Opinion ID: 699539
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Time, Place or Manner Restriction

Text: 49 We examine the Minnesota statute as a content-neutral time, place or manner restriction on speech made through private channels for the purpose of reaching private residences and offices, and apply the intermediate level of scrutiny applicable to content-neutral restrictions that impose an incidental burden on speech: 50 Expression, whether oral or written or symbolized by conduct, is subject to reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions. We have often noted that restrictions of this kind are valid provided that they are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information. 51 Clark, 468 U.S. at 293, 104 S.Ct. at 3069; see O'Brien, 391 U.S. at 377, 88 S.Ct. at 1679; Ward, 11 491 U.S. at 791, 109 S.Ct. at 2753; Turner Broadcasting, --- U.S. at ----, 114 S.Ct. at 2469. 52 Having determined that the Minnesota statute is content-neutral, we now examine the statute to determine if it is narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and [if it] leave[s] open ample alternative channels for communication of the information. Ward, 491 U.S. at 781, 109 S.Ct. at 2749 (internal quotations omitted). 53 Residential privacy is a significant government interest. Although in many locations, we expect individuals simply to avoid speech they do not want to hear, the home is different.... [A] special benefit of the privacy all citizens enjoy within their own walls, which the State may legislate to protect, is an ability to avoid intrusions. Frisby, 487 U.S. at 484-85, 108 S.Ct. at 2502.  'The State's interest in protecting the well-being, tranquility, and privacy of the home is certainly of the highest order in a free and civilized society.'  Id. at 484, 108 S.Ct. at 2502 (quoting Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455, 471, 100 S.Ct. 2286, 2296, 65 L.Ed.2d 263 (1980)). The First Amendment permits the government to prohibit offensive speech as intrusive when the 'captive' audience cannot avoid the objectionable speech. Id. at 487, 108 S.Ct. at 2504. 54 Van Bergen complains that the government failed to provide affidavits relating to the disruption caused by ADAD calls in the home, asserting that all of the affidavits 12 offered by the government pertained to disruptions caused by ADADs in a business setting. The government, however, presented affidavits regarding the high volume of complaints received about ADAD calls at the Attorney General's office from both residential and business sources. See Aff. of Amy Finken. Moreover, we do not believe that external evidence of the disruption ADAD calls can cause in a residence is necessary: It is evident to anyone who has received such unsolicited calls when busy with other activities. 55 The efficient conduct of business operations also is a significant government interest. States are dependent on the operation of business for their tax revenues, and have an interest in promoting and protecting productivity of private business. Moreover, individuals at work in private businesses are entitled to expect that they will not be disturbed except by personal or business invitees, just as, at their residence, they are entitled to expect privacy. Cf. Mancusi v. DeForte, 392 U.S. 364, 369, 88 S.Ct. 2120, 2124, 20 L.Ed.2d 1154 (1968) (holding that the occupant of an office has standing to challenge warrantless search of his office because entitled to expect only invitees to enter his office). 56 ADAD calls are uniquely intrusive due to the machine's inability to register a listener's response. In Martin v. Struthers, the Court held that the government's interest in residential privacy did not outweigh the right of door-to-door pamphleteers largely on the grounds that the householder should make the choice of whether to listen to the pamphleteer's message or not. 319 U.S. 141, 147-48, 63 S.Ct. 862, 865-66, 87 L.Ed. 1313 (1943). The Court suggested that the householder's interests would be better preserved by the householder exercising his right to indicate that he is unwilling to be disturbed, and by making it an offense to knock or ring at a door with such an indication. This, the Court reasoned, leaves the decision whether to retain privacy with the individual householder. Id. at 148, 63 S.Ct. at 866. The Court emphasized the prevalence of laws that enforce the householder's right to post an indication that solicitors or pamphleteers are not welcome and to have that indication honored. Id. Householders therefore can entirely avoid in-person door-to-door solicitors or information distributors if they simply post a sign on the door to which the individual door-to-door speaker can respond. Similarly, in Rowan v. Post Office Dep't, the Court upheld a statute allowing recipients of advertising mail they found sexually offensive to notify the Postmaster General, who would then require that the sender cease sending mail of any kind to that recipient. 397 U.S. 728, 734, 90 S.Ct. 1484, 1489, 25 L.Ed.2d 736 (1970). The statute was upheld in part because it was intended to allow the addressee complete and unfettered discretion in electing whether or not he desired to receive further material from a particular sender. Id. The Court explained that [i]n today's complex society we are inescapably captive audiences for many purposes, but a sufficient measure of individual autonomy must survive to permit every householder to exercise control over unwanted mail. Id. at 736, 90 S.Ct. at 1490. 57 Telephone calls from a live operator are more disruptive than door-to-door solicitors warned not to disturb, because the recipient must respond once to each caller. When the call is made by a live operator, however, the recipient has the opportunity to tell the operator, at any point in the conversation, that he does not want to hear from the calling person or entity again. An ADAD does not offer the recipient the option of cutting off the calls; it does not offer householders a choice of whether to respond to the speaker or not. The ADAD recipient may hang up as soon as the message starts, but has no opportunity to tell the machine that he does not want it to call again, and may be obliged, against his will, to respond over and over to the same unwanted caller. See 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227, Congressional Statement of Findings (3) (More than 300,000 solicitors call more than 18,000,000 Americans every day.); Vincent, 466 U.S. at 809-10, 104 S.Ct. at 2131-32 (explaining distinction between protected distribution of leaflets by individual citizens ... actively exercising their right to communicate directly with potential recipients of their message, who perforce remained on the scene while engaging in speech, and the unprotected posting of signs throughout an area where they would remain unattended until removed). 58 The sheer quantity of telemarketing calls further supports the government's interest in regulation protecting privacy. In Breard v. Alexandria, an ordinance permitted door-to-door commercial solicitations only with the prior consent of the householder. 341 U.S. 622, 624-25, 71 S.Ct. 920, 923, 95 L.Ed. 1233 (1951). The Court in part justified its decision to uphold the ordinance by citing the increase in door-to-door solicitations: Door-to-door canvassing has flourished increasingly in recent years with the ready market furnished by the rapid concentration in housing. The infrequent and still welcome solicitor to the rural home became to some a recurring nuisance in towns when the visits were multiplied. Id. at 626, 71 S.Ct. at 924. Telemarketing calls, similarly, are flourishing, and becoming a recurring nuisance by virtue of their quantity. 59 Because ADAD calls intrude upon the privacy and tranquility of the home and the efficiency of the workplace, and because the recipient has no opportunity to indicate the desire not to receive such calls, 13 we find that the government has a substantial interest in limiting the use of unsolicited, unconsented-to ADAD calls. 14 60 The statute is narrowly tailored to reach these interests. The statute does not foreclose an entire medium of expression, see City of Ladue v. Gilleo, --- U.S. ----, ----, 114 S.Ct. 2038, 2045, 129 L.Ed.2d 36 (1994), and the limits on ADAD calls are designed to remedy the problems perceived with the liberal use of ADAD technology. 61 Although the use of ADADs is strictly limited, the prior consent and live operator options both allow the continued use of ADADs while protecting the right of the recipient to choose whether or not to receive a message. Van Bergen contends that the live operator option was prohibitively expensive and difficult to organize; a live operator running a series of ADADs, however, would be far more efficient than a live operator both making the calls and delivering the entire message. An ADAD operator need only announce the source of the call and ask if the listener wishes to hear the message; the operator, after receiving the response, can immediately move on to the next call, leaving the ADAD to continue with the previous caller. 62 The consent or live operator requirement will also give recipients an opportunity not only to decline to listen to the message at that time, but also to request that the caller not call again. The recipient thus can gradually reduce the total number of ADAD calls he receives, remedying the interruption of his business or leisure activities. 63 Finally, there are ample alternative channels for communication. ADADs are a new technology, and people have been campaigning for elective office, soliciting for charities, spreading religious messages, and selling products for centuries without the benefit of these machines. ADADs can still be used with the aid of a live operator. This should be only a marginally more costly option. Live telephone calls, door-to-door distribution of information, street corner leafletting, posters and signs, and bulk mailings are all inexpensive and effective options, especially in the case of a political campaign, where personal interaction is likely to be more effective than an ADAD message, and the venerable tradition of volunteer support aids in limiting expenses. See Ladue, --- U.S. at ---- n. 16, 114 S.Ct. at 2046 n. 16 (venerable tradition and low cost of residential posting of campaign signs militate in favor of striking down ordinance banning them). 64 In summary, we find that the Minnesota ADAD statute meets the requirements of a time, place or manner regulation of protected speech. The government is advancing a substantial interest in citizens' residential privacy and business efficiency, which is justified without reference to the content of the speech; the statute is narrowly tailored to advance this interest and leaves open ample alternative channels of communication.