Court Opinion

ID: 9688506
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 17:52:31.289938+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:39.835026
License: Public Domain

MADDOX, Justice
(concurring specially).
I agree that the injunction issued here which prohibits the showing of any film ■for one year is overbroad, but I cannot agree that the trial judge is powerless to act.
The Fox Cinema Theatre had been used consistently to show films which depicted:
“(a) Patently offensive representations or descriptions of ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated.
“(b) Patently offensive representations or descriptions of masturbation, excretory functions, and lewd exhibition of the genitals.” Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 37 L.Ed.2d 419.
Chief Justice Burger, writing for a majority of the court, in Miller, said that the states could regulate illegal conduct such as occurred in this case. One of the regulatory schemes which the Supreme Court, in Miller, said was permissible, includes: “applicable state law, as written or authoritatively construed.” Miller gave this Court the power to set the guidelines for regulation of works which depict or describe sexual conduct. It is my opinion, therefore, that a- trial judge, using Miller standards, could enjoin the operation of a place ás a public nuisance if the place had been used for the purpose of showing films which were obscene, under the Miller test. In' view of the authority granted to this court under Miller, I do not think that this Court is so judicially weak, or. should be so timid, that- it cannot, or will not, “authoritatively construe” our redlight abatement law in such a manner that trial courts could regulate conduct which Miller specifically authorizes states to regulate.
Mr. Chief Justice Burger recognized in Miller that courts would not have an easy road, free from difficulty. He said:
“ * * * gut no ajnount of ‘fatigue’ should lead us to adopt a convenient ‘in*668stitutional’ rationale — an absolutist, ‘anything goes’ view of the First Amendment —because it will lighten our burdens. ‘Such an abnegation of judicial supervision in this field would be inconsistent with our duty to uphold the constitutional guarantees.’ Jacobellis v. Ohio, supra, 378 U.S. at 187-188, 84 S.Ct. [1676] at 1678 [12 L.Ed.2d 793] (opinion of Brennan, J.). Nor should we remedy ‘tension between state and federal courts’ by arbitrarily depriving the States of a power reserved to them under the Constitution, a power which they have enjoyed and exercised continuously from before the adoption of the First Amendment to this day. See Roth v. United States, supra, 354 U.S. at 482-485, 77 S.Ct. [1304], at 1307-1309 [1 L.Ed.2d 1498], ‘Our duty admits of no “substitute for facing up to the tough individual problems of constitutional judgment involved in every obscenity case.” [Citations omitted.]’ ”
This Court is the highest court of this state. It is the highest court which can “authoritatively construe” our state laws. I think an examination of the Miller opinion clearly indicates that the Supreme Court of the United States intended state courts to construe their state statutes so as to incorporate the specifically prohibited conduct given as examples in the Miller case. I think that it is important that we keep in mind that the prohibited acts need not be specifically written in any applicable state law, but rather, a judicial construction may be obtained to authoritatively construe any statute so as to incorporate specifically prohibited acts.
It seems clear to me that state courts have the authority to authoritatively construe state statutes and that this is made imminently clear by an analysis of the Miller opinion. Miller was “vacated and remanded for further proceedings” rather than being outright reversed. I believe that if the Supreme Court was of the opinion that the California statute under consideration in Miller could not be authoritatively construed so as to incorporate the new guidelines, the Miller case would have been reversed outright rather than being remanded for further proceedings.
The key to the Supreme Court’s reasoning in this regard seems to be contained in footnote 7 of the case of United States v. 12 200-Ft. Reels, 413 U.S. 123, 93 S.Ct. 2665, 37 L.Ed.2d 500 (1973), handed down the same day as Miller. Footnote 7 in United States v. 12 200-Ft. Reels, reads as follows:
“We further note that, while we must leave to state courts the construction of state legislation, we do have a duty to authoritatively construe federal statutes where ‘ “a serious doubt of constitutionality is raised” ’ and ‘ “a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the question may be avoided.” ’ United States x. Thirty-Seven Photographs, 402 U.S. 363, 369, 91 S.Ct. 1400, 1404, 28 L.Ed.2d 822 (1971) (opinion of White, J.), quoting from Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62, 52 S.Ct. 285, 296, 76 L.Ed. 598 (1932). If and when such a ‘serious doubt’ is raised as to the vagueness of the words ‘obscene,’ ‘lewd,’ ‘lascivious,’ ‘filthy,’ ‘indecent,’ or ‘immoral’ as used to describe regulated material in 19 U.S.C. § 1305(a) [19 U.S.C.S. § 1305(a)] and 18 U.S.C. § 1462 [18 U.S.C.S. § 1462], see United States v. Orito, supra, 413 U.S. at 140 n. 1, 93 S.Ct. [2674] at 2676 n. 1, [37 L.Ed.2d at 516] we are prepared to construe such terms as limiting regulated material to patently offensive representations or descriptions of that specific ‘hardcore’ sexual conduct given as examples in Miller v. California, supra, 413 U.S. at 25, 93 S.Ct. [2607] at 2615 [37 L.Ed.2d at 431]. See United States v. Thirty-Seven Photographs, supra, 402 U.S. at 369-374, 91 S.Ct. [1400], at 1404-1407 [28 L.Ed.2d 822] (opinion of White, J.). Of course, Congress could always define other specific ‘hardcore’ conduct.”
It is significant that in the concluded portions of every opinion handed down concomitantly with Miller, the Supreme *669Court cites to footnote 7 of 12 200-Ft. Reels wherein the court construed the federal obscenity statutes as incorporating the specific representations and description of hard-core sexual conduct “given as examples in Miller v. California, supra.”
The reason why the state court cases were remanded for further proceedings is also disclosed in footnote 7 oí 12 200-Ft. Reels. The court noted that while it had the power to authoritatively construe federal statutes, it did not possess the authority with reference to state statutes.
This is the reason why whenever any state court judgment (such as Miller) was vacated and remanded for further proceedings, the Supreme Court specifically referred the state court to footnote 7 of United States v. 12 200-Ft. Reels. I construe these judgments of the Supreme Court of the United States as actually inviting the state courts to authoritatively construe their own state statutes just as the federal statutes were construed by the Supreme Court itself in 12 200-Ft. Reels.
It seemed clear to me that states are free to proceed with obscenity prosecutions under the new Miller standards, so long as the state courts construe and apply state obscenity statutes in a manner consistent with the new Miller guidelines.
The only constitutional problem I see in this case is the prior restraint inherent in the injunctive relief granted, but I believe relief could be tailored which would regulate illegal conduct, protect First Amendment rights, and would permit the operation of the business to show films which were not obscene. In short, the trial judge had voluminous evidence before him that the Fox Cinema Theatre was being used for an illegal activity. Faced with this overwhelming evidence of a pattern and practice of illegal conduct, and having determined the obscenity vel non of the films which were shown there, the trial court could have enjoined the further use of the theatre to show films which were “(a) Patently offensive representations or descriptions of ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated; (b) Patently offensive representations or descriptions of masturbation, excretory functions, and lewd exhibition of the genitals.”
Under Miller, I believe the trial judge, under authority of Alabama’s Red Light Abatement Act could permanently enjoin the use of the theatre for showing obscene films and could require anyone desiring to use the theatre for a legitimate purpose to submit a plan which would show the purpose for which the theatre would be used and the trial court could determine promptly whether the proposed use was for a legitimate purpose, using the Miller standard, of course.
A California court, using a Red Light Abatement Act, permanently enjoined a tavern, its owner and operator and any other person from maintaining, using or occupying the premises for the purpose of “lewdness,” closed the premises to all uses for one year except uses not involving entertainment, and ordered the sheriff to remove all fixtures, equipment and musical instruments from the tavern and to close the building for one year. People ex rel. Hicks v. “Sarong Gals,” 42 Cal.App.3d 556, 117 Cal.Rptr. 24 (1974).
The common law of public nuisance may be a valid method by which to implement the state’s police power in cases such as this one. In Grove Press Inc. v. City of Philadelphia, 418 F.2d 82 (3 Cir., 1969), the court- held that the court procedures chosen by the city there were improper, but the court spelled out how the city could regulate the showing of obscene films. It said:
“The mischief we perceive in the Pennsylvania equity rules is that there is no guarantee a final hearing will be seasonably scheduled after the issuance of a preliminary injunction and that a prompt decision will be forthcoming thereafter. The preliminary restraint could exist days, and even months, before the judicial decision on the merits; where this possibility exists, *670an unacceptable threat to the freedom of expression without due process of law results. Failure to provide the necessary expeditiousness tinges the Pennsylvania preliminary injunctive procedures with unconstitutional hues when they are employed to restrain or inhibit expression prior to a final adjudication of an alleged obscene matter.
“We do not challenge, we reiterate, the postulate that 'the primary requirements of decency may be enforced against obscene publications.’ Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown, 354 U.S. 436, 77 S.Ct. 1325, 1 L.Ed.2d 1469 (1957). This means that relief may be sought in both the civil and criminal branches of the Pennsylvania court system to enforce state laws on obscenity, consonant with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the guarantee of First Amendment expression. It is only when the right of the state to regulate obscenity collides with undue inhibition of protected expression that a problem of constitutional dimension arises. Where expression is inhibited as a result of prompt judicial decision reached after an adversary proceeding, there can be no procedural due process complaint. But where the inhibition .occurs in a preliminary proceeding, with no guarantee of a prompt judicial decision on the merits, the procedure is constitutionally defective because a restraint of presumably protected expression not only occurs but is capable of persisting for an unlimited time prior to the required judicial determination.
“Our conclusion is not novel in Pennsylvania jurisprudence. The same basic determination has already been alluded to by Mr. Justice O’Brien, speaking for an evenly divided state Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Guild Theatre, Inc., 432 Pa. 378, 248 A.2d 45 (1968), where the validity of employing the Pennsylvania equity rules to enjoin obscene exhibitions was also raised. There, the state authorities had secured an ex parte injunction without affording the exhibitors any opportunity to be heard. In ruling such procedures constitutionally defective, Mr. Justice O’Brien observed:
“ ‘However, even if a proper hearing had been held, the. instant proceeding was fatally defective in another respect. * * * Although we cannot agree with appellants’ contention that no prior restraint on the exhibition of a motion picture is permissible, it is clear that any such restraint must be carefully circumscribed. In Freedman v. State of Maryland, 380 U.S. 51, 58, 85 S.Ct. 734, 739, 13 L.Ed.2d 649 (1965) the Supreme Court discussed the “procedural safeguards designed to obviate the dangers of a censorship system.” One of these safeguards was a prompt, final judicial decision. * * * The fact that appellants may have been offered a full dress hearing within four days of the original restraint does not suffice. Quite clearly, there is no provision for a prompt decision. It is vital that the continuance of First Amendment freedoms not be dependent upon the efficiency of a particular judge but upon procedural safeguards clearly embodied in a statute. We can only suggest, as did the Court in Freedman, supra, that a model for such a statute which can safeguard both the First Amendment freedoms of exhibitors and publishers, and the freedom from obscenity of society as a whole can be found in Kinglsey (sic) Books, Inc. v. Brown, 354 U.S. 436, 77 S.Ct. 1325, 1 L.Ed.2d 1469 (1957). The New York statute there provided for a trial within one day after joinder of issue and a decision within two days of the conclusion of the trial. The instant procedure falls far short of that required.’ 248 A.2d at 47-48.”
The procedure I suggest, which would require the owner or operator to submit a plan setting out the future course of operation, would constitute some “prior restraint” and “chilling effect,” if a prompt decision is made. I believe the test mentioned in Grove Press is met. While the protection against prior restraint is an important right, it is not an absolute one. *671Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown, 354 U.S. 436, 77 S.Ct. 1325, 1 L.Ed.2d 1469 (1947).
Chief Justice Burger commented, in Miller, on the spectre of repression which the dissenting Justices feared. He wrote:
“The dissenting Justices sound the alarm of repression. But, in our view, to equate the free and robust exchange of ideas and political debate with commercial exploitation of obscene material demeans the grand conception of the First Amendment and its high purposes in the historic struggle for freedom. It is a ‘misuse of the great guarantees of free spech and free press . . . .’ Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U.S. at 645, 71 S.Ct. [920], at 934 [95 L.Ed. 1233, 35 ALR2d 335], The First Amendment protects works which, taken as a whole, have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value, regardless of whether the government of a majority of the people approve of the ideas these works represent. ‘The protection given speech and press was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people,’ Roth v. United States, supra, 354 U.S. at 484, 77 S.Ct. [1304], at 1308 [1 L.Ed.2d 1498] (emphasis added). See Kois v. Wisconsin, 408 U.S. at 230-232, 92 S.Ct. [2245], at 2246-2247 [33 L.Ed.2d 312]; Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. at 101-102, 60 S. Ct. [736], at 743-744 [84 L.Ed. 1093]. But the public portrayal of hardcore sexual conduct for its own sake, and for the ensuing commercial gain, is a different matter. ,
“There is no evidence, empirical or historical, that the stern 19th century American censorship of public distribution and display of material relating to sex, see Roth v. United States, supra, 354 U.S. at 482-485, 77 S.Ct. [1304], at 1307-1309 [1 L.Ed.2d 1498], in any way limited or affected expression of serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific ideas. On the contrary, it is beyond any question that the era following Thomas Jefferson to Theodore Roosevelt was an ‘extraordinarily vigorous period,’ not just in economics and politics, but in belles lettres and in ‘the outlying fields of social and political philosophies.’
“We do not see the harsh hand of censorship of ideas — good or bad, sound or unsound — and ‘repression’ of political liberty lurking in every state regulation of commercial exploitation of human interest in-sex.”
Consequently, I believe that the trial judge, although following state law, went too far in restraining the use of the theatre for legitimate purposes. This I do not think he could do, but I think he could ensure that if it was used, it would be for legitimate purposes, and not as it had been.