PEOPLE v. LOU BERN BROADWAY
68 Misc.2d 112 (1971)
The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Lou Bern Broadway, Inc., Defendant.
Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County.
November 9, 1971
Frank S. Hogan, District Attorney ( Arthur Weinstein of counsel), for plaintiff. O. John Rogge and Richard H. Rosenberg for defendant.
The defendant owns and operates the Rialto Theater, at 1481 Broadway, in the County of New York. On September 3, 1971, the movie "Christa" was being shown and several advertisements were placed outside the theatre, concededly with the defendant's knowledge.
Among the advertisements was a large photograph (almost life size) clearly visible from the center of Broadway, of a nude female in a prone position with her buttocks exposed and visible. Also visible from the street was a large billboard containing numerous smaller photographs. Among them were pictures of females, apparently nude, with opaque or translucent coverings over buttocks and breasts. Examination of the photographs
As of September 1, 1971 two new sections were added to the Penal Law. Sections 245.10 and 245.11 prohibited the display of sexual materials easily visible from public thoroughfares or in public places if the materials appeal predominantly to prurient interest in sex, and depict nudity, sexual conduct, or sadomasochistic abuse — even though the materials may not be obscene within the meaning of the present obscenity law.
The defendant was charged with and tried without a jury for a violation of this statute. The defendant challenges the constitutionality of the statute on the grounds that it is vague, overbroad, and violative of First Amendment guarantees of free speech and press.
Since the language of the statute and its purpose are in issue, both the preamble and the text of the law, chapter 962 of the Laws of 1971 are set forth.
"The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows:
GENERAL POLICE POWER OVER PUBLIC DISPLAY.
The general right of government to regulate public displays, billboards and signs in the interest of public safety, health, traffic control, public welfare and morality is clear. (New York State Thruway Auth. v. Ashley Motor Ct.,
As long as a statute is reasonably related to a legitimate legislative purpose, courts should not interfere with or substitute their judgment for that of the Legislature. "A strong presumption of validity attaches to legislative enactments and a party who is attacking the constitutionality of a statute bears the heavy burden of establishing unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt." (Nettleton Co. v. Diamond,
That public display of explicit sexual materials is a source of State and National concern hardly needs documentation. Indeed the statute being challenged not only expresses such concern in its preamble but follows the recommendations of the Presidential Commission on Obscenity and Pornography, which, while urging noninterference with people who wish to read, obtain or view explicit sexual materials, recommended "legislation to protect persons from having sexual material thrust upon them without their consent through the mails or through open public display." (Report of the Commission on Obscenity and Pornography, p. 57, Bantam ed., 1970).
THE FIRST AMENDMENT
Of course, display regulations under the police power of the State may not be utilized in arbitrary or unreasonable fashions either to deprive persons of property or, more important, to deprive citizens of First Amendment guarantees, the protection of which requires special sensitivity. Thus, broad zoning or other ordinances which can be used to stifle political expression or which are enacted for that purpose cannot be justified. (People v. Katz,
However, freedom of speech and of the press has long been recognized to contain no absolutes. A balancing process is necessary in those instances where First Amendment claims conflict with other constitutional rights and institutions. This
While the Supreme Court did not speak to the issue of public display, the First Circuit did in Close v. Lederle (
Even without a specific statute, the right of the State to protect public sensibilities in the area of public display of explicit sexual material was recently upheld by the Arizona Court of Appeals. An "X" rated movie depicting nudity and sexual activity was shown in a drive-in theatre. The screen was clearly visible to passersby from highways, streets, residences and business establishments. Children were seen in the vicinity of the drive-in. Despite a finding that the film was not obscene, the Arizona court sustained an injunction founded in nuisance. "A drive-in theatre is capable of imposing its pictures upon persons without their consent. If the owner of land can be prohibited from polluting the community with noxious smoke and unpleasant odors, we conceive of no reason why he cannot be prohibited from polluting the neighborhood with visual material harmful to children." (Cactus Corp. v. State of Arizona,
The principles and guidelines devised by these courts in these and other cases were followed by the Supreme Court of Washington in State of Washington v. Oyen (
Public exhibition of materials which appeal to prurient interest in sex does not bear that reasonable degree of relationship to expression and dissemination of ideas in a free society which would warrant judicial interference with its prohibition.
The District Attorney further contends that the statute is in the nature of a regulation of commercial advertising, which is clearly within the police power of the State, citing Valentine v. Chrestensen (
The defendant, citing a series of Supreme Court decisions, from Roth v. United States (
Defendant also contends that section 245.11 of the Penal Law is unconstitutionally vague.
I cannot agree. "The concept of vagueness or indefiniteness rests on the constitutional principle that procedural due process requires fair notice and proper standards for adjudication. The primary issues involved are whether the provisions of a penal statute are sufficiently definite to give reasonable notice of the prohibited conduct to those who wish to avoid its penalties and to apprise judge and jury of standards for the determination of guilt. If the statute is so obscure that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its applicability, it is unconstitutional." (Landry v. Daley,
It would be difficult to construct a statute less vague. Sections 245.10 and 245.11 describe what is proscribed with anatomical precision. While the defendant quotes a number of cases where statutes were voided for vagueness (none of which is remotely related to sections 245.10 and 245.11 of the Penal Law) he does not present any examples of what he considers vague here. In fact, the definitions of nudity, sexual conduct and sado-masochistic abuse in section 245.11 are exactly the same as those in section 235.20 of the Penal Law relating to disseminating indecent materials to minors. The language in section 235.20 was upheld by the Supreme Court in Ginsberg v. New York (
Finally, the defendant asserts that the statute is so overbroad as to subject displays clearly innocent within its orbit. He claims that a well-known advertisement for a sun tan lotion showing a toddler with a bare bottom might violate the statute. This argument lacks merit. One of the elements that the People must establish beyond a reasonable doubt is that the material shown must appeal to "prurient" interest in sex. This limitation
In People v. Stover (supra) a Westchester County resident, in violation of a village ordinance, hung out dirty laundry on a clothes line in his front yard abutting the street. The purpose was to protest high taxes. In upholding the ordinance, Chief Judge FULD, speaking for the majority, sustained the constitutionality of the ordinance despite a claim that the defendants' freedom of expression was violated.
"The prohibition against clothesline is designed to proscribe conduct which offends the sensibilities and tends to depress property values. The ordinance and its prohibition bear `no necessary relationship' to the dissemination of ideas or opinion and, accordingly, the defendants were not privileged to violate it by choosing to express their views in the altogether bizarre manner which they did. It is obvious that the value of their `protest' lay not in its message but in its offensiveness." (
If the State can prevent a man from displaying his dirty linen in public it can certainly prevent him from showing dirty pictures in public.
The statute is constitutional. The defendant is convicted.
- No Cases Found