|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: UTAH TOLD TO PAY $475K IN LEGAL FEES IN “DEADPOOL” CASE
|
Harold Hallikainen
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 906
From: Denver, CO, USA
Registered: Aug 2009
|
posted 09-28-2018 11:48 AM
From Denver Post 9/28/18:
SALT LAKE CITY» A judge has ordered the state of Utah to pay more than $475,000 in legal fees after it lost a court fight over a law that banned serving alcohol during the racy, foul-mouthed superhero film “Deadpool.”
U.S. District Judge David Nuffer handed down a strongly worded
decision Wednesday denying state arguments that the price was too high.
“The political judgment of the state that it will enact a statute contrary to existing law and risk payment of legal fees is a legitimate choice, but it has consequences,”
he wrote.
Lawmakers and the governor had backed a law that’s largely aimed at strip clubs but also prohibited serving booze during films with simulated sex or full-frontal nudity. A movie theater sued in 2016 after Utah regulators threatened to fine it up to $25,000.
The state defended the measure in court, calling liquor and sex an “explosive combination,” even after Idaho lawmakers repealed a similar law.
Nuffer struck down the law last year as a violation of First Amendment rights, ruling the theater Brewvies is not an adult-oriented establishment and “Deadpool” is a mainstream, R-rated movie.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 09-28-2018 04:51 PM
At the risk of getting political (though I'll try to keep it strictly Constitutional), I'm puzzled as to how this law (no serving booze during R-rated movies) violates the First Amendment.
quote: Text of the First Amendment (my emphasis)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
They're not banning the screening of the movie, so how can the right of free speech have been abridged? And they're not stopping people from coming to see it, so likewise for the right peaceably to assemble. Does the judge believe that the act of ingesting alcohol in a public space is itself an act of free speech as defined in the First Amendment, maybe? If so, then he's just ruled it unconstitutional to do anything about drunken bums fighting each other on the sidewalk after the bars have closed.
On the contrary, preventing the theater's owner from deciding which movies (s)he will or will not allow booze to be served with potentially violates both the Fourth (paraphrased, the right of property owners to do what they like with their property, without unnecessary government interference) and Tenth (powers not explicitly claimed by the federal government are states' rights) Amendments, IMHO.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Sam Graham
AKA: "The Evil Sam Graham". Wackiness ensues.
Posts: 1431
From: Waukee, IA
Registered: Dec 2004
|
posted 09-29-2018 09:30 PM
A little history from the SLC Trib
Brewvies Wins Judgment
quote:
Brewvies has come out on top in its lawsuit against the state of Utah, likely ending a monthslong legal fight that involved alcohol, sex, the First Amendment — and the superhero movie ”Deadpool.”
The case began in early 2016, after regulators with the state’s Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control threatened to fine the theater up to $25,000 and to temporarily rescind its license under a law that bans serving alcohol during films with simulated sex or full-frontal nudity.
On Thursday, U.S. District Judge David Nuffer issued a ruling resolving the case in Brewvies’ favor on First Amendment grounds. Brewvies attorneys had argued that the law hampered its free speech rights.
“The ruling means the state statute is unconstitutional and the state cannot enforce it,” Brewvies attorney Rocky Anderson said Thursday. ”It means that people don’t have to live in fear and terror of the DABC enforcing this blatantly unconstitutional statute any longer.
“Nonobscene movies now can be shown by anyone, including those who are regulated by the DABC,” the former Salt Lake City mayor said.
A spokesman for the DABC did not immediately return a message seeking comment. Gov. Gary Herbert and lawyers with the attorney general’s office had previously said the ban is not an infringement of free speech, but rather an attempt to preserve public decency.
“This is not a First Amendment issue,” Herbert said in a KUED news conference last year. “This is the law you have to comply with if you want to distribute alcohol.”
Nuffer saw things differently.
The judge wrote that the state may have compelling interests to avoid ”potential negative secondary effects” from mixing sexual content and alcohol. But the state’s enforcement mechanism, which it used against Brewvies, was ”not the least restrictive means for accomplishing” its goals under the First Amendment. Nuffer also noted that Brewvies was not an obscene, ”sexually-oriented” theater — it shows mainstream movies similar to many other American theaters.
“The state cannot argue that it has plenary power to control liquor licensing under the 21st Amendment, to the point of obliterating First Amendment rights,” Nuffer wrote in the ruling.
According to court documents, Brewvies was fined more than $1,500 in 2011 for showing the movie “The Hangover Part II,” which also includes nudity, and the theater had been warned when it showed other movies, such as “Magic Mike XXL” and “Ted 2.” The DABC encouraged Brewvies to stop serving alcohol altogether, so it wouldn‘t run into such issues showing racy films.
According to the documents, an attorney in the Utah attorney general’s office, which represents the DABC, wrote an email to a DABC compliance officer in late February 2016.
The email said: “I hate to bring this up, but it is just too blatant to ignore. Brewvies is showing Deadpool. The reviews describe explicit sex scenes and male and female frontal nudity. I know some people who have seen it, and they confirm that it is very raunchy amid the bloody violence. Perhaps you should refer it to [the state Bureau of Investigation].”
Soon, three undercover police officers with the Bureau of Investigation looked into the showings, and the theater was subsequently threatened with the fine and possible suspension or revocation of its license.
Anderson said he wasn’t surprised with the judge’s decision.
“We felt, from Day One, the statute is egregiously unconstitutional,” he said. “Our view has been that the attorney general should have met the highest obligation of that office, and vindicated the people’s constitutional rights.”
Anderson said the ruling would allow Brewvies to permanently show movies such as “Deadpool,” as long as they are not considered obscene or pornographic.
As for the larger implications for Utah’s alcohol laws, Anderson and the judge noted a parallel with a similar Idaho statute. That law ”was amended to substantially narrow [its] scope,” Nuffer wrote, after a similar legal challenge was filed there.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 10-03-2018 05:29 AM
Sorry; I misread the original facts in my post above. The decision as to which films qualified for the booze ban was being made by the state, not the business, in which case this does potentially put it in the ballpark of a First Amendment issue.
That having been said, I still find myself queasy about the judge's reasoning, which is that the UT law attempts to impose the state's 21st Amendment right (Section 2 of which has the effect of making the regulation of booze a states' right) to the extent that it abridges the theater's First Amendment right; and that the First Amendment is more important than the 21st.
That argument only holds water (or should that be beer?) if you accept that the act of serving and drinking alcohol is itself an act of free speech per the First Amendment, given that no-one is claiming that any restrictions were placed on what movies could be played; only what movies customers could be served alcohol with while they watched them.
I suspect that the end result of this ruling will be that more theaters will be reluctant to serve alcohol at all, or will find other ways to avoid serving it to customers who are likely to be unable to be responsible with it. For example, I recently did a service in one that has some VIP seats in its two biggest houses, that are accessible only from a mezzanine lobby, that has a bar in it. If you want a drink with your movie, therefore, you have to buy the $25 premium seats. That's a shame for people who are able to drink responsibly but cannot afford to pay $50 for a couple to see the movie even before they buy their drinks, but I suspect that this is the way things will go.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic