Law Defining Pornography as Sex Discrimination Upset : Supreme Court Ruling a Setback for Feminists

The Supreme Court, handing feminists and religious conservatives a major defeat, ruled that a much-publicized Indianapolis ordinance that would make distributors of pornography subject to sex discrimination lawsuits is unconstitutional.

The court said, in a 6-3 vote, that the Indianapolis ordinance interferes impermissibly with free speech. The case has been closely watched as several other communities, including Los Angeles, debated whether to write such an ordinance.

Today’s decision was announced without opinion. The court, without waiting to conduct oral arguments or solicit more briefs in the case, merely upheld lower court rulings.

Chief Justice Warren E. Burger and Justices William H. Rehnquist and Sandra Day O’Connor had voted to hear arguments in the case, but four votes are needed to grant such review.

‘Innovative, Promising’

The ordinance had attempted to fight pornography by defining it as sex discrimination and allowing those aggrieved to bring charges.

In seeking the Supreme Court’s help, Indianapolis Mayor William H. Hudnut III and other city officials argued that the ordinance was an “innovative and promising” way to help victims, mostly women and children, of the pornography industry.

The Indianapolis ordinance was enacted by a 24-5 vote of the City Council on April 23, 1984. It defined pornography as a practice that discriminates against women by portraying them as sexual objects who enjoy pain or humiliation and presents them as sexual objects of violence.

Even as the ordinance was enacted, its supporters voiced doubts whether it would withstand a legal challenge.

Challenged by Store Owners

The American Booksellers Assn., composed of about 5,200 bookstore owners, quickly challenged the ordinance in a federal lawsuit.

U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker on Nov. 18, 1984, ruled that the ordinance violated free-speech rights. She had previously barred its enforcement.

The U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld her ruling last Aug. 27, stating that the ordinance wrongly discriminates on the basis of speech content.

The appeals court said that under the ordinance, “speech treating women in the approved way--in sexual encounters premised on equality--is lawful no matter how sexually explicit. Speech treating women in the disapproved way--as submissive in matters sexual or enjoying humiliation--is unlawful no matter how significant the literary, artistic or political qualities of the work taken as a whole.”

The appeals court added: “This is thought control.”

In other cases today the court:

--Agreed to decide by July the constitutionality of the Gramm-Rudman law, which requires a balanced federal budget by 1991.

The justices said they will hold two hours of arguments, twice the normal amount, in April so they can decide the case before adjourning in July.

--Cleared the way for the extradition to Israel of accused Nazi war criminal John Demjanjuk, who allegedly helped kill hundreds of thousands of Jews in a World War II death camp.

--Left intact a Texas law that bars high school students from extracurricular activities such as sports and band if their grades fall too low. The 1984 law, which disqualified about 15% of the varsity football players in Texas’ 1,100 school districts, is not a federal matter, the high court said.

--Agreed to decide what test the government must use in refusing asylum to illegal aliens who say they will be persecuted if they return to their homeland.