Opinion ID: 6316805
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: VDARE’s Reliance on Bantam Books v. Sullivan

Text: VDARE argues that “[t]he facts in this case closely resemble those in Bantam Books, Inc., v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58 (1963).” Appellant’s Opening Br. at 14. Bantam Books considered state action in a state censorship context. There, a Rhode Island commission had begun threatening distributors with legal sanctions unless they suppressed publications that the Commission found objectionable. See id. at 15–18. VDARE contends that, as in that case, the City’s Statement—when considered in full and in the context of the surrounding events—significantly encouraged the Resort’s behavior, thereby rendering the Resort’s decision to cancel the Conference state action. We disagree. In Bantam Books, the Court reviewed the actions of an entity created by the Rhode Island Legislature, namely, the “Rhode Island Commission to Encourage Morality in Youth.” 372 U.S. at 59. That Commission was responsible for reviewing and educating the public about printed materials containing “obscene, indecent or impure language, or manifestly tending to the corruption of the youth,” as defined by the State’s general laws. Id. It was also authorized “to investigate and recommend the prosecution of all violations of [the relevant] sections” of the State’s general laws and to “encourage morality in youth by (a) investigating situations which may cause, be responsible for or give rise to undesirable behavior of juveniles, (b) educate the public as to these causes and (c) recommend legislation, prosecution and/or treatment 13 Appellate Case: 20-1162 Document: 010110565027 Date Filed: 08/23/2021 Page: 14 which would ameliorate or eliminate said causes.” Id. at 60 n.1. Within this role, the Commission drew up lists of objectionable books and magazines on official Commission stationary, which it then provided to book or magazine distributors. Id. at 61. In addition, it served multiple notices that threatened criminal action against vendors who circulated the listed publications. Id. at 62–63. Typical notices stated that the Commission had “reviewed” publications and “by majority vote” declared which ones were “completely objectionable” for sale, distribution, or display for youths. Id. at 62 n.5. The notices relayed that the “Chiefs of Police” had been given the names of the objectionable publications, and the notices reminded recipients of the Commission’s duty to recommend to the Attorney General the prosecution of purveyors of obscenity. Id. The notices also stated that the Attorney General would “act” for the Commission in the case of “non-compliance.” Id. Then the notices would thank recipients for their “cooperation.” Id. After sending the notices, the Commission often had local police officers visit the distributors to learn what actions the distributors had taken to comply with the notices. Id. at 63. The Supreme Court ruled that the Commission’s system was unconstitutional and amounted to state-sponsored censorship. Id. at 72. The Court explained that though the Commission lacked authority to regulate or suppress content, it had done so anyway by using “the threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion, persuasion, and intimidation” to deliberately suppress publications deemed “objectionable.” Id. at 66–67 (footnote omitted). The Court further noted that though the plaintiff was “‘free’ to ignore the Commission’s notices, in the sense that his 14 Appellate Case: 20-1162 Document: 010110565027 Date Filed: 08/23/2021 Page: 15 refusal to ‘cooperate’ would have violated no law,” his “compliance with the Commission’s directives was not voluntary.” Id. at 68 (“People do not lightly disregard public officers’ thinly veiled threats to institute criminal proceedings against them . . . . The Commission’s notices, phrased virtually as orders, reasonably understood to be such by the distributor, invariably followed up by police visitations, in fact stopped the circulations of the listed publications.”). Bantam Books provides VDARE little help. In Bantam Books, the Supreme Court described the Commission’s notices as “instruments of regulation” “phrased virtually as orders” that contributed to a “form of effective state regulation superimposed upon the State’s criminal regulation of obscenity.” Id. at 68–70. The Court found that the Commission’s regulatory system (its notices, blacklists, police visitations, and implied criminal sanctions) “create[d] hazards to protected freedoms markedly greater than those that attend reliance upon the criminal law.” Id. The City’s Statement differs markedly from such a system.