PLS 460 American Booksellers Assoc v Hudnut

PLS 460 American Booksellers Assoc v Hudnut -...

Info icon This 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
Image of page 1

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
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

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern