American Booksellers v. James Webb

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
919 F. 2d 1493, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 22251, 18 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2081 (1990)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A state statute prohibiting the commercial display of materials harmful to minors does not violate the First Amendment if it is susceptible to a narrowing construction that imposes only a minor burden on adult access, such as the use of blinder racks, and the state may validly exempt libraries from such regulations under rational basis review.

Facts:

The Georgia legislature passed Act No. 1319, which regulates the distribution and display of sexually explicit materials deemed "harmful to minors."
The Act defines "harmful to minors" using a three-part test based on the Supreme Court's Miller standard, modified to account for what is suitable for children.
Section 16-12-103(e) of the Act makes it unlawful to knowingly display such materials in public places where minors may be present, such as bookstores and convenience stores.
Section 16-12-104 of the Act provides a complete exemption from these regulations for public libraries and school libraries.
Booksellers and publishers utilize open display methods to sell books, relying on impulse purchases generated by customers browsing covers.
Due to the high volume of books published annually (approx. 50,000 new titles), booksellers cannot read every book they stock to screen for content.
Booksellers argued the law would force them to restrict adult access to constitutionally protected material to avoid criminal liability.

Procedural Posture:

Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
The District Court abstained from deciding the case to allow the Georgia Supreme Court to rule on a state constitutional issue regarding the bill's subject matter.
The Georgia Supreme Court upheld the enactment process of the statute but declined to construe the statute's specific provisions.
The case returned to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia for a trial on the merits.
The District Court declared the display provision and the library exemption unconstitutional and held the entire statute invalid.
The Defendants (state officials) appealed the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a Georgia statute prohibiting the commercial display of materials deemed "harmful to minors" violate the First Amendment rights of adults, and does the statute's exemption for libraries violate the Equal Protection Clause?

Opinions:

Majority - Hill

No, the statute is constitutional because it can be narrowly construed to minimize the burden on adult speech, and the library exemption is rational. The Court first addressed the definition of "harmful to minors," holding that under Pope v. Illinois, the "serious value" prong must be judged by a reasonable person standard. If a work has serious value to a reasonable older minor (e.g., a 17-year-old), it is not harmful to minors, which significantly narrows the scope of the statute. Regarding the display ban, the Court found the statute is "readily susceptible" to a narrowing construction. The Court interpreted "display" to mean ostentatious showing; therefore, placing materials behind "blinder racks" (opaque covers on the lower two-thirds) satisfies the law. This method prevents minors from viewing the material while imposing only a slight, constitutionally insignificant burden on adults who wish to purchase it. Finally, regarding the library exemption, the Court held that strict scrutiny does not apply because distributing obscenity to minors is not a fundamental right. Applying rational basis review, the Court found the state has a legitimate interest in allowing libraries to provide such materials for educational purposes in a non-commercial environment free of the pressure to pander to prurient interests.

Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Pointer

Yes, the display ban is unconstitutional because the statute cannot be reasonably interpreted to allow for blinder racks. While agreeing with the majority regarding the library exemption, Judge Pointer dissented on the display provision. He argued that the statute explicitly makes it illegal to display printed matter which contains harmful descriptions. Even if a bookseller uses a blinder rack to cover the front, the magazine still contains the prohibited material. Therefore, the majority's "narrowing construction" effectively rewrites the statute rather than interpreting it, which is not a permissible judicial function.

Analysis:

This decision illustrates the judicial technique of "narrowing construction" to save a statute from being struck down as overbroad. By interpreting the broad term "display" to exclude materials placed behind blinder racks, the Eleventh Circuit balanced the state's compelling interest in protecting minors with the First Amendment rights of adults. The case affirms that "variable obscenity" allows states to restrict materials for minors that would be protected for adults, provided the restriction does not significantly hamper adult access. Furthermore, the ruling clarifies that legislative distinctions between commercial entities (bookstores) and non-commercial entities (libraries) regarding sexual materials need only pass the rational basis test, as there is no fundamental right to distribute material that is obscene as to the recipient.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: American Booksellers v. James Webb (1990)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"