Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49 (1973)

The state of Georgia tried to issue an injunction against showing sexually explicit movies in two Atlanta theaters, which were dedicated to showing these types of films. The theaters did not use obscene or offensive advertising on their exteriors, but they did place signs at the entrance warning that people could enter only if they were 21 and able to show proof of their age. Other signs informed visitors that they should not enter if they were offended by nudity. The state argued that the theaters nevertheless violated the obscenity law because they showed films that included simulated sex acts in addition to nudity.

Majority

• Warren Earl Burger (Author)
• Byron Raymond White
• Harry Andrew Blackmun
• Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr.
• William Hubbs Rehnquist

Although the concerns of corrupting juveniles or harming unwilling observers are not present here, the state still has a valid interest in preserving the quality of life and the community environment. It may curtail the dissemination of obscenity even to consenting adults for these reasons or if it believes that it poses a threat to public safety. Deference is due to its judgment that this public exhibition of obscenity merits an injunction on the basis that it causes harm to the community.

Dissent

• William Joseph Brennan, Jr. (Author)
• Potter Stewart
• Thurgood Marshall

Obscenity cases are difficult to evaluate because the standards are loose and vague. Applying these laws tends to restrain some constitutionally protected speech. While the state does have a legitimate interest in protecting children and unconsenting adults, the interests that it cites with regard to withholding obscene material from consenting adults are too speculative to be taken seriously. Obscene material should not be enjoined from distribution in the context of consenting adults, although the state can limit its distribution to certain channels.

Dissent

• William Orville Douglas (Author)

The obscenity exception to the First Amendment should be eliminated, since art and culture embrace a wide range of tastes.

States do have the authority to regulate obscene productions in commerce, especially when they may be exposed to children. This is another illustration of the lack of First Amendment protections for speech that falls within one of the categorical exceptions, such as obscenity.