Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton
Headline: Obscene movie ruling allows states to regulate and block shows in "adult" theaters, rejects automatic immunity for consenting adults, and sends Georgia case back under new obscenity standards.
Holding: The Court held that States may regulate and enjoin the commercial exhibition of obscene films in public places, including adult theaters, that excluding minors does not automatically protect such films, and remanded for application of Miller.
- Allows states to seek injunctions against obscene films in public theaters.
- Requires state courts to apply the Miller obscenity test on remand.
- Raises enforcement risks for adult theaters and sellers of explicit material.
Summary
Background
Two Atlanta businesses that run "adult" movie theaters showed two explicit films and were sued by local prosecutors in a civil action seeking injunctions. The trial judge viewed the films, assumed they might be obscene, but refused to stop the showings so long as warnings were posted and minors were excluded. The Georgia Supreme Court unanimously reversed, declared the films obscene, and ordered them enjoined.
Reasoning
The high Court reviewed whether showing allegedly obscene films in a commercial theater that excludes minors can be barred. The majority said States do have a legitimate interest in regulating commerce in obscene material and may control exhibitions in public places, including adult theaters. The Court rejected the idea that consenting adults alone automatically block state regulation. Because the Court had just clarified the constitutional test for obscenity in Miller, it vacated the Georgia decision and sent the case back for reconsideration under those standards.
Real world impact
The ruling means state prosecutors and civil courts can challenge and stop public exhibition of films found obscene even when the audience is adult-only, but those actions must satisfy the new Miller test. Theater owners and other businesses that sell or show sexual materials must expect renewed local review under that constitutional standard. The remand means this is not a final decision about these specific films; Georgia courts must reapply Miller.
Dissents or concurrances
Two dissenting Justices argued differently: Justice Brennan would have protected exhibitions to consenting adults absent minors or forced exposure, and Justice Douglas urged broader First Amendment protection against obscenity regulation.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?