Court Opinion

ID: 9762032
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:08:35.738086+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:29.471936
License: Public Domain

REID, Chief Justice.
I concur, and write separately to emphasize that the court in this case does not proscribe expression by arbitrary definition as the majority did in State v. Marshall, 859 *539S.W.2d 289, 295 (Tenn.1993). Instead, the Court decides “whether the State, in serving the compelling interest of protecting minors, has drawn its statute narrowly enough to avoid unnecessarily interfering with free speech rights.” The state’s interest in protecting minors from harm is not disputed, nor is the premise that the material defined by the statute causes harm to minors. The essential issue is the balancing of the plaintiffs’ rights of expression against the state’s interest in protecting minors from harm. The statute as construed by the Court, is “the least intrusive means of regulation,” and, therefore, does not violate Article I, Section 19 of the Tennessee Constitution. This decision is consistent with the position stated in dissent in State v. Marshall:
[Ejxpression may be limited only to protect a compelling state interest, that the means used to protect competing interests must bear a substantial relation to an identified harm, and the least intrusive means must be utilized to accomplish the state interest.
State v. Marshall, 859 S.W.2d 289, 295 (Tenn.1993) (Reid, C.J. concurring and dissenting.)