiding Justice.

We decide in this case whether an ordinance which, except in a six-block downtown shopping mall, totally bans the placement of newspaper racks in a city with a population of 85,000 ¹ is unconstitutional on its face.

Defendant City of Burbank appeals from a summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs--newspaper associations and newspapers--declaring the ordinance to be unconstitutional under the United States and California Constitutions and permanently enjoining defendant from enforcing it.

These facts are not disputed: Newspaper racks are used as one method of distributing newspapers in the Los Angeles metropolitan area, which includes Burbank. Section 20--24(a) of the Burbank Municipal Code, as amended in 1973, prohibits the placement 'upon any public sidewalk or parkway,' of 'any movable or immovable object of any character whatsoever,' excepting boxes in the process of being unloaded, approved receptacles containing trees and shrubs, trash containers, and directional signs.

The section also exempts: '(4) . . . (N)ewspaper racks within the area known as the Golden Mall, . . .' ²

The Golden Mall is a 6-block pedestrian mall, more or less in the center of Burbank, comprising about one percent of the total area of the City. ³

Plaintiff contended, and the trial court agreed, that the ordinance was unconstitutional on its face.

DISCUSSION

Defendant recognizes the black-letter constitutional law that streets, sidewalks and parks are historically so associated with the exercise of First Amendment rights that access to those areas for the purpose of exercising such rights connot be absolutely denied, and that the state is limited to restricting the time, place and manner of such uses. (13 Cal.Jur.3d, Constitutional Law, § 247, p. 453, § 252, p. 464.) ⁴

Defendant contends, however, that the First Amendment does not apply to newspapers or newsracks: 'The right to utilize public streets and sidewalks for communicating thoughts and views is an In personam right--a right accorded to persons and not to inanimate devices, and must be personally exercised rather than through unattended racks or other devices placed on public sidewalks and parkways.' We connot agree.

Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights to distribute its newspapers and the public's right to buy and read them cannot be conditioned on a particular method of transmittng information. (Cf. Weaver v. Jordan, 64 Cal.2d 235, 244--245, 49 Cal.Rptr. 537, 411 P.2d 289.) In any event defendant's theory was resolved against it in Dulaney v. Municipal Court, 11 Cal.3d 77, 83--84, 112 Cal.Rptr. 777, 782, 520 P.2d 1, 6, which held that the 'posting of notices on utility poles is a form of expression coming within the protective umbrella of the First Amendment.' ⁵

Defendant's other contentions are pegged to its assertion that a summary judgment was improper because there were triable issues of fact--whether the newsrack ordinance significantly affects the distribution of newspapers, whether plaintiffs could adequately distribute newspapers using newsracks on private property, and whether the ordinance does really prohibit newsracks on public property in Burbank. ⁶

Defendant's claim that there are 'factual issues' misses the point. The City has indiscriminately prohibited the distribution of newspapers through the use of newsracks on public property in the City of Burbank: The blanket prohibition without more makes the ordinance overbroad and unconstitutional on its face. (E.g., Wollam v. City of Palm Springs, supra, 59 Cal.2d 276, 284--285, 29 Cal.Rptr. 1, 379 P.2d 481) and there is no room for factual issues. Thus, plaintiffs are not required to demonstrate an affirmative need for newsracks. Streets and sidewalks are, as indicated, presumed to be appropriate places for First Amendment activities and the City may only impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of plaintiffs' First Amendment rights. (Kovacs v. Cooper (1949) 336 U.S. 77, 87, 69 S.Ct. 448, 93 L.Ed. 513; Van Nuys Pub. Co. v. City of Thousand Oaks, 5 Cal.3d 817, 827--828, 97 Cal.Rptr. 777, 489 P.2d 809; Wollam v. City of Palm Springs, supra, 59 Cal.2d 276, 284--285, 29 Cal.Rptr. 1, 379 P.2d 481).

Equally without merit are the City's contentions that the ordinance is not unconstitutional on its face because, first, newsracks are not prohibited on private property, and, second, newsracks are permitted on the public Golden Mall. '(O)ne is not to have the exercise of his liberty of expression in appropriate places abridged on the plea that it may be exercised in some other place.' (Schneider v. State (1939) 308 U.S. 147, 163, 60 S.Ct. 146, 151, 84 L.Ed. 155.) The appropriate focus is on the blanket prohibition and not on those areas left untouched. Thus, in Wollam v. City of Palm Springs, supra, 59 Cal.2d 276, 29 Cal.Rptr. 1, 379 P.2d 481 the court, in holding invalid an absolute prohibition on the use of stationary sound trucks (Id., at pp. 287--288, 29 Cal.Rptr. 1, 379 P.2d 481), did not consider the ordinance was redeemed by the fact that moving sound vehicles were to some extent permitted. (Id., at pp. 278--279, 29 Cal.Rptr. 1, 379 P.2d 481. See also, Van Nuys Pub. Co. v. City of Thousand Oaks, supar, 5 Cal.3d 817, 822, 97 Cal.Rptr. 777, 489 P.2d 809; Young v. Municipal Court, 16 Cal.App.3d 766, 770--771, 94 Cal.Rptr. 331.)

The suggestion that access to private facilities would be constitutionally adequate was rejected in Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad (1975) 420 U.S. 546, 95 S.Ct. 1239, 43 L.Ed. 448, in which Chattanooga officials refused to permit the play 'Hair' to be shown in the municipal theatre. (420 U.S. at p. 548, 95 S.Ct. 1239.) The Supreme Court was not impressed with the fact that there might be other theatres in town. 'Even if a privately owned forum had been available, that fact alone would not justify an otherwise impermissible prior restraint. . . . ( ) Thus, it does not matter for purposes of this case that the Board's decision might not have had the effect of total suppression of the musical in the community. Denying use of the municipal facility under the circumstances present here constituted the prior restraint. That restraint was final.' (420 U.S. at pp. 556--557, 95 S.Ct. at 1245.)

In Van Nuys Pub. Co. v. City of Thousand Oaks, supra, 5 Cal.3d 817, 97 Cal.Rptr. 777, 489 P.2d 809, the court held that the city could not prohibit all distribution of all printed matter on private property without the consent of the owner (Id., [51 Cal.App.3d 55] at pp. 821--822, 827 Cal.Rptr. 777, 489 P.2d 809), although as argued by the city, such materials could have been distributed on the public streets or by mail. (Id., at p. 822, 97 Cal.Rptr. 777, 489 P.2d 809. See also, Young v. Municipal Court, supra, 16 Cal.App.3d 766, 771, 94 Cal.Rptr. 331). Given the conceded protection afforded the exercise of free speech in public places, the converse of Van Nuys certainly controls.

Nor is the prohibition against newsracks on public property less than total because...