Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 164 views

    Barnes V Glenn Theatre

    Uploaded by

    Aj Guadalupe de Mata
    This case involves two establishments, the Kitty Kat Lounge and Glen Theatre, that wished to provide totally nude dancing as entertainment. Indiana law prohibited public nudity. The Court of Appeals ruled that nude dancing is a protected form of expression under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court reversed and found Indiana's restriction on public nudity was a valid time, place, or manner restriction that furthered important government interests in protecting public morals and order, was unrelated to suppressing free expression, and imposed only incidental restrictions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Barnes V Glenn Theatre

    Uploaded by

    Aj Guadalupe de Mata
    164 views2 pages
    This case involves two establishments, the Kitty Kat Lounge and Glen Theatre, that wished to provide totally nude dancing as entertainment. Indiana law prohibited public nudity. The Court of Appeals ruled that nude dancing is a protected form of expression under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court reversed and found Indiana's restriction on public nudity was a valid time, place, or manner restriction that furthered important government interests in protecting public morals and order, was unrelated to suppressing free expression, and imposed only incidental restrictions.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    Barnes v Glenn Theatre

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves two establishments, the Kitty Kat Lounge and Glen Theatre, that wished to provide totally nude dancing as entertainment. Indiana law prohibited public nudity. The Court of Appeals ruled that nude dancing is a protected form of expression under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court reversed and found Indiana's restriction on public nudity was a valid time, place, or manner restriction that furthered important government interests in protecting public morals and order, was unrelated to suppressing free expression, and imposed only incidental restrictions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    164 views2 pages

    Barnes V Glenn Theatre

    Uploaded by

    Aj Guadalupe de Mata
    This case involves two establishments, the Kitty Kat Lounge and Glen Theatre, that wished to provide totally nude dancing as entertainment. Indiana law prohibited public nudity. The Court of Appeals ruled that nude dancing is a protected form of expression under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court reversed and found Indiana's restriction on public nudity was a valid time, place, or manner restriction that furthered important government interests in protecting public morals and order, was unrelated to suppressing free expression, and imposed only incidental restrictions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Barnes vs.

    Glenn theatre

    Facts
    The petitioner is the state of Indiana represented by Atty. Barnes, while the respondents are The Kitty
    Kat lounge inc. and Glen theatre.

    The respondents both wished to provide totally nude dancing as entertainment, and previously accused
    the state of Indiana of violating the1st amendment in applying the nudity prohibition on their
    establishments. The petitioner contends that their restriction on nude dancing, and the minimum
    requirement of pasties and g-strings for dancers is a valid restriction.

    However, the Court of Appeals concluded that non-obscene nude dancing performed for entertainment
    is a protected right under the first amendment (freedom of expression).

    Atty. Barnes representing Indiana filed a petition of certiorari (asking Supreme Court to review
    decision of court of appeals) on the decision of the court of appeals, where the Supreme Court accepted
    the request.

    Issue
    The issue lies within Indiana’s statutory of prohibited nudity and its’ infringement upon freedom of
    expression, and whether or not the court was correct in stating that nude entertainment provided by
    establishments such as the Kitty Kat lounge and Glen theatre is in fact a form of expression protected
    under the 1st amendment of the United States constitution.

    Held
    The judgment of the Court of Appeals was reversed, as the restriction on nude dancing is a valid “time,
    place, or manner” restriction where government regulation is justified

    Indiana’s public indecency statute is justified despite its incidental limitations on some expressive
    activity

    Ratio
    The “time, place or manner test” was developed for evaluating restrictions on expression that take place
    on public property

    The US vs O’brien Case addressed justification of governmental restrictions and limitations on first
    amendment freedoms (O’brien burned his draftcard on the steps of South Boston courthouse in front
    of a sizable crowd)

    Government regulation is sufficiently justified within the constitutional power of the government
    (further government interest):

    1) if it furthers important or substantial government interest


    - protect morals and public order, traditional police power of the state is defined as t he
    authority to provide for public health, safety, and morals
    2) if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression
    - Since the state is providing for morals and public order, the interest is unrelated to the
    suppression of free expression. Respondents contend otherwise, saying Indiana seeks to prevent
    the erotic message of such entertainment, when in fact it is not. The states minimum
    requirement of pasties and a g-string for dancers still allows for erotic messages, it is just less
    graphic. Indiana does not contest erotic messages but public nudity
    3) if the incidental restriction on alleged first amendment freedoms is no greater than is
    essential to the furtherance of that interest
    - Governmental interest is upheld in the prohibition which forwards the disapproval of nudity in
    public places among strangers. It is not a means to some greater end, but an end in itself

    You might also like