Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />Memorandum <br />March 30, 1988 <br />Page 6 <br />EGARDING LOCAL ORDINANCES ON OBS�CnEi 9 Y <br />V. COURT HISTORY R <br />Even though the attempt to regulate adult p 9 <br />would in all probability not survive constitutional First <br />Amendment scrutiny, some local officials have asked whether <br />has agreed not to cable cast pornographic pro - <br />they could enforce their local franchise ordinances in which <br />Pro - <br />the Company have not survived <br />9ra�;ny. Local ordinances which drafted to pti - <br />vent obscene or indecent cablCity! <br />Lp �grammi Utah, had passed an ordi- <br />scrutiny by the courts. Roy Y• <br />ion <br />Hance which permitted the revocatanchise <br />°knowble nglyrdistrib- <br />permits or the imposing of fines for <br />uting) any pornographic or indecent standardsg"delnnCom= <br />City, 555 F. Supp. 1164 (D. <br />law or oelevision of Utahev- Roynity <br />rtty ordinance to beween <br />Otah 1984), the court hela ui= r uished be - <br />unconstitutional. The Ro Cit court disting court stated <br />oad- <br />broadcast television an"invited"aFfe eintosthe homeewhicastle telo- <br />that cable signalsthe air, is perva- <br />cast signals are not. The court stated that broadcast to e- <br />vision "is pervasive because its medi Ro Cit at 1169. <br />sive. Transmission by wire is not." Y-� <br />The United States District Court for the Southern Dis- <br />trict of Florida enjoinethe <br />Cit the distributioof Miami n ofindecent <br />its ordinance which prohibited <br />..,reduces established to enforce this <br />material over cable television. The City was also enjoined <br />from implemeuLiny �-- m_nn. 125 (S.D. <br />prohibition. In Cru2 v. Ferre 5�1 �• `to be unconstitu- <br />1983), the court el the city ordinance <br />tional since the provisions of the ordinance lelCimitsefor <br />o <br />regulate indecent material ease$etdforth by the Supreme <br />the regulation of obscenity Again the court relied on <br />Court in Miller v. California. A9 r not they <br />the ability o the consumer to CO <br />ntro <br />chose to receive cable television signals. <br />ether o <br />to <br />,,r�noh the member cities could courchoot would <br />attempt to enforc- air franchise ordinance, <br />likely rights of the Com- <br />conclude that the enforcement of the ordinance n an <br />attempt to restrict the First Amendment <br />onstitutional and therefore impermissible. <br />pany would be unc <br />