Theater Sues State Police For Using State Liquor Laws To Walk All Over The First Amendment
from the creepy-cops-on-creeping-missions dept
In which we learn the Idaho State Police Department isn't so much interested in law enforcement as it is with easy wins.
The operator of the Village Cinema is suing the Idaho State Police for threatening to revoke the theater’s liquor license for serving alcohol while showing the R-rated movie “Fifty Shades of Grey” last February.Why would that even matter? Because Idaho has a law in place which ties liquor regulation to a bunch of sexual activity, most likely meant to keep booze sales out of strip clubs and/or porno theaters.
Idaho law prohibits places licensed to serve alcohol from showing movies that depict “acts or simulated acts of sexual intercourse” or “any person being touched or fondled” in areas including the breast and buttocks.Two state police officers bought alcoholic beverages and tickets to "Fifty Shades of Grey." They also took copious amounts of notes, so if you'd like to see the "highlights" of the film without having to suffer through all of it, skip to page 28 of the filing. That's the Idaho State Police's criminal complaint and it contains a detailed description of every sex scene in the film.
The theater is allowed to sell alcohol to attendees, who are then directed to "VIP" areas of the theater, cordoned off from non-drinkers. The only stipulation is that it can't sell alcohol to viewers with tickets to movies where "simulated sexual acts" might be depicted. As the lawsuit points out, the actions of the Idaho State Police -- which threatened to pull its liquor license -- have First Amendment implications.
Idaho Code § 23-614 purports to authorize the Director of the Idaho State Police to punish the owner of a licensed movie theater by suspending or revoking his or her liquor license, or by imposing a fine, based on the content of movies that the owner decides to show.The law itself appears to be unconstitutional. Certainly, the enforcement of it in this fashion is.
Idaho Code § 23-614 purports to authorize the Director of the Idaho State Police to suspend or revoke a liquor license, or impose a fine upon the licensee, based on the content of movies that are not legally obscene and that have artistic merit.
Accordingly, Idaho Code § 23-614 is a content-based restriction on speech that is prohibited by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to non-obscene movies.
The cinema’s lawyer, Jeremy Chou, cites a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that said it had been “clearly established that liquor regulations could not be used to impose restrictions on speech that would otherwise be permitted under the First Amendment.”But that's what's happening here. As the theater points out, plenty of other R-rated films contain depictions of sexual acts. It lists several other Academy Award-nominated films that were screened during the same year -- none of which received the same attention from law enforcement "Fifty Shades of Grey" did.
a. “American Sniper”The only exception was "The Wolf of Wall Street." Apparently, law enforcement received a "tip" that alcohol would be served to viewers of the film. Officers informed the theater that serving alcohol would violate the law and the theater made those showings alcohol-free.
b. “The Grand Budapest Hotel”
c. “12 Years a Slave”
d. “Dallas Buyers Club”
e. “The Wolf of Wall Street”
f. “American Hustle”
g. “Les Misérables”
h. “Silver Linings Playbook”
The law forces theater owners to either guess what sort of simulated sexual acts will fly under state police radar or simply ban alcohol consumption at a majority of its screenings. Rather than play this broken game of chance with local law enforcement, the theater is seeking to have the law struck down as unconstitutional. It notes that the statute has had a detrimental effect on its income and notes that it makes it far too easy for alcohol-free competitors to send law enforcement out to hassle staff and supervisors by phoning in "tips" any time a new title appears on the marquee.
Beyond all of that, there's the issue of law enforcement resources. Is this the best way to spend taxpayer money? Playing gotcha with a local theater showing MPAA-approved films that are clearly protected expression? Even the police department's criminal complaint states more than one employee informed undercover "detectives" they could not drink alcohol while watching "Fifty Shades." But because one server brought them drinks before the film started, the agency decided to go after the theater's liquor license. It's the sort of effort that puts the "petty" back into "petty criminal offense." It's selective enforcement that does little more than turn the government into everyone's prudish aunt, wagging a finger at booze consumption, sexual activity or any combination of the two.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 50 shades of gray, first amendment, free speech, idaho, idaho state police, liquire license, movies, theater
Companies: village cinema
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's either that duct-tapeing a pair of welding goggles to your face.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I pity the fool (still going to the cinema).
Fortunately, we have our own media room that's the equal of any "small house" at an actual cinema. So we don't worry about this fascist nonsense.
Let the Jack Daniels flow like water...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I know they're not exactly legally binding like the ones in other countries, but has there ever been a movie with a valid MPAA certificate below an X/NC-17 that's been held up as obscene? If not, it seems like a massive waste of time to go trolling R rated films.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There's a big difference between "going to a movie to get drunk" and "I'm an adult and I'd like a glass of wine or cold beer with my movie instead of a soda the size of a small child".
"So many things could go wrong. Like ending up watching a Star Wars prequel."
Even worse: you could be watching them sober
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Even worse: you could be watching them sober"
Oh god you're right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Let's just say that from our experience seeing the Twilight films, I'm on Team Porter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This one deserves a funny vote. *holds a glass of wine for a toast*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Heaven forbid you see a titty getting jiggled while holding a drink... it could lead to women wearing skirts ABOVE the ankle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
puritan losers
How do these people not go home and think, God I am such a fucking loser?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: puritan losers
"How do these people not go home and think, God I am such a fucking loser?"
I think cops have developed a thick coating that protects them from those kinds of thoughts called ego or hero complex. They're out protecting you from slightly tipsily watching a bad movie. You're welcome. And don't dare think you can question them since they put their lives and tastes in movies on the line for you everyday.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: puritan losers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If the cinema weren't allowed to serve alcohol regardless of the content of the movie there probably wouldn't be a speech issue. But, since the content of the movie/speech is what's used to determine the legality of the alcohol, it becomes a speech issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"The cinema’s lawyer, Jeremy Chou, cites a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that said it had been “clearly established that liquor regulations could not be used to impose restrictions on speech that would otherwise be permitted under the First Amendment.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
the government says you can drink all the beer you want.
they say you can also curse all you want
but if you're drinking beer, they say you can no longer curse.
that is a first amendment violation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That argument doesn't work. They're restricting the sale of alcohol, which is going to cut into their profits, which is going to cause them to not show this type of movie based on government action. Most of a theater's profits are from the concessions, not from ticket prices.
Imagine if the government passed a law saying that newspapers couldn't sell advertising in any issue that exposed government corruption. By your argument, the government could say "Hey, we're not passing ANY law about not exposing corruption; we're just passing a law about selling ads. If they want to make money they can just charge a higher subscription price."
That said, I'm not 100% sure that depictions of sex are what the founders had in mind when they passed the First Amendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thanks, that's possibly the most important thing to note here. The reason they offer alcohol is because it helps draw people in, and they have higher profit margins. If they can't sell that when they show certain kinds of movies, they will inevitably show less of those movies because they make more money with other kinds of movie.
@Mason: That's where the speech issue comes in. The government are indirectly trying to persuade the cinema to curtail certain kinds of speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, it's still a restriction on the services they can offer, based solely on the content of the speech. It's an indirect restriction to be sure, but it's still a restriction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Then I supposed that you would also say that just restricting someone's movement by putting them in jail for what they say "is not in any way restricted speech." I mean, they can still say it, they're just going to jail, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Disclaimer: this pseudo-rant (I haven't watched the movie nor read the book) was not written while drinking alcoholic stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'artistic merit'
I'm not dumping on modern art, but I am dumping on hypocritical legislation, particularly where one person's art is another person's trash. And that is a huge driving force behind the First Amendment. An opinion that one citizen might find objectionable is dearly held by another. Personally, I doubt that I would find Fifty Shades of Gray as an artistic piece, but I am biased; I can't get past the knowledge that the book started out as Twilight fanfic. However, a world that viewed art/non-art from a perspective of one person would truly suck, so me thinking that it's not art even if I did see it should appropriately count for zip.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'artistic merit'
https://youtu.be/Frd53vbCHLg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yeah, ok.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Morality Police
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would be curious if the people that own this theatre have pissed off the local police in some way that the police are doing this in retaliation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can you imagine the briefing ?
"I need you to buy beer and go and watch a movie, paying particular attention to all the sexual stuff."
"It's a tough life in law enforcement, that's for sure!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"The law itself appears to be unconstitutional."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Short Re-Write of Story
Peep-show obsessed cop pissed he's not getting his rightful free everything from theater and is expected to follow the law, so he busts the theater after a long party recounting all the good parts of the porno flick in writing at the station using pirated video from his cell phone. Public-spirited theater sues for first amendment violation, doing everyone a favor -- and possibly Streisanding the harassing cops.
Note: the above recitation is fact-free and sourced entirely from leaps of my imagination.
The book itself has been reviewed as "50 Shades of Crap"...I found it unreadable myself, it just didn't hold my interest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
America Is Fucking Tired
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
date
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I believe that goes beyond fair use. Or did they just need to cover their asses?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]