72. Should the store owner prevail in this defense?

If an expression falls in a pre-defined «unprotected category» of speech, the government will be able to impose content-based restrictions on it, as long as the regulation is not overbroad or vague. Unprotected speech includes, but is not limited to, obscenity. «Obscenity» is defined as a description or depiction of sexual conduct that an average person would find: (i) appeals to the prurient interest in sex; (ii) portrays sex in a patently offensive way; and (iii) does not have any serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

«Prurient» is defined as «material having a tendency to excite lustful thoughts» and excludes materials which, although they «excite lustful thoughts,» provoke «only normal, healthy sexual desires.» See Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.S. 491 (1985). The appeal to prurient interest has been defined to include that which appeals to a shameful or morbid interest in sex. Nudity, by itself, is not considered obscene. See, e.g., Erie v. Pap's A.M., 529 U.S. 277 (2000).

In general, commercial speech does have some First Amendment protection. In determining whether a regulation of commercial speech is valid, there is a four-step process: (i) initially, whether the commercial speech concerns a lawful activity that is not misleading or fraudulent; (ii) the regulation must serve a substantial government interest; (iii) it must directly advance that interest; and (iv) it must be narrowly tailored to serve the substantial interest.

C is correct. The store owner is likely to prevail because the video containing pictures of nude sunbathers does not constitute «obscene» and is therefore protected speech. To be considered obscene, the pictures on the video would have to amount to a depiction that an average person would have found to be excessively appealing to sex or portraying sex in a patently obvious way. However, the nude sunbathing was common where the pictures were taken, and nudity alone is not enough to be considered obscene. The images would have to appeal to morbid or shameful interests in sex, not healthy sexual desires. Here, there are no sexual activities depicted or even implied. Therefore, selling the videos would not be considered obscene speech and thus, the man would have a proper free speech defense.

A is incorrect. It is a misstatement of the law to assert that commercial speech does not receive First Amendment protection. Commercial speech does receive protection, although it is more limited than private or non-commercial speech. Specifically, when commercial speech is not unlawful, misleading, or fraudulent, a regulation placed upon it must directly advance a substantial government interest in a narrowly tailored way. As explained above, the man IS likely to prevail because selling the videos did not amount to unprotected obscene speech, which means he does have a First Amendment defense available to him.

B is incorrect. For the portrayals of nudity to appeal to the prurient interest of viewers, they must do more than incite lust. The pictures must appeal NOT to normal, healthy sexual desires, but to a shameful or morbid interest in sex. Here, there is nothing in the facts that indicate the pictures appeal to such a type of interest. Moreover, nudity alone is not considered obscene.

D is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. The store owner is likely to prevail, but not because the nude portrayals on the videos originated outside the country. The sale of the video is the issue, and the sale itself did not occur in a foreign country. The location where the pictures on the video were taken is not relevant to whether the store owner's constitutional rights were violated when he was prosecuted for selling the video. If the regulation had otherwise been constitutional, the state would be able to regulate it.