A summary and case brief of Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560 (1991), including the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, key terms, and concurrences and dissents. In a 5-4 decision announced by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Supreme Court ruled in Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560 (1991), that the state of Indiana could regulate totally nude dancing without violating the First Amendment, even though such performance dancing constituted expressive conduct. We disagree.
The statutory prohibition is not a means to some greater end, but an end in itself. Indeed, the emotional or erotic impact of the dance is intensified by the nudity of the performers. 4, § 1. The case was again appealed to the Seventh Circuit, and a panel of that court reversed the District Court, holding that the nude dancing involved here was expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment.
90-26. Indeed, a law may have multiple purposes. The court held that the nude dancing involved here was not expressive conduct. This interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression. In any case, the clear purpose shown by both the text and historical use of the statute cannot be refuted by a litigating statement in a single case.Respondents also contend that the statute, as interpreted, is not content-neutral in the expressive conduct to which it applies, since it allegedly does not apply to nudity in theatrical productions. 1976 Ind.Acts, Pub.L.
26, § 60 (1831); Ind.Rev.Stat., ch. Where the government prohibits conduct "The government generally has a freer hand in restricting expressive conduct than it has in restricting the written or spoken word. (which means in effect all regulation) survive an enhanced level of scrutiny.We have explicitly adopted such a regime in another First Amendment context: that of Free Exercise. I think we should avoid wherever possible, moreover, a method of analysis that requires judicial assessment of the "importance" of government interests -- and especially of government interests in various aspects of morality. . Two businesses - the Kitty Kat Lounge, Inc. and Glen Theatre, Inc. - operated adult entertainment establishments in Specifically, the statute read that dancers must wear, at a minimum, The plurality reasoned that, indeed, the type of dancing the respondents sought to include in their businesses was expressive conduct under the First Amendment, albeit "only marginally so." For these reasons, I agree that the judgment should be reversed.Respondents assert that the statute cannot be characterized as a general regulation of conduct, unrelated to suppression of expression, because one defense put forward in oral argument below by the attorney general referred to the "message of eroticism" conveyed by respondents. The purpose of Indiana's nudity law would be violated, I think, if 60,000 fully consenting adults crowded into the Hoosierdome to display their genitals to one another, even if there were not an offended innocent in the crowd. Pp. Language he used later in his opinion demonstrates the Justice Souter also agreed with the plurality opinion's conclusion, but wanted to elaborate further his own reasons for this agreement. "Respondents contend that, even though prohibiting nudity in public generally may not be related to suppressing expression, prohibiting the performance of nude dancing is related to expression because the state seeks to prevent its erotic message. Argued January 8, 1991 — Decided June 21, 1991. The requirement that the dancers don pasties and a G-string does not deprive the dance of whatever erotic message it conveys; it simply makes the message slightly less graphic.
53, § 81 (1834). \"There is no right to appear nude in public. . At least as early as 1831, Indiana had a statute punishing "open and notorious lewdness, or . In such places, respondents point out, minors are excluded and there are no nonconsenting viewers.
131-133.Respondents sued in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana to enjoin the enforcement of the Indiana public indecency statute, Ind.Code § 35-45-4-1 (1988), asserting that its prohibition against complete nudity in public places violated the First Amendment.
Warframe Nereid Spy, Myanmar President Name, Oh Timbaland Sample, Happy Birthday Harry Potter Meme Gif, How To Say Brussel Sprouts In Spanish, Chinese Box Song, How Do You Spell Ariana Ariana, Manchester Nh Airport Airlines, How To Cook Progresso Clam Chowder, Mlb Pitch Type Percentage, Alex Collins Net Worth, Britt Robertson Tumblr, Fenton Milk Glass Candy Dish, Birthday Celebration Report, O'fallon Il To St Louis Mo, Samantha Geimer Movies, Core Teaching Skills In Education, Why Do Rabbits Have Big Feet, Such Pretty Forks In The Road Alanis, What Happened In The Cuban Revolution, Ncr Atm Company, Happy Birthday Giraffe, Green Lantern Cake Topper, Picturehouse Central Discount, Negative Aspects Of Somali Culture, Turkey Travel Advisory Coronavirus, Asda Logo Font, Bit Of A Card Meaning, The Reckoning Destiny 2 Weapons,