THE MEDIA COALITION INC.

E-MAIL: MEDIACOALITION@MEDIACOALITION.ORG

Memo in Opposition to Senate Bill 229

            The members of Media Coalition believe that Connecticut Senate Bill 229 violates First Amendment rights of minors.  The members of The Media Coalition represent most of the publishers, booksellers, librarians, periodical distributors, movie, recording and video game manufacturers, and recording and video retailers in Connecticut and the rest of the United States.

            S.B. 229 would impose a fine on any person who sells or rents a sound recording with a “parental advisory label” to anyone under 18.

            Voluntary rating or labeling systems exist to help parents determine what is appropriate for their children but a government enforced rating system is contrary to the First Amendment.  Courts in nine different states have ruled it unconstitutional to either to enforce the Motion Picture Association of America’s rating system or to financially burden movies that do not carry an M.P.A.A. rating.  See MPAA v. Specter, 315 F. Supp. 824 (E.D. Pa. 1970), Eastern Federal Corporation v. Wasson, 316 S.E. 2d 373 (S.C. 1984)

  Further, while minors do not enjoy the protection of the First Amendment to the same extent as adults, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “minors are entitled to a significant measure of First Amendment protection, and only in relatively narrow and well-defined circumstances may government bar public dissemination of protected material to them.” Erznoznick v. City of Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 212-13 (1975).  In the case of Ginsberg v. New York, the U.S. Supreme Court established a three-part test for determining whether material is "harmful to minors" and may, therefore, be banned for sale to minors.  Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968).  The mere presence of a voluntarily affixed label alerting parents that a sound recording might be inappropriate for minors is not a legal basis for assuming that the recording meets the Ginsberg test.  It is likely that most rated or labeled recordings would not meet the Ginsberg test for harmfulness.  Therefore, a law imposing a fine for the sale or rental of such material would inevitably prevent minors from purchasing works that they have a First Amendment right to possess.                      

    Passage of S.B. 229 could prove costly.  If a court rules it unconstitutional, there is a good possibility that the state will be ordered to pay the attorneys' fees of the parties who challenged the law.  In 1991, a Missouri law that attempted to restrict minors’ access to material not judicially determined to be harmful to minors was ruled unconstitutional and the state was forced to pay nearly $200,000 in attorneys' fees when a court struck down a restriction on the sale of violent material to minors, Video Software Dealers Assn. v. Webster, 773 F. Supp. 1275 (W.D. Mo. 1991).