The U.S. District Court granted a preliminary injunction blocking a law that would require booksellers and librarians to limit their books appropriate to all minors only or exclude all minors from their premises. Another provision on the law allows any person in Arkansas to demand the removal of a book that the person deems inappropriate.
Maryland H.B. 30 would bar the display of material if its cover or content is “harmful to minors.”
West Virginia S.B. 128 would bar the dissemination and display to minors of “harmful to minors” material, but the bill does not define “harmful to minors.”
The State of Colorado joined plaintiffs’ attorneys today in asking a federal judge to declare Colorado’s restrictions on marijuana-related magazines unconstitutional and to enter a permanent order blocking their implementation and enforcement.
Bookstores, newsstands and two bookseller organizations filed suit yesterday to block enforcement of a law that violates the First Amendment rights of retailers to display magazines that focus on marijuana and their customers’ right to browse those publications.
Rhode Island H.B. 7409 tasks the Public Utility Commission to create regulations to bar the display of material deemed “indecent.”
Kansas S.B. 401 would change the scienter requirement from “knowingly” to “recklessly” with regards to displaying and distributing materials that are considered “harmful to minors.” It is a companion bill to H.B. 2496.
Kansas H.B. 2496 would change the scienter requirement from “knowingly” to “recklessly” with regards to displaying and distributing materials that are considered “harmful to minors.” It is a companion bill to S.B. 401.
The U.S. District Court struck down a Colorado law restricting the display of magazines whose focus is marijuana or the marijuana business.
West Virginia S.B. 640 would bar the dissemination or display of any depictions of nudity or sexual conduct to minors.
Kansas H.B. 2165 would change the scienter requirement from “knowingly” to “recklessly” with regards to displaying and distributing materials that are considered harmful to minors.”
The U.S. District court struck down a provision in an Arkansas law that required retailers to segregate and use blinders for materials “harmful to minors.”
The U.S. District Court upheld Michigan’s law restricting the display of materials harmful to minors but clarified that the law only applies publications that have “harmful to minors” material on their covers or spines.
The Tennessee Supreme Court ruled that the state’s display provision was constitutional but only for material found to be “borderline obscenity,” and that the “excessive violence” provision of the definition of “harmful to minors” was unconstitutional.
The 11th Circuit found that the Georgia “harmful to minors” law is constitutional but narrowed the scope of the law to limits on display only if the material is harmful to the oldest minors.
The 4th Circuit upheld Virginia’s “harmful to minors” display law after the Virginia Supreme Court narrowed it to apply only to the display of materials that would be illegal for the oldest minors. Before remanding the case to the 4th Circuit, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the plaintiffs’ standing to challenge the law absent the threat of prosecution.
The U.S. District Court ruled that New Mexico’s minors’ access is constitutional after limiting the statute’s definition of “harmful to minors.”
The 8th Circuit ruled that a “harmful to minors” access statute is a permissible “time, place and manner” restriction on speech.
The Pennsylvania Superior Court upheld the state’s minors’ access statute.
The California 2nd District Court of Appeals ruled that an ordinance requiring that “harmful to minors” materials be shrink-wrapped is unconstitutional.
The U.S. District Court struck down Georgia’s law restricting the display of material with sexual content on its cover or in its contents as a violation of the First Amendment.
The Tennessee Supreme Court rules that the state’s obscenity and display law is unconstitutional.
