Powell's Books, Inc. et al v. Myers et al

Filing 3

Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Filed by all plaintiffs. (eo)

Download PDF
Powell's Books, Inc. et al v. Myers et al Doc. 3 P.K. Runkles-Pearson, OSB No. 061911 pkrunkles-pearson@stoeI.com S T O E L RIVES L L P 900 S W Fifth Avenue, Suite 2 6 0 0 Portland, O R 97204 Telephone: ( 5 0 3 ) 2 2 4 - 3 3 8 0 Facsimile: (503) 2 2 0 - 2 4 8 0 Michael A. Bamberger mbamberger@sonnenschein.com Rachel G. Balaban rbalaban@sonnenschein.com S O N N E N S C H E I N N A T H & R O S E N T H A L LLP 1221 Avenue o f the Americas, 24th F l o o r N e w Y o r k , N Y 10020 Telephone: (212) 7 6 8 - 6 7 0 0 Facsimile: ( 2 1 2 ) 7 6 8 - 6 8 0 0 A t t o r n e y s for P l a i n t i f f s UNITED STATES D I S T R I C T C O U R T D I S T R I C T OF O R E G O N P O W E L L ' S B O O K S , I N C . , e t al., Plaintiffs, v. H A R D Y MYERS, i n his official capacity as A T T O R N E Y G E N E R A L OF T H E STATE OF OREGON, e t aI., Defendants. Civil NCV '08 - a5 0 1 - NO PLAINTIFFS' M E M O R A N D U M OF L A W I N SUPPORT O F M O T I O N F O R A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Portlnd3-1624171.1 0 0 9 9 8 8 0 - 0 0 5 7 8 Dockets.Justia.com TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES I. II. INTRODUCTION FACTS A. The Statute and Its Provisions ii 1 1 1 1. 2. B. III. ORS 167.054: Furnishing Sexually Explicit M a t e r i a L ORS 167.057: Furnishing for the Purpose o f Sexual Arousal o r Satisfaction 1 3 .5 11 11 13 Effect o f the Statute o n Plaintiffs ARGUMENT A. L e g a l S t a n d a r d for I s s u a n c e o f a P r e l i m i n a r y I n j u n c t i o n P l a i n t i f f s Are L i k e l y t o P r e v a i l o n t h e M e r i t s o f T h e i r C l a i m s 1. The Miller/Ginsberg Standard Limits the Sexual Material That May B e Banned from Minors; The Failure o f the Statute to Meet That Standard Is Constitutionally Fatal The Act Is Unconstitutionally Vague B. 13 16 19 20 21 2. C. Plaintiffs Will Suffer Irreparable Harm Unless the Court Grants an Injunction This C o u r t S h o u l d Grant a P r e l i m i n a r y I n j u n c t i o n D. IV. CONCLUSION Page i - P L A I N T I F F S ' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TABLE O F AUTHORITIES Page Cases A C L U v. Gonzales, 478 F Supp 2 d 775 (ED P a 2007) Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 542 US 656, 124 S Ct 2 7 8 3 , 1 5 9 L E d 2d 690 (2004) Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 US 3 6 0 , 8 4 S Ct 1316, 12 L E d 2d 377 (1964) Bookfriends, Inc. v. Taft, 223 F Supp 2d 932 (SD Ohio 2002) Byron M v. City o f Whittier, 46 F Supp 2d 1032 (CD Ca11998) Carey v. Population Services, Inter., 431 US 678, 97 S Ct 2 0 1 0 , 5 2 L E d 2d 675 (1977) Chalk v. U.S. Dist. Court Cent. Dist. o f California, 840 F2d 701 (9th C i r 1988) Cinecom Theaters Midwest St., Inc. v. City o fFort Wayne, 473 F 2 d 1297 (7th Cir 1973) Diamontiney v. Borg, 918 F2d 793 (9th Cir 1990) E l r o d v. Burns, 4 2 7 U S 347, 9 6 S C t 2 6 7 3 , 7 9 L E d 2 d 547 ( 1 9 7 6 ) Entertainment Software A s s 'no v. Blagojevich, 469 F3d 641 (7th C i r 2006) Ginsberg v. State o fNew York, 390 US 629, 88 S Ct 1 2 7 4 , 2 0 L E d 2 d 195 (1968) Goldie !s Bookstore v. Superior Court, 7 3 9 F 2 d 4 6 6 ( 9 t h C i r 1984) Grayned v. City o f Rockford, 408 US 104, 92 S Ct 2294, 33 L E d 2 d 222 (1972) Page ii PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF L A W I N SUPPORT OF MOTION 14~ 13 16 19 15 12 18 11, 2 0 14 12, 19 19, 20 14 13, 15, 16 19 17 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page International Jensen v. Metrosound U S . A . , 4 F3d 819 (9th Cir 1993) Kolender v. Lawson, 461 US 352, 103 S Ct 1855, 75 L E d 2d 903 (1983) Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission v. National Football League, 6 3 4 F 2 d 1197 ( 1 9 8 0 ) Miller v. California, 413 US 1 5 , 9 3 S Ct 2 6 0 7 , 3 7 L E d 2d 419 (1973) Pope v. illinois, 481 US 497, 107 S Ct 1918, 95 L E d 2 d 439 (1987) Republic o f the Philippines v. Marcos, 862 F2d 1355 (9th Cir 1988), cert den 490 US 1035 (1989) Rohman v. City o fPortland, 909 F Supp 767 (D O r 1995) Save Our Summers v. Wash. State Dept. o f E c o l . , 132 F Supp 2d 896 (ED Wash 1999) Smith v. California, 361 US 1 4 7 , 8 0 S Ct 215, 4 L E d 2d 205 (1959) Sun Microsystems, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 188 F 3 d 1115 (9th Cir 1999) 11, 12 16 20 13, 14, 15, 16 15, 16 12 19 11 17 12 Statutes House B i l l 2843 Or Laws 2007, ch 869 ORS 167.051(1) ORS 167.051(2) 1 1 1 1 Page iii - PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF L A W IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TABLE O F A U T H O R I T I E S Page ORS 167.051(4) ORS 167.051(5) ORS 167.051-.057 ORS 167.054 ORS 167.054(1) ORS 167.057 2, 14 14 1 passim 1 3, 4 , 5 , 17 C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Provisions US Const, Amend I ................................................................................................................passim US Const, Amend V US Const, Amend XIV 1, 13, 17,21 1, 13,21 O t h e r Authorities Webster's Ninth N e w Collegiate Dictionary (1984) 18 Page iv - PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION I. INTRODUCTION P l a i n t i f f s , w h i c h are m a i n s t r e a m d i s s e m i n a t o r s , r e t a i l e r s , p u b l i s h e r s , d i s t r i b u t o r s , s e l l e r s , purchasers a n d recipients o f periodicals, books, c o m i c s , n e w s p a p e r s , m o t i o n pictures, videos a n d s o u n d recordings t h a t are sold, r e n t e d o r d i s t r i b u t e d i n t h e state o f O r e g o n (the " S t a t e " ) , s e e k a preliminary injunction t o p r e v e n t t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f O R S 167.051 t o 167.057 (the "Statute"), a censorship l a w t h a t is unlawful under the F i r s t and F o u r t e e n t h A m e n d m e n t s because i t criminalizes material t h a t is protected as t o b o t h adults and minors, and u n d e r the F i f t h and F o u r t e e n t h A m e n d m e n t s b e c a u s e i t i s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y v a g u e . U n d e r t h e S t a t u t e , t h e State c a n prosecute Plaintiffs, t h e i r m e m b e r s a n d t h e i r c u s t o m e r s for t h e exercise o f t h e i r constitutional rights, t h u s t h r e a t e n i n g t h e m w i t h irreparable harm. P l a i n t i f f s s e e k t o e n j o i n t h e State from e n f o r c i n g t h e S t a t u t e p e n d i n g a d e c i s i o n o n its c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y . I I . FACTS A. T H E STATUTE AND ITS PROVISIONS O n J u l y 31, 2 0 0 7 , G o v e r n o r K u l o n g o s k i s i g n e d i n t o l a w H o u s e B i l l 2 8 4 3 , e f f e c t i v e January 1 , 2 0 0 8 as c h a p t e r 869 o f O r e g o n L a w s 2 0 0 7 , p a r t o f w h i c h is codified as the Statute. T h e S t a t u t e i s a c e n s o r s h i p l a w t h a t i s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i n a m u l t i t u d e o f ways. 1. ORS 167.054: F u r n i s h i n g Sexually Explicit M a t e r i a l ORS 167.054(1) p r o v i d e s t h a t a p e r s o n c o m m i t s t h e c r i m e o f furnishing s e x u a l l y e x p l i c i t material to a c h i l d " i f t h e p e r s o n intentionally fumishes[ll a child,l2] o r intentionally p e r m i t s a S t a t u t e d e f m e s " f u r n i s h e s " a s " t o sell, give, r e n t , l o a n o r o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e . " O R S 167.051(2). 2 1 The The Statute defines " c h i l d " as a p e r s o n u n d e r 13 years o f age. O R S 167.051 (1). Page 1 - P L A I N T I F F S ' M E M O R A N D U M O F L A W I N S U P P O R T OF M O T I O N F O R A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Portlnd3-1624171.1 0099880-00578 child to view, sexually explicit materiall3 ] a n d the p e r s o n knows t h a t t h e material i s sexually explicit material." a. Exceptions to Liability U n d e r ORS 167.054 T h e following t w o categories o f p e o p l e are n o t s u b j e c t t o p r o s e c u t i o n u n d e r O R S 1 6 7 . 0 5 4 : (1) e m p l o y e e s o f m u s e u m s , s c h o o l s , l a w e n f o r c e m e n t a g e n c i e s , m e d i c a l t r e a t m e n t p r o v i d e r s o r p u b l i c libraries, w h e n a c t i n g w i t h i n the scope o f r e g u l a r e m p l o y m e n t , ( 2 ) a n d p e r s o n s w h o furnish, o r p e r m i t t h e v i e w i n g of, m a t e r i a l t h e s e x u a l l y e x p l i c i t p o r t i o n s o f w h i c h form m e r e l y a n incidental p a r t o f a n o t h e r w i s e n o n o f f e n d i n g w h o l e a n d serve s o m e purpose other than titillation. O t h e r people w h o d o t h e s a m e k i n d o f w o r k as t h e e m p l o y e e s l i s t e d i n the f u s t e x e m p t i o n , s u c h a s e m p l o y e e s a t p r i v a t e l i b r a r i e s , are n o t e x e m p t ; o n l y p e o p l e w i t h t h e p r e c i s e p o s i t i o n s l i s t e d are e x e m p t . N o t a b l y , t h e e x e m p t g r o u p d o e s n o t i n c l u d e p a r e n t s o r l e g a l g u a r d i a n s . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e s e c o n d e x e m p t i o n h a s t w o r e q u i r e m e n t s , b o t h o f w h i c h m u s t b e met: T h e sexually explicit p o r t i o n o f material m u s t f o r m a n incidental p a r t o f a n otherwise n o n o f f e n d i n g w h o l e a n d i t m u s t s e r v e some p u r p o s e o t h e r t h a n titillation. A r e t a i l e r s e l l i n g a b o o k a b o u t s e x t o a c h i l d w o u l d b e liable u n d e r O R S 167.054, e v e n i f t h e b o o k w a s a gradeschool t e x t b o o k i n t e n d e d t o e d u c a t e children a b o u t reproduction. Finally, t h e r e is n o intent to harm required u n d e r O R S 167.054; the only i n t e n t required is the i n t e n t t o furnish qualifying material. T h e S t a t u t e d e f i n e s " s e x u a l l y e x p l i c i t material" a s " m a t e r i a l c o n t a i n i n g v i s u a l i m a g e s of: (a) [h]uman masturbation o r sexual intercourse; (b) [g]enital-genital, oral-genital, analgenital o r o r a l - a n a l contact, w h e t h e r b e t w e e n p e r s o n s o f the s a m e o r o p p o s i t e s e x o r b e t w e e n h u m a n s a n d animals; o r ( c ) [p]enetration o f t h e v a g i n a o r rectum b y a n y object o t h e r t h a n as p a r t o f a p e r s o n a l h y g i e n e p r a c t i c e . " O R S 167.051(4). 3 Page 2 PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF L A W I N SUPPORT O F MOTION F O R A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Portlnd3-1624171.l 0099880-00578 b. Affirmative Defenses to Liability U n d e r ORS 167.054 O R S 1 6 7 . 0 5 4 provides three affirmative d e f e n s e s t o p r o s e c u t i o n : (1) T h a t t h e m a t e r i a l w a s furnished, o r t h e v i e w i n g p e r m i t t e d , s o l e l y for t h e p u r p o s e o f s e x education, art e d u c a t i o n o r p s y c h o l o g i c a l t r e a t m e n t a n d w a s f u r n i s h e d o r p e r m i t t e d b y t h e c h i l d ' s p a r e n t o r legal guardian, a n e d u c a t o r o r t r e a t m e n t provider, o r a n o t h e r p e r s o n a c t i n g o n b e h a l f o f such party; (2) (3) T h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t r e a s o n a b l y b e l i e v e d t h e p e r s o n at issue w a s n o t a child; or T h a t t h e p a r t i e s are w i t h i n t h r e e y e a r s o f a g e . T h o u g h a s e x o r a r t e d u c a t o r m a y raise a d e f e n s e a f t e r b e i n g c h a r g e d w i t h v i o l a t i o n o f ORS 167.054, the educator is n o t exempt from prosecution i n the same way a museum o r school employee would be. The terms " a r t education" and " s e x education" are n o t defmed i n the S t a t u t e . T h e r e f o r e , p e o p l e who w i s h t o a s s e r t t h a t d e f e n s e m u s t t a k e t h e r i s k w h e n p r o v i d i n g m a t e r i a l t h a t t h e y m a y n o t b e a b l e t o assert t h e defense successfully. I n addition, e v e n i f a p o t e n t i a l defendant b e l i e v e d t h a t i t c o u l d a s s e r t o n e o f t h e a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e s s u c c e s s f u l l y , t h a t d e f e n d a n t w o u l d still b e s u b j e c t t o t h e e x p e n s e , s t i g m a a n d o t h e r b u r d e n s o f b e i n g c r i m i n a l l y prosecuted. M a n y p e o p l e w i l l n a t u r a l l y t r y t o avoid t h o s e b u r d e n s b y r e s t r i c t i n g t h e i r d i s s e m i n a t i o n o f m a t e r i a l s t h a t m a y v i o l a t e t h e Statute. T h u s e v e n those who fall within the affirmative defenses will be subject to a chilling effect o n their c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y p r o t e c t e d activities. 2. ORS 167.057: Furnishing for the Purpose o f Sexual Arousal o r Satisfaction ORS 1 6 7 . 0 5 7 p r o v i d e s t h a t i t i s a c r i m e f o r a p e r s o n t o f u r n i s h o r u s e w i t h a m i n o r ( a person under 18 years old) a visual representation o r explicit verbal description o r narrative Page 3 PLAINTIFFS' M E M O R A N D U M OF L A W IN SUPPORT OF M O T I O N F O R A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Portlnd3-1624171.1 0099880-00578 account o f sexual conduct for the purpose o f arousing or satisfying the sexual desires o f the 4 . person or t he mmor. a. Exceptions to Liability U n d e r ORS 167.057 Unlike ORS 167.054, DRS 167.057 provides only one exception to liability: A person is n o t s u b j e c t t o p r o s e c u t i o n i f t h e p e r s o n furnishes o r uses a representation, d e s c r i p t i o n o r a c c o u n t o f s e x u a l c o n d u c t t h a t forms m e r e l y a n incidental p a r t o f a n o t h e r w i s e n o n o f f e n d i n g w h o l e a n d serves some purpose other than titillation. DRS 167.057 provides no exception to liability for m u s e u m , s c h o o l , l a w e n f o r c e m e n t o r m e d i c a l t r e a t m e n t p e r s o n n e l . I n a d d i t i o n , as w i t h DRS 167.054, b o t h parts o f the exemption must b e m e t to avoid liability. b. Affirmative Defenses to Liability U n d e r ORS 167.057 The other two defenses are identical to those under ORS 167.054. The affirmative defenses are: (1) That the representation, description o r account was furnished o r used for the purpose o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l o r medical t r e a t m e n t a n d w a s furnished b y a t r e a t m e n t p r o v i d e r o r b y a n o t h e r p e r s o n acting o n b e h a l f o f the treatment provider; (2) (3) T h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t r e a s o n a b l y b e l i e v e d t h e p e r s o n a t issue w a s n o t a m i n o r ; o r That the parties are within three years o f age. The affirmative defenses to liability under ORS 167.057, unlike under ORS 167.054, offer no defense for material used for educational purposes and do not protect parents or educators. 4 0 R S 167.057 also contains a provision crlminalizing the furnishing or use o f material for the purpose o f inducing the minor to engage i n sexual conduct. Plaintiffs do n o t contest that provision. Plaintiffs' objection to ORS 167.057 is targeted only at the provision criminalizing t h e f u r n i s h i n g o r u s e o f m a t e r i a l f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f a r o u s i n g o r s a t i s f y i n g the s e x u a l d e s i r e s o f t h e p e r s o n o r the m i n o r . Page 4 PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Portlnd3-1624171.1 0099880..QOS78 B. Effect of the Statute on Plaintiffs Plaintiffs are, or represent, mainstream retailers, publishers, distributors, sellers, purchasers and recipients o f periodicals, books, comics, newspapers, motion pictures, videos and sound recordings that are sold, rented or distributed in Multnomah County and other counties i n Oregon. Although Plaintiffs are not and do not represent so-called "adult" retailers, they fear prosecution under the Statute for offering, distributing o r selling material that might be deemed by some to be restricted by the Statute ("Restricted Speech"). I f Plaintiffs are found to have violated ORS 167.054, they risk penalties including up to one year's imprisonment and/or a fine o f up to $6,250. I f they are found to have violated ORS 167.057, they risk up to five years' imprisonment and/or a fine o f up to $125,000. The Statute restricts the sale, gifting,. rental, loan or other dissemination o f certain constitutionally protected speech to persons under 18. By reason o f its unconstitutional overbreadth and its vagueness, the Statute will chill the exercise by publishers, distributors and retailers o f their right to sell or distribute, or have sold or distributed, constitutionally protected materials i n Oregon. Powell's Books. Inc. ("Powell's"): Powell's has several retail locations in Portland at which materials containing sexually explicit material or visual representations or narrative accounts o f sexual conduct (as those terms are defined in the Statute) are offered for sale. Such materials include novels by Judy Blume, romance novels, graphic novels and sex education books for teenagers. Powell's fears that it is and will continue to be exposed to risk o f prosecution for violation o f t h e Statute. Should the Statute be upheld, Powell's will be forced to self-censor or risk such a prosecution. The full impact o f the Statute on Powell's is described in the concurrently filed Declaration o f Michael Powell. Page 5 PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Portlnd3-1624171.1 0099880-00578 Old Multnomah Book Store, Ltd. d/b/a Annie Bloom's Books ("Annie Bloom's): Annie Bloom's is a locally owned full-service neighborhood bookstore offering a broad range o f works, including children's materials, contemporary fiction, and books o n art, current events, parenting and entertainment, some o f which materials contain sexually explicit material or visual representations or narrative accounts o f sexual conduct (as those terms are defmed in the Statute) .. Annie Bloom's fears that it is and will continue to be exposed to risk o f prosecution for violation o f the Statute. Should the Statute be upheld, Annie Bloom's will be forced to selfcensor or risk such a prosecution. The full impact o f the Statute on Annie Bloom's is described in the concurrently filed Declaration o f William Peters. Dark Horse Comics, Inc. ("Dark Horse"): Dark Horse publishes a wide variety o f comics and other materials at retail stores, including its flagship operation, Things From Another World. Some contain material that could be deemed "sexually explicit" or "arousing or satisfying [to] the sexual desires" o f its customers. Dark Horse fears prosecution under the Statute i f it continues to publish such material. The full impact o f the Statute o n Dark Horse is described in the concurrently filed Declaration o f Ken Lizzi. Colette's: Good Food + Hungry Minds, LLC ("Colette's"): Colette's sells a wide variety o f books and other materials at its store and specializes in nonfiction, including photography and art books. I t also has established a comprehensive Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning section to better serve its patrons. Colette's fears prosecution under the Statute i f i t continues to maintain this section or i f i t carnes other material containing sexually explicit material or visual representations or narrative accounts o f sexual conduct as those terms are defined in the Statute. The full impact o f the Statute on Colette's is described in the concurrently filed Declaration o f Jessica Lloyd-Rogers. Page 6 PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Portlnd3-1624171.1 0099880-00578 Bluejay, Inc. d/b/a Paulina Springs Books ("Paulina's"): P a u l i n a ' s is a mainstream bookstore that sells material i t fears is Restricted Speech, including, for example, romance novels, such as those b y N a n Ryan, Linda H o w a r d and Cheyenne McCray; books o f photography, including material with sexual content, such as Joy o fSex. P a u l i n a ' s fears that it is a t r i s k o f c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n u n d e r the S t a t u t e f o r s e l l i n g t h e s e a n d o t h e r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y protected materials. The full impact o f the Statute o n P a u l i n a ' s is described in the concurrently f i l e d D e c l a r a t i o n o f B r a d Smith. St. Johns Booksellers, LLC ("St. Johns"): St. Johns is a mainstream bookstore with over 15,000 t i t l e s c a t e r i n g t o a w i d e r a n g e o f c u s t o m e r interests. I t stocks, a m o n g o t h e r m a t e r i a l s , romance n o v e l s , i n c l u d i n g t h o s e b y L i s a K l e y p a s a n d S t e p h a n i e L a u r e n s ; graphic n o v e l s , including those by N e i l Gaiman; and books o f photography, including those b y J a n Saudek. S1. Johns fears that it is a t risk o f criminal prosecution u n d e r the Statute for selling these and other constitutionally protected materials. The full impact o f the Statute o n S1. Johns Booksellers is d e s c r i b e d i n t h e c o n c u r r e n t l y filed D e c l a r a t i o n o f S o l e n a R a w d a h . Twenty-Third Avenue Books ("Twenty-Third Avenue"): Twenty-Third A venue is a mainstream bookstore t h a t sells material i t fears is Restricted Speech, including graphic novels, erotica and books focusing o n gay a n d lesbian studies. It fears that i t is at risk o f criminal p r o s e c u t i o n u n d e r t h e Statute for selling t h e s e a n d o t h e r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y p r o t e c t e d materials. T h e full impact o f the Statute o n Twenty-Third Avenue is described i n the concurrently filed Declaration o f Stephanie Griffin. A m e r i c a n B o o k s e l l e r s F o u n d a t i o n f o r F r e e E x p r e s s i o n ( " A B F F E " ) : A B F F E has h u n d r e d s o f b o o k s e l l e r m e m b e r s t h a t are l o c a t e d c o a s t t o c o a s t , i n c l u d i n g i n O r e g o n , M u l t n o m a h C o u n t y a n d o t h e r c o u n t i e s . T h o s e l o c a t e d i n O r e g o n , s u c h as P o w e l l ' s , s e l l a n d o f f e r f o r s a l e Page 7 PLAINTIFFS' M E M O R A N D U M OF L A W IN SUPPORT OF M O T I O N F O R A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION P o r t l n d 3 1 6 2 4 1 7 I . l 0099880-00578 books and other materials t h a t contain sexually explicit material o r visual representations o r e x p l i c i t v e r b a l d e s c r i p t i o n s o r n a r r a t i v e a c c o u n t s o f s e x u a l c o n d u c t , a s d e f i n e d i n t h e Statute. A B F F E ' s m e m b e r s are n o t " a d u l t b o o k s t o r e s . " A B F F E m e m b e r s ' r i g h t t o o f f e r a n d s e l l i n O r e g o n a full r a n g e o f m a i n s t r e a m m a t e r i a l s , a n d t o l e a r n a b o u t , a c q u i r e a n d d i s t r i b u t e m a t e r i a l containing n u d i t y a n d sexual conduct, a n d t h e i r p a t r o n s ' right to p u r c h a s e s u c h materials, will b e seriously infringed b y t h e Statute i f i t is n o t enjoined, b e c a u s e A B F F E m e m b e r s a n d t h e p u b l i s h e r s w i t h w h i c h t h e y t r a n s a c t b u s i n e s s w i l l be forced t o s e l f - c e n s o r o r r i s k p r o s e c u t i o n u n d e r the Statute. T h e full i m p a c t o f the Statute o n A B F F E is described in the concurrently filed D e c l a r a t i o n o f C h r i s t o p h e r Finan. Association o f A m e r i c a n Publishers, Inc. C"AAP"): A A P sues o n b e h a l f o f its members t h a t are p r o v i d e r s o f m a i n s t r e a m b o o k s a n d o t h e r m a t e r i a l s t o r e t a i l e r s i n O r e g o n . S o m e o f t h e content p r o v i d e d b y A A P ' s members contains sexually e x p l i c i t material o r visual representations o r e x p l i c i t v e r b a l d e s c r i p t i o n s o r n a r r a t i v e a c c o u n t s o f s e x u a l c o n d u c t , as d e f m e d i n t h e S t a t u t e . M a n y o f t h e efforts t o b a n b o o k s i n various c o m m u n i t i e s h a v e b e e n d i r e c t e d a t h o o k s p u b l i s h e d b y A A P ' s m e m b e r s . I f t h e Statute is n o t enjoined, A A P m e m b e r s will b e forced t o l i m i t O r e g o n r e s i d e n t s f r o m a c c e s s t o m a n y i m p o r t a n t b o o k s . T h e full i m p a c t o f t h e S t a t u t e o n A A P i s described i n the concurrently filed D e c l a r a t i o n o f A l l a n R. Adler. F r e e d o m t o R e a d F o u n d a t i o n Inc. ( " F l R F " ) : F l R F a n d i t s l i b r a r y a n d l i b r a r i a n m e m b e r s serve as b o t h access and content providers at public, private and a c a d e m i c libraries i n Oregon. S o m e o f t h e m a t e r i a l s p r o v i d e d o r m a d e available b y public, p r i v a t e a n d a c a d e m i c libraries i n Oregon, o r m a d e available to F T R F m e m b e r s i n b o o k s t o r e s i n t h e State, a r e R e s t r i c t e d Speech. F o r example, F T R F m e m b e r libraries include materials such as Forever b y J u d y B l u m e ; Women o n Top b y N a n c y Friday; Changing Bodies, Changing Lives b y R u t h Bell; Our Bodies, Ourselves Page 8 P L A I N T I F F S ' IvlEMORANDUM O F L A W I N S U P P O R T O F M O T I O N F O R A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Portlnd3 -1624171.1 0099880-00578 by the Boston W o m e n ' s Health Collective; a n d I t ' s Perfectly Normal by Robie Harris. These materials also are available for purchase i n Oregon t o individual members o f F T R F . Because the e x e m p t i o n for e m p l o y e e s o f p u b l i c libraries d o e s n o t a p p l y to e v e r y p r o v i s i o n o f t h e Statute a n d does n o t apply t o all libraries, Oregon libraries will be forced to limit Oregon residents' access to m a n y i m p o r t a n t b o o k s a n d o t h e r m a t e r i a l s i f t h e S t a t u t e is n o t enjoined, o r r i s k p r o s e c u t i o n . Additionally, F T R F m e m b e r s will n o t have access t o constitutionally p r o t e c t e d materials t h a t would otherwise be available for purchase i n the state. The full impact o f t h e Statute o n FTRF is d e s c r i b e d i n t h e c o n c u r r e n t l y filed D e c l a r a t i o n o f J u d i t h K r u g . Comic B o o k Legal D e f e n s e F u n d ( " C B L D F " ) : C B L D F i n c l u d e s p u b l i s h e r s a n d r e t a i l e r s i n O r e g o n . Some o f t h e m a t e r i a l s p u b l i s h e d o r d i s t r i b u t e d b y s u c h m e m b e r s a r e R e s t r i c t e d S p e e c h u n d e r t h e S t a t u t e b u t , a t t h e s a m e t i m e , are c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y p r o t e c t e d , f o r e x a m p l e , Watchmen, a seminal graphic novel b y A l a n Moore and D a v e Gibbons. I f the Statute is not enjoined, CBLDF members will be forced t o limit Oregon residents' access to some o f its materials, o r risk prosecution. The full impact o f the Statute o n CBLDF is described in the c o n c u r r e n t l y filed D e c l a r a t i o n o f C h a r l e s B r o w n s t e i n . C a n d a c e M o r g a n : C a n d a c e M o r g a n is a r e s i d e n t o f M u l t n o m a h C o u n t y . S h e t e a c h e s c u r r e n t a n d future l i b r a r i a n s e n r o l l e d i n t h e O r e g o n d i s t a n c e - l e a r n i n g c o h o r t o f t h e E m p o r i a S t a t e University School o f Library and Information Science. M o r g a n is also a grandparent who visits t h e l i b r a r y a n d t h e b o o k s t o r e w i t h h e r s e v e n - y e a r - o l d grandson. T h e S t a t u t e r e s t r i c t s the materials she c a n provide h e r grandson and threatens prosecution should she provide materials t h a t violate the Statute, including books by Robie Harris. The full impact o f the Statute o n Morgan is described in the concurrently filed Declaration o f Candace Morgan. Page 9 - P L A I N T I F F S ' M E M O R A N D U M OF L A W I N S U P P O R T OF M O T I O N F O R A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Portlnd31624171.J 0099880-00578 Planned Parenthood o f the Columbia/Willamette ("PPCW"): P l a i n t i f f P P C W provides c o m p r e h e n s i v e s e x e d u c a t i o n t o a d i v e r s e a g e r a n g e , i n c l u d i n g e d u c a t i o n t a r g e t e d a t m i n o r s as young as 10 years old. A s part o f that education, P P C W distributes educational pamphlets and o t h e r materials depicting o r d e s c r i b i n g s e x u a l b e h a v i o r - m a t e r i a l s t h a t m a y constitute R e s t r i c t e d S p e e c h u n d e r t h e S t a t u t e . P P C W a l s o d i s t r i b u t e s m a t e r i a l s t o t h e p u b l i c a t large m a t e r i a l s t h a t m a y v i o l a t e t h e Statute, a n d s u c h m a t e r i a l s m a y b e d i s t r i b u t e d t o m i n o r s . I f t h e S t a t u t e i s n o t e n j o i n e d , P P C W will b e f o r c e d t o l i m i t the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h o s e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y p r o t e c t e d materials, severely impairing its mission to provide s e x education. T h e full impact o f the Statute o n P P C W is described i n the concurrently filed Declaration o f D a v i d Greenberg. C a s c a d e AIDS P r o j e c t ( " C A P " ) : P l a i n t i f f C A P p r o v i d e s c o m p r e h e n s i v e s e x e d u c a t i o n t o a diverse a g e range, i n c l u d i n g e d u c a t i o n t a r g e t e d a t m i n o r s . A s p a r t o f t h a t e d u c a t i o n , C A P distributes e d u c a t i o n a l p a m p h l e t s a n d o t h e r materials depicting o r d e s c r i b i n g sexual b e h a v i o r m a t e r i a l s t h a t m a y c o n s t i t u t e R e s t r i c t e d S p e e c h u n d e r t h e Statute. C A P a l s o d i s t r i b u t e s t o t h e p u b l i c a t large m a t e r i a l s t h a t m a y v i o l a t e t h e S t a t u t e , a n d s u c h m a t e r i a l s m a y b e d i s t r i b u t e d t o minors. I f t h e S t a t u t e i s n o t e n j o i n e d , CAP w i l l b e f o r c e d t o l i m i t t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h o s e constitutionally protected materials, severely impairing its mission to provide s e x education. The full impact o f the Statute o n CAP is described i n the concurrently filed Declaration o f B e c k y Harmon. American Civil Liberties Union o f Oregon. Inc. (the " A C L U o f Oregon"): The ACLU o f Oregon is an Oregon nonprofit advocacy corporation organized for public benefit, w i t h a membership o f over 17,000 people, all o f whom live o r work in Oregon. Since 1955, i t has been d e d i c a t e d t o t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n a n d e n h a n c e m e n t o f c i v i l l i b e r t i e s a n d c i v i l rights. I t b e l i e v e s t h a t t h e f r e e d o m s o f p r e s s , s p e e c h , a s s e m b l y a n d r e l i g i o n , and t h e r i g h t s t o due p r o c e s s , e q u a l Page 10 - P L A I N T I F F S ' M E M O R A N D U M OF L A W I N S U P P O R T O F M O T I O N F O R A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Portlnd3-1624171.1 0099880-00578 protection a n d p r i v a c y , are f u n d a m e n t a l t o a free people. T h e A C L U o f O r e g o n lobbies t o p r e v e n t the p a s s a g e o f l a w s t h a t w o u l d u n d e r m i n e c i v i l liberties a n d c i v i l rights, a n d t o e n c o u r a g e p a s s a g e o f l a w s t h a t w o u l d e n h a n c e c i v i l liberties a n d c i v i l rights. T h e A C L U o f O r e g o n also s u p p o r t s e d u c a t i o n a l o u t r e a c h d e s i g n e d t o i n f l u e n c e p u b l i c o p i n i o n o n c i v i l l i b e r t i e s a n d c i v i l r i g h t s i s s u e s . I f t h e S t a t u t e is n o t e n j o i n e d , t h e n m e m b e r s o f t h e A C L U o f O r e g o n w i l l be f o r c e d t o e i t h e r r i s k c r i m i n a l l i a b i l i t y o r t o r e s t r i c t t h e i r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y p r o t e c t e d e x p r e s s i v e a n d a s s o c i a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s . T h e full i m p a c t o f t h e S t a t u t e o n t h e A C L U o f O r e g o n a n d its m e m b e r s is d e s c r i b e d i n t h e c o n c u r r e n t l y f i l e d D e c l a r a t i o n o f D a v i d F i d a n q u e . i l l . ARGUMENT A. LEGAL STANDARD F O R ISSUANCE O F A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION T h e g r a n t o r d e n i a l o f a p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n m o t i o n lies w i t h i n t h e e q u i t a b l e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e district court. Chalkv. US. Dist. Court Cent. Dist. o f California, 840 F 2 d 701, 704 ( 9 t h C i r 1988). " I n d e c i d i n g w h e t h e r t o g r a n t t e m p o r a r y r e l i e f , t h e c o u r t m u s t b a l a n c e t h e c o m p e t i n g claims o f injury a n d m u s t consider the effect o n e a c h p a r t y o f t h e granting o r withholding o f the requested r e l i e f . " Save Our Summers v. Wash. State Dept. o f Ecol., 132 F S u p p 2 d 8 9 6 , 8 9 9 (ED W a s h 1999). T h e N i n t h C i r c u i t recognizes t w o standards f o r p r e l i m i n a r y injunctions: a ' ' t r a d i t i o n a l ' ' standard a n d an " a l t e r n a t i v e " standard. International Jensen v. Metrosound U S . A . , 4 F 3 d 819, 8 2 2 ( 9 t h Cir 1993) ( c i t i n g Cassim v. Bowen, 8 2 4 F 2 d 791, 795 ( 9 t h C i r 1987)). A n o r d e r properly issues u n d e r the traditional standard i f t h e c o u r t determines t h a t ( l ) the m o v i n g p a r t y w i l l s u f f e r i r r e p a r a b l e i n j u r y i f t h e r e l i e f i s d e n i e d ; (2) t h e r e i s a s t r o n g l i k e l i h o o d t h a t t h e m o v i n g p a r t y w i l l p r e v a i l o n t h e m e r i t s a t trial; ( 3 ) t h e b a l a n c e o f p o t e n t i a l h a r m favors t h e P a g e 11 - P L A I N T I F F S ' M E M O R A N D U M OF L A W I N S U P P O R T O F M O T I O N F O R A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Portlnd3-1624171.1 0 0 9 9 8 8 0 - 0 0 5 7 8 moving party; and (4) the public interest favors granting relief. !d.; Byron M v. City o f Whittier, 46 F Supp 2 d 1032, 1034 (CD Cal 1998). U n d e r the "alternative s t a n d a r d , " a n i n j u n c t i o n properly issues w h e n a p a r t y demonstrates e i t h e r "(1) a c o m b i n a t i o n o f p r o b a b l e success o n t h e m e r i t s a n d t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f irreparable injury i f r e l i e f is n o t granted; o r (2) t h e existence o f serious questions going t o the merits and that the balance o f hardships tips sharply in its favor." International Jensen, 4 F 3 d a t 822. "Serious q u e s t i o n s " are t h o s e " q u e s t i o n s w h i c h c a n n o t b e r e s o l v e d o n e w a y o r t h e o t h e r a t t h e h e a r i n g o n the injunction." Republic o f the Philippines v. Marcos, 862 F 2 d 1355, 1362 (9th C i r 1988), cert den 490 US 1035 (1989). Serious questions are ' ' ' s u b s t a n t i a l , difficult and doubtful'" enough t o r e q u i r e m o r e c o n s i d e r e d i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Id. ( c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) . S u c h q u e s t i o n s n e e d n o t s h o w a c e r t a i n t y o f success, o r e v e n d e m o n s t r a t e a p r o b a b i l i t y o f success, b u t r a t h e r " m u s t involve a ' f a i r chance o f success o n the merits. ' " Id. (quoting National Wildlife Federation v. Coston, 773 F2d 1513, 1517 (9th C i r 1985)). T h e r e q u i r e m e n t for showing a l i k e l i h o o d o f irreparable h a r m b e f o r e trial increases o r decreases i n inverse c o r r e l a t i o n to t h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f success o n t h e m e r i t s a t trial. Diamontiney v. Borg, 918 F 2 d 793, 795 (9th C i r 1990); see also Sun Microsystems, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 188 F3d 1115, 1119 (9th C i r 1999) (these factors represent two points o n s l i d i n g scale, s u c h t h a t " ' t h e g r e a t e r t h e r e l a t i v e h a r d s h i p t o t h e m o v i n g p a r t y , t h e l e s s p r o b a b i l i t y o f success must be s h o w n ' " (citation omitted)). The essence o f the c o u r t ' s inquiry is whether the balance o f equities favors granting preliminary relief. International Jensen, 4 F 3 d at 822. This C o u r t s h o u l d g r a n t a p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n b e c a u s e , as d e s c r i b e d b e l o w , P l a i n t i f f s s a t i s f y b o t h t h e t r a d i t i o n a l a n d a l t e r n a t i v e s t a n d a r d s for a p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n . Page 12 - PLAINTIFFS' M E M O R A N D U M OF L A W I N SUPPORT O F M O T I O N F O R A P R E L I M I N A R Y INJUNCTION P o r t l n d J 1 6 2 4 1 7 1 . 1 0099880-00578 B. PLAINTIFFS ARE LIKELY T O PREVAIL ON T H E MERITS O F T H E I R CLAIMS As demonstrated below, Plaintiffs are likely to prevail o n the merits o f their claims that the S t a t u t e v i o l a t e s t h e F i r s t , F i f t h a n d F o u r t e e n t h A m e n d m e n t s t o t h e u . S . C o n s t i t u t i o n . 1. The Miller/Ginsberg S t a n d a r d Limits the Sexual Material T h a t May Be Banned from Minors; The Failure o f the Statute to Meet T h a t S t a n d a r d Is Constitutionally F a t a l The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the First Amendment restricts attempts to "protect" minors from exposure to sexually explicit materials. In Ginsberg v. State o fNew York, 390 US 629, 88 S Ct 1 2 7 4 , 2 0 L E d 2d 195 (1968), as modified i n Miller v. California, 413 u s 1 5 , 9 3 S C t 2 6 0 7 , 3 7 L E d 2 d 419 ( 1 9 7 3 ) , t h e C o u r t c r e a t e d a t h r e e - p a r t t e s t f o r d e t e n n i n i n g whether material that is First Amendment-protected as to adults is unprotected as to minors. U n d e r t h a t t e s t , f o r s e x u a l m a t e r i a l t o b e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y u n p r o t e c t e d as t o a m i n o r , i t m u s t , t a k e n as a whole: (1) (2) p r e d o m i n a n t l y a p p e a l t o the p r u r i e n t , s h a m e f u l o r m o r b i d i n t e r e s t o f m i n o r s ; be patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable material for minors; a n d (3) l a c k s e r i o u s l i t e r a r y , a r t i s t i c , p o l i t i c a l o r s c i e n t i f i c value. Only material that meets this test can be barred from distribution to minors a n d only i f such prohibition does not unduly infringe o n adult access. C f A C r U v. Gonzales, 478 F Supp 2d 775, 809 (ED P a 2007). Material that falls outside the narrow Miller/Ginsberg test has First Amendment p r o t e c t i o n - w h e t h e r the recipient be adult or child. Most importantly, under the third prong o f the test, material having serious value remains constitutionally protected as to minors, regardless o f its sexually explicit content. Page 13 - P L A I N T I F F S ' M E M O R A N D U M OF L A W I N S U P P O R T OF M O T I O N F O R A PRELIMINARY I N J U N C T I O N Portlnd31624171.1 0099880-00578 The Statute's definitions o f "sexually explicit material" (DRS 167.051(5)) and "sexual conduct" (ORS 167.051(4)), even i f one were to incorporate the affirmative defenses,s fail to meet the Miller/Ginsberg standard i n four significant respects: (l) (2) (3) standards; a n d (4) They do not require that material be taken as a whole; They do not require the material t o be patently offensive; They do not require the evaluation o f the material to be based o n community T h e y e l i m i n a t e the t h i r d p r o n g r e l a t i n g t o l a c k o f s e r i o u s v a l u e . Miller/Ginsberg is precisely about the sale o f sexually explicit material to minors and e x p r e s s l y l i m i t s w h a t m a t e r i a l c a n b e p r o h i b i t e d . F o r i n s t a n c e , as t h e S e v e n t h C i r c u i t h e l d n o t long after the decision in Ginsberg, government " m a y not, consonant w i t h the First Amendment, go beyond the limitations inherent i n the concept o f variable obscenity [set forth in Ginsberg] i n regulating the dissemination to minors o f 'objectionable' material." Cinecom Theaters Midwest St., Inc. v. City o f Fort Wayne, 473 F2d 1297, 1302 (7th Cir 1973). More recently, the Seventh Circuit, after citing and quoting this excerpt from Cinecom, affirmed a finding that an Illinois statute is unconstitutional because, as here, i t did not require the material to be considered as a whole a n d did not require that the material lack serious value. Entertainment Software Ass 'no v. B/agojevich, 469 F 3 d 6 4 1 , 6 4 7 (7th C i r 2006). affirmative d e f e n s e s p r o v i d e d t h e m i s s i n g c o m p o n e n t s o f t h e Miller/Ginsberg standard, it would not constitute compliance with the Supreme C o u r t ' s standard. Because affmnative defenses must be asserted a n d proven b y defendants o n trial, i n such a case, a p e r s o n c o u l d b e c h a r g e d w i t h a c r i m e for d i s t r i b u t i n g c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y p r o t e c t e d m a t e r i a l s , w h i c h w o u l d c e r t a i n l y h a v e a c h i l l i n g e f f e c t o n s u c h p e r s o n ' s e x e r c i s e o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a l rights. S E v e n i f the Page 14 - PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION F O R A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Portlnd3-162417U 0099880-00578 Forty-five states and the District o f Columbia have laws restricting the sale o f sexually explicit materials to minors. Virtually all comply w i t h Miller/Ginsberg. Those that do n o t c o m p l y h a v e a l m o s t u n i f o r m l y b e e n s t r u c k d o w n i n l o w e r c o u r t s , d e c i s i o n s t h a t are n o t u s u a l l y appealed. See, e.g., Bookfriends, Inc. v. Taft, 223 F Supp 2 d 932 (SD Ohio 2002) (Ohio d e f i n i t i o n o f " h a r m f u l t o j u v e n i l e s " e n j o i n e d a s n o t i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h M i l l e r / G i n s b e r g test). The serious~value p r o n g o f the Miller/Ginsberg test is a significant a n d necessary safety n e t for m a i n s t r e a m d i s s e m i n a t o r s , p u b l i s h e r s , r e t a i l e r s , l i b r a r i a n s a n d u s e r s o f m a t e r i a l s , s u c h a s P l a i n t i f f s a n d t h e i r m e m b e r s . I f a w o r k h a s s e r i o u s v a l u e - w h e t h e r i t b e art, l i t e r a t u r e o r e v e n e n t e r t a i n m e n t - t h e p u b l i s h e r , d i s t r i b u t o r , r e t a i l e r o r l i b r a r i a n does n o t h a v e t o s t r u g g l e w i t h deciding w h e t h e r t h e m a t e r i a l m a y a p p e a l t o t h e p r u r i e n t i n t e r e s t o f a m i n o r . S u c h clarity, i n a n o t h e r w i s e o f t e n l e s s - t h a n - c l e a r c o n t e x t , i s a s o c i e t a l b e n e f i t i n a n d o f itself. M o r e i m p o r t a n t , c o m m u n i c a t i o n s o f v a l u e are a n d s h o u l d b e p r o t e c t e d b y t h e F i r s t A m e n d m e n t . A s J u s t i c e W h i t e stated in Pope v. lllinois, 481 US 4 9 7 , 5 0 0 , 107 S C t 1 9 1 8 , 9 5 L E d 2 d 439 (1987): " I n M i l l e r i t s e l f , the C o u r t w a s c a r e f u l t o p o i n t o u t t h a t ' [ t ] h e F i r s t A m e n d m e n t p r o t e c t s w o r k s , w h i c h , t a k e n as a w h o l e , h a v e serious literary, a r t i s t i c , p o l i t i c a l , o r s c i e n t i f i c v a l u e , regardless o f w h e t h e r the g o v e r n m e n t or a majority o f the p e o p l e approve o f t h e ideas t h e s e w o r k s r e p r e s e n t . ' " ( C i t a t i o n o m i t t e d ; b r a c k e t s i n o r i g i n a l . ) A n d a s J u s t i c e S t e v e n s s a i d , d i s s e n t i n g i n t h e same c a s e : " O v e r 4 0 years ago, t h e C o u r t r e c o g n i z e d t h a t ' ' ' U n d e r o u r system o f government there is an a c c o m m o d a t i o n f o r t h e w i d e s t v a r i e t i e s o f t a s t e s a n d ideas. W h a t is good literature, what has educational value, what is refined p u b l i c i n f o r m a t i o n , w h a t is g o o d art, v a r i e s w i t h i n d i v i d u a l s as i t d o e s from o n e g e n e r a t i o n t o a n o t h e r . . . . F r o m t h e m u l t i t u d e o f c o m p e t i n g offerings t h e p u b l i c w i l l p i c k a n d choose. W h a t s e e m s t o one to be trash m a y have for others fleeting or even enduring values.' Hannegan v. Esquire, Inc., 327 U.S. 146, 157-158 (1946). Page 15 - PLAINTIFFS' M E M O R A N D U M OF L A W I N SUPPORT OF M O T I O N F O R A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Portlnd3-1624171.1 0099880-00578 "The purpose o f t h e third element o f t h e Miller t e s t is to ensure t h a t the obscenity laws n o t b e allowed to " ' l e v e l ' ' ' the available reading m a t t e r to t h e m a j o r i t y o r l o w e s t c o m m o n d e n o m i n a t o r o f the p o p u l a t i o n . . . . I t i s obvious t h a t n e i t h e r W y s s e s n o r L a d y Chatterley's L o v e r w o u l d h a v e literary appeal t o t h e majority o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n . ' F . Schauer, The L a w o f Obscenity 144 ( 1 9 7 6 ) . " ld. at 512 (alterations i n original; citation omitted). I n fact, Plaintiffs are aware o f n o criminal statutes i n this c o n t e x t t h a t have b e e n found constitutional u n d e r the F i r s t A m e n d m e n t t h a t d i d n o t include s o m e requirement w i t h respect t o l a c k o f serious value. C f Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 542 US 656, 679, 124 S C t 2783, 159 L E d 2 d 690 (2004) (Breyer, J., dissenting) (describing words " la c ks serious literary, artistic, p o l i t i c a l , o r s c i e n t i f i c v a l u e " a s " c r i t i c a l t e r m s " ) . The o m i s s i o n o f the " t a k e n a s a w h o l e " r e q u i r e m e n t c o n s t i t u t e s a n o t h e r m a j o r d e v i a t i o n from t h e Miller/Ginsberg test. I t u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y e l i m i n a t e s t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e whole. S i m i l a r l y , the a b s e n c e o f t h e t h i r d p r o n g e l i m i n a t e s t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f the c o n t e x t o f value. The s t a t e ' s elimination o f these requirements is o f particular concern t o Plaintiffs, as publishers, distributors a n d retailers o f m a i n s t r e a m materials. A n d fmally, t h e e l i m i n a t i o n o f t h e l i m i t a t i o n b a s e d o n c o m m u n i t y standards a n d t h e r e q u i r e m e n t o f p a t e n t offensiveness further r e m o v e s t h e S t a t u t e from the s t a n d a r d m a n d a t e d b y the S u p r e m e C o u r t . Simply put, the Supreme C o u r t has drawn a b r i g h t line defIDing the statutory standard required t o separate what is o r i s n o t obscene o r harmful to minors. The Statute falls woefully short o f meeting t h a t standard and thus is unconstitutional. 2. The Act Is Unconstitutionally Vague " [ W ] h e r e a statute i m p o s e s c r i m i n a l penalties, the s t a n d a r d o f c e r t a i n t y is h i g h e r . " Kolender v. Lawson, 461 US 352, 358 n 8, 103 S C t 1855, 75 L E d 2 d 903 (1983). As t h e Page 16 - P L A I N T I F F S ' M E M O R A N D U M O F L A W IN S U P P O R T O F M O T I O N F O R A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Portlnd3-1624171.1 0099880-00578 Supreme Court stated in Grayned v. City o fRockford, a l a w is v o i d for vagueness u n d e r the Due Process Clause o f the Fifth Amendment i f its prohibitions are n o t clearly defmed. 408 US 104, 1 0 8 , 9 2 S C t 2 2 9 4 , 3 3 L E d 2 d 2 2 2 (1972). T h e C o u r t t h e n p r o v i d e d the f o l l o w i n g e x t e n s i v e e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e three reasons w h y a v a g u e l a w i s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l : " V a g u e l a w s o f f e n d s e v e r a l i m p o r t a n t v a l u e s . F i r s t , b e c a u s e we assume that m a n is free t o steer between lawful and unlawful c o n d u c t , w e i n s i s t t h a t l a w s give t h e p e r s o n o f o r d i n a r y i n t e l l i g e n c e a r e a s o n a b l e o p p o r t u n i t y t o k n o w w h a t is p r o h i b i t e d , so that he m a y act accordingly. . . . Second, i f a r b i t r a r y a n d d i s c r i m i n a t o r y e n f o r c e m e n t is t o b e p r e v e n t e d , l a w s m u s t p r o v i d e e x p l i c i t standards f o r t h o s e who a p p l y them. A v a g u e l a w i m p e r m i s s i b l y delegates basic p o l i c y matters t o policemen, j u d g e s , and j u r i e s for resolution o n an a d hoc a n d subj ective basis, w i t h the a t t e n d a n t dangers o f arbitrary and d i s c r i m i n a t o r y application. Third, b u t related, where a vague statute ' a b u t [ s] upon sensitive areas o f basic F i r s t A m e n d m e n t f r e e d o m s , ' i t ' o p e r a t e s to i n h i b i t the exercise o f [those] freedoms.' Uncertain meanings inevitably lead citizens to " ' s t e e r far w i d e r o f the unlawful z o n e ' " . . . t h a n i f t h e b o u n d a r i e s o f t h e f o r b i d d e n areas w e r e c l e a r l y marked. ' " I d a t 108-09 (footnotes omitted; alterations in original); see also Smith v. California, 361 US 1 4 7 , 1 5 1 , 8 0 S C t 2 1 5 , 4 L E d 2 d 2 0 5 ( 1 9 5 9 ) ( " [ S ] t r i c t e r s t a n d a r d s o f p e r m i s s i b l e s t a t u t o r y vagueness m a y b e a p p l i e d to a statute h a v i n g a p o t e n t i a l l y i n h i b i t i n g effect o n speech; a m a n m a y t h e l e s s b e r e q u i r e d t o a c t a t h i s p e r i l h e r e , b e c a u s e t h e free d i s s e m i n a t i o n o f i d e a s m a y b e t h e loser."). The Statute contains language purporting t o describe prohibited acts or, i n some instances, l i m i t i n g t h e m , w h i c h is v a g u e , i n d e f i n i t e a n d s u b j e c t t o d i f f e r e n t m e a n i n g s , r e s u l t i n g i n a failure to provide adequate notice o f an offense under the Statute, including the following: B o t h O R S 1 6 7 . 0 5 4 a n d 167.057 e x c e p t f r o m t h e i r c r i m i n a l r e s t r i c t i o n s m a t e r i a l f o r w h i c h t h e s e x u a l c o m p o n e n t forms " m e r e l y a n i n c i d e n t a l p a r t o f a n o t h e r w i s e n o n o f f e n d i n g w h o l e a n d s e r v e s s o m e p u r p o s e o t h e r t h a n t i t i l l a t i o n . " T h o s e p r o v i s i o n s are u n q u e s t i o n a b l y v a g u e a n d P a g e 17 - P L A I N T I F F S ' M E M O R A N D U M OF L A W IN SUPPORT OF MOTION F O R A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Portlnd3-1624171.1 009988000578 ambiguous. F o r example, the Statute fails to answer a n y o f the following questions and thus l e a v e s t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e S t a t u t e t o t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f a p r o s e c u t o r , w h o m a y use t h e S t a t u t e a g a i n s t a n y m a t e r i a l h e o r she d e e m s o b j e c t i o n a b l e : (1) What constitutes a n "incidental part"? Is i t a matter o f intent o r purpose, o r is i t a numerical spatial percentage? Is t h e prosecutor required to determine a n d prove whether the material is a "necessary" p a r t o f the book, periodical o r other material? That would be a curious a n d p r o b a b l y u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r o l e f o r a g o v e r n m e n t official. (2) What is a "nonoffending whole"? The m a j o r question is "offending" to whom? I f there is testimony that segments o f the community are offended by the work as a whole, does that m e a n i t is criminal under the Statute? "[W]here [as here] obscenity is n o t involved) * * * the fact t h a t protected speech may b e offensive to some does n o t j u s t i f y its suppression.)' Carey v. Population Services, Inter., 431 US 678, 701, 97 S C t 2 0 1 0 , 5 2 L E d 2 d 675 (1977). (3) W h a t does the Statute m e a n by "titillation"? The dictionary definition is o f no assistance. The verb ''titillate'' is defined as ' ' t o act as a stimulant to pleasurable excitement." W e b s t e r ' s Ninth N e w Collegiate D i c t i o n a r y (1984). A n d e v e n i f t i t i l l a t i o n w e r e a s c e r t a i n a b l e and had a definite meaning, does the phrase "serves some purpose other than titillation" mean t h a t i f the m a t e r i a l n o t o n l y t i t i l l a t e d b u t a l s o i n f o r m e d , s a d d e n e d , e n t e r t a i n e d o r c h e e r e d i t w o u l d not be covered b y the Statute? Finally, whatever titillation means, the material presumably could titillate some a n d n o t others. Is that relevant i f one looks a t the purpose? A n d whose purpose? A s a d i r e c t r e s u l t o f t h i s q u i n t e s s e n t i a l l y v a g u e l a n g u a g e , t h e S t a t u t e has a n d w i l l c o n t i n u e t o h a v e a c h i l l i n g e f f e c t o n retailers, l i b r a r i a n s a n d o t h e r u s e r s a n d d i s s e m i n a t o r s o f v a l u a b l e m a i n s t r e a m w o r k s . F o r e x a m p l e , b o t h C A P a n d P P C W are c o n c e r n e d t h a t t h e i r b a s i c s e x e d u c a t i o n m a t e r i a l s m a y b e c o n s i d e r e d to serve n o o t h e r p u r p o s e t h a n titillation. T h e Page 18 - P L A I N T I F F S ' M E M O R A N D U M OF L A W I N S U P P O R T OF M O T I O N F O R A P R E L I M I N A R Y INJUNCTION Portlnd3-1624171.1 0099880..()0578 bookseller plaintiffs, who receive hundreds o f n e w titles weekly, do n o t have t i m e to read all the b o o k s . E v e n i f t h e y h a d t h e t i m e , t h e y are p u z z l e d a s t o h o w t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e s o l e purpose o f a work is titillation. The Supreme C o u r t has noted t h a t "uncertain meanings" inevitably lead citizens t o ' ' ' s t e e r far w i d e r o f the unlawful z o n e ' than i f the boundaries o f the forbidden areas were clearly marked." Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 US 3 6 0 , 3 7 2 , 8 4 S C t 1316, 12 L E d 2 d 377 (1964) (quoting Speiser v. Randall, 357 US 513, 526, 78 S C t 1 3 3 2 , 2 L E d 2 d 1460 (1958)). C. P L A I N T I F F S W I L L S U F F E R I R R E P A R A B L E H A R M UNLESS T H E C O U R T G R A N T S AN I N J U N C T I O N Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm unless prosecution under the Statute is enjoined. P l a i n t i f f s w i l l s u f f e r t w o t y p e s o f i r r e p a r a b l e harm: t h e h a r m o f l o s i n g t h e i r F i r s t A m e n d m e n t freedoms a n d t h e harm o f p o t e n t i a l prosecution. As the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized, " T h e loss o f First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods o f time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury." E l r o d v. Burns, 427 US 347, 373, 96 S C t 2673, 79 L E d 2 d 547 (1976); a c c o r d Goldie's Bookstore v. Superior Court, 739 F2d 466, 472 (9th C i r 1984) ("An alleged constitutional infringement will often alone constitute irreparable harm."); Rohman v. City o fPortland, 909 F Supp 767 (D O r 1995) (citing Elrod). As the above discussion o n the merits demonstrates, Plaintiffs are deprived o f their First A m e n d m e n t rights w h e n t h e y r e f r a i n f r o m e x e r c i s i n g t h o s e rights b e c a u s e o f t h e c h i l l i n g e f f e c t o f potential prosecution. Therefore t h e y are being irreparably injured. Only an injunction o n prosecution can lift the chill and restore Plaintiffs' ability to exercise their rights. P l a i n t i f f s w o u l d a l s o s u f f e r b e c a u s e t h e y w i l l b e p r o s e c u t e d i f t h e y e x e r c i s e t h e i r rights a n d v i o l a t e t h e S t a t u t e . P o t e n t i a l h a r m s are a p r o p e r b a s i s f o r a s h o w i n g o f i r r e p a r a b l e h a r m . Diamontiney, 918 F 2 d a t 794 ("[T]he injury need n o t have been inflicted w h e n application is P a g e 19 PLAINTIFFS' M E M O R A N D U M OF L A W IN S U P P O R T OF MOTION F O R A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Portlnd31624J7l.1 0099880-00578 made o r be certain t o occur; a strong threat o f irreparable injury before trial is a n adequate basis. * * * R e q u i r i n g a s h o w i n g o f actual i n j u r y w o u l d d e f e a t t h e p u r p o s e o f t h e p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n , w h i c h i s t o p r e v e n t a n i n j u r y from o c c u r r i n g . " ) . I n a d d i t i o n , a l t h o u g h t h e r e s u l t o f a prosecution under the Statute m a y b e a monetary fme, the stigma o f being prosecuted is exactly t h e k i n d o f n o n m o n e t a r y i n j u r y t h a t t h e N i n t h C i r c u i t has c o n s i d e r e d , b y d e f i n i t i o n , i r r e p a r a b l e . See Chalk, 840 F 2 d a t 709 (describing types o f irreparable nonmonetary injury, including loss o f p e r s o n a l satisfaction, b e i n g t h e v i c t i m o f r e t a l i a t i o n f o r a n e x e r c i s e o f F i r s t A m e n d m e n t r i g h t s , emotional stress, anxiety a n d fear); c f Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission v. National F o o t b a l l League, 6 3 4 F 2 d 1 1 9 7 , 1 2 0 2 ( 1 9 8 0 ) ( d i s t i n g u i s h i n g b e t w e e n c o m p e n s a t o r y n a t u r e o f m o n e t a r y i n j u r y a n d n o n c o m p e n s a t o r y nature o f n o n m o n e t a r y injury). Finally, E l r o d a l s o m a k e s c l e a r t h a t p o t e n t i a l p u n i s h m e n t f o r t h e e x e r c i s e o f F i r s t A m e n d m e n t f r e e d o m s a l s o c o n s t i t u t e s i r r e p a r a b l e injury. I n Elrod, the d e f e n d a n t s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e r o u t i n e l y fired e m p l o y e e s w h o w e r e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a p o l i t i c a l p a r t y d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h e s h e r i f f ' s p a r t y . T h e e m p l o y e e s w e r e f a c e d w i t h a choice: r e f r a i n from e x e r c i s i n g t h e i r F i r s t A m e n d m e n t right o f association o r be fired. The Court held that b o t h the injury to the plaintiffs' First A m e n d m e n t r i g h t s a n d t h e t h r e a t e n e d f i r i n g c o n s t i t u t e d i r r e p a r a b l e i n j u r y . E l r o d , 4 2 7 US a t 3 7 3 . D. T H I S C O U R T SHOULD G R A N T A P R E L I M I N A R Y I N J U N C T I O N Clearly, P l a i n t i f f s a r e e n t i t l e d t o a p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n u n d e r e i t h e r t h e t r a d i t i o n a l o r t h e alternative standard. P l a i n t i f f s m e e t t h e t r a d i t i o n a l standard. P l a i n t i f f s w i l l s u f f e r i r r e p a r a b l e i n j u r y i f t h e i n j u n c t i o n is d e n i e d b e c a u s e t h e S t a t u t e e i t h e r w i l l s t r i p t h e m o f t h e i r F i r s t A m e n d m e n t rights o r s u b j e c t t h e m t o t h e r i s k o f p r o s e c u t i o n . P l a i n t i f f s h a v e also s h o w n a s t r o n g l i k e l i h o o d t h a t t h e y w i l l p r e v a i l o n t h e m e r i t s a t t r i a l . T h e b a l a n c e o f p o t e n t i a l h a r m a l s o favors P l a i n t i f f s . I f t h e Page 20 - PLAINTIFFS' M E M O R A N D U M OF L A W IN S U P P O R T OF M O T I O N F O R A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Portlnd3-1624171.1 0099880-00578 injunction is denied, Plaintiffs stand to lose their constitutional rights o r face criminal prosecution. I f the injunction is granted, the State (which, to Plaintiffs' knowledge, has n o t yet p r o s e c u t e d a n y o n e u n d e r t h e S t a t u t e ) w i l l s i m p l y h a v e t o forgo p r o s e c u t i o n s p e n d i n g a f i n a l d e c i s i o n o n t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f t h e Statute. F i n a l l y , p u b l i c i n t e r e s t also favors P l a i n t i f f s b e c a u s e a n i n j u n c t i o n p r o t e c t s t h e i n t e r e s t o f e v e r y c i t i z e n i n e n s u r i n g t h a t c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e s are constitutional. Plaintiffs also meet the alternative standard. A s described above, t h e y are likely to prevail o n the merits a t trial and will be irreparably injured i f r e l i e f is n o t granted. A t the v e r y least, P l a i n t i f f s have d e m o n s t r a t e d s e r i o u s q u e s t i o n s a b o u t t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f t h e S t a t u t e a n d shown that the balance o f hardships tips sharply i n t h e i r favor. IV. CONCLUSION P l a i n t i f f s do n o t c o n t e s t t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f p r o t e c t i n g m i n o r s f r o m h a r m . H o w e v e r , e v e n i f a s t a t u t e a i m s t o p r e v e n t s u c h h a r m t o m i n o r s , i t c a n n o t sweep o v e r t h e p r o t e c t i o n s o f t h e F i r s t , Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to do so. The Statute does this. Plaintiffs have a reasonable f e a r o f p r o s e c u t i o n f o r e n g a g i n g i n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y p r o t e c t e d speech. T h u s t h e y / /I /I /1//1 / / /I / /11/ / /I /I / /1//1 /I /I / /I /I / Page 21 - PLAINTIFFS' M E M O R A N D U M OF L A W I N SUPPORT OF M O T I O N F O R A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Portlnd3-1624171.1 009988000578 respectfully request that this Court grant their motion for a preliminary injunction against p r o s e c u t i o n u n d e r t h e Statute. D A T E D : A p r i l 25, 2 0 0 8 . P.K. R LES-P ARSO , O S B NO. 061911 pkrunkles-pearson@stoel.com S T O E L RIVES L L P 9 0 0 S W F i f t h A v e n u e , Suite 2 6 0 0 P o r t l a n d , O R 97204 T e l e p h o n e : (503) 2 2 4 - 3 3 8 0 Facsimile: (503) 2 2 0 - 2 4 8 0 Cooperating Attorney ACLU Foundation o f Oregon Attorney for Plaintiffs MICHAEL A. B A M B E R G E R* mbamberger@sonnenschein.com RACHEL G. BALABAN* rbalaban@sonnenschein.com S O N N E N S C H E I N N A T H & R O S E N T H A L LLP 1221 Avenue o f the Americas, 24th Floor N e w Y o r k , N Y 10020 Telephone: (212) 7 6 8 - 6 7 0 0 Facsimile: ( 2 1 2 ) 3 9 1 - 1 2 4 7 * A p p l i c a t i o n for p r o h a c v i c e a d m i s s i o n f i l e d Attorneys for Plaintiffs P a g e 22 - PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF L A W IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Portlnd3-1624171.1 0099880-()()S78

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?