Opinion ID: 1592072
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: whether the ordinance creates a system of prior restraint

Text: ABC Books next contends that ordinance No. 14335 constitutes an impermissible prior restraint on free speech. ABC Books argues that the ordinance constitutes a prior restraint because without the physical separation ... of a booth, it is in effect, prevented from showing video movies. Brief for appellant at 10. `Governmental action constitutes a prior restraint when it is directed to suppressing speech because of its content before the speech is communicated.' U.S. v. Kaun, 827 F.2d 1144, 1150 (7th Cir.1987) (quoting In re G. & A. Books, Inc., 770 F.2d 288 (2d Cir.1985), cert. denied, M.J.M. Exhibitors, Inc. v. Stern, 475 U.S. 1015, 106 S.Ct. 1195, 89 L.Ed.2d 310 (1986)). In the present case, the Lincoln city ordinance does not restrict the viewing of any forms of entertainment or grant officials the discretion to suppress any speech based upon its content. In Berg v. Health and Hosp. Corp. of Marion County, Ind., 865 F.2d 797 (7th Cir.1989), The Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County, Indiana, enacted an open booth ordinance designed to eliminate closed structures at picture arcades. Plaintiffs alleged the ordinance was an unconstitutional prior restraint on free speech. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit disagreed, holding that `[t]he ordinance does not ban the viewing of films or other entertainment, but merely regulates the environment in which the viewing occurs.' Id. at 801. Here, the ordinance does not restrain ABC Books from selling to its patrons whatever books, films, videotapes, or other forms of entertainment it may wish, provided ABC Books complies with the ordinance. Consequently, as in Berg, there is simply no prior restraint of free speech. See, also, Postscript Enterprises v. City of Bridgeton, 905 F.2d 223 (8th Cir.1990) (open booth ordinance is not an unconstitutional prior restraint on free speech); Broadway Books, Inc. v. Roberts, 642 F.Supp. 486 (E.D.Tenn.1986) (open booth requirement does not constitute prior restraint); Martinez v. State, 744 S.W.2d 224 (Tex.App. 1987) (municipal open booth ordinance does not operate as prior restraint on free speech).