## Facts

- Rhode Island created a “Commission to Encourage Morality in Youth” to educate the public about allegedly obscene materials and to investigate and recommend prosecution of obscenity-law violations.
- The Commission sent notices to local book and magazine distributors listing publications it deemed “objectionable” for sale or display to persons under 18.
- The notices requested distributors’ “cooperation,” stated that lists were circulated to local police, and referenced the Commission’s duty to recommend obscenity prosecutions.
- Local police followed up with distributors after notices were sent.
- Distributors and retailers withdrew or stopped carrying listed publications, attributing compliance to fear of prosecution.
- Several paperback publishers sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging the statute and Commission practices violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
- The trial court found the notices intimidated distributors and resulted in suppression of sales, and granted relief; the state supreme court reversed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Commission’s “informal” notices and circulation of “objectionable” lists, backed by references to prosecution and police involvement, constituted state action imposing an unconstitutional restraint on expression.
2. Whether informal governmental pressure that suppresses distribution of publications, without prior judicial obscenity determinations or procedural safeguards, violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the state supreme court.
- The Court held the Commission’s practices constituted state action under color of state law.
- The Court held the Commission operated an unconstitutional system of informal censorship that violated the First Amendment as applied through the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The Court emphasized that the Commission’s approach lacked any meaningful procedural safeguards and operated to suppress even constitutionally protected, nonobscene material.

## Legal Principles

- Government may not suppress expression indirectly through informal pressure, threats, or “requests for cooperation” that effectively restrain distribution.
- When regulating obscenity, states must use procedures that protect against curtailment of constitutionally protected expression, given the difficulty of separating protected material from obscenity.
- Informal suppression that achieves the practical effect of a prior restraint is unconstitutional where it occurs without an adversarial process and without a prior judicial determination of obscenity.
- Actions by a statutorily created commission invoking official authority and coordinating with police are attributable to the state for Fourteenth Amendment purposes.

## Conclusion

The Court invalidated Rhode Island’s commission-driven notice-and-police-follow-up scheme because it functioned as informal censorship, coercing distributors to remove publications without judicial obscenity findings or procedural protections required to prevent suppression of protected speech.


Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58 (1963)