Prepare the heading, statement of assignment, issue, brief answer, and statement of facts sections of an office memo based on the case below. Use the format and guidelines presented in this chapter when performing this assignment.

We represent Mad Dog Review, a local rap band. As you know, this is a controversial group. The lyrics of one of their songs, $$Mad Dog City Council,$$ describes our city council in explicit terms using $$dirty$$ words and language generally considered obscene. Based upon the language in their songs, and specifically that in $$Mad Dog City Council,$$ the city council of Jonesville $($a neighboring municipality$)$ has banned the group from performing in their community.

The Jonesville city council based their authority to enact the ban on Municipal Ordinance section $355-20.$ The ordinance provides: $$The City Council, upon majority vote, may prohibit the public performance of any type of entertainment that does not comport with local standards of decency or acceptability.$$ The ordinance does not define $$local standards of decency or acceptability$$ or provide any standards or guidelines that the city council must follow.

Mad Dog Review wants to challenge the authority of the Jonesville city council to ban their performance. Please prepare an office memorandum addressing the question of whether the municipal ordinance violates the group's right to freedom of expression.

Rule of Law: First Amendment of the United States Constitution $($U$.$S$.$ Const. amend. I$).$

Case Law: Assume that the only case law governing this question is Atlantic Beach Casino, Inc. v$.$ Morenzoni, $749$ F$.$ Supp. $38($D$.$R$.$I. $1990).$

ATLANTIC BEACH CASINO, INC. d$/$b$/$a the Windjammer, et al$.,$ Plaintiffs, v$.$ Edward T$.$ MARENZONI, et al$.,$ Defendants. Civ. A$.$ No$.90-0471.$ United States District Court, D$.$ Rhode Island. Sept. $28,749$ F$.$ Supp. $38($D$.$R$.$I. $1990)1990.$

Opinion and Order

PETTINE, Senior District Judge.

In the last few years legislators and citizens have paid increasing attention to the lyrical content of popular music. The interest is not entirely new, for $$rulers have long known $[$music$\text{'}$s$]$ capacity to appeal to the intellect and to the emotions and have censored musical compositions to serve the needs of the state.$$ Ward v$.$ Rock Against Racism, $\_\_\_$ U$.$S$.\_\_\_,109$ S$.$ Ct$.2746,2753,105$ L$.$ Ed$.2$d $661(1989).$ The controversy some groups have ignited is not, in itself, any reason to take such speech outside the First Amendment. Indeed, expression may $$best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger.$$ Terminiello v$.$ Chicago, $337$ U$.$S$.1,4,69$ S$.$ Ct$.894,896,893$ L$.$ Ed$.1131(1949).$ The message and reputation of the rap music group $2$ Live Crew evidently came to the attention of the Westerly Town Council, for they have taken steps toward possibly preventing the group from playing a scheduled concert. It is in this way that $2$ Live Crew became the subject of$,$ though not a party to$,$ the present litigation.

On September $19,1990,$ plaintiffs, who have contracted to present the $2$ Live Crew concert, moved for a temporary restraining order prohibiting the defendants, members of the Westerly Town Council, from holding a show cause hearing on September $24,1990,$ concerning the revocation of plaintiffs' entertainment license; from revoking the plaintiffs' entertainment license; from prohibiting the $2$ Live Crew concert scheduled for October $6,1990$; and from imposing any special requirements on plaintiffs relative to the October $6$ presentation. On September $21,1990,$ the parties and this Court agreed that the matter would be considered as an application for a preliminary injunction and that the show cause hearing would be continued until October $1,1990,$ subject to and dependent upon this Court's ruling. Based on the September $21$ conference and my review of the parties' briefs, this Court has determined that the central issue in this case is plaintiffs' facial challenge to the town of Westerly's licensing ordinances on First Amendment grounds. Because I find, for the reasons set out below, that the ordinances as written are unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, defendants are enjoined from conducting a show cause hearing and from revoking plaintiff's entertainment license. I also enjoin the defendants from prohibiting the concert for failing to allege sufficient harm to overcome plaintiffs' First Amendment rights.

III.Injunctive Relief

In order for plaintiffs to prevail in their request for a preliminary injunction, they must meet the following standards: the plaintiff must demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, immediate and irreparable harm, that the injury outweighs any harm engendered by the grant of injunctive relief and that the public interest will not be adversely affected by such grant. LeBeau v$.$ Spirito, $703$ F$\mathrm{.}2$d $639,642(1$st Cir. $1983).$ I shall address each of these standards in tu