Sable Communications of California v. FCC: Difference between revisions

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Gbholder (talk | contribs)
63 edits
No edit summary
Gbholder (talk | contribs)
63 edits
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
|Litigants=FCC v. Sable Communications of California
|ArgueDate=April 19
|ArgueYear=1989
|DecideDate=June 23
|DecideYear=1989
|FullName=Federal Communications Commission, Sable Communications of California, Respondent
|Docket=88-515
|USVol=
|USPage=
|CitationNew=
|Prior=
|Holding=Since the First Amendment does not protect obscene speech, the ban was legitimate. However, sexual expression that is simply indecent is protected. Therefore, banning adult access to indecent messages "far exceeds that which is necessary" to shield minors from dial-a-porn services.
|Subsequent=
|SCOTUS=1989
|Majority=White
|JoinMajority=Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy, and Blackmun
|Concurrence=Scalia
|Dissent=Brennan
|JoinDissent3=Stevens, and Marshall
|LawsApplied=
}}

'''''Sable Communications of California v. [[FCC]]''''' was a court case deciding what defines indecent material and whether it is protected under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that the FCC couldn’t censor Sable Communications on the use of indecent materials, which was providing a dial-a-porn service through telephones.<ref name="Oyez">[http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1988/1988_88_515 "Sable Communications of California v. FCC"]. ''oyez.org''. Retrieved 2011-03-14.</ref> It reaffirmed that accessing indecent sites on the Internet requires interaction by a third party, and therefore the government cannot censor the Internet.<ref>[http://kwc.org/memorylane/tjhsst/fapage/cases.html "Court Cases"]. ''kwc.org''. Retrieved 2011-03-14.</ref>
'''''Sable Communications of California v. [[FCC]]''''' was a court case deciding what defines indecent material and whether it is protected under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that the FCC couldn’t censor Sable Communications on the use of indecent materials, which was providing a dial-a-porn service through telephones.<ref name="Oyez">[http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1988/1988_88_515 "Sable Communications of California v. FCC"]. ''oyez.org''. Retrieved 2011-03-14.</ref> It reaffirmed that accessing indecent sites on the Internet requires interaction by a third party, and therefore the government cannot censor the Internet.<ref>[http://kwc.org/memorylane/tjhsst/fapage/cases.html "Court Cases"]. ''kwc.org''. Retrieved 2011-03-14.</ref>


Revision as of 13:29, 31 March 2011

FCC v. Sable Communications of California
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 19, 1989
Decided June 23, 1989
Full case nameFederal Communications Commission, Sable Communications of California, Respondent
Docket no.88-515
Holding
Since the First Amendment does not protect obscene speech, the ban was legitimate. However, sexual expression that is simply indecent is protected. Therefore, banning adult access to indecent messages "far exceeds that which is necessary" to shield minors from dial-a-porn services.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr. · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
Case opinions
MajorityWhite, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy, and Blackmun
ConcurrenceScalia
DissentBrennan
Dissent, joined by Stevens, and Marshall

Sable Communications of California v. FCC was a court case deciding what defines indecent material and whether it is protected under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that the FCC couldn’t censor Sable Communications on the use of indecent materials, which was providing a dial-a-porn service through telephones.[1] It reaffirmed that accessing indecent sites on the Internet requires interaction by a third party, and therefore the government cannot censor the Internet.[2]

History

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.[3] The Court said that if the government wants to protect children in this regard, it must do so by technological means, rather than by a total ban on the transmission of these messages.[4] Although some children might be able to defeat these devices, a banning these services would have the impermissible effect of "limiting the content of adult telephone conversations to that which is suitable for children to hear."[3]

Ruling

A judge in District Court upheld the ban on obscene messages, but ordered the Act's enforcement against indecent ones.[1] The Court upheld the District Court's ruling. Since the First Amendment does not protect obscene speech, as the Court found in Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (1973), the ban on obscene speech was legitimate. However, sexual expression that is simply indecent is protected. Therefore, banning adult access to indecent messages "far exceeds that which is necessary" to shield minors from dial-a-porn services.[1]

See also

Notes

  1. ^ a b c "Sable Communications of California v. FCC". oyez.org. Retrieved 2011-03-14.
  2. ^ "Court Cases". kwc.org. Retrieved 2011-03-14.
  3. ^ a b "Sable Communications of California, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commn.". lawschool.courtroomview.com. Retrieved 2011-03-14.
  4. ^ "SABLE COMMUNICATIONS OF CAL., INC. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115 (1989)". caselaw.lp.findlaw.com. Retrieved 2011-03-14.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sable_Communications_of_California_v._FCC&oldid=421647593"