Opinion ID: 751800
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Analysis of Facial Validity of the Statute

Text: 16 This case arises from the tension between two competing interests: free speech protection of erotic literature and giving communities the power to preserve the quality of life of their neighborhoods and prevent or clean up skid-rows. The tension arises because the First Amendment offers some protection for soft porn, i.e., sexually-explicit, nonobscene material--although society's interest in protecting this type of expression is of a wholly different, and lesser, magnitude than the interest in untrammeled political debate.... Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U.S. 50, 70, 96 S.Ct. 2440, 2452, 49 L.Ed.2d 310 (1976). The Supreme Court most recently restated this view that porn-type speech is generally afforded less-than-full First Amendment protection in Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560, 111 S.Ct. 2456, 115 L.Ed.2d 504 (1991) (nude dancing). 17 The normal starting point for a discussion of the facial validity of statutory regulation of speech requires an analysis of the so-called content-neutrality of the regulation. Here, the bookstore contends that the act is a content-based regulation and therefore presumptively unconstitutional and subject to strict scrutiny. The defendant prosecutor argues that the act is content-neutral and that the closing requirements are permissible time, place and manner regulation subject to the less exacting intermediate scrutiny. 18 We agree with plaintiff that the legislation at issue here is obviously not content-neutral. The statute focuses on and regulates only sexually-explicit or porn-type speech. This is no more content neutral than a statute designed to regulate only political campaign advertising, newspaper want ads or computer graphics. The law singles out certain establishments for regulation based only on the type of literature they distribute. But see Barnes, 501 U.S at 585, 111 S.Ct. at 2470 (Souter, J., concurring) and Mitchell v. Commission on Adult Entertain. Estabs., 10 F.3d 123 (3d Cir.1993) (describing regulation of such sex literature as content neutral because it is designed to counter bad behavior in the neighborhood where it is sold). 19 The fact that such regulation is based on content does not necessarily mean that regulation of nonobscene, sexually-explicit speech is invalid. The law developed under the First Amendment offers such speech protection of a wholly different, and lesser magnitude. Young v. American Mini Theatres, 427 U.S. at 70, 96 S.Ct. at 2452. In American Mini Theatres, the Court expressly ruled that the City of Detroit may legitimately use the content of adult motion pictures as the basis for treating them differently from other motion pictures. In order to prevent and clean up skid-rows, the ordinance confined theatres showing sex movies to a few areas of the city. A plurality of the Court upheld a content-based zoning ordinance restricting the location of adult movie theatres. The Court held that even though such sexually-explicit literature, unlike obscenity, is protected from total suppression, the State may use the content of these materials as the basis for placing them in a different classification from other motion pictures. Id. at 70-71, 96 S.Ct. at 2452. Justice Steven's opinion is straightforward and clear. It says that there is surely a less vital interest in the uninhibited exhibition of material that is on the borderline between pornography and artistic expression than in the free dissemination of ideas of social and political significance. Id. at 61, 96 S.Ct. at 2448. The Court concluded that the classification made by the City of Detroit was justified by the City's interest in preserving its neighborhoods from deterioration--the now so-called secondary effects of erotic speech. The ordinance was upheld because it did not unduly suppress access to lawful speech. American Mini Theatres recognized that regulation based on content may be necessary to protect other legitimate interests. The Court did not try to maintain that the ordinance was, in fact, content-neutral; it stated only that it might be treated as if it were content-neutral because, like commercial speech, it is less than fully protected. 20 Justice Powell, concurring in American Mini Theatres, elaborated on the special circumstances presented when reviewing regulation of erotic or sexually-explicit speech: 21 Moreover, even if this were a case involving a special government response to the content of one type of movie, it is possible that the result would be supported by a line of cases recognizing that the government can tailor its reaction to different types of speech according to the degree to which its special and overriding interests are implicated. 22 American Mini Theatres, 427 U.S. at 82 n. 6, 96 S.Ct. at 2458 n. 6 (cases omitted). Justice Powell specifically pointed out that sexually-explicit speech is different from other kinds of speech and, although protected to a certain degree, is offered less protection because other important social interests are at stake when sexually-explicit speech is at issue. Erotic or sexually-explicit literature is in a unique category, a category unto itself that the Supreme Court has decided may be regulated without subjecting the regulation to so-called strict scrutiny with its accompanying presumption of unconstitutionality. 23 Many have severely criticized the holding and rationale of American Mini Theatres, 3 including initially the four dissenters led by Justice Stewart, but a majority of the Court has adhered to its view allowing anti-skidrow, content-based regulation of establishments selling pornographic literature, movies, dancing and other hard-core erotic material. In a subsequent case, City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41, 106 S.Ct. 925, 89 L.Ed.2d 29 (1986), the Court upheld a content-based zoning ordinance enacted by the City of Renton, Washington, that prohibited adult motion picture theatres from locating within 1,000 feet of family dwellings, churches, parks or schools. 24 The intervening years had reduced the number of dissenters on the Court from four to two. Now it was only Justices Brennan and Marshall in dissent. Relying primarily on American Mini Theatres, the Court in Renton analyzed the ordinance as a form of time, place and manner regulation, although recognizing that a law that focuses on such films is obviously not content neutral. The Court acknowledged candidly that both ordinances treated adult theatres differently than other types of theatres, the traditional touchstone of content-based legislation. 25 The Court went on in City of Renton to explain that the ordinance did not contravene the fundamental principles that underlie concerns about content-based speech regulations because its stated purpose is to curb the secondary effects of adult establishments. Accordingly, the Court in City of Renton, like the Court in American Mini Theatres, decided that the zoning ordinances at issue could be reviewed under the standard applicable to content-neutral regulations, even though the ordinances were plainly content-based. The stated rationale is that a distinction may be drawn between adult theatres and other kinds of theatres without violating the government's paramount obligation of neutrality in its regulation of protected communication because it is seeking to regulate the secondary effects of speech, not the speech itself. City of Renton, 475 U.S. at 49, 106 S.Ct. at 929-30 (quoting American Mini Theatres, 427 U.S. at 70, 96 S.Ct. at 2452). 26 Over the last decade, some courts reviewing these type of regulations started simply referring to them as content-neutral without explaining, as the Supreme Court carefully did in both American Mini Theatres and City of Renton, that they are in fact content-based but are to be treated like content-neutral regulations for some purposes. See, e.g., North Ave. Novelties, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 88 F.3d 441, 444 (7th Cir.1996), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 684, 136 L.Ed.2d 609 (1997); 11126 Baltimore Blvd., Inc. v. Prince George's County, Md., 58 F.3d 988, 995 (4th Cir.1995); ILQ Investments, Inc. v. City of Rochester, 25 F.3d 1413, 1416 (8th Cir.1994); TK's Video, Inc. v. Denton County, Tx., 24 F.3d 705, 707 (5th Cir.1994); Mitchell v. Commission on Adult Entertain. Estabs., 10 F.3d 123, 128-31 (3d Cir.1993). Thus, in some cases, a kind of legal fiction has been created that calls regulation of such literature content neutral when what is meant is only that the regulation is constitutionally valid. 27 Under present First Amendment principles governing regulation of sex literature, the real question is one of reasonableness. The appropriate inquiry is whether the Tennessee law is designed to serve a substantial government interest and allows for alternative avenues of communication. Does the law in question unduly restrict sexually explicit or hard-core erotic expression? 28 Reducing crime, open sex and solicitation of sex and preserving the aesthetic and commercial character of the neighborhoods surrounding adult establishments is a substantial government interest. The Tennessee legislature reasonably relied on the experiences of other jurisdictions in restricting the hours of operation. It is not unreasonable to believe that such regulation of hours of shops selling sex literature would tend to deter prostitution in the neighborhood at night or the creation of drug corners on the surrounding streets. By deterring such behavior, the neighborhood may be able to ward off high vacancy rates, deteriorating store fronts, a blighted appearance and the lowering of the property values of homes and shopping areas. Such regulation may prevent the bombed-out, boarded-up look of areas invaded by such establishments. At least that is the theory, and it is not unreasonable for legislators to believe it based on evidence from other places. 29 The legislation leaves open alternative avenues of communication. Access to adult establishments is not unduly restricted by the legislation. Adult establishments may still be open many hours during the week.