Court Opinion

ID: 9629717
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:47:47.51908+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:22.674842
License: Public Domain

MAUGHAN, Justice
(dissenting):
The ordinance under which appellant’s license was revoked no doubt infringes upon rights of free speech under the Federal and State Constitutions. The question we are faced with is whether the infringement is so significant it is constitutionally intolerable. It is established, “There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any *433constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene . . . ”1
However, in regulating obscenity we must remember the importance of rights involved. In the words of the United States Supreme Court:
The fundamental freedoms of speech and press have contributed greatly to the development and well-being of our free society and are indispensable to its continued growth. Ceaseless vigilance is the watchword to prevent their erosions by Congress or by the States. The door barring Federal and State intrusion into the area cannot be left ajar; it must be kept tightly closed and opened only the slightest crack necessary to prevent encroachment upon more important interests.2
Because of this concern for First Amendment rights, the doctrine of prior restraint has developed, a doctrine which incidentally can be traced back to Blackstone, who stated: “The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published.”3 More recently, the United States Supreme Court has stated:
Any system of prior restraint, however, “comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.” [Citation omitted.] The presumption against prior restraints is heavier — and the degree of protection broader — than that against limits on expression imposed by criminal penalties. Behind the distinction is a theory deeply etched in our law: a free society prefers to punish the few who abuse rights of speech after they break the law than to throttle them and all others before hand. It is always difficult to know in advance what an individual will say, and the line between legitimate and illegitimate speech is often so finely drawn that the risks of freewheeling censorship are formidable.4
. . [UJnder the Fourteenth Amendment, a State is not free to adopt whatever procedures it pleases for dealing with obscenity . . . without regard to the possible consequences for constitutionally protected speech.5
In Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad6 the Supreme Court stated that any system of prior restraint is invalid under the First Amendment if it lacks certain “procedural safeguards designed to obviate the dangers of a censorship system.”7 In Freedman v. Maryland,8 the Supreme Court invalidated Maryland’s censorship scheme because safeguards were absent. “But a model is not lacking,” the court noted, citing Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown.9 There, a New York injunctive procedure designed to prevent the sale of obscene books was upheld, where the statute provides for a hearing within one day after joinder of issue, and the judge must hand down his decision within two days of the end of the hearing. In addition, any restraint against sale is postponed until a judicial determination of obscenity following notice, and an adversary hearing.
The Kingsley Books and Freedman cases establish that the doctrine of prior restraint *434is vigorously applied in the area of obscenity, and specifically to books and films. Any system restraining First Amendment rights in these contexts must be limited by the procedural safeguards outlined in the Conrad, Kingsley Books, and Freedman cases. The essence of these safeguards is, as to any material sought to be withheld from publication, there must be a “prompt final judicial determination” as to obscenity. Where, as in this case, the exhibition of future films is prevented, the purpose of the safeguards is not only defeated, but flouted for films are restrained without any determination at all as to obscenity.
Near v. Minnesota10 directly held that just such a law as exists in this case is an unconstitutional prior restraint, in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Minnesota law allowed the state to enjoin as a nuisance, the operation of any newspaper or magazine publishing either obscene or scandalous material. Future issues could thus be enjoined based on past issues found to be offensive. The United States Supreme Court concluded, “This is of the essence of censorship.”
The majority opinion attempts to rely on language in Near v. Minnesota creating “exceptions” to the prior restraint doctrine.11 The language referred to is of course, pure dicta, and in no way supports the result in this case. As noted, ante, the United States Supreme Court has allowed limited censorship systems to exist in the area of obscenity, as long as adequate safeguards exist assuring “prompt judicial review” of alleged obscene material.12 But the Court has never condoned the outright closure of an operation such as allowed in this case today.
Times Film Corp. v. Chicago,13 cited in the majority opinion, furnishes no support for today’s decision. That case involved a claim by the petitioner that Chicago’s ordinance requiring submission of all films for examination prior to public exhibition was an unconstitutional prior restraint on its face. The Court held only that the statutory feature requiring the films to be produced at the office of the Commissioner for examination was not invalid on its face. The Court did not address the validity of any other features or standards in the ordinance. The Court’s opinion furnishes no support whatsoever for the proposition a theater can be prevented from exhibiting all future films based on prior exhibition of obscene films.
The main opinion relies on Cox v. New Hampshire14 to support the use of the licensing authority in revoking Gallery’s license. Cox merely held a city could constitutionally require a parade license, so long as the discretion of the authority was limited to time, place and manner of the parade. Nothing in the opinion suggests the authority could prohibit all future parades regardless of their nature or their proposed time or place. That a state may legitimately regulate activities involving First Amendment rights does not mean it can also totally cut off these rights, as the main opinion allows.
Paris Adult Theatre v. Slaton15 also fails to support the majority opinion. It held that States could constitutionally regulate the exhibition of obscene films in “adult” theaters, even though only consenting adults were present. No issue of prior restraint was presented in the case, since no restraint on the exhibition of the film was imposed until after a full judicial determination by the Georgia Supreme Court.
Contrary to the impression given in the majority opinion, there is no authority emanating from the United States Supreme Court approving the result in this case. In *435addition, as the cited cases in Mr. Justice Wilkins’ dissenting opinion show, our sister states have overwhelmingly rejected such action as unconstitutional.
The doctrine of prior restraint has commanded the rapt attention of an impressive number of courts of last resort, since the time of Blackstone; as well it should. With today’s decision, Utah alone disregards the judicial wisdom of all cases from the United States Supreme Court, and all cases from the courts of last resort in her sister states; which have addressed the doctrine of prior restraint. A position not only singular, but alarming.
WILKINS, J., concurs in the views expressed in the dissenting opinion of MAUGHAN, J.

. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 571, 62 S.Ct. 766, 769, 86 L.Ed. 1031, 1035; Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 77 S.Ct. 1304, 1 L.Ed.2d 1498.

. Roth v. United States, supra note 1, 354 U.S. at p. 488, 77 S.Ct. at p. 1311, 1 L.Ed.2d at p. 1509.

. 4 Bl.Comm. 151, quoted in Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S.Ct. 625, 75 L.Ed. 1357.

. Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 558, 559, 95 S.Ct. 1239, 1246, 43 L.Ed.2d 448, 459.

. Marcus v. Search Warrant, 367 U.S. 717, 731, 81 S.Ct. 1708, 1716, 6 L.Ed.2d 1127, 1136.

. Supra note 4.

. Id., 420 U.S. at p. 559, 95 S.Ct. at p. 1247, 43 L.Ed.2d at p. 460.

. 380 U.S. 51, 85 S.Ct. 734, 13 L.Ed.2d 649.

. 354 U.S. 436, 77 S.Ct. 1325, 1 L.Ed.2d 1469.

. Supra note 3.

. See majority opinion, page 431.

. Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, supra note 4; Freedman v. Maryland, supra note 8; Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown, supra note 9.

. 365 U.S. 43, 81 S.Ct. 391, 5 L.Ed.2d 403.

. 312 U.S. 569, 61 S.Ct. 762, 85 L.Ed. 1049.

. 413 U.S. 49, 93 S.Ct. 2628, 37 L.Ed.2d 446.