Paris Adult Theatre v. Slaton District Attorney
Significance, Regulation--or Censorship?
Petitioner
Paris Adult Theatre, et al.
Respondent
Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, et al.
Petitioner's Claim
That the adult films that they were showing were protected under First Amendment Rights.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Thomas E. Moran
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Robert Eugene Smith
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, Warren E. Burger (writing for the Court), Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
William J. Brennan, Jr., Potter Stewart, Thurgood Marshall, William O. Douglas
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
21 June 1973
Decision
The Court ruled that obscene films did not automatically get First Amendment protection simply because they are shown for adults only.
Related Cases
- Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
- Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767 (1967).
Sources
Green, Jonathon. The Encyclopedia of Censorship. New York: Facts on File, 1990.
Further Readings
- Cushman, Robert F. Leading Constitutional Decisions Prentice Hall. 1977.
- "Hard-Nosed About Hard-Core." Time, July 2, 1973.
- Johnson, John W., ed. Historic U.S. Court Cases, 1690-1990: An Encyclopedia. New York: Garland Publishing, 1992.
Additional topics
- Patty Hearst Trial: 1976 - Patty Becomes Tania, Captured And Arrested, Defendant Takes The Stand, Psychiatrists Testify Of Brainwashing
- Parham v. J. R. - Significance, Two Tragic Predicaments, The Due Process Argument, Minors And The Constitution
- Paris Adult Theatre v. Slaton District Attorney - Significance
- Paris Adult Theatre v. Slaton District Attorney - Regulation--or Censorship?
- Other Free Encyclopedias
Law Library - American Law and Legal InformationNotable Trials and Court Cases - 1973 to 1980