04-03-1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2. Limitations of First Amendment Protections Despite this overriding principle, the Supreme Court has recognized that certain forms of expression have higher societal value than others, and that the context within which speech is expressed may affect the degree of protection afforded to it. Those forms of expression which do not contribute to free and open political debate are viewed as entitled to somewhat lesser protection or, in certain cases, are completely outside the scope of protection of the First Amendment. For example, libel, "fighting words" and obscenity are not'considered to be protected forms of expression. In addition to those exceptions, the Court has noted that narrowly drawn public regulations which are not intended to control the content of speech and which only incidentally limit the rights of free expression, and which supportvalid governmental interests are constitutionally permitted. Before attempting to fashion appropriate regulations for adult ente tai Tirent businesses, it is important to closely examine what standards determine the ' constitutionality of "narrowly drawn" regulations and what the Supreme Court regards as "obscene" a) Incidental Limitations on Expressive Activities. Regulations which have as their focus the expressive activities of an adult establishment or the content of its material are subject to a "strict scrutiny" test by the courts. -V ere it is determined that-the mativation_or -.. . affect of any regulation is to totally exclude or even to excessively restrict such activity, it will be struck down as violative of the First Amendment. In many situations a court will give a legislative body's decision a presumption of validity if there is sane reasonable basis for the action. However, in the case of a regulation which affects constitutionally protected speech activities, the local government has the burden of proving the constitutionality of the regulation. The "strict scrutiny" test (sometimes called the "O'Brien" standard) involves consideration of four questions: i) Is the proposed regulation within the constitutional power of the goverment? i) Does it further an important or substantial gove_r*mental interest? iii) Is the governmental interest unrelated to a suppression of free speech? iv) Is the restriction on First Amendment freedoms incidental and no greater than is essential to the furtherance of the governmental interest? A court will i apply these standards to closely examine the motives of local public officials and make certain that they are not using a particular regulation to prohibit an adult entertainment business at the expense of the constitutional rights of its owner. b) Obscenity. • The U.S. Supreme Court's current definition of obscenity was stated in the landmark case of Miller v. California, which was decided in 1973. In that case the Court indicated that material could be viewed as obscene only if: