Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06361/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06361-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

, 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

FELIX H. CLIM, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals Tend., r;~ .... ,;~ 

JAN 2 4 1990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-6361 

v. 

MULTIMEDIA CABLEVISION, INC., 

Defendant-Appellee. 

(D.C. No. CIV-89-1748-A) 

(W.D. Oklahoma) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Submitted on the Briefs: 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. 

This case was dismissed by the Clerk on appellant's motion. 

Appellant moves for reconsideration of that order. 

This is an appeal from an order of the district court 

dismissing Mr. Clim's effort to force the defendant, Multimedia 

Cablevision, Inc., to exhibit the movie, The Last Temptation of 

Christ. Mr. Clim's papers are unclear, and while he uses phrases 

like "Absolute Proof of Massive FRAUD" and "Massive BREACH OF 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-6361 Document: 01019961236 Date Filed: 01/24/1990 Page: 1 
', r ' ..,,. 

CONTRACTS," his complaint seems to be that defendant's 

unwillingness to air the movie violated his First Amendment 

rights. 

Mr. Olim has confused the inability of a governmental entity 

to ban someone from speaking or exhibiting a movie with his 

efforts in this case. What is at issue here is whether the court 

can force a cable television company to broadcast a program it has 

chosen not to broadcast. While the First Amendment prohibits the 

government from denying someone the right to speak freely, it does 

not give one citizen the right to force another to speak. 

Even corporations have the right not to speak if they choose. 

Mr. Olim's desire to view The Last Temptation of Christ is not 

greater than defendant's right not to air it. 

Even though defendant has access to the public through its 

cable system, the government cannot force it to exhibit this 

movie. Indeed, if that power existed, the government could 

control everything the defendant could broadcast. That form of 

censorship is absolutely foreign to the Constitution and the 

freedoms protected by the First Amendment. 

Mr. Olim's desire to see The Last Temptation of Christ must 

be satisfied at some place where an exhibitor has chosen to show 

the film. The district court correctly dismissed this case, the 

mandate is recalled, and we AFFIRM the judgment of the district 

court for the reasons set forth in its dispositional order. The 

mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-6361 Document: 01019961236 Date Filed: 01/24/1990 Page: 2