Paris Adult Theatre v. Slaton District Attorney - Significance, Regulation--or Censorship?
Paris Adult Theatre, et al.
Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, et al.
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
William J. Brennan, Jr., Potter Stewart, Thurgood Marshall, William O. Douglas
Date of Decision
21 June 1973
The Court ruled that obscene films did not automatically get First Amendment protection simply because they are shown for adults only.
- Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
- Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767 (1967).
Green, Jonathon. The Encyclopedia of Censorship. New York: Facts on File, 1990.
- 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.
- 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