Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville

Background

A drive-in theater manager in Jacksonville was charged under a city ordinance that made it illegal for drive-ins to show any film with bare breasts or buttocks if the screen could be seen from a public street or place. The manager paused his prosecution to challenge the law in court. Florida courts upheld the ordinance, but the Supreme Court agreed to review the question and has now reversed the lower rulings.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the city could forbid movies with nudity visible from public places to protect passersby, children, or traffic safety. The Court said the ordinance reaches far beyond obscenity rules and singles out expression based on content. The Justices explained that the government may adopt neutral rules about time, place, and manner or protect truly captive audiences, but an ordinary passerby can usually look away. The ordinance was also too broad for protecting children and underinclusive if justified as a traffic rule. Because it would deter theaters from showing nonobscene films and was not readily narrowable, the Court held it facially invalid under free speech principles.

Real world impact

Drive-in owners no longer face a blanket city ban on films with any nudity visible from public places. Cities remain able to regulate safety, zoning, or adopt narrow, content-neutral measures, but they may not single out nonobscene movies solely because of nudity. The ruling removes this local content-based restriction while leaving obscenity laws and properly tailored safety rules intact.

Dissents or concurrances

Justices Burger and White dissented, arguing large screens are intrusive and could justify limits for safety and public morals; Justice Douglas concurred, stressing the ordinance’s over- and underinclusiveness.