Court Opinion

ID: 9488677
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:52:23.703055+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:53:02.053350
License: Public Domain

*1303POLITZ, Chief Judge,
dissenting:
Persuaded that the values underlying the first amendment commercial speech doctrine compel rejection of a regulatory scheme riddled with such inconsistencies and exceptions as to result in suppression of speech without adequate justification, I must respectfully dissent.
As the Supreme Court has made abundantly clear, the first amendment protects the interest of the listener in the free flow of truthful, non-misleading commercial speech. The doctrine respects the individual’s right to information relevant to the making of lawful choices1 and to the formation and expression of opinions regarding governmental regulation of products or activities.2
This basis for the protection of commercial speech is not vitiated when the speech concerns lawful but potentially harmful activities, such as alcohol consumption or gambling.3 When the government would forbid dissemination of information about things which legally may be done, the Central Hudson test ought be carefully conducted in order to protect these core first amendment values.
The government seeks to justify a nationwide ban on broadcasts of commercial messages discussing the gambling activities in state-licensed casinos. Given the social ills often associated with gambling, it cannot be gainsaid that the interests asserted in support of this ban are substantial. The Central Hudson test, however, requires that the government demonstrate that its interests are materially advanced by the ban,4 and that the ban is no more restrictive than necessary to serve that interest. Irrational regulatory scenarios in which certain provisions undermine and counteract the asserted government interest do not satisfy the “material advancement” prong of the Central Hudson test.5
The government claims an independent federal interest in discouraging public participation in commercial gambling. The restriction at bar is the awkward residual of 18 U.S.C. § 1304, originally enacted as section 316 of the Communications Act of 1934 to ban broadcast advertising of gambling. That ban is now deeply gutted by exceptions and in conflict with the policies of many states which have legalized gambling.6 The broadcasters challenge the regulation to the extent it bans commercial broadcast messages directly referring to legal casino gambling.
A focusing of what can and cannot be done under the challenged regulation appears in order. Casinos are allowed to advertise their existence, to air the word “casino” as part of a legal name, and to refer to the non-gambling amenities within.7 In instances where state-licensed casino gambling is advertised on billboards and in newspapers, where other legal gambling entities broadcast pro-gambling messages, and where casinos may broadcast their existence and the “excitement” to be had within, I suggest that a *1304faithful application of Central Hudson compels the conclusion that the residual ban on broadcasting direct references to the games played in casinos amounts to little more than a gratuitous suppression of expression. Under these circumstances, and given the abundance of broadcast advertising for casinos, the challenged censorship serves little purpose. The government cannot show that this restriction decreases demand for casino gambling to any appreciable extent. While the government is not required, of course, to make progress on every front in advancing its interests, this ban is so pockmarked with exceptions and buffeted by countervailing state policies that it provides, at most, a very minimum support for the asserted interest. I am persuaded that the government has not met its burden of proving material advancement of its interest.
The government also asserts that the ban advances the federal interest in supporting policies of states which have chosen to prohibit casino gambling. Messages banned by the statute cannot be broadcast by any station licensed in the United States. Accordingly, residents of non-casino states cannot receive such messages from broadcasts originating in states where casino gambling is legal. Nor may residents of the casino states.
Recognizing a value in advancing the government’s interest in aiding state anti-gambling policies, we must measure the extent of the restriction and weigh countervailing forces. The ban is nationwide. Some states allow casino gambling; some states do not. By not cabining the regulation to radio and television stations in non-casino states, the ban impinges unnecessarily on the policies of states which have legalized casino gambling. A substantial federal interest in protecting state choice in gambling decisions, by limiting bans on lottery advertising to stations licensed by non-lottery states, was asserted and recognized in United States v. Edge Broadcasting Co.8 The ban at bar is over-broad and is inconsistent with the teachings of Edge, failing to accommodate the valid federalism interest inherent in supporting the casino-licensing states.9
Unlike the statutory scheme upheld in Edge, the ban before us allows stations in states where gambling is illegal to broadcast commercial messages promoting a gambling forum in another state, so long as the gambling activities taking place in that establishment are not explicitly referenced.10 This “policy” simply magnifies the government’s failure to prove material advancement of its interest in supporting the policies of non-casino states and guts its argument that a nationwide ban is mandated for an effective insulation of non-casino states from casino advertisements broadcast across state borders.
I respectfully dissent.

. Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm’n of New York, 447 U.S. 557, 562, 100 S.Ct. 2343, 2349, 65 L.Ed.2d 341 (1980) (rejecting “paternalistic'' rationale for suppressing commercial speech in favor of view that people are capable of perceiving their own best interests if well-informed).

. Virginia Pharmacy Bd. v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 765, 96 S.Ct. 1817, 1827, 48 L.Ed.2d 346 (1973) ("[T]he free flow of commercial information is indispensable ... to the proper allocation of resources in a free enterprise system ... [and] to the formation of intelligent opinions as to how that system ought to be regulated or altered.").

. The Supreme Court recently affirmed that restrictions on speech about legal “vices" are reviewed under the Central Hudson standard rather than by a more deferential approach. Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co., — U.S. —, — n. 2, 115 S.Ct. 1585, 1589 n. 2, 131 L.Ed.2d 532 (1995).

. The “direct advancement" prong of Central Hudson is not satisfied by "mere speculation and conjecture; rather, a governmental body seeking to sustain a restriction on commercial speech must demonstrate that the harms it recites are real and that its restriction will in fact alleviate them to a material degree.” Edenfield v. Fane, — U.S. —, —, 113 S.Ct. 1792, 1800, 123 L.Ed.2d 543 (1993).

. Coors, - U.S. at -, 115 S.Ct. at 1592.

. An unofficial count reflects at least 21 states.

. See, e.g., Letter to DR Partners, 8 F.C.C.R. 44 (1992).

. -U.S.-, 113 S.Ct. 2696, 125 L.Ed.2d 345 (1993).

. In contrast, Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Co., 478 U.S. 328, 106 S.Ct. 2968, 92 L.Ed.2d 266 (1986), presented the issue whether a state's restriction on commercial speech is necessary to a balance of its own competing interests, in promoting tourism while protecting its own population.

. Federal Communications Commission policy allows a station in a non-casino state to broadcast an advertisement promoting a casino so long as use of the word "casino” is confined to the establishment's proper name and other references to gambling are not explicit. See, e.g., Letter to Calvenar Broadcasting, Inc., 8 F.C.C.R. 32 (1992).