Sable Communications of California v. FCC

Sable Communications of California v. FCC was a court case deciding what indecent material is and if 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. It reaffirmed that accessing indecent sites on the Internet requires interaction by a third party, and therefore the government cannot censor the Internet.

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. 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. 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."

A judge in District Court upheld the ban on obscene messages, but ordered the Act's enforcement against indecent ones. 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.