This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: individuals did have a right to not be exposed to offensive films, the ordinance singled out "some kinds of speech on the ground that they are more offensive than others," Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. wrote for the majority. Since the "offended viewer readily can avert his eyes" from the films shown, Jacksonville’s distinction between films with nudity and films without nudity was unconstitutional. Under Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley , "government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content." The ordinance was "broader than permissible" in trying to protect children from exposure to nudity and "invalid" as an attempt to prevent traffic accidents. Justice William O. Douglas authored a concurring opinion. IV. Reasons (by ___) a. Form of argument b. Legal doctrines V. Dissent reasons VI. Concurring reasons Notes...
View Full Document
- Spring '10
- Supreme Court of the United States, First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Jacksonville, Jacksonville city ordinance, Jacksonville ordinance