From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1975 United States Supreme Court case
Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville Full case name Richard Erznoznik etc. v. City of Jacksonville Citations 422 U.S. 205 (more 95 S. Ct. 2268; 45 L. Ed. 2d 125; 1 Media L. Rep. 1508
Prior 288 So. 2d 260 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1974), cert. denied , 294 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1974), prob. juris. noted , 419 U.S. 822 (1974). The Court ruled that the ordinance was invalid on its face because the ordinance discriminated among movies solely on the basis of nudity, but not all offensive content so it could not be justified.
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William O. Douglas · William J. Brennan Jr. Potter Stewart · Byron White Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun Lewis F. Powell Jr. · William Rehnquist
Majority Powell, joined by Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, Blackmun Concurrence Douglas Dissent Burger, joined by Rehnquist Dissent White U.S. Const., amend. I; Jacksonville Municipal Code § 330.313
Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville United States Supreme Court case concerning a city ordinance prohibiting the showing of films containing nudity by a drive-in theater located in Jacksonville , Florida .
Opinion
The Supreme Court issued a ruling invalidating the ordinance and held:
(a) The ordinance by discriminating among movies solely on the basis of content has the effect of deterring drive-in theaters from showing movies containing any nudity, however innocent or even educational, and such censorship of the content of otherwise protected speech cannot be justified on the basis of the limited privacy interest of persons on the public streets, who if offended by viewing the movies can readily avert their eyes. Pp. 208–212. (b) Nor can the ordinance be justified as an exercise of the city's police power for the protection of children against viewing the films. Even assuming that such is its purpose, the restriction is broader than permissible since it is not directed against sexually explicit nudity or otherwise limited. Pp. 212–214. (c) Nor can the ordinance be justified as a traffic regulation. If this were its purpose, it would be invalid as a strikingly under-inclusive legislative classification since it singles out movies containing nudity from all other movies that might distract a passing motorist. Pp. 214–215. (d) The possibility of a narrowing construction of the ordinance appears remote, particularly where appellee city offered several distinct justifications for it in its broadest terms. Moreover, its deterrent effect on legitimate expression in the form of movies is both real and substantial. Pp. 215–217.
See also
Public displays Statutory religious Public funding Religion in Private religious speech Internal church affairs Taxpayer standing Blue laws Other
Unprotected
Incitement sedition Defamation andfalse speech Fighting words andheckler's veto True threats Obscenity
Rosen v. United States United States v. One Book Called Ulysses Roth v. United States One, Inc. v. Olesen Smith v. California Marcus v. Search Warrant MANual Enterprises, Inc. v. Day Jacobellis v. Ohio Quantity of Books v. Kansas Ginzburg v. United States Memoirs v. Massachusetts Redrup v. New York Ginsberg v. New York Stanley v. Georgia United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs Kois v. Wisconsin Miller v. California Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film Jenkins v. Georgia Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc. Vance v. Universal Amusement Co., Inc. American Booksellers Ass'n, Inc. v. Hudnut People v. Freeman United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc. Reno v. ACLU United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc. Ashcroft v. ACLU I United States v. American Library Ass'n Ashcroft v. ACLU II Nitke v. Gonzales United States v. Williams American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland United States v. Kilbride United States v. Stevens Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass'n FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton Speech integral
Strict scrutiny Overbreadth Vagueness Symbolic speech Content-based Content-neutral
Compelled speech Compelled subsidy
Government grants Government Loyalty oaths School speech Public employees Hatch Act andLicensing and Commercial speech
Valentine v. Chrestensen Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dept. Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm'n on Human Relations Lehman v. Shaker Heights Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar Bigelow v. Virginia Virginia State Pharmacy Bd. v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council Linmark Assoc., Inc. v. Township of Willingboro Carey v. Population Services International Bates v. State Bar of Arizona In re Primus Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association Friedman v. Rogers Consol. Edison Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego In re R.M.J. Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. Zauderer v. Off. of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Comm'n of California Posadas de Puerto Rico Assoc. v. Tourism Co. of Puerto Rico San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. U.S. Olympic Committee Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Association Riley v. Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind State University of New York v. Fox Peel v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of Illinois City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network Edenfield v. Fane United States v. Edge Broadcasting Co. Ibanez v. Florida Dept. of Business and Professional Regulation, Bd. of Accountancy Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co. Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc. 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island Glickman v. Wileman Brothers & Elliot, Inc. Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Assn., Inc. v. United States Los Angeles Police Department v. United Reporting Publishing Co. United States v. United Foods Inc. Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly Thompson v. Western States Medical Center Nike, Inc. v. Kasky Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Ass'n Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn. v. Brentwood Academy Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. United States Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman Matal v. Tam Iancu v. Brunetti Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants Vidal v. Elster Campaign finance Anonymous speech State action Official retaliation Boycotts Prisons
Organizations Future Conduct Solicitation Membership restriction Primaries and elections
