# Davis-Kidd Booksellers, Inc. v. McWherter

> Tennessee Supreme Court · November 8, 1993 · 866 S.W.2d 520

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9762032

## Case

- **Full name:** DAVIS-KIDD BOOKSELLERS, INC.; R.M. Mills Bookstore, Inc.; Austin Periodical Services, Inc.; American Booksellers Association, Inc.; Association of American Publishers; Council for Periodical Distributors Associations; International Periodical Distributors Association, Inc.; National Association of College Stores, Inc.; The Freedom to Read Foundation; Tennessee Library Association; And East Tennessee Library Association, Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. Ned Ray McWHERTER, in His Capacity as Governor of the State of Tennessee; Charles W. Burson, in His Capacity as Attorney General of the State of Tennessee; Victor S. Johnson, III, in His Capacity as the District Attorney for Davidson County, Tennessee; And Robert Kirchner, in His Capacity as Chief of Police, Metropolitan Police Department for Nashville and Davidson County, Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants
- **Court:** Tennessee Supreme Court
- **Decided:** November 8, 1993
- **Citations:** 866 S.W.2d 520; 22 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1225; 1993 Tenn. LEXIS 407
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Reid
- **Judges:** Anderson, Drowota, Daughtrey, Lewis, Reid
- **Cited by:** 106 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9762032

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- applying the constitutional vagueness standard to a state statute prohibiting the display of visual depiction of material “harmful to minors” which includes any “representation” of “excessive violence” and holding that any deficiency “is not cured by incorporating violence in …
- holding that the courts should adopt the plausible construction that avoids undermining the statute’s constitutionality

## Opinion text

REID, Chief Justice.
I concur, and write separately to emphasize that the court in this case does not proscribe expression by arbitrary definition as the majority did in State v. Marshall, 859 *539 S.W.2d 289, 295 (Tenn.1993). Instead, the Court decides “whether the State, in serving the compelling interest of protecting minors, has drawn its statute narrowly enough to avoid unnecessarily interfering with free speech rights.” The state’s interest in protecting minors from harm is not disputed, nor is the premise that the material defined by the statute causes harm to minors. The essential issue is the balancing of the plaintiffs’ rights of expression against the state’s interest in protecting minors from harm. The statute as construed by the Court, is “the least intrusive means of regulation,” and, therefore, does not violate Article I, Section 19 of the Tennessee Constitution. This decision is consistent with the position stated in dissent in State v. Marshall:
[Ejxpression may be limited only to protect a compelling state interest, that the means used to protect competing interests must bear a substantial relation to an identified harm, and the least intrusive means must be utilized to accomplish the state interest.
State v. Marshall, 859 S.W.2d 289, 295 (Tenn.1993) (Reid, C.J. concurring and dissenting.)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9762032. Public record. Not legal advice.