Opinion ID: 796061
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Constitutionality of the SEVGL's Labeling, Brochure and Signage Provisions

Text: 33 The State also appeals the district court's ruling that the SEVGL's labeling, brochure and signage provisions constitute compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment. As the Supreme Court recently observed, some of its leading First Amendment precedents have established the principle that freedom of speech prohibits the government from telling people what they must say. Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 1297, 164 L.Ed.2d 156 (2006) (citing W. Va. Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642, 63 S.Ct. 1178, 87 L.Ed. 1628 (1943) and Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 717, 97 S.Ct. 1428, 51 L.Ed.2d 752 (1977)). The Court has stated that where a statute [m]andat[es] speech that a speaker would not otherwise make, that statute necessarily alters the content of the speech. See Riley v. Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind of N.C., Inc., 487 U.S. 781, 795, 108 S.Ct. 2667, 101 L.Ed.2d 669 (1988). Moreover, speech does not lose its protection because of the corporate identity of the speaker. See Pacific Gas and Elec. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 475 U.S. 1, 16, 106 S.Ct. 903, 89 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986) (plurality opinion). 34 However, the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom from compelled speech is not absolute. Particularly in the commercial arena, the Constitution permits the State to require speakers to express certain messages without their consent, the most prominent examples being warning and nutritional information labels. See, e.g., Nat'l Elec. Mfrs. Ass'n v. Sorrell, 272 F.3d 104, 114-16 (2d Cir.2001) (rejecting First Amendment challenge to state requirement that manufacturers include labeling warning consumers of mercury content). The Court has allowed states to require the inclusion of purely factual and uncontroversial information .... as long as disclosure requirements are reasonably related to the State's interest in preventing deception of consumers. See Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel for Sup.Ct. of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626, 651, 105 S.Ct. 2265, 85 L.Ed.2d 652 (1985) (upholding State's requirement that attorney include in advertisements a disclosure that clients may be responsible for costs of litigation). 35 The question that we must answer is whether the SEVGL's labeling and signage requirements are compelled speech in violation of the Constitution or simply requirements of purely factual disclosures. The State argues that all of these provisions are like the mercury disclosure requirements in Sorrell. See Sorrell, 272 F.3d at 114. With regard to the 18 sticker requirement, this argument seems to be plainly unsound. The SEVGL requires that the 18 sticker be placed on games that meet the statute's definition of sexually explicit. The State's definition of this term is far more opinion-based than the question of whether a particular chemical is within any given product. Even if one assumes that the State's definition of sexually explicit is precise, it is the State's definition—the video game manufacturer or retailer may have an entirely different definition of this term. Yet the requirement that the 18 sticker be attached to all games meeting the State's definition forces the game-seller to include this non-factual information in its message that is the game's packaging. The sticker ultimately communicates a subjective and highly controversial message—that the game's content is sexually explicit. This is unlike a surgeon general's warning of the carcinogenic properties of cigarettes, the analogy the State attempts to draw. For these reasons, we must apply strict scrutiny to the SEVGL's requirement that the 18 sticker be placed on all covered video games. 36 Applying strict scrutiny, we cannot say that the 18 sticker is narrowly tailored to the State's goal of ensuring that parents are informed of the sexually explicit content in games. As we described above, the State has not demonstrated that it could not accomplish this goal with a broader educational campaign about the ESRB system. Cf. Riley, 487 U.S. at 800, 108 S.Ct. 2667 (requirement that professional fundraisers disclose information about percentage of funds actually turned over to charity in the prior year was not narrowly tailored where the State [could] itself publish the detailed financial disclosure forms it requires professional fundraisers to file). Indeed, at four square inches, the 18 sticker literally fails to be narrowly tailored—the sticker covers a substantial portion of the box. 13 The State has failed to even explain why a smaller sticker would not suffice. Certainly we would not condone a health department's requirement that half of the space on a restaurant menu be consumed by the raw shellfish warning. Nor will we condone the State's unjustified requirement of the four square-inch 18 sticker. 37 Similarly, we must conclude that the SEVGL's signage and brochure requirements are unconstitutional. Careful consideration of what the signs and brochures are in fact communicating reveals that the message is neither purely factual nor uncontroversial. See Zauderer, 471 U.S. at 651, 105 S.Ct. 2265. The signs and the brochures are intended to communicate that any video games in the store can be properly judged pursuant to the standards described in the ESRB ratings. Moreover, the signs communicate endorsement of ESRB, a non-governmental third party whose message may be in conflict with that of any particular retailer. Requiring a private party to give significant space to a third party whose message potentially conflicts with the plaintiff's was the very Government action the Supreme Court found to be unconstitutional in Pacific Gas and Electric. See Pacific Gas and Elec., 475 U.S. at 13-17, 106 S.Ct. 903 (invalidating a requirement that utility company allow third party to include its newsletter in the plaintiff utility company's envelopes sent to customers containing utility bill and company newsletter); see also Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557, 566, 115 S.Ct. 2338, 132 L.Ed.2d 487 (1995) (State could not compel St. Patrick's Day parade organizers to include gay and lesbian group in parade because of the potential conflict with the intended message of the protected expressive activity). This is quite a different situation than the Supreme Court's most recent compelled speech case, Rumsfeld v. FAIR, where the Court concluded that there was no expressive activity threatened by simply allowing the military equal recruiting access as other employers. See FAIR, 126 S.Ct. at 1309-10. Here, the retailers affected by the SEVGL have salespeople and their own information that communicate messages about the relative value of various games for buyers of different age groups. The State cannot force them to potentially compromise this message by inclusion of the ESRB ratings. The State is certainly entitled to communicate the good news about the ESRB to the public. Indeed, the plaintiffs' proposed alternative to the SEVGL, endorsed above, would involve a broad educational campaign directed at the public about the ESRB system. But the State goes too far in imposing criminal sanctions for any retailer's reticence at joining in communicating this message. 38 We also note that the signage requirement is victim to the same overreaching as the labeling requirement with regard to the size of the prescribed sign. The SEVGL requires all retailers to maintain three signs in the store—one within five feet of the games, one at any existing information desk, and one at the point of purchase. See ILCS 720 § 5B-30. The signs must each have dimensions of no less than 18 by 24 inches. Id. Many video game stores are as small as one room in an indoor mall. Little imagination is required to envision the spacing debacle that could accompany a small retailer's attempt to fit three signs, each roughly the size of a large street sign, into such a space. We think that this deficiency reflects the narrow tailoring failure of the entire signage and brochure scheme, and we agree with the district court that it is unconstitutional.