Carl

Carl v. City of Los Angeles

Good Law
132 Cal. Rptr. 365·1976 Cal. App. LEXIS 1805·61 Cal. App. 3d 265
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 18, 1976Civ. 46223California4,229 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kaus, J.

Until a few years ago, sidewalk newsracks were nothing but a convenience for the vendee, as well as an economical means of distribution for the vendor. Lately, however, because their proliferation has made them a major traffic hazard for pedestrians and their contents indicate that they are a handy way of peddling smut, they have aroused the concern of local legislatures and become the subject of prohibitory and regulatory ordinances. It is understandable that their transformation from a convenience to a municipal problem does not always trigger legislative responses which successfully avoid the constitutional pitfalls inevitable in an area that involves freedom of speech and of the press—particularly when the state Legislature has already preempted much of the field.

Although proliferation problems should be relatively easy to solve—a newsrack containing the Wall Street Journal obstructs a sidewalk as much as one that offers erotica—two anti-proliferation ordinances have already foundered on First Amendment shoals. (Remer v. City of El Cajon, 52 Cal.App.3d 441 [ 125 Cal.Rptr. 116 ]; California Newspaper Publishers Assn., Inc. v. City of Burbank, 51 Cal.App.3d 50 [ 123…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.