Opinion ID: 175571
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: limiting construction

Text: In light of the statutes' facial overbreadth, the only question remaining is whether the statutes are susceptible to a reasonable limiting construction. In addressing this issue, we consider the limiting constructions proffered by the state, but do not insert missing terms into the statute or adopt an interpretation precluded by the plain language of the ordinance. Foti v. City of Menlo Park, 146 F.3d 629, 639 (9th Cir.1998); see also Frink, 653 P.2d at 557-58. We may not rewrite a state law to conform it to constitutional requirements. Am. Booksellers, 484 U.S. at 397, 108 S.Ct. 636. The statutes sweep in the many works that include portions solely intended to titillate and arouse the reader but have serious value when taken as a whole. The statutes also exempt materials based on a non-titillating purpose, rather than a prurient one. To satisfy the Miller/Ginsberg requirements, we would have to insert language where we are not permitted to do so. See OR. REV. STAT. § 174.010 (providing that [i]n the construction of a statute, the office of the judge is . . . not to insert what has been omitted, or to omit what has been inserted.); see also United States v. Stevens, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 1577, 1592, 176 L.Ed.2d 435 (2010). Finally, although we appreciate the state's argument that it has not, and will not, bring prosecutions against individuals or businesses like Powell's Books, this stand down approach cannot overcome the flaws in the statute. The First Amendment protects against the Government; it does not leave us at the mercy of noblesse oblige. Id. at 1591. We may not uphold the statutes merely because the state promises to treat them as properly limited. In sum, we conclude that because sections 054 and 057 on their face reach a significant amount of material that is not obscene as to minors, the statutes are unconstitutionally overbroad. REVERSED.