|
Abstract
| Argument: |
Wednesday, April 19, 1989
|
| Decision: |
Friday, June 23, 1989 |
| Issues: |
First Amendment, Obscenity, Federal |
|
Advocates
| Laurence H. Tribe |
(Argued the cause for appellant in No. 88-515 and for appellee in No. 88-525) |
| Richard G. Taranto |
(Argued the cause for appellees in No. 88-515 and for appellants in No. 88-525) |
|
Facts of the Case
In 1988, Congress amended the Communications Act of 1934 to ban indecent and obscene interstate commercial phone messages. Sable Communications had been in the dial-a-porn business since 1983. A judge in District Court upheld the ban on obscene messages, but enjoined the Act's enforcement against indecent ones.
Question
Did the amended Communications Act violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
Conclusion
The Court upheld the District Court's ruling. Since the First Amendment does not protect obscene speech, as the Court found in Paris Adult Theater I v. Slaton (1973), the ban on obscene speech was legitimate. However, sexual expression that is simply indecent is protected. Thus, banning adult access to indecent messages "far exceeds that which is necessary" to shield minors from dial-a-porn services.
