erznoznik
city
jacksonville
argued
february
decided
june
jacksonville
ordinance
making
public
nuisance
punishable
offense
movie
theater
exhibit
films
containing
nudity
screen
visible
public
street
place
held
facially
invalid
infringement
first
amendment
rights
pp
ordinance
discriminating
among
movies
solely
basis
content
effect
deterring
theaters
showing
movies
containing
nudity
however
innocent
even
educational
censorship
content
otherwise
protected
speech
justified
basis
limited
privacy
interest
persons
public
streets
offended
viewing
movies
readily
avert
eyes
pp
ordinance
justified
exercise
city
police
power
protection
children
viewing
films
even
assuming
purpose
restriction
broader
permissible
since
directed
sexually
explicit
nudity
otherwise
limited
pp
ordinance
justified
traffic
regulation
purpose
invalid
strikingly
legislative
classification
since
singles
movies
containing
nudity
movies
might
distract
passing
motorist
pp
possibility
narrowing
construction
ordinance
appears
remote
particularly
appellee
city
offered
several
distinct
justifications
broadest
terms
moreover
deterrent
effect
legitimate
expression
form
movies
real
substantial
pp
powell
delivered
opinion
douglas
brennan
stewart
marshall
blackmun
joined
douglas
filed
concurring
opinion
post
burger
filed
dissenting
opinion
rehnquist
joined
post
white
filed
dissenting
opinion
post
william
maness
argued
cause
filed
brief
appellant
william
lee
allen
argued
cause
appellee
brief
harry
louis
shorstein
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
reversal
filed
james
bouras
motion
picture
association
america
irwin
karp
authors
league
america
justice
powell
delivered
opinion
case
presents
challenge
facial
validity
jacksonville
ordinance
prohibits
showing
films
containing
nudity
movie
theater
screen
visible
public
street
place
appellant
richard
erznoznik
manager
university
theatre
jacksonville
march
charged
violating
municipal
code
exhibiting
motion
picture
visible
public
streets
female
buttocks
bare
breasts
shown
ordinance
adopted
january
provides
theaters
films
visible
public
streets
public
places
shall
unlawful
hereby
declared
public
nuisance
ticket
seller
ticket
taker
usher
motion
picture
projection
machine
operator
manager
owner
person
connected
employed
theater
city
exhibit
aid
assist
exhibiting
motion
picture
slide
exhibit
human
male
female
bare
buttocks
human
female
bare
breasts
human
bare
public
areas
shown
motion
picture
slide
exhibit
visible
public
street
public
place
violation
section
shall
punishable
class
offense
trial
upheld
ordinance
legitimate
exercise
municipality
police
power
ruled
infringe
upon
appellant
first
amendment
rights
district
appeal
first
district
florida
affirmed
relying
exclusively
chemline
city
grand
prairie
sustained
similar
ordinance
florida
denied
certiorari
three
judges
dissenting
noted
probable
jurisdiction
reverse
ii
appellee
concedes
ordinance
sweeps
far
beyond
permissible
restraints
obscenity
see
miller
california
thus
applies
films
protected
first
amendment
see
joseph
burstyn
wilson
jenkins
georgia
nevertheless
maintains
movie
containing
nudity
visible
public
place
may
suppressed
nuisance
several
theories
advanced
justify
contention
appellee
primary
argument
may
protect
citizens
unwilling
exposure
materials
may
offensive
jacksonville
ordinance
however
protect
citizens
movies
might
offend
rather
singles
films
containing
nudity
presumably
lawmakers
considered
especially
offensive
passersby
considered
analogous
issues
pitting
first
amendment
rights
speakers
privacy
rights
may
unwilling
viewers
auditors
variety
contexts
see
kovacs
cooper
breard
alexandria
cohen
california
lehman
city
shaker
heights
see
generally
haiman
speech
privacy
right
spoken
nw
rev
cases
demand
delicate
balancing
th
sphere
collision
claims
privacy
free
speech
free
press
interests
sides
plainly
rooted
traditions
significant
concerns
society
cox
broadcasting
cohn
ability
government
consonant
constitution
shut
discourse
solely
protect
others
hearing
dependent
upon
showing
substantial
privacy
interests
invaded
essentially
intolerable
manner
broader
view
authority
effectively
empower
majority
silence
dissidents
simply
matter
personal
predilections
cohen
california
jacksonville
ordinance
discriminates
among
movies
solely
basis
content
effect
deter
theaters
showing
movies
containing
nudity
however
innocent
even
educational
discrimination
justified
means
preventing
significant
intrusions
privacy
ordinance
seeks
keep
films
seen
public
streets
places
offended
viewer
readily
avert
eyes
short
screen
theater
obtrusive
make
impossible
unwilling
individual
avoid
exposure
redrup
new
york
thus
conclude
limited
privacy
interest
persons
public
streets
justify
censorship
otherwise
protected
speech
basis
content
appellee
also
attempts
support
ordinance
exercise
city
undoubted
police
power
protect
children
appellee
maintains
even
though
prohibit
display
films
containing
nudity
adults
present
ordinance
reasonable
means
protecting
minors
type
visual
influence
well
settled
state
municipality
adopt
stringent
controls
communicative
materials
available
youths
available
adults
see
ginsberg
new
york
nevertheless
minors
entitled
significant
measure
first
amendment
protection
see
tinker
des
moines
school
relatively
narrow
circumstances
may
government
bar
public
dissemination
protected
materials
see
interstate
circuit
city
dallas
rabeck
new
york
case
assuming
ordinance
aimed
prohibiting
youths
viewing
films
restriction
broader
permissible
ordinance
directed
sexually
explicit
nudity
otherwise
limited
rather
sweepingly
forbids
display
films
containing
uncovered
buttocks
breasts
irrespective
context
pervasiveness
thus
bar
film
containing
picture
baby
buttocks
nude
body
war
victim
scenes
culture
nudity
indigenous
ordinance
also
might
prohibit
newsreel
scenes
opening
art
exhibit
well
shots
bathers
beach
clearly
nudity
deemed
obscene
even
minors
see
ginsberg
new
york
supra
broad
restriction
justified
governmental
interest
pertaining
minors
speech
neither
obscene
youths
subject
legitimate
proscription
suppressed
solely
protect
young
ideas
images
legislative
body
thinks
unsuitable
circumstances
values
protected
first
amendment
less
applicable
government
seeks
control
flow
information
minors
see
tinker
des
moines
school
supra
cf
west
virginia
bd
ed
barnette
thus
jacksonville
ordinance
intended
regulate
expression
accessible
minors
overbroad
proscription
oral
argument
appellee
first
time
sought
justify
ordinance
traffic
regulation
claimed
nudity
movie
screen
distracts
passing
motorists
thus
slowing
flow
traffic
increasing
likelihood
accidents
nothing
record
text
ordinance
suggests
aimed
traffic
regulation
indeed
ordinance
applies
movie
screens
visible
public
places
well
public
streets
thus
indicating
traffic
regulation
even
purpose
ordinance
nonetheless
invalid
singling
movies
containing
even
fleeting
innocent
glimpses
nudity
legislative
classification
strikingly
underinclusive
reason
think
wide
variety
scenes
customary
screen
diet
ranging
soap
opera
violence
less
distracting
passing
motorist
frequently
upheld
underinclusive
classifications
sound
theory
legislature
may
deal
one
part
problem
without
addressing
see
williamson
lee
optical
presumption
statutory
validity
however
less
force
classification
turns
subject
matter
expression
bove
else
first
amendment
means
government
power
restrict
expression
message
ideas
subject
matter
content
police
dept
chicago
mosley
thus
equal
protection
clause
mention
first
amendment
even
traffic
regulation
discriminate
basis
content
unless
clear
reasons
distinctions
see
also
cox
louisiana
opinion
black
cf
williams
rhodes
shapiro
thompson
appellee
offers
justification
aware
distinguishing
movies
containing
nudity
movies
regulation
designed
protect
traffic
absent
justification
ordinance
salvaged
rationale
iii
even
though
none
reasons
advanced
appellee
sustain
jacksonville
ordinance
remains
us
decide
whether
ordinance
invalidated
face
long
recognized
demonstrably
overbroad
statute
ordinance
may
deter
legitimate
exercise
first
amendment
rights
nonetheless
considering
facial
challenge
necessary
proceed
caution
restraint
invalidation
may
result
unnecessary
interference
state
regulatory
program
accommodating
competing
interests
held
state
statute
deemed
facially
invalid
unless
readily
subject
narrowing
construction
state
courts
see
dombrowski
pfister
deterrent
effect
legitimate
expression
real
substantial
see
broadrick
oklahoma
see
generally
note
first
amendment
overbreadth
doctrine
harv
rev
present
case
possibility
limiting
construction
appears
remote
appellee
explicitly
joined
test
facial
validity
ordinance
agreeing
stay
appellant
prosecution
moreover
ordinance
plain
terms
easily
susceptible
narrowing
construction
indeed
state
courts
presented
overbreadth
challenge
made
effort
restrict
application
compare
coates
city
cincinnati
brandenburg
ohio
cox
new
hampshire
chaplinsky
new
hampshire
circumstances
particularly
appellee
offers
several
distinct
justifications
ordinance
broadest
terms
reason
assume
ordinance
decisively
narrowed
see
gooding
wilson
cf
grayned
city
rockford
time
hill
moreover
deterrent
effect
ordinance
real
substantial
since
applies
specifically
persons
employed
connected
theaters
owners
operators
theaters
faced
unwelcome
choice
avoid
prosecution
employees
must
either
restrict
movie
offerings
construct
adequate
protective
fencing
may
extremely
expensive
even
physically
impracticable
cf
lake
carriers
assn
macmullan
powell
dissenting
iv
concluding
ordinance
invalid
deprecate
legitimate
interests
asserted
city
jacksonville
hold
present
ordinance
satisfy
rigorous
constitutional
standards
apply
government
attempts
regulate
expression
first
amendment
freedoms
stake
repeatedly
emphasized
precision
drafting
clarity
purpose
essential
prerequisites
absent
accordingly
judgment
reversed
footnotes
appeals
consider
question
reached
contrary
result
see
cinecom
theaters
midwest
city
fort
wayne
local
ordinance
deemed
state
statute
purposes
invoking
jurisdiction
see
king
mfg
city
council
augusta
rowan
involved
federal
statute
permits
person
receiving
pandering
advertisement
believes
erotically
arousing
sexually
provocative
instruct
postmaster
general
inform
sender
mail
sent
future
upheld
statute
emphasizing
individual
privacy
entitled
greater
protection
home
streets
noting
right
every
person
let
alone
must
placed
scales
right
others
communicate
see
lehman
sustained
municipality
policy
barring
political
advertisements
permitting
nonpolitical
advertisements
city
buses
issue
whether
city
created
public
forum
thereby
obligated
accept
advertising
concluding
public
forum
established
plurality
concurring
opinions
recognized
degree
captivity
resultant
intrusion
privacy
significantly
greater
passenger
bus
person
street
see
opinion
blackmun
douglas
concurring
see
also
public
utilities
pollak
douglas
dissenting
also
suggested
government
may
proscribe
properly
framed
law
willful
use
scurrilous
language
calculated
offend
sensibilities
unwilling
audience
rosenfeld
new
jersey
powell
dissenting
cf
ginzburg
cases
speaker
may
seek
force
public
confrontation
potentially
offensive
aspects
work
may
content
speech
much
deliberate
verbal
visual
assault
rosenfeld
supra
justifies
proscription
see
redrup
new
york
present
case
however
appellant
trying
reach
much
less
shock
unwilling
viewers
appellant
manages
commercial
enterprise
depends
success
paying
customers
freeloading
passersby
presumably
economically
feasible
screen
theater
shielded
pay
scenes
nudity
movie
like
pictures
nude
persons
book
must
considered
part
whole
work
see
miller
california
kois
wisconsin
respect
nudity
distinguishable
kind
public
nudity
traditionally
subject
laws
see
roth
douglas
dissenting
one
suggest
first
amendment
permits
nudity
public
places
cf
chief
justice
dissent
response
point
nlike
persons
reading
books
passersby
consider
fragments
movies
part
whole
work
simple
reason
see
hear
performance
post
emphasis
original
issue
however
viewing
rights
unwilling
viewers
rather
rights
operate
theaters
public
attends
establishments
effect
jacksonville
ordinance
increase
cost
showing
films
containing
nudity
see
infra
certain
circumstances
theaters
avoid
showing
movies
rather
incur
additional
costs
result
persons
want
see
films
unable
regard
motion
picture
must
considered
whole
isolated
fragments
scenes
nudity
deterrent
although
might
result
total
suppression
movies
restraint
free
expression
see
speiser
randall
record
indicate
much
cost
block
public
view
appellant
theater
costs
generally
vary
circumstances
one
case
expense
estimated
approximately
quarter
million
dollars
see
olympic
theatre
city
pagedale
mo
concerned
case
properly
drawn
zoning
ordinance
restricting
location
theaters
nuisance
ordinance
designed
protect
privacy
persons
homes
visual
audible
intrusions
theaters
ginsberg
adopted
variation
adult
obscenity
standards
enunciated
roth
memoirs
massachusetts
plurality
opinion
miller
california
supra
abandoned
test
judging
obscenity
respect
adults
occasion
decide
effect
miller
ginsberg
formulation
clear
however
test
obscenity
minors
nudity
proscribed
rather
obscene
expression
must
significant
way
erotic
cohen
california
see
paris
adult
theatre
slaton
brennan
dissenting
first
amendment
rights
minors
adults
tinker
des
moines
school
stewart
concurring
state
may
permissibly
determine
least
precisely
delineated
areas
child
like
someone
captive
audience
possessed
full
capacity
individual
choice
presupposition
first
amendment
guarantees
ginsberg
new
york
stewart
concurring
assessing
whether
minor
requisite
capacity
individual
choice
age
minor
significant
factor
see
rowan
post
office
brennan
concurring
see
part
iii
infra
say
narrowly
drawn
nondiscriminatory
traffic
regulation
requiring
screening
movie
theaters
view
motorists
reasonable
exercise
police
power
see
police
dept
chicago
mosley
cases
cited
respect
present
case
arises
posture
differs
challenges
statute
ordinance
considered
typically
cases
issue
arises
context
statute
ordinance
applied
allegedly
unprotected
activity
thus
able
consider
constitutionality
statute
applied
well
face
narrowing
construction
occurs
us
limit
ordinance
movies
obscene
minors
neither
appellee
florida
courts
suggested
limitation
perhaps
rewriting
ordinance
necessary
reach
result
case
appellant
theater
manager
hence
statute
deterrent
effect
acts
upon
personally
seeking
raise
hypothetical
rights
others
see
breard
alexandria
justice
douglas
concurring
join
wholeheartedly
view
ordinance
issue
fatally
overinclusive
respects
fatally
underinclusive
others
doubt
proper
circumstances
narrowly
drawn
ordinance
utilized
within
constitutional
boundaries
protect
interests
captive
audiences
promote
highway
safety
days
heavy
traffic
reasonable
attempt
remove
distractions
might
increase
accidents
legitimate
interests
however
justify
attempts
discriminate
among
movies
basis
content
pure
movie
apt
distracting
drivers
impure
one
intrusive
upon
privacy
unwilling
captive
audience
ordinance
regulates
movies
basis
content
whether
obscenity
standard
criterion
impermissibly
intrudes
upon
free
speech
rights
guaranteed
first
fourteenth
amendments
see
lehman
city
shaker
heights
douglas
concurring
judgment
public
utilities
pollak
douglas
dissenting
adhere
view
state
federal
regulation
obscenity
prohibited
constitution
roth
dissenting
miller
california
dissenting
paris
adult
theatre
slaton
dissenting
chief
justice
burger
justice
rehnquist
joins
dissenting
although
pays
lip
service
proposition
case
ultimately
must
depend
specific
facts
ante
strikes
jacksonville
city
code
mechanical
application
general
principles
distilled
cases
little
either
case
accept
neither
approach
result
dissent
analysis
seems
begin
end
sweeping
proposition
regardless
circumstances
government
may
regulate
form
communicative
activity
basis
content
absent
certain
special
circumstances
told
burden
falls
upon
public
ignore
offensive
materials
rather
upon
purveyor
take
steps
shield
public
view
four
short
sentences
without
reasoned
support
ante
concludes
jacksonville
ordinance
pass
muster
tests
therefore
strikes
none
cases
upon
relies
remotely
implies
ever
intended
establish
inexorable
limitations
upon
state
power
area
many
cases
upheld
regulation
communicative
activity
purport
define
limits
power
lehman
city
shaker
heights
rowan
post
office
breard
alexandria
kovacs
cooper
cases
relied
upon
either
expressly
impliedly
decided
upon
equal
protection
grounds
although
recognizing
first
amendment
interests
involved
turned
upon
crucial
question
whether
appropriate
governmental
interest
suitably
furthered
differential
treatment
police
dept
chicago
mosley
see
also
fowler
rhode
island
standard
necessarily
requires
particularized
review
finally
yet
cases
cited
decided
vagueness
overbreadth
cox
louisiana
application
doctrines
requires
scrutiny
specific
statute
activity
involved
rather
reliance
upon
generalizations
see
short
nothing
prior
decisions
justifies
disregard
admonition
nature
forum
conflicting
interests
involved
remained
important
determining
degree
protection
afforded
first
amendment
speech
question
lehman
city
shaker
heights
supra
plurality
opinion
blackmun
rather
applying
principle
contexts
similar
instant
case
members
cautioned
every
medium
communication
law
unto
kovacs
cooper
supra
jackson
concurring
tyranny
absolutes
relied
upon
meet
problems
generated
need
accommodate
diverse
interests
affected
motion
pictures
compact
modern
communities
joseph
burstyn
wilson
frankfurter
concurring
careful
consideration
diverse
interests
involved
case
illustrates
inadequacy
rigidly
simplistic
approach
first
place
conclusion
limited
interest
persons
public
streets
stake
supported
one
completely
ignores
unique
visual
medium
jacksonville
ordinance
directed
whatever
validity
notion
passersby
may
protect
sensibilities
averting
eyes
may
applied
words
printed
individual
jacket
see
cohen
california
flag
hung
apartment
window
see
spence
washington
distorts
reality
apply
notion
outsize
screen
movie
theater
screens
invariably
huge
indeed
photographs
included
record
case
show
screen
petitioner
theater
dominated
view
public
places
including
nearby
residences
adjacent
highways
moreover
films
projected
screens
combination
color
animation
necessarily
dark
background
designed
results
attracting
holding
attention
observers
see
note
motion
pictures
first
amendment
yale
similar
considerations
led
justice
brandeis
writing
packer
utah
conclude
public
interest
regulating
billboard
displays
may
apply
forms
advertising
advertisements
sort
constantly
eyes
observers
streets
street
cars
seen
without
exercise
choice
volition
part
forms
advertising
ordinarily
seen
matter
choice
part
observer
young
people
well
adults
message
billboard
thrust
upon
arts
devices
skill
produce
case
newspapers
magazines
must
seeking
one
see
read
advertisement
radio
turned
billboard
street
car
placard
distinctions
clearly
place
kind
advertisement
position
classified
regulations
prohibitions
may
imposed
upon
within
class
defensible
conclusion
jacksonville
ordinance
defective
regulates
nudity
significance
fact
explained
scenes
nudity
movie
like
pictures
nude
persons
book
must
considered
part
whole
work
respect
nudity
distinguishable
kind
public
nudity
traditionally
subject
laws
ante
hand
assuming
arguendo
play
performed
theater
nude
actors
involving
genuine
communication
ideas
conduct
public
park
street
prosecuted
ordinance
prohibiting
indecent
exposure
police
power
long
interpreted
authorize
regulation
nudity
areas
members
public
access
regardless
incidental
effect
upon
communication
nudist
colony
example
lawfully
set
shop
central
park
lafayette
park
places
established
public
generally
cf
paris
adult
theater
slaton
roth
douglas
dissenting
whether
regulation
justified
necessary
protect
public
mores
simply
insure
undistracted
enjoyment
open
areas
greatest
number
people
traffic
safety
rationale
applies
fortiori
giant
displays
technology
capable
revealing
emphasizing
intimate
details
human
anatomy
sum
jacksonville
ordinance
involved
case
although
model
draftsmanship
narrowly
drawn
regulate
certain
unique
public
exhibitions
nudity
absurd
suggest
operates
suppress
expression
ideas
conveniently
ignoring
facts
deciding
case
basis
absolutes
adds
nothing
first
amendment
analysis
sacrifices
legitimate
state
interests
affirm
judgment
florida
appeal
example
case
similar
one
screen
measured
feet
feet
stood
feet
ground
bloss
paris
township
view
case
necessary
deal
issues
discussed
parts
iii
opinion
justice
white
dissenting
asserts
state
may
shield
public
selected
types
speech
allegedly
expressive
conduct
nudity
speaker
actor
invades
privacy
home
degree
captivity
unwilling
listener
impractical
avoid
exposure
averting
eyes
concludes
limited
privacy
interest
persons
public
streets
justify
censorship
otherwise
protected
speech
basis
content
ante
broadside
taken
literally
state
may
forbid
expressive
nudity
public
streets
public
parks
public
place
since
persons
places
time
limited
privacy
interest
may
merely
look
way
ready
take
step
moreover
analysis
step
unnecessary
one
holds
part
opinion
ordinance
unconstitutionally
overbroad
even
exercise
police
power
protect
children
fatally
overbroad
population
generally
part
surplusage
therefore
dissent