To: Supervising Attorney
From: Naomi Hawkins
Date: November 17, 2010
Re: Mad Dog Review v. Jonesville
Statement of Assignment
I have been assigned the job of determining whether the Jonesville Municipal Ordinance 355-20 violates Mad Dog Review’s right to freedom of expression.
Issue
According to the interpretation provided by the case, Atlantic Beach Casino Inc. v. Morenzoni, does the Jonesville municipal ordinance 355-20, violate the freedom of expression granted by the first amendment of the U.S. constitution by giving the city council the right to ban Mad Dog Review’s performance based on their definitions of “local standards of decency or acceptability”, when there is no clear definitions of these standard written into the ordinance?
Brief Answer
Yes, the ordinance does violate the constitutional rights granted by the First Amendment, and thus cannot be enforced. According to Atlantic Beach Casino inc. v. Morenzoni, any ordinance involving prior restraint must have “narrow, objective and definite standards”, to survive constitutional scrutiny. Based on the findings in this case, the vague wording, and lack of definition, offered by Jonesville Municipal Ordinance 355-20 will not hold up under such scrutiny.
Facts
The city council of Jonesville has banned the controversial rap band, Mad Dog Review, from performing in their community based on their local ordinance, which allows them to prohibit any entertainment that they perceive, “does not comport with the local standards of decency.” Mad Dog Review wants to challenge the authority of the city council to ban their performance.
Analysis
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” In our case, the Jonesville City Council is violating the First Amendment by prohibiting Mad Dog Review’s performance. The Jonesville Council enacted the ban based on city ordinance 355-20, which provides that: “The City council, upon majority vote, may prohibit the public performance of any type of entertainment that does not comport with the local standards of decency or acceptability.” This ordinance does not include any restrictions or definitions of these local standards to guide the council in its judgment.
In Atlantic Beach Casino v. Marenzoni (749 F. Supp. 38, D. R. I. 1990), an on point case, the Westerly Town Council attempted to prevent the band, “2 Live Crew,” from performing by revoking the plaintiffs’ entertainment license. The Westerly Code of Ordinances gave the Town Council the power to revoke any entertainment license “after public hearing for cause shown.” The Town Council claimed that they were interested in protecting public safety, and not objecting to the band’s lyrics, but the plaintiffs contested that the town’s ordinance was unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
According to the interpretation provided by the Court in this case, “A licensing scheme involving such prior restraint survives constitutional scrutiny only when the law contains ’narrow, objective and definite standards to guide the licensing authority’.” Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U S 147, 150-151. The Court holds that, “When dealing with the First amendment , the law does not allow us to presume good intentions on the part of the reviewing body, Lakewood, 486 US at 770, 108S.Ct. at 1243-44,” but that, “ The standards must be explicitly set out in the ordinance itself.” The Court is clear in its requirements for precise language and clear distinct definitions and standards for ordinances attempting to limit the power of the constitution.
The Jonesville ordinance does not define “local standards of decency or acceptability,” and does not contain “narrow, objective and definite standards” for judgment. The standards are not explicitly set out within the ordinance. According to this case on point, which deals specifically with city ordinances limiting free speech, this city ordinance, as written, is unconstitutional.
Conclusion
The First amendment of the U.S. Constitution says that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech”. We are claiming that right by representing Mad Dog Review in a case against the City of Jonesville, which has banned their performance, based on the authority of Municipal Ordinance section 355-20, which gives them the right to vote to, “Prohibit the performance of any type of standards of decency or acceptability.” Relevant case law Atlantic Beach Casino inc. v. Marenzoni, (749F. Suppl. 38 (D. R.I. 1990) held that, “time, place and manner restriction on expressive activity are permissible, but even then the regulations must be “narrowly and precisely tailored to their legitimate objectives.” Previous case law states that,” Any system of prior restraints of expression comes of this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.” Bantam Books inc. v. Sullivan 372.U.S. 58,7,53. The Jonesville city ordinance violates the right to freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment and supported by relevant case law.
Recommendation
I think that Mad Dog Review has a very strong case and should pursue this lawsuit.
From: Naomi Hawkins
Date: November 17, 2010
Re: Mad Dog Review v. Jonesville
Statement of Assignment
I have been assigned the job of determining whether the Jonesville Municipal Ordinance 355-20 violates Mad Dog Review’s right to freedom of expression.
Issue
According to the interpretation provided by the case, Atlantic Beach Casino Inc. v. Morenzoni, does the Jonesville municipal ordinance 355-20, violate the freedom of expression granted by the first amendment of the U.S. constitution by giving the city council the right to ban Mad Dog Review’s performance based on their definitions of “local standards of decency or acceptability”, when there is no clear definitions of these standard written into the ordinance?
Brief Answer
Yes, the ordinance does violate the constitutional rights granted by the First Amendment, and thus cannot be enforced. According to Atlantic Beach Casino inc. v. Morenzoni, any ordinance involving prior restraint must have “narrow, objective and definite standards”, to survive constitutional scrutiny. Based on the findings in this case, the vague wording, and lack of definition, offered by Jonesville Municipal Ordinance 355-20 will not hold up under such scrutiny.
Facts
The city council of Jonesville has banned the controversial rap band, Mad Dog Review, from performing in their community based on their local ordinance, which allows them to prohibit any entertainment that they perceive, “does not comport with the local standards of decency.” Mad Dog Review wants to challenge the authority of the city council to ban their performance.
Analysis
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” In our case, the Jonesville City Council is violating the First Amendment by prohibiting Mad Dog Review’s performance. The Jonesville Council enacted the ban based on city ordinance 355-20, which provides that: “The City council, upon majority vote, may prohibit the public performance of any type of entertainment that does not comport with the local standards of decency or acceptability.” This ordinance does not include any restrictions or definitions of these local standards to guide the council in its judgment.
In Atlantic Beach Casino v. Marenzoni (749 F. Supp. 38, D. R. I. 1990), an on point case, the Westerly Town Council attempted to prevent the band, “2 Live Crew,” from performing by revoking the plaintiffs’ entertainment license. The Westerly Code of Ordinances gave the Town Council the power to revoke any entertainment license “after public hearing for cause shown.” The Town Council claimed that they were interested in protecting public safety, and not objecting to the band’s lyrics, but the plaintiffs contested that the town’s ordinance was unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
According to the interpretation provided by the Court in this case, “A licensing scheme involving such prior restraint survives constitutional scrutiny only when the law contains ’narrow, objective and definite standards to guide the licensing authority’.” Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U S 147, 150-151. The Court holds that, “When dealing with the First amendment , the law does not allow us to presume good intentions on the part of the reviewing body, Lakewood, 486 US at 770, 108S.Ct. at 1243-44,” but that, “ The standards must be explicitly set out in the ordinance itself.” The Court is clear in its requirements for precise language and clear distinct definitions and standards for ordinances attempting to limit the power of the constitution.
The Jonesville ordinance does not define “local standards of decency or acceptability,” and does not contain “narrow, objective and definite standards” for judgment. The standards are not explicitly set out within the ordinance. According to this case on point, which deals specifically with city ordinances limiting free speech, this city ordinance, as written, is unconstitutional.
Conclusion
The First amendment of the U.S. Constitution says that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech”. We are claiming that right by representing Mad Dog Review in a case against the City of Jonesville, which has banned their performance, based on the authority of Municipal Ordinance section 355-20, which gives them the right to vote to, “Prohibit the performance of any type of standards of decency or acceptability.” Relevant case law Atlantic Beach Casino inc. v. Marenzoni, (749F. Suppl. 38 (D. R.I. 1990) held that, “time, place and manner restriction on expressive activity are permissible, but even then the regulations must be “narrowly and precisely tailored to their legitimate objectives.” Previous case law states that,” Any system of prior restraints of expression comes of this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.” Bantam Books inc. v. Sullivan 372.U.S. 58,7,53. The Jonesville city ordinance violates the right to freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment and supported by relevant case law.
Recommendation
I think that Mad Dog Review has a very strong case and should pursue this lawsuit.