Opinion ID: 1301279
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Commission's Order Examined in Light of Arizona's Constitution

Text: We focus on the parties' contentions with the broad guarantees of Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 6 in mind. The Commission claims that Mountain Bell, as a public utility, is subject to reasonable regulation and that its order does not significantly infringe on Mountain Bell's right of free speech. The Commission also argues that Mountain Bell lacks standing to assert the information providers' free speech rights. We reject the notion that Mountain Bell may not assert the information providers' free speech rights. See Franzi v. Superior Court, 139 Ariz. 556, 563, 679 P.2d 1043, 1050 (1984) (recognizing standing to challenge an overbroad regulation of speech even though the challenger asserts the rights of third parties); see also Jennings, 107 Ariz. at 561, 490 P.2d at 567 (reporters, as members of the public, have standing to challenge a gag order). No other rule on standing would protect the free flow and distribution of information and ideas. See Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630, 40 S.Ct. 17, 22, 63 L.Ed. 1173 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting). Thus, Mountain Bell, the medium of communication, has standing to assert the providers' free speech rights as well as its own. The Commission ordered Mountain Bell to devise a presubscription plan and present it for the Commission's approval. Order No. 56039, ¶ 18, at 19. Some presubscription approaches would be less intrusive to the providers' free speech rights than others. For example, if the Commission allowed Mountain Bell to develop a universal presubscription system, so that a customer's single subscription unblocked all ScoopLines at once, the intrusion on the providers' free speech rights would be less than under a presubscription plan that required customers to separately arrange to unblock each individual ScoopLine. [13] The providers argue, however, that even a universal presubscription plan giving access to all ScoopLines would still burden their free speech rights because this new information industry would be less available to the public at large. We agree with the providers. Although individualized presubscription would burden free speech the most, any requirement of prior subscription, even universal presubscription, adversely affects the right to speak and publish. We would not, for instance, look kindly on a government regulation that required all those who wish to read a newspaper or magazine to first sign a general subscribers' list before they could buy any publication at the neighborhood store. Thus, the Commission's order impinges on the rights that art. 2, § 6 of the Arizona Constitution guarantees. We believe the presubscription requirement, whether universal or individualized, affects or impairs the right to freely speak. Nor does the argument that the less serious impairment of universal subscription is justified when balanced against the Commission's responsibility to regulate public service corporations persuade us. The Arizona Constitution does not speak of major or minor impediments but guarantees the right to freely speak. Although we may need to balance competing constitutional rights, such as the right to a fair trial and the right of free speech, we avoid, where possible, attempts to erode constitutional rights by balancing them against regulations serving governmental interests. Instead, we opt for a more literal application of art. 2, § 6. See Phoenix Newspapers and Jennings. The framers of our constitution did not give our judges authority to censor speech or decide how much speech the constitution allows. Phoenix Newspapers, 101 Ariz. at 259, 418 P.2d at 596 (there can be no censor appointed to whom the press must apply for prior permission to publish). Instead, the framers gave every person the right to freely speak, write and publish and made judges responsible to uphold and enforce those rights.
Finally, we turn to the Commission's claim that its order is an allowable time, place, and manner restriction in accordance with its constitutional responsibility to regulate public utilities. The Commission contends that the first amendment of the United States Constitution and Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 96 S.Ct. 1817, 48 L.Ed.2d 346 (1976), allow for the time, place, and manner regulation of ScoopLines. Even if we agreed with the Commission's interpretation of the first amendment, Arizona's constitution does not permit the time, place, and manner regulation in question here. Under the first amendment, the United States Supreme Court has articulated a three-part test for determining whether a given time, place, and manner regulation is reasonable: is the regulation content-neutral, does it serve a significant governmental interest, and does it leave open ample alternate channels for communication. Virginia Pharmacy, 425 U.S. at 771, 96 S.Ct. at 1830. Whether this approach implicitly requires that the government use the least restrictive alternative to achieve its purpose is unclear under federal constitutional jurisprudence. See generally TRIBE, AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW § 12-23 (2d ed. 1988); see Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147, 60 S.Ct. 146, 84 L.Ed. 155 (1939) (invalidating restrictions on distribution of circulars where government could have achieved its purpose by less restrictive alternatives). On this question, we have held that any restriction on first amendment rights must be drawn with narrow specificity. New Times, Inc. v. Arizona Board of Regents, 110 Ariz. 367, 371, 519 P.2d 169, 173 (1974). In New Times, we stated this requirement within the context of discussing whether a Board of Regents' campus newspaper policy was a reasonable time, place, and manner regulation. Id. As we have already determined that narrow specificity is a requirement of a time, place, and manner regulation under the first amendment, we must hold the same under the more stringent protections of the Arizona Constitution. A public utility is not exempt from the Commission's regulation simply because it is in the communications business. The Commission can regulate Mountain Bell's charges for ScoopLine service to the same extent that it has the right to regulate other Mountain Bell tariffs. Also, the Commission, like any other governmental department or agency, may impose content-neutral, reasonable time, place, and manner regulations that tangentially affect speech. E.g., New Times, 110 Ariz. at 371, 519 P.2d at 173. However, given Arizona's constitutional protections, when dealing with regulations that affect speech, the Commission must regulate with narrow specificity so as to affect as little as possible the ability of the sender and receiver to communicate. Id. The record here does not satisfy us that the Commission drew its regulation with narrow specificity. No doubt the Commission can require Mountain Bell to address the ScoopLine problems even though the problems relate to the transmission of protected speech. We assume, arguendo, that the Commission could require Mountain Bell to provide its customers with a method of adjusting disputes, to give adequate service to consumers, to make allowances in the tariffs for rebate of charges for unauthorized ScoopLine calls, and to provide a clear statement of the charges against ScoopLine users. Mountain Bell's proposals for self-imposed regulations and the statute both illustrate plausible means to solve the ScoopLine problems. They also demonstrate that the Commission did not choose its regulation with narrow specificity. Although the pre-subscription requirement might be a more convenient and certain method of accomplishing such objectives, governmental convenience and certainty cannot prevail over constitutionally guaranteed rights. The portion of the Commission's order that requires presubscription erects a direct barrier to communication and therefore offends art. 2, § 6 of the Arizona Constitution.