This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Sable Communications, Inc. began offering sexually oriented prerecorded telephone messages. Those who called the adult message number were charged a special fee. The fee was collected by Pacific Bell and divided between the phone company and the message provider. Sable (P) brought suit in District Court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against enforcement of the recently amended § 223(b). The statute imposed a blanket prohibition on indecent as well as obscene interstate commercial telephone messages. The District Court rejected the argument that the statute was unconstitutional because it created a national standard of obscenity. It upheld the ban on obscene speech but struck down the 'indecent speech' provision holding that the statute was overbroad and unconstitutional. While the government unquestionably has a legitimate interest in, e.g., protecting children from exposure to indecent dial-a-porn messages, § 223(b) is not narrowly drawn to achieve any such purpose. A flat-out ban of indecent speech is contrary to the First Amendment.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.