Facts
- Operators of an adult movie theater in Atlanta limited admission to adults and took steps to exclude minors.
- Georgia officials sought a civil injunction to stop exhibition of two sexually explicit films.
- In a bench proceeding, the trial judge viewed the films, declined to require expert testimony on obscenity, and dismissed the complaints as constitutionally permissible for consenting adults.
- The Georgia Supreme Court reversed, characterizing the films as hard-core pornography unprotected by the First Amendment and authorizing an injunction.
- The U.S. Supreme Court reviewed the case after granting certiorari.
Issues
- Whether the First and Fourteenth Amendments bar a state from enjoining the commercial exhibition of obscene films to consenting adults in an adult theater that excludes minors.
- Whether the state’s civil injunction procedure, including the lack of expert testimony, failed constitutional requirements applicable to obscenity determinations.
Decision
- The Supreme Court affirmed the Georgia Supreme Court, holding that a state may use civil injunctions to prohibit the public, commercial exhibition of obscene films even when limited to consenting adults.
- The Court reiterated that obscene material is not protected speech under the First Amendment.
- The Court held Georgia’s civil process for an obscenity injunction was constitutionally adequate when applied with a valid obscenity standard.
- The Court held it was not constitutional error to decide obscenity without expert testimony where the films themselves were in evidence.
- The Court rejected a privacy-based defense, distinguishing public commercial exhibition from private possession in the home.
- The case was later remanded for application of the obscenity standard announced the same day in Miller v. California.
Legal Principles
- Obscene expression falls outside First Amendment protection and may be regulated by the States consistent with due process.
- States may prohibit or enjoin the commercial distribution or public exhibition of obscene materials in places of public accommodation, including adult theaters.
- A claimed right of privacy does not extend from the home to public commercial venues; adult-only admission does not convert a theater into a protected private setting.
- In obscenity adjudications, the trier of fact may rely on the work itself as primary evidence; expert testimony is not constitutionally required.
- Legislatures may regulate commercial obscenity based on reasonable judgments about effects on the community and public environment without proving definitive causation in each case.
Conclusion
The Court held that States may enjoin the public commercial exhibition of obscene films to consenting adults, sustained the constitutionality of using civil injunction procedures for that purpose, and limited privacy protections to private possession rather than adult-only public theaters.