Gay Times, Inc. v. Louisiana
Headline: Court vacates a Louisiana obscenity conviction and sends the case back for reconsideration under recent obscenity rulings, affecting film exhibitors and how states apply obscenity laws.
Holding: The Court granted review, vacated the Louisiana conviction, and remanded the case for reconsideration under the Court’s recent obscenity decisions.
- Vacates the conviction while the state court reapplies new obscenity standards.
- May change how states enforce obscenity laws against film exhibitors.
- Leaves the final outcome unresolved until state-court reconsideration.
Summary
Background
The case involves Gay Times, Inc., which was convicted for exhibiting allegedly obscene motion pictures under a Louisiana statute, §14:106(A)(2). The company challenged the conviction and asked the Supreme Court to review whether the state statute and the conviction comport with recent national rulings about sexually oriented materials.
Reasoning
The Court granted review, vacated the conviction, and remanded the matter to the Louisiana Supreme Court so the state courts can reconsider the case in light of a set of recent Supreme Court decisions about obscenity, including Miller v. California and Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton. The national Court did not resolve the ultimate merits itself here; instead it instructed the state court to apply the new standards established by those decisions before reaching a final outcome.
Real world impact
Practically, the decision forces the Louisiana court to re-evaluate the conviction under the Court’s freshly articulated rules about sexually explicit material. Motion-picture exhibitors, local prosecutors, and state courts may see changes in how statutes like §14:106(A)(2) are interpreted and enforced. Because the Supreme Court sent the case back rather than issuing a final ruling on the statute’s validity, the final result could still change after the state court’s reconsideration.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Brennan (joined by Justices Stewart and Marshall) said the Louisiana statute is overbroad and would invalidate it; Justice Douglas would have reversed the conviction, viewing state obscenity regulation as constitutionally barred.
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?