## Facts

- Sable Communications of California, Inc. operated a telephone service providing sexually oriented prerecorded messages to callers, including interstate callers.
- In 1988, Congress amended § 223(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit interstate commercial telephone messages that were “obscene or indecent.”
- Prior federal regulation had focused on limiting minors’ access through screening methods rather than a categorical prohibition.
- Sable sued in federal district court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against enforcement of both the obscenity and indecency portions of § 223(b) under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
- The district court denied preliminary injunctive relief as to the obscenity ban but enjoined enforcement of the indecency ban as overbroad and not narrowly drawn to protect children.
- Both sides appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether Congress may constitutionally ban interstate commercial telephone messages that are obscene.
2. Whether a total federal ban on indecent (but not obscene) interstate commercial telephone messages violates the First Amendment by restricting adult access beyond what is necessary to protect minors.

## Decision

- The Court upheld § 223(b) insofar as it bans obscene interstate commercial telephone messages.
- The Court held that obscene speech is outside First Amendment protection and rejected the argument that the statute imposed an impermissible national obscenity standard.
- The Court struck down § 223(b)’s categorical ban on indecent telephone messages as unconstitutional.
- The Court concluded that the indecency ban denied adults access to protected speech to a degree exceeding what was necessary to serve the compelling interest in protecting minors.
- The Court affirmed the denial of an injunction against the obscenity ban and affirmed the injunction against the indecency ban.

## Legal Principles

- Obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment and may be prohibited outright.
- A federal prohibition on obscene communications does not become unconstitutional merely because community standards for obscenity may vary; communications may be regulated if they are obscene under applicable local standards.
- Indecent but non-obscene sexual expression is protected by the First Amendment.
- Content-based restrictions on protected speech aimed at shielding minors must be narrowly drawn and may not broadly restrict adult access to lawful speech.
- Where less speech-restrictive measures could materially advance the government’s goal (such as access codes or credit-card verification), a flat ban on protected speech fails narrow tailoring.

## Conclusion

The Court sustained Congress’s power to bar obscene interstate dial-a-porn messages but invalidated a total ban on indecent messages because it suppressed protected adult speech more than necessary to protect minors.


Sable Commc'ns of Cal., Inc. v. F.C.C., 492 U.S. 115 (1989)