Opinion ID: 1697290
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Sale and/or Distribution of Sexual Devices

Text: ¶ 15. The United States Supreme Court has held that certain sexually expressive items are entitled to some quantum of protection under the First Amendment [the right to free speech]. City of Erie v. Pap's A.M., 529 U.S. 277, 285, 120 S.Ct. 1382, 1388-89, 146 L.Ed.2d 265 (2000). The items sold by Adam & Eve and Christal's, however, are at best symbolic speech, falling within the outer ambit of the protection and subject to evaluation under United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 88 S.Ct. 1673, 20 L.Ed.2d 672 (1968). As Justice Scalia has stated, [T]he sordid business of pandering is constitutionally unprotected[.] [T]he sale of material solely to produce sexual arousal does not escape regulation because the [sexual devices] has been dressed up as speech, or in other contexts might be recognized as speech. FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 225-26, 110 S.Ct. 596, 604-05, 107 L.Ed.2d 603 (1990) (Scalia, J., concurring). ¶ 16. Under the four-part O'Brien content-neutral test used for analyzing symbolic speech, government regulation is sufficiently justified if (1) it is within the constitutional power of the government; (2) it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest; (3) the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and (4) the incidental restriction on alleged freedom of speech is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest. O'Brien, 391 U.S. at 377, 88 S.Ct. at 1679. ¶ 17. Applying these factors to the case at hand, the plaintiffs have not questioned the State's constitutional power to regulate businesses which sell and/or distribute sexual devices. As discussed under Issue I, the statute furthers important or substantial governmental interests. The plaintiffs do not contend that the purpose of the Legislature in enacting the statute was to suppress free speech. Finally, the prohibition on the sale and/or distribution constitutes only an incidental restriction on the vendor plaintiffs' alleged right to freedom of speech which is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of the State's governmental interests.