dbo:abstract
|
- Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560 (1991), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court concerning the First Amendment and the ability of the government to outlaw certain forms of expressive conduct. It ruled that the state has the constitutional authority to ban public nudity, even as part of expressive conduct such as dancing, because it furthers a substantial government interest in protecting the morality and order of society. This case is perhaps best summarized by a sentence in Justice Souter's concurring opinion, which is often paraphrased as "Nudity itself is not inherently expressive conduct." (en)
|
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
| |
dbo:wikiPageID
| |
dbo:wikiPageLength
|
- 15629 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
|
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
| |
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
| |
dbp:arguedate
|
- 0001-01-08 (xsd:gMonthDay)
|
dbp:argueyear
| |
dbp:case
|
- Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., (en)
|
dbp:concurrence
| |
dbp:cornell
| |
dbp:courtlistener
| |
dbp:decidedate
|
- 0001-06-21 (xsd:gMonthDay)
|
dbp:decideyear
| |
dbp:dissent
| |
dbp:findlaw
| |
dbp:fullname
|
- Michael Barnes, prosecuting attorney of St. Joseph County Indiana, et al. v. Glen Theatre, Inc., et al. (en)
|
dbp:googlescholar
| |
dbp:holding
|
- States have the authority and right to regulate and/or ban nudity, as it is in the interests of both the government and society to preserve morality by statute. Nudity is not protected under the First Amendment, nor expressive content. (en)
|
dbp:joindissent
|
- Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens (en)
|
dbp:joinplurality
| |
dbp:justia
| |
dbp:lawsapplied
| |
dbp:litigants
|
- Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc. (en)
|
dbp:loc
| |
dbp:oyez
| |
dbp:parallelcitations
| |
dbp:plurality
| |
dbp:prior
| |
dbp:uspage
| |
dbp:usvol
| |
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
dcterms:subject
| |
rdf:type
| |
rdfs:comment
|
- Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560 (1991), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court concerning the First Amendment and the ability of the government to outlaw certain forms of expressive conduct. It ruled that the state has the constitutional authority to ban public nudity, even as part of expressive conduct such as dancing, because it furthers a substantial government interest in protecting the morality and order of society. This case is perhaps best summarized by a sentence in Justice Souter's concurring opinion, which is often paraphrased as "Nudity itself is not inherently expressive conduct." (en)
|
rdfs:label
|
- Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc. (en)
|
owl:sameAs
| |
prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
foaf:name
|
- (en)
- Michael Barnes, prosecuting attorney of St. Joseph County Indiana, et al. v. Glen Theatre, Inc., et al. (en)
|
is dbo:wikiPageRedirects
of | |
is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
of | |
is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |