Section IV 11/27/2012 1 AM 6. Obscenity Barnes v.

Glen Theater 498 US 439 Facts: Indiana statute: It is a misdemeanor to appear in a state of nudity in a public place and female dancers are required to wear at least pasties and a G-string when they dance. 2 establishments (Kitty Kat Lounge and Glen Theatre) wish to provide totally nude dancing as entertainment and brought an action to court that the statute impinges on the freedom of expression under the First Amendment. Court of Appeals held that non-obscene nude dancing performed for entertainment is an expression protected by the First Amendment and that the statute was an improper infringement because its purpose was to prevent the message of eroticism and sexuality. Issue: The Indiana public indecency law violates free expression as guaranteed in the First Amendment. Held: The statute does not violate the First Amendment. Judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed. Test whether government regulation is sufficiently justified: (1) Government regulation is within the governments constitutional power (2) Regulation furthers an important governmental interest (3) Governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression (4) Incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest Nude dancing as entertainment is expressive conduct within the outer perimeters of the First Amendment but application of the Indiana statute is justified. (1) It is within the states constitutional powers. (2) Although its impossible to discern exactly what the governmental interests are in this case, the statutes purpose of protecting societal order and morality can be traced from its text and history and illustrates that the Indiana statue furthers a substantial government interest. (3) It may be contended that prohibiting nudity does not suppress expression, but prohibiting nude dancing does. The statute does not prohibit nude dancing because of the message of eroticism it conveys but it seeks to address the evil of public nudity. (4) There is a fit with the requirement that dancers wear a least pasties and a G-string. This is the bare minimum necessary to achieve the states purpose. FCC v Pacifica Foundation 438 US 726 Facts. On October 30, 1973, at 2:00 p.m., a New York radio station, owned by the Respondent, Pacifica Foundation (Respondent) broadcast the Filthy Words monologue. A few weeks later, a man who stated that he heard the broadcast while driving with his young son, wrote a letter complaining to the Petitioner, the Federal Communications Commission (Petitioner). In response to the complaint, the Respondent explained that the monologue had been played during a program about contemporary societys attitude toward language and that, immediately before its

broadcast, listeners had been advised of the monologues language. The Petitioner, after characterizing the language as patently offensive, though not necessarily obscene, issued a declaratory order granting the complaint, but not imposing any formal sanctions. The Petitioner concluded that the language as broadcast was indecent and prohibited by 18 U.S.C. Section:1464, prohibiting the broadcast of obscene, indecent or profane language. The United States Court of Appeals reversed. Issue. Whether the Petitioner has any power to regulate a radio broadcast that is indecent but not obscene? It is not necessary for the Petitioner to determine that a communication is obscene before it may exercise its regulatory power. The Petitioner can use its regulatory power to channel indecent material to times when children are not able, or much less likely, to receive it. As a result, the Petitioners action is sustained and the decision of the United States Court of Appeals is reversed. Renton v. Playtime Theater 475 US 41 Facts. The Respondent purchased two theatres in Renton, Washington for the purpose of showing adult films. The Respondent filed suit in Federal District Court seeking an injunction and declaratory judgment claiming that the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution were violated by a city ordinance, which prohibited adult motion picture theatres from being located within 1,000 feet of any residential zone, single or multiple-family dwelling, church, park or school. The District Court entered summary judgment in favor of the Petitioner, the City of Renton (Petitioner), holding that the ordinance did not violate the First Amendment of the Constitution. On reversal, the Court of Appeals held that the ordinance constituted a substantial restriction on First Amendment constitutional interests and remanded the case for reconsideration as to whether the city had substantial interests to support the ordinance. Issue. Was the zoning ordinance an acceptable time, place, and manner restriction when it outlawed adult movie theaters within 1000 feet of any residential zone, church, park, or school? Held. Yes. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed. Justice William H. Rehnquist (J. Rehnquist) delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court. Content-neutral time, place, and manner regulations are acceptable so long as they are designed to serve a substantial government interest and do not unreasonably limit alternative avenues of communication.