Ruling On 'sex Bars’ (Press, 7 December 1972)
This is a Generative AI summary of this newspaper article. It may contain errors or omissions. Please note that the language in the summary is reflective of the original article and the societal attitudes of the time in which it was written.
Summary: Ruling On 'sex Bars’ (Press, 7 December 1972)
On 6 December 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a 6-3 ruling allowing state authorities to close bars that feature nude dancing and suggestive entertainment. The majority opinion, articulated by Justice William Rehnquist, asserted that First Amendment freedoms do not cover public displays of extreme sexuality, focusing instead on traditional forms of expression such as books and films. The ruling also referenced the 21st Amendment, which grants states significant authority over the regulation of alcohol in establishments like bars and nightclubs. This decision arose from a case in California, where authorities claimed that venues were falsely presenting explicit sexual acts—including sexual intercourse, masturbation, and other perverse behaviours—as forms of entertainment. Justice Rehnquist highlighted the associated social issues, indicating that activities such as prostitution and sexual violence were prevalent in areas surrounding bars offering such entertainment. The Supreme Court upheld 1970 regulations which empowered the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control to suspend or revoke liquor licenses if officials determined that the conduct was detrimental to public morals or welfare. These regulations had previously been deemed unconstitutional by a Federal Court in Los Angeles in 1971, which argued that the state could only regulate adult entertainment if it could demonstrate its obscenity through legal proof. This new ruling is expected to significantly impact the growing sex-in-bars industry, particularly in coastal regions, and reflects a stricter stance by the Supreme Court on matters of obscenity. Authorities at both state and municipal levels have expressed concerns regarding the perceived rise in permissiveness regarding obscenity, suggesting that this decision marks an important shift in judicial attitude.
Important Information
The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact
The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand