Secondary effects and public morality

Introduction: When may the state regulate constitutionally protected activity in the interests of public morality? In Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., City of Erie v. Pap’s A.M., and City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc., the Supreme Court considered First Amendment challenges to three state regul...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Legarre, Santiago, Mitchell, Gregory J.
Formato: Artículo
Lenguaje:Inglés
Publicado: Harvard Law School 2019
Materias:
DERECHO
ESTADO
JURISPRUDENCIA
PRIMERA ENMIENDA
CONSTITUCION ESTADOUNIDENSE
MORALIDAD
MORAL PUBLICA
FILOSOFIA DEL DERECHO
Acceso en línea:https://repositorio.uca.edu.ar/handle/123456789/3101
Aporte de:
Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad Católica Argentina (UCA) de Universidad Católica Argentina
id I33-R139123456789-3101
record_format dspace
institution Universidad Católica Argentina
institution_str I-33
repository_str R-139
collection Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad Católica Argentina (UCA)
language Inglés
topic DERECHO
ESTADO
JURISPRUDENCIA
PRIMERA ENMIENDA
CONSTITUCION ESTADOUNIDENSE
MORALIDAD
MORAL PUBLICA
FILOSOFIA DEL DERECHO
spellingShingle DERECHO
ESTADO
JURISPRUDENCIA
PRIMERA ENMIENDA
CONSTITUCION ESTADOUNIDENSE
MORALIDAD
MORAL PUBLICA
FILOSOFIA DEL DERECHO
Legarre, Santiago
Mitchell, Gregory J.
Secondary effects and public morality
topic_facet DERECHO
ESTADO
JURISPRUDENCIA
PRIMERA ENMIENDA
CONSTITUCION ESTADOUNIDENSE
MORALIDAD
MORAL PUBLICA
FILOSOFIA DEL DERECHO
description Introduction: When may the state regulate constitutionally protected activity in the interests of public morality? In Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., City of Erie v. Pap’s A.M., and City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc., the Supreme Court considered First Amendment challenges to three state regulations of adult businesses. The controversial subject matter of the cases, against the backdrop of expanding First Amendment protections and changing societal mores, exposed a philosophical knot within the Court’s jurisprudence. And a difficult one at that: the three cases resulted in twelve opinions authored by seven different Justices and brought into focus an unresolved tension surrounding the legitimacy of morality as a basis for lawmaking. This Article examines the Justices’ struggle to reconcile the intuitive sense that adult businesses can be detrimental to society at large with two countervailing forces: first, the common opinion that the state has no business legislating morality, and second, that the First Amendment now affords wide protection to activities once considered obscene and meriting little constitutional protection...
format Artículo
author Legarre, Santiago
Mitchell, Gregory J.
author_facet Legarre, Santiago
Mitchell, Gregory J.
author_sort Legarre, Santiago
title Secondary effects and public morality
title_short Secondary effects and public morality
title_full Secondary effects and public morality
title_fullStr Secondary effects and public morality
title_full_unstemmed Secondary effects and public morality
title_sort secondary effects and public morality
publisher Harvard Law School
publishDate 2019
url https://repositorio.uca.edu.ar/handle/123456789/3101
work_keys_str_mv AT legarresantiago secondaryeffectsandpublicmorality
AT mitchellgregoryj secondaryeffectsandpublicmorality
bdutipo_str Repositorios
_version_ 1764820526317961216

Ejemplares similares