Movatterモバイル変換

[0]ホーム

Jump to content

Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville

日本語

Edit links

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1975 United States Supreme Court case

Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 26, 1975 Decided June 23, 1975
Full case name	Richard Erznoznik etc. v. City of Jacksonville
Citations	422U.S.205 (more) 95 S. Ct. 2268; 45L. Ed. 2d 125; 1 Media L. Rep. 1508
Case history
Prior	288So. 2d 260 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1974),cert. denied, 294 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1974),prob. juris. noted,419 U.S. 822 (1974).
Holding
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.
Court membership
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
Case opinions
Majority	Powell, joined by Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, Blackmun
Concurrence	Douglas
Dissent	Burger, joined by Rehnquist
Dissent	White
Laws applied
U.S. Const., amend. I; Jacksonville Municipal Code § 330.313

Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205 (1975), is aUnited States Supreme Court case concerning a cityordinance prohibiting the showing of films containingnudity by adrive-in theater located inJacksonville,Florida.^[1]

Opinion

[edit]

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.

References

[edit]

^"U.S. Reports: Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205 (1975)".Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 20540 USA. RetrievedAugust 3, 2022.

Clear and present danger andimminent lawless action	Schenck v. United States (1919) Debs v. United States (1919) Abrams v. United States (1919) Gitlow v. New York (1925) Whitney v. California (1927) Fiske v. Kansas (1927) Dennis v. United States (1951) Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Bd. (1955; 1961) Yates v. United States (1957) Bond v. Floyd (1966) Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) Hess v. Indiana (1973)
Defamation and false speech	New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988) United States v. Alvarez (2012) Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus (2014)
Fighting words and theheckler's veto	Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) Terminiello v. City of Chicago (1949) Feiner v. New York (1951) Gregory v. City of Chicago (1969) Cohen v. California (1971) Nat'l Socialist Party v. Village of Skokie (1977) R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) Snyder v. Phelps (2011)
True threats	Virginia v. Black (2003) Elonis v. United States (2015) Counterman v. Colorado (2023)
Obscenity	Rosen v. United States (1896) Roth v. United States (1957) One, Inc. v. Olesen (1958) Smith v. California (1959) Marcus v. Search Warrant (1961) Manual Enterprises, Inc. v. Day (1962) Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964) Quantity of Books v. Kansas (1964) Ginzburg v. United States (1966) Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966) Redrup v. New York (1967) Ginsberg v. New York (1968) Stanley v. Georgia (1969) United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs (1971) Kois v. Wisconsin (1972) Miller v. California (1973) Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (1973) United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film (1973) Jenkins v. Georgia (1974) Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville (1975) Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc. (1976) People v. Freeman (Cal. 1988) United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc. (1994) Reno v. ACLU (1997) United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. (2000) City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc. (2002) Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union (2002) United States v. American Library Ass'n (2003) United States v. Williams (2008) FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. (2009) United States v. Stevens (2010) Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass'n (2011) FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. (2012) Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton (2025)
Speech integral to criminal conduct	New York v. Ferber (1982) Osborne v. Ohio (1990) Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002) United States v. Hansen (2023)

Strict scrutiny

Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010)
Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar (2015)

Overbreadth and
Vagueness doctrines

Terminiello v. City of Chicago (1949)
Smith v. Goguen (1974)
Board of Airport Commissioners v. Jews for Jesus (1987)
Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky (2018)

Symbolic speech
versus conduct

Stromberg v. California (1931)
United States v. O'Brien (1968)
Cohen v. California (1971)
Spence v. Washington (1974)
Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence (1984)
Dallas v. Stanglin (1989)
Texas v. Johnson (1989)
United States v. Eichman (1990)
Barnes v. Glen Theatre (1991)
City of Erie v. Pap's A. M. (2000)
Virginia v. Black (2003)

Content-based
restrictions

Lamont v. Postmaster General (1965)
Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego (1981)
Boos v. Barry (1988)
Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Crime Victims Board (1991)
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)
Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015)
Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants (2020)
City of Austin v. Reagan National Advertising of Austin, LLC (2022)

Content-neutral
restrictions

Schneider v. New Jersey (1939)
United States v. Albertini (1985)
Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. (1986)
Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc. (1986)
City of Ladue v. Gilleo (1994)
Packingham v. North Carolina (2017)
TikTok v. Garland (2025)

In the public forum	Davis v. Massachusetts (1897) Hague v. CIO (1939) Thornhill v. Alabama (1940) Martin v. City of Struthers (1943) Niemotko v. Maryland (1951) Edwards v. South Carolina (1963) Cox v. Louisiana (1965) Brown v. Louisiana (1966) Adderley v. Florida (1966) Carroll v. Town of Princess Anne (1968) Coates v. City of Cincinnati (1971) Org. for a Better Austin v. Keefe (1971) Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence (1984) Frisby v. Schultz (1988) Ward v. Rock Against Racism (1989) Burson v. Freeman (1992) Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc. (1994) Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York (1997) Hill v. Colorado (2000) McCullen v. Coakley (2014)
Designated public forum	Widmar v. Vincent (1981) Rosenberger v. Univ. of Virginia (1995) Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski (2021)
Nonpublic forum	Lehman v. Shaker Heights (1974) Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators' Association (1983) Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense Fund (1985) Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes (1997) Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky (2018)