Treść książki
Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
notcorrectlyanalyzedunderstandardsappliedtocontent-neutral
time,place,andmannerrestrictions.Butevenassumingthatthe
ordinancemayfairlybecharacterizedascontent-neutral,itisplainly
unconstitutionalunderthestandardsestablishedbythedecisions
ofthisCourt.AlthoughtheCourt’sanalysisislimitedtocases
involvingKbusinessesthatpurveysexuallyexplicitmaterials,”and
thusdoesnotaffectourholdingsincasesinvolvingstateregulation
ofotherkindsofspeech,Idissent.
KAconstitutionallypermissibletime,place,ormannerrestriction
maynotbebaseduponeitherthecontentorsubjectmatterof
speech.”ConsolidatedEdisonCo.v.PublicServiceComm’nofN.Y.,
447U.S.530,536(1980).TheCourtassertsthattheordinanceis
aimednotatthecontentofthefilmsshownatKadultmotionpicture
theatres,”butratheratthesecondaryeffectsofsuchtheaterson
thesurroundingcommunity,andthusissimplyatime,place,and
mannerregulation.Thisanalysisismisguided.Thefactthatadult
movietheatersmaycauseharmfulKsecondary”landuseeffects
mayarguablygiveRentonacompellingreasontoregulatesuch
establishments;itdoesnotmean,however,thatsuchregulationsare
content-neutral.Becausetheordinanceimposesspecialrestrictions
oncertainkindsofspeechonthebasisofcontent,Icannotsimply
accept,astheCourtdoes,Renton’sclaimthattheordinancewas
notdesignedtosuppressthecontentofadultmovies.
Theordinancediscriminatesonitsfaceagainstcertainformsof
speechbasedoncontent.MovietheatersspecializinginKadult
motionpictures”maynotbelocatedwithin1,000feetofany
residentialzone,single-ormultiple-familydwelling,church,
park,orschool.Othermotionpicturetheaters,andotherforms
ofKadultentertainment,”suchasbars,massageparlors,and
adultbookstores,arenotsubjecttothesamerestrictions.This
selectivetreatmentstronglysuggeststhatRentonwasinterested
notincontrollingtheKsecondaryeffects”associatedwithadult
businesses,butindiscriminatingagainstadulttheatersbased
onthecontentofthefilmstheyexhibit.TheCourtignoresthis
discriminatorytreatment,declaringthatRentonisfreeKtoaddress
thepotentialproblemscreatedbyoneparticularkindofadult
business,”andtoamendtheordinanceinthefuturetoinclude
otheradultenterprises.However,becauseoftheFirstAmendment
interestsatstakehere,thisone-step-at-a-timeanalysisiswholly
inappropriate.
56
FreeSpeechMethodology
