Roe v. Meese
District Court, S.D. New York
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
LOWE, District Judge.
Plaintiffs Jane Roe, John Doe, Inc., and the Consenting Adults Telephone Rights Association challenge the constitutionality of 47 U.S.C. § 223(b), as amended by the “Telephone Decency Act” earlier this year. The amended statute bans “indecent” and “obscene” interstate telephone communications for commercial purposes. The plaintiffs are engaged in the business of providing live telephone conversations that are paid for in advance by credit card. These conversations are generally, at least in part, sexual in nature.
Plaintiffs request that this Court…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Elrod v. BurnsSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Miller v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Crowell v. BensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Speiser v. RandallSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Virginia v. American Booksellers Assn., Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- American Information Enterprises, Inc. v. ThornburghDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1990