PLS 460 American Booksellers Assoc v Hudnut

PLS 460 American Booksellers Assoc v Hudnut -...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
American Booksellers Assoc v Hudnut AMERICAN BOOKSELLERS ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. WILLIAM H. HUDNUT, III, Mayor, City of Indianapolis, et al., Defendants-Appellants No. 84-3147 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT 771 F.2d 323; 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 22623; 11 Media L. Rep. 2465 June 14, 1985, Argued August 27, 1985, Decided PRIOR HISTORY: [**1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. No. 84 C 791-Sarah Evans Barker, Judge. CASE SUMMARY PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendants appealed from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, declaring pornography ordinance unconstitutional. OVERVIEW: Defendant city enacted an ordinance defining "pornography" as a practice that discriminated against women. "Pornography" was to be redressed through the administrative and judicial methods used for other discrimination. Defendant city's definition of
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: "pornography" was considerably different from "obscenity." The ordinance did not refer to the prurient interest, to offensiveness, or to the standards of the community. Plaintiffs were of distributors and readers of books, magazines, and films. Collectively plaintiffs (or their members, whose interests they represent) made, sold, or read just about every kind of material that could be affected by the ordinance. The district court held the ordinance unconstitutional finding it regulated speech rather than conduct and prevented the ordinance from taking effect. The court of appeals agreed and affirmed holding the ordinance discriminated on the ground of the content of the speech. OUTCOME: The judgment was affirmed; the ordinance did not define pornography in terms of prurient interest, offensiveness, or standards of the community and, thus, was not treated as unprotected obscenity, and the unconstitutional language of the ordinance was not severable....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 05/04/2010 for the course PLS 460 taught by Professor Lermack during the Spring '10 term at Bradley.

Page1 / 2

PLS 460 American Booksellers Assoc v Hudnut -...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online