Title: Davis-Kidd Booksellers, Inc. v. McWherter

State: tennessee

Issuer: Tennessee Supreme Court

Document:

866 S.W.2d 520 (1993) DAVIS-KIDD BOOKSELLERS, INC.; R.M. Mills Bookstore, Inc.; Austin Periodical Services, Inc.; American Booksellers Association, Inc.; Association of American Publishers; Council for Periodical Distributors Associations; International Periodical Distributors Association, Inc.; National Association of College Stores, Inc.; the Freedom to Read Foundation; Tennessee Library Association; and East Tennessee Library Association, Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. Ned Ray McWHERTER, in his capacity as Governor of the State of Tennessee; Charles W. Burson, in his capacity as Attorney General of the State of Tennessee; Victor S. Johnson, III, in his capacity as the District Attorney for Davidson County, Tennessee; and Robert Kirchner, in his capacity as Chief of Police, Metropolitan Police Department for Nashville and Davidson County, Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants. Supreme Court of Tennessee, at Nashville. November 8, 1993. *522 Michael A. Bamberger, Jacqueline S. Glassman, Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, New York City, F. Clay Bailey, Jr., Dearborn & Ewing, Barry Friedman, Vanderbilt University School of Law, Nashville, for plaintiffs-appellants. Charles W. Burson, Atty. Gen. & Reporter, John B. Nisbet, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Nashville, Jerry L. Smith, Deputy Atty. Gen., for defendants-appellees. ANDERSON, Justice. In this case, we are asked to determine a conflict between a citizen's constitutional rightfreedom of speechand the State's right to protect minors from harm. The principal issue before us is whether a Tennessee statute regulating the display of materials deemed "harmful to minors" is facially unconstitutional under the United States and Tennessee Constitutions. The plaintiffsbooksellers, publishers, and othersargue that the Tennessee display statute is unconstitutional because it unnecessarily impedes the access of adults and older minors to materials which are protected by the freedom of speech clauses of the United States and Tennessee Constitutions. The Chancellor upheld the constitutionality of the challenged statutes, including a companion nuisance statute, after holding the meaning of the term "excess violence," was unconstitutionally vague and declaring it elided from the statutes. We have determined that the display statute is readily susceptible to a narrowing construction which makes it only applicable to those materials which lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for a reasonable 17-year-old minor. Such a construction significantly reduces the scope of materials covered and produces only a minimal burden on adult access to constitutionally protected expression. The statute as construed is, therefore, not overbroad and fully complies with the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, § 19 of the Tennessee Constitution. We have also determined that the nuisance statute allows seizure of materials "harmful to minors" only if such materials are also obscene, and that such seizures are valid only if accomplished in accordance with the applicable statutory procedural safeguards. Finally, we agree with the Chancellor that the term "excess violence" is unconstitutionally vague because it does not provide notice to potential violators of the materials affected or guidance to the officials charged with its enforcement. We also agree with the Chancellor's application of the doctrine of elision which, after elimination of the vague term, has the effect of upholding the challenged statutes. We, therefore, affirm the result reached by the Chancellor on the separate grounds stated. Effective May 4, 1990, the Tennessee legislature made it a criminal offense for "a person to display for sale or rental a visual depiction, including a video cassette tape or film, or a written representation, including a book, magazine, or pamphlet, which contains material harmful to minors anywhere minors are lawfully admitted." Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-17-914(a) (1991) (emphasis added)[1]. The term "harmful to minors" is defined to mean: Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-17-901(6) (1991) (emphasis added). Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-17-901(4) (1991). Shortly after the display statute became law, the plaintiffs, who are booksellers, wholesale book distributors, publishing trade associations, and library associations, brought this action for injunctive and declaratory relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting that the identified statutes are facially unconstitutional under both the federal and state constitutions. The plaintiffs' complaint first attacked the display statute as overbroad on the grounds that it impermissibly restricts the right of access of adults and older minors to materials which are not obscene and are constitutionally protected under Article I, § 19 of the Tennessee Constitution, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Second, the plaintiffs charged that as amended, the nuisance statute constitutes a prior restraint because it allows for immediate seizure of materials deemed harmful to minors without a prior judicial determination that the works carried or sold are legally obscene. Third, the plaintiffs asserted that the statute as a whole, and particularly the term "excess violence," is unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution because it fails to provide notice as to what constitutes a criminal offense. Finally, the plaintiffs claimed that defining community to mean the judicial district in which a violation is alleged to have occurred, imposes an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce in violation of Article I, § 8 of the United States Constitution because businesses are required to comply with the standards of thirty-one different judicial districts. After an evidentiary hearing, the Chancellor rejected the plaintiffs' principal contention that the display statute was overbroad and unconstitutional, but agreed that "the definition of `excess violence' in T.C.A. § 39-17-901(4), and as `excess violence' is used in T.C.A. § 39-17-911 is unconstitutional for vagueness... ." Enforcement of the unconstitutional provisions was enjoined.[2] The Chancellor, however, applied the doctrine of elision and upheld the remaining portions of the challenged statutes. Both the plaintiffs and the State have appealed the Chancellor's ruling presenting for our review the four issues outlined above. The plaintiffs assert that the display statute is overbroad and facially invalid under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, § 19 of the Tennessee Constitution, claiming that it sweeps within its coverage materials which are not obscene and are protected expression as to adults and older minors. The First Amendment provides in pertinent part that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech or of the press," and is applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. See Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 60 S. Ct. 900, 84 L. Ed. 1213 (1940). The portion of Article I, § 19 that is pertinent to this appeal provides that "[t]he free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man and every citizen may freely speak, write, and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty." *524 We begin our analysis with the familiar principle of First Amendment jurisprudence that: Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 571-72, 62 S. Ct. 766, 767, 86 L. Ed. 1031 (1942) (citations omitted). The traditional categories of speech subject to permissible government regulation include "the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or `fighting' words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." Id., 315 U.S. at 572, 62 S. Ct. at 769. Likewise, this Court has declined to interpret Article I, § 19 as granting absolute protection to speech and press. Leech v. American Booksellers Ass'n, Inc., 582 S.W.2d 738, 745 (Tenn. 1979). Accordingly, obscene materials are not protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States or by Article I, § 19 of the Tennessee Constitution. See, Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S. Ct. 2607, 37 L. Ed. 2d 419 (1973); State v. Marshall, 859 S.W.2d 289 (Tenn.1993). Under the three-pronged test announced in Miller, the "basic guidelines" for determining whether a particular book, motion picture or other material is obscene are: Miller, 413 U.S. at 24, 93 S. Ct. at 2614. In addressing the issue of the proper standard to be used in determining what is obscene as to minors, the U.S. Supreme Court held, in Ginsberg v. New York,[3] that a state may constitutionally employ a variable obscenity standard which restricts the rights of minors to obtain certain sexually related materials that are not obscene as to adults. At issue was the constitutionality of a New York statute prohibiting the sale to persons under the age of 17 of materials within the statutory definition of "harmful to juveniles." In upholding the constitutionality of the statute, the Court identified two compelling interests justifying the restrictions imposed by the statute: one, the interest of parents in rearing their children, and two, the state's independent interest in the well-being of its youth. Id., 390 U.S. at 639-40, 88 S. Ct. at 1280-81. The type of regulation of sexually explicit materials permitted under Ginsberg is not, however, without limitations because "minors are entitled to a significant measure of First Amendment protection, and only in relatively narrow and well-defined circumstances may government bar public dissemination of protected materials to them." Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205, 212-13, 95 S. Ct. 2268, 2274, 45 L. Ed. 2d 125 (1975) (citations omitted). The Supreme Court summarized the legitimate reach of a state's authority under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution to protect minors from obscenity in reviewing a regulation which banned indecent as well as obscene interstate commercial telephone messages, commonly known as "dial-a-porn." Sable Communications of California, Inc. v. F.C.C., 492 U.S. 115, 109 S. Ct. 2829, 106 L. Ed. 2d 93 (1989). Id., 492 U.S. at 126-27, 109 S. Ct. at 2836 (citations omitted). As this Court observed in Leech, supra (in the context of determining whether obscenity was entitled to greater protection under the State Constitution than the Federal Constitution), we may interpret Article I, § 19 of the State Constitution as providing greater freedom of expression than that provided in the Federal Constitution. Id., 582 S.W.2d at 745. Although this Court has not previously considered the scope of the State's authority under the Tennessee Constitution to regulate materials obscene as to minors, but protected as to adults, we conclude that Article I, § 19 does not prohibit such regulations, and in the context of this case, is coextensive with the scope of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. We emphasize, however, as we did in Marshall that: Marshall, 859 S.W.2d at 294-95. As in Leech and Marshall, we find it unnecessary for the resolution of the issues before the Court in this case to further specifically define the boundaries of protection of Article I, § 19 of the Tennessee Constitution regarding freedom of speech and press. In addition to the constitutional restrictions on government regulation of protected speech outlined above, the overbreadth doctrine itself has significant limitations. The rationale behind the overbreadth doctrine in a First Amendment facial challenge is based on the recognition that broad statutory language that seems to directly sweep protected expression within the scope of its regulation, or which indirectly places an undue burden on such protected expression, can deter the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights. Erznoznik, 422 U.S. at 216, 95 S. Ct. at 2276; American Booksellers v. Webb, 919 F.2d 1493, 1499 (11th Cir.1990). It is well recognized, however, that "[a] facial challenge to a legislative Act is ... the most difficult challenge to mount successfully since the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exist under which the Act would be valid." United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745, 107 S. Ct. 2095, 2100, 95 L. Ed. 2d 697 (1987). Because of the wide-reaching effects of striking down a statute on its face, the overbreadth doctrine has been characterized as "strong medicine" which should be employed "with hesitation, and then only as a last resort." New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 769, 102 S. Ct. 3348, 3361, 73 L. Ed. 2d 1113 (1982) (quoting Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 613, 93 S. Ct. 2908, 2916, 37 L. Ed. 2d 830 (1973)). See generally Note, The First Amendment Overbreadth Doctrine, 83 Harv.L.Rev. 844 (1970). Moreover, when a regulation is not directed at the origin of expression, or at the ultimate right of a person to present or procure protected expression, but regulates instead the manner of presentation or the form of expression, conduct plus speech is involved. Ferber, 458 U.S. at 770, 102 S. Ct. at 3361-62. Statutes regulating the display of materials harmful to minors have consistently been held to affect conduct plus speech. Webb, 919 F.2d at 1500; Upper Midwest Booksellers v. City of Minneapolis, 780 F.2d 1389, 1391-92 (8th Cir.1985); M.S. News Co. v. Casado, 721 F.2d 1281, 1289 (10th Cir.1983); American Booksellers Ass'n v. Rendell, 332 Pa.Super. 537, 481 A.2d 919, 941 (1984). When a statute regulating conduct plus speech is at issue, the overbreadth must be "real" and "substantial" in relation to the statute's "plainly legitimate sweep" before *526 the law should be invalidated on its face, and if an ambiguous term has created a constitutional problem which may be solved by construction, courts have a duty to do so. Id. As the U.S. Supreme Court reiterated recently, in relation to the facial challenge brought against the Virginia display statute, courts have a duty to construe a challenged statute narrowly. Virginia v. American Booksellers Ass'n, 484 U.S. 383, 397, 108 S. Ct. 636, 644-45, 98 L. Ed. 2d 782 (1988). (Citations omitted.) Considering the principles discussed above, we look to the provisions of the Tennessee display statute and to the facts of this case in order to determine whether the statute is susceptible to a narrowing construction and whether such a construction is necessary to make the statute constitutional. The plaintiffs here do not challenge the constitutional authority of a state to regulate materials that are protected as to adults, but obscene as to minors. Instead they contend that the Tennessee display statute is unconstitutional because it unnecessarily impedes the access of adults and older minors to materials which are protected by the First Amendment and Article I, § 19 of the Tennessee Constitution. Under the facts of this case, we must determine whether the State, in serving the compelling interest of protecting minors, has drawn its statute narrowly enough to avoid unnecessarily interfering with free speech rights. The proof in the trial court focused on the manner in which plaintiff book publishers and booksellers publish and sell books and other expressive material. For example, the evidence showed that the bookseller, Davis-Kidd, operates large general bookstores which sell books, magazines, stationery, toys, and art posters, and that their marketing strategy is to display books and magazines so as to encourage browsing because customers buy more if they browse. Davis-Kidd purchases 95-98 percent of its inventory from a book distributor who chooses the titles of the 2,000 to 3,000 new books the store receives each month. The book distributor alone makes this choice based on very limited information from the book publisher, which typically includes 15-20 seconds spent verbally on each book and the publisher's catalog. Davis-Kidd does, however, control the type of books it stocks. Apparently, no one reads the book except the author and the editor, and no effort is made by either the publisher or distributor to tailor its business according to the obscenity laws or community standards of each state. Although Davis-Kidd does not review or read each of their books for objectionable content, the co-owner, Thelma Kidd Yarian, testified that many of their books would be inappropriate for younger children because of material that is sexual or violent in nature. Davis-Kidd introduced as trial exhibits a number of books and videos from its inventory it felt might possibly fall within the scope of the statute as being harmful to minors, but which would be protected material as to adults. Assuming that assertion is correct, Davis-Kidd argues that the access of adults would, therefore, be limited to works not obscene as to them and the rights of older minors to read books not harmful to them would be restricted. Yarian also said that compliance would be difficult because the statute does not distinguish between older and younger minors. Expert opinion testimony established, however, that most, if not all, of the books would have literary value for adults and 17-year-old minors. According to the co-owner, the compliance option of blinder racks, accompanied by reasonable steps to prevent perusal by children, would disrupt business practices, and the other options of creating an adults only section or excluding minors were unacceptable. While the United States Supreme Court has not definitively addressed the constitutionality of a display statute such as the one *527 at issue here,[4] a number of courts from other jurisdictions have considered similar statutes. In all but one case,[5] statutes substantially similar to the one at issue here have been upheld as constitutionally valid. See, e.g., American Booksellers v. Webb, 919 F.2d 1493 (11th Cir.1990); cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S. Ct. 2237, 114 L. Ed. 2d 479 (1991); American Booksellers Ass'n, Inc. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 882 F.2d 125 (4th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1056, 110 S. Ct. 1525, 108 L. Ed. 2d 764 (1990); Upper Midwest Booksellers v. City of Minneapolis, 780 F.2d 1389 (8th Cir.1985); Capitol News Co., Inc. v. Metropolitan Gov't, 562 S.W.2d 430 (Tenn. 1978);[6]American Booksellers Ass'n, Inc. v. Rendell, 332 Pa.Super. 537, 481 A.2d 919 (1984). Many of the courts upholding display ordinances or statutes did so by narrowly interpreting the challenged provisions. For example, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that in determining what was "harmful to minors" under a Georgia display statute, the third prong of the test (whether the material, taken as a whole, has serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for a minor) must be analyzed by determining whether the material had such value for a reasonable 17-year-old minor. If the material has such serious value for a reasonable 17-year-old minor, then it does not lack value for the entire class of minors; and therefore, does not fall within the display statute. Webb, 919 F.2d at 1504-05. In American Booksellers v. Virginia, supra, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals found constitutional a statute making it unlawful "to knowingly display for commercial purposes in a manner whereby juveniles may examine and peruse" any material depicting or describing sexually explicit matters "harmful to juveniles." The federal court's decision was based upon a decision of the Virginia Supreme Court in which the Virginia court had narrowly construed the display statute in question. In response to two certified questions from the Supreme Court of the United States[7], the Virginia Supreme Court adopted a construction similar to the Webb court, ruling that materials found to have serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for a legitimate minority of normal, older adolescents are not within the proscriptions of the display statute. Second, the Court ruled that "perusal" goes well beyond casual examination and refers to the opportunity a bookseller affords juveniles to take books off the shelves and read them in the stores. Commonwealth v. American Booksellers Ass'n, Inc., 236 Va. 168, 372 S.E.2d 618, 624 (1988). Likewise in Rendell, supra, the Pennsylvania Superior Court upheld the statute by construing the term "display" narrowly to mean an "ostentatious showing or presentation," and held that general bookstores may lawfully carry materials "harmful to minors" provided that they do not emphasize or advertise the presence of the materials. Id., 481 A.2d at 941. Finally, the Minneapolis display ordinance at issue in Upper Midwest Booksellers, supra, prohibited the display of materials with content "harmful to minors." It was more restrictive than the Tennessee statute challenged by plaintiffs here because the only method of compliance for general bookstores, other than barring minors altogether, was to place materials regulated by the statute in sealed packages. Id., 780 F.2d at 1391. However, the Eighth Circuit upheld the statute, emphasizing that unlike those statutes struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Erznoznik and Butler v. Michigan, 352 U.S. 380, 77 S. Ct. 524, 1 L. Ed. 2d 412 (1957), a *528 display ordinance does not result in the total suppression of the material in question, and it applies only to materials obscene as to minors. Id., 780 F.2d at 1394. The Court concluded that the restriction in relation to adults was merely an "incidental effect of the permissible regulation" and "minimal in its impact" because adults remained free to request a copy of the restricted material to view, or to peruse the material in adults only bookstores, and more significantly, adults were still able to purchase the material and view it in a "free and unfettered fashion." Id., 780 F.2d at 1395. Several other courts have declared display regulations overbroad and unconstitutional, but those decisions are not persuasive here because the invalid regulations had, in some way, sought to regulate material that was not obscene, even as to minors. Rushia v. Town of Ashburnham, 582 F. Supp. 900 (D.Mass. 1983) (town bylaw unconstitutional because it was not limited to materials obscene as to minors); American Booksellers Ass'n v. McAuliffe, 533 F. Supp. 50 (N.D.Ga. 1981) (statute prohibiting display or sale to minors of material containing nude figures held overbroad because prohibition extends to material not obscene as to minors); Allied Artists Pictures Corp. v. Alford, 410 F. Supp. 1348 (W.D.Tenn.1976) (ordinance overbroad because it prohibited exposing juveniles to films containing language that was not obscene as to juveniles); American Booksellers Ass'n v. Superior Court, 129 Cal. App. 3d 197, 181 Cal. Rptr. 33 (2d Dist. 1982) (ordinance overbroad because it required sealing material containing any photo where the primary purpose is sexual arousal regardless of whether obscene as to minors); Calderon v. City of Buffalo, 61 A.D.2d 323, 402 N.Y.S.2d 685 (1978) (ordinance overbroad because it prohibited sale and exhibition to juveniles of material that was not obscene as to juveniles); Oregon v. Frink, 60 Or. App. 209, 653 P.2d 553 (1982) (statute prohibiting dissemination of all nudity to minors overbroad because it does not limit prohibition to material that is obscene as to juveniles). We are persuaded that the better-reasoned approach to this constitutional dilemma is the narrow statutory interpretation adopted by the Eleventh Circuit and most other courts which have considered the problem. The Tennessee statute, because of its ambiguity, is readily susceptible to the narrowing construction advanced by the State and adopted by other courts considering similar statutes. Accordingly, we hold that the display statute applies only to those materials which lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for a reasonable 17-year-old minor. The proof in this record is that most (if not all) of the books submitted by the plaintiffs as materials possibly affected by the statute would have serious value, either literary or otherwise, for older minors. Thus, it is clear that the statute, as interpreted, does not reduce older minors to reading only material fit for children. Moreover, compliance does not impose an impermissible burden on merchants subject to its provisions. As a result of our narrow construction, the amount of materials affected is minimal, and the statute specifies a variety of methods of compliance allowing booksellers to choose the least burdensome means. More significantly, the statute does not require that booksellers read every book in stock. Although the statute contains no explicit knowledge requirement, Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-301(c) (1991), supplies that requirement by providing that where the definition of an offense does not plainly dispense with a mental element, "intent, knowledge, or recklessness suffices to establish the culpable mental state." In the context of criminal statutes regulating obscenity, the State must establish that the defendant had knowledge of the contents and character of the materials displayed or sold. New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 765-66, 102 S. Ct. 3348, 3358-59, 73 L. Ed. 2d 1113 (1982); Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 123, 94 S. Ct. 2887, 2910, 41 L. Ed. 2d 590 (1974); Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147, 80 S. Ct. 215, 4 L. Ed. 2d 205 (1959). The danger of attempting to regulate expression without a requirement that an affected merchant bookseller have knowledge is that it imposes severe limitations on the public's access to constitutionally protected matter and a severe burden on booksellers who will tend to restrict the books sold to those reviewed. *529 The practical limitations as to the amount of material a bookseller can review, combined with the self-censorship inherent in the face of strict criminal liability, would tend to restrict public access to protected materials. Smith, 361 U.S. at 153-54, 80 S. Ct. at 218-19. Under the display statute here at issue, the State must prove that the bookseller had knowledge of the contents and character of the material displayed or sold to establish a violation. Finally, adults are not completely denied access to the minimal amount of materials subject to the provisions of the statute. There are several compliance methods specified within the statute, all of which allow adults an opportunity to peruse the covered materials prior to purchase. Moreover, as discussed above, the statute does not impose strict liability, so it is unlikely that booksellers will engage in self-censorship and thereby impermissibly impinge upon public access to protected materials. Accordingly, any burden imposed on the access rights of adults to protected materials is minimal and incidental. Because we conclude the statute as interpreted does not impermissibly restrict the access of adults or older minors to protected expression under either the U.S. or Tennessee Constitutions, the decision of the Chancellor overruling the plaintiffs' overbreadth challenge is affirmed. The plaintiffs next contend that the 1990 amendment to the nuisance statute violates the Tennessee and United States Constitutions by allowing immediate seizure and the ultimate forfeiture of non-obscene, constitutionally protected materials, and that by so doing, it imposes a prior restraint. The 1990 amendment to Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-3-101 includes within the definition of "nuisance" "any place in or upon which any sale, exhibition or possession of any material determined to be obscene or pornographic with intent to exhibit, sell, deliver or distribute matter or materials in violation of §§ 39-17-901 XX-XX-XXX, § 39-17-911, § XX-XX-XXX [display statute], § 39-17-918 ..." Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-3-101(a)(2) (Supp. 1992) (emphasis added). All furnishings, fixtures, equipment, moneys and stock, used in or in connection with the maintenance or conduct of a nuisance are subject to immediate seizure upon detection by any law enforcement officer, and may be forfeited to the state by court order in an action for abatement. However, immediate seizure is not authorized for the possession of "obscene matter." Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-3-101(c) (1980 & Supp. 1992). Seizures for the possession of obscene matter are authorized only after a judicial determination of probable cause that the obscenity laws are being violated, and issuance of a search warrant. Id.; see also Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-17-903(a) (1991). The plaintiffs first argue that because the definition of nuisance includes places where violations of the display statute, Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-17-914, occur, materials "harmful to minors" are subject to seizure. Second, the plaintiffs contend that the nuisance statute permits the immediate seizure of materials "harmful to minors" because the statute provides pre-seizure procedural safeguards only for "possession of obscene matter," and materials that are "harmful to minors" may not be obscene as to adults. By allowing immediate seizure of protected materials, the plaintiffs assert that the statute is unconstitutional under the state and federal constitutions as a prior restraint and as a violation of the free speech rights of adults. See Fort Wayne Books, Inc. v. Indiana, 489 U.S. 46, 109 S. Ct. 916, 103 L. Ed. 2d 34 (1989); Sable Communications of California Inc., 492 U.S. at 126-27, 109 S. Ct. at 2836. In construing statutes, it is our duty to adopt a construction which will sustain a statute and avoid constitutional conflict if any reasonable construction exists that satisfies the requirements of the Constitution. State v. Sliger, 846 S.W.2d 262, 263 (Tenn.1993); State v. Lyons, 802 S.W.2d 590, 592 (Tenn.1990); Shelby County Election Comm'n v. Turner, 755 S.W.2d 774, 777 (Tenn.1988); Kirk v. State, 126 Tenn. 7, 10, 150 S.W. 83, 84 (1911). When faced with a choice between two constructions, one of which will sustain the validity of the statute *530 and avoid a conflict with the Constitution, and another which renders the statute unconstitutional, we must choose the former. Id. It is correct, as the plaintiffs point out, that seizure of obscene materials is constitutional only if certain procedural safeguards are followed. Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 560, 95 S. Ct. 1239, 1247, 43 L. Ed. 2d 448 (1975). Moreover, as the plaintiffs assert, seizure of protected materials would impose great burdens on the free speech rights of adults and raise grave constitutional questions. See Fort Wayne Books, Inc, 489 U.S. at 63-65, 109 S.Ct. at 927-28; Sable Communications of California Inc., 492 U.S. at 126-27, 109 S. Ct. at 2836. However, we conclude that an entirely reasonable construction of the amended nuisance statute is that it allows seizures of materials "harmful to minors" only if those materials are also "obscene matter." Seizures of such material must be conducted in accordance with the statutory procedural safeguards discussed above. This construction avoids constitutional conflict and safeguards free speech rights. Accordingly, the Chancellor's decision overruling the plaintiffs challenge to the nuisance statute is affirmed on the separate grounds stated. The final issue raised by the plaintiffs is that the statute, which creates thirty-one separate community standards, violates Article I, § 8 of the United States Constitution by requiring businesses to tailor distribution of books in Tennessee to meet the differing standards, thereby imposing an enormous burden on interstate commerce. Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution grants to Congress the power to regulate commerce "among the several states." The Supreme Court has interpreted the Commerce Clause as a limitation on the power of state governments. However, states are not precluded from enacting legislation which has an impact on interstate commerce if the state law regulates even-handedly to effectuate a legitimate local public interest and its effects on interstate commerce are only incidental, and the burden imposed on interstate commerce is not clearly excessive in relation to the local benefits. Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137, 142, 90 S. Ct. 844, 847, 25 L. Ed. 2d 174 (1970). Applying those standards to this case, the plaintiffs' Commerce Clause challenge is without merit, both factually and legally. As a factual matter, the record demonstrates that the book distributors and publishers do not consider differing community standards in the operation of their businesses. From a legal standpoint, the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to require a national community and allowed states wide latitude in defining the term "community." See Miller, 413 U.S. at 31-34, 93 S. Ct. at 2618-20. For example, in Smith v. United States, 431 U.S. 291, 97 S. Ct. 1756, 52 L. Ed. 2d 324 (1977), the Court indicated that states may define the term "community" as the area from which the jury pool was selected, implicitly approving of geographical definitions. Id., 431 U.S. at 303, 97 S. Ct. at 1765. Later, the Court observed that "regulations which restrict access by minors to material obscene as to minors must also be classified as having only an incidental effect on commerce." Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland, 437 U.S. 117, 127, 98 S. Ct. 2207, 2215, 57 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1978). Moreover, the three cases cited by the plaintiffs in support of the Commerce Clause challenge are inapposite. In all of those cases the Court found that there was a discriminatory purpose behind the challenged law, or that the purported local benefits of the statute were illusory. Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corp., 450 U.S. 662, 101 S. Ct. 1309, 67 L. Ed. 2d 580 (1981); Raymond Motor Transp., Inc. v. Rice, 434 U.S. 429, 98 S. Ct. 787, 54 L. Ed. 2d 664 (1978); Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333, 97 S. Ct. 2434, 53 L. Ed. 2d 383 (1977). Nothing in this record indicates that the obscenity statutes here under attack were motivated by a desire to discriminate against interstate commerce, or that the local benefit of the statutes, the protection of minors, is illusory. Accordingly, the Chancellor's decision overruling the plaintiffs' Commerce Clause challenge is affirmed. The final issue we address is the State's contention that the Chancellor erred in finding the term "excess violence" unconstitutionally void for vagueness. Specifically, the Chancellor found that "the definition of `excess violence' in T.C.A. § 39-17-901(4), and as `excess violence' is used in T.C.A. § 39-17-911 is unconstitutional for vagueness because the term is so unclear that no fair warning, guidance, or notice of the conduct prohibited are provided those persons or entities who trade in printed and visual materials and are obligated to comply with the section." On appeal, the State argues that the term "excess violence" is not unconstitutionally vague because first, the plain meaning of the words used in the statute specifically delineates the prohibited conduct; second, the term is sufficiently defined; third, the term is sufficiently narrowed by the context in which it is used; and finally, that the State has a compelling interest in protecting minors from "excessively violent material." The plaintiffs respond that the definition of excess violence is inherently and unconstitutionally vague, and that it violates the principle established by this Court that a statute so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, must be declared void for vagueness. See Leech, 582 S.W.2d at 746. Applying that standard, the plaintiffs contend that "excess violence" is defined by using phrases which add nothing to the meaning of the term and that the definition ends with the circular phrase of "violence for violence's sake." No guidance, therefore, is provided to those who trade in printed and visual material as to how to apply those undefined terms. Finally, the plaintiffs argue that even if excess violence could be defined in a manner that met constitutional requirements of clarity, it is an unconstitutional basis for regulation because it is protected speech. As a result, every court that has considered the issue has invalidated attempts to regulate materials solely based on violent content, regardless of whether that material is called violence, excess violence, or included within the definition of obscenity. We begin with the Supreme Court's observation that "[i]t is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined." Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108, 92 S. Ct. 2294, 2298, 33 L. Ed. 2d 222 (1972). The Grayned court went further and articulated the reasons that vague laws are unconstitutional: Grayned, 408 U.S. at 108-109, 92 S. Ct. at 2298 (citations omitted). In the context of First Amendment cases, the Supreme Court has imposed a more stringent rule which requires that statutes that impinge on the area of freedom of expression must have a greater degree of specificity than in other contexts, so as to insure that citizens will not be "chilled" from exercising their constitutional right to free expression. Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566, 573, 94 S. Ct. 1242, 1247, 39 L. Ed. 2d 605 (1974); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 96 S. Ct. 612, 46 L. Ed. 2d 659 (1976). *532 And where conduct is implicated, the standard is even more strict: Sovereign News Co. v. Falke, 448 F. Supp. 306, 406 (N.D.Ohio 1977). The standard normally used in determining if a statute is vague, is whether "men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning." See, e.g., Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 607, 93 S. Ct. 2908, 2913, 37 L. Ed. 2d 830 (1973); Leech, 582 S.W.2d at 746. If a statute is to avoid unconstitutional vagueness, it must "define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement." Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 358, 103 S. Ct. 1855, 1858, 75 L. Ed. 2d 903 (1983) (citations omitted). Although the doctrine focuses both on actual notice to citizens and arbitrary enforcement, the Supreme Court has recognized that the more important aspect of the vagueness doctrine is not actual notice, but the other principle element of the doctrine the requirement that a legislature establish minimal guidelines to govern law enforcement. See Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. at 574, 94 S. Ct. at 1247-1248. Id., 461 U.S. at 358, 103 S. Ct. at 1858 (quoting Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. at 575, 94 S.Ct. at 1248). In this case, the term "excess violence" is defined as "the depiction of acts of violence in such a graphic and/or bloody manner as to exceed common limits of custom and candor, or in such a manner that it is apparent that the predominant appeal of the material is portrayal of violence for violence's sake." Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-901(4) (1991). We note that this exact same definition was held void for vagueness in Allied Artists Pictures Corp. v. Alford, 410 F. Supp. 1348 (W.D.Tenn. 1976). Although, we are not bound by that determination, we agree with the federal district court that the definition of the term makes the decision of what constitutes "excess violence" an entirely subjective one. It gives little, if any, objective guidance to booksellers or officials charged with enforcement. Accordingly, it neither gives notice to ordinary people of what materials are affected, nor sufficient guidance to law enforcement officials to prevent arbitrary law enforcement. See also Video Software Dealers Ass'n v. Webster, 773 F. Supp. 1275, 1280 (W.D.Mo. 1991), aff'd 968 F.2d 684 (8th Cir.1992) (finding unconstitutional a statute which included violent material within the definition of obscenity). Moreover, the vagueness is not cured by incorporating violence in the definition of obscenity as to minors. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court has "confine[d] the permissible scope of such regulation [state statutes designed to regulate obscene materials] to works which depict or describe sexual conduct." Miller, supra, 413 U.S. at 24, 93 S. Ct. at 2614-15. The obscenity definition is specifically designed for sexually explicit materials not violent materials. Apart from our conclusion that the term "excess violence," as used in the statute, is void for vagueness under Article I, § 19 of the Tennessee Constitution, we do not deem it necessary in this case to further define the boundaries of freedom of expression under the Tennessee Constitution. We prefer, as the court of last resort, to interpret Article I, § 19 of the Tennessee Constitution on a case by case basis as issues arise. We, therefore, affirm the Chancellor's decision declaring the term "excess violence" void for vagueness. Based on the foregoing analysis, we conclude that the display statute, Tenn.Code *533 Ann. § 39-17-914, is not unconstitutionally overbroad with the limiting construction applied, because it proscribes only the knowing display of materials which, taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for a reasonable seventeen year old minor, and as such, imposes only an incidental burden on the rights of booksellers and adults. Moreover, we hold that the nuisance statute allows seizure of materials "harmful to minors" only if such materials are also obscene, and such seizures are valid only if accomplished in accordance with the applicable statutory procedural safeguards. Finally, we conclude that the term "excess violence" is void for vagueness because it does not provide notice to potential violators of the materials affected, or guidance to the officials charged with its enforcement. We, however, apply the doctrine of elision, eliminating that term from and upholding the challenged statutes. Accordingly, the judgment of the Chancellor is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are taxed one-half to the plaintiffs and one-half to the State of Tennessee. DROWOTA and DAUGHTREY, JJ., and LEWIS, Special Justice, concur. REID, C.J., concurs with separate opinion. Note: 1990 Amendment language has been underlined. REID, Chief Justice. I concur, and write separately to emphasize that the court in this case does not proscribe expression by arbitrary definition as the majority did in State v. Marshall, 859 *539 S.W.2d 289, 295 (Tenn.1993). Instead, the Court decides "whether the State, in serving the compelling interest of protecting minors, has drawn its statute narrowly enough to avoid unnecessarily interfering with free speech rights." The state's interest in protecting minors from harm is not disputed, nor is the premise that the material defined by the statute causes harm to minors. The essential issue is the balancing of the plaintiffs' rights of expression against the state's interest in protecting minors from harm. The statute as construed by the Court, is "the least intrusive means of regulation," and, therefore, does not violate Article I, Section 19 of the Tennessee Constitution. This decision is consistent with the position stated in dissent in State v. Marshall: State v. Marshall, 859 S.W.2d 289, 295 (Tenn.1993) (Reid, C.J. concurring and dissenting.) [1] The full text of the relevant statutory provisions is set forth in the Appendix to this Opinion. [2] Specifically, the Chancellor enjoined enforcement of those portions of Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 39-17-911 and 914 which prohibit the sale, loan, exhibition or display for sale or rental of material to minors which contain "excess violence" as that term is defined in Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-17-901(4) (1991). [3] 390 U.S. 629, 88 S. Ct. 1274, 20 L. Ed. 2d 195 (1968). [4] A statute very similar to the one at issue here was before the U.S. Supreme Court; however, the Court did not decide the merits of the case, but instead certified two questions to the Virginia Supreme Court to allow the state's highest court an opportunity to interpret the statute narrowly thereby avoiding constitutional problems. Virginia v. American Booksellers Ass'n, Inc., 484 U.S. 383, 108 S. Ct. 636, 98 L. Ed. 2d 782 (1988). [5] Tattered Cover, Inc. v. Tooley, 696 P.2d 780 (Colo. 1985). [6] The issue now before this Court whether the display statute infringes upon the constitutional rights of adults was not an issue in Capitol News Co. [7] See Virginia v. American Booksellers Ass'n, Inc., supra, at note 4.