Slaton v. Paris Adult Theatre I
Decision Date | 30 October 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 26631,26631 |
Citation | 201 S.E.2d 456,231 Ga. 312 |
Parties | Lewis R. SLATON et al. v. PARIS ADULT THEATRE I et al. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Carter Goode, Hinson McAuliffe, Sol., W. Baer Endictor, Thomas E. Moran, Thomas R. Moran, Atlanta, for appellants.
D. Freeman Hutton, Gilbert H. Deitch, Atlanta, Robert Eugene Smith, Towson, Md., for appellees.
Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Courtney Wilder Stanton, Asst. Atty. Gen., B. Dean Grindle, Jr., Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, amicus curiae.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
This case comes before the court again following decision and remand by the United States Supreme Court in Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49, 93 S.Ct. 2628, 37 L.Ed.2d 446 (1973). It began on December 28, 1970, when the District Attorney of the Atlanta Judicial Circuit and the Solicitor of the Criminal Court of Fulton County filed separate complaints in the Superior Court of Fulton County against Paris Adult Theatres I and II and certain named individuals, praying for a rule nisi to require the defendants to show cause why the motion picture films 'It All Comes Out in the End' and 'Magic Mirror' should not be declared obscene and enjoined from exhibition. A temporary restraining order was thereafter granted ex parte by the trial court restraining the defendants from destroying the films or removing them from the jurisdiction of the court pending a hearing. On January 31, 1971, pursuant to the rule nisi, an adversary hearing was conducted in superior court during which the parties agreed to waive jury trial and a preliminary hearing and to submit the cause to the trial court for final determination and judgment. The films were then exhibited to the trial court. The state offered no other evidence at the hearing except for the testimony of the criminal investigators who had paid admission to see the films and who related that nothing on the outside of the theatres indicated the full nature of that which was shown, namely, scenes of simulated fellatio, cunnilingus and group sex intercourse.
After viewing the motion pictures and hearing the evidence, the trial court rendered the following judgment:
On appeal from the above order, this court unanimously reversed the judgment of the trial court and held that the films were hard-core pornography and that the showing of these films should have been enjoined in that their exhibition to consenting adults was not protected by the First Amendment. Slaton v. Paris Adult Theatre I, 228 Ga. 343, 185 S.E.2d 768 (1971). The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari on June 26, 1972, and thereafter on June 21, 1973, vacated the judgment of this court and remanded the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with its opinions rendered in Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49, 93 S.Ct. 2628, 37 L.Ed.2d 446 (1973), and Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973). See, also, United States v. 12 200-Ft. Reels of Super 8 mm. Film, 413 U.S. 123, 93 S.Ct. 2665, 37 L.Ed.2d 500 (1973).
On August 27, 1973, we granted counsel for opposing sides, and the Attorney General, leave to submit briefs to assist this court in assessing the effect of these opinions upon the earlier judgment of this court and upon the legislative enactments of this state on obscenity.
It is now firmly established that 'obscenity' is not protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and may be regulated by the state. Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 37 L.Ed.2d 419, supra; Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 77 S.Ct. 1304, 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 (1957); Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 62 S.Ct. 766, 86 L.Ed. 1031 (1942). In order to maintain the integrity of the First Amendment and to prevent incursions into areas of protected speech and expression, the United States Supreme Court has made it necessary, however, that regulatory statutes be carefully limited to define specific sexual conduct to whose depiction and description they apply. Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 37 L.Ed.2d 419, supra. In Miller and in United States v. 12 200-Ft. Reels of Super 8 mm. Film, 413 U.S. 123, 93 S.Ct. 2665, 37 L.Ed.2d 500, supra, the court made clear that this statutory requirement could be met by specific legislation, as e.g., Oregon Laws 1971, c. 743, Art. 29, §§ 255-62 and Hawaii Penal Code, Title 37, §§ 1210-16, and as well by authoritative judicial interpretation of legislation such as Code Ann. § 26-2101(b) (Ga.L.1968, pp. 1249, 1302).
In Miller, the Court settled upon minimal, factual guidelines for describing obscene material. The constitutional test was whether: '(a) '(T)he average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and, (c) the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.' Miller v. California, 413 U.S. at 25, 93 S.Ct. at 2615, supra. In addition, with respect to part (b) of the above test, the court gave examples of permissible statutory definition:
The definition of obscenity under Georgia statutory law is as follows: 'Material is obscene if considered as a whole applying community standards, its predominant appeal is to prurient interest, that is, a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex or excretion, and utterly without redeeming social value and if, in addition, it goes substantially beyond customary limits of candor in describing or representing such matters.' Ga.L.1968, pp. 1249, 1302, as amended (Code Ann. § 26-2101(b)). In the past, this court has defined and described conduct as obscene within the meaning of the Georgia statute in substantially the same language as that suggested by the Supreme Court in Miller. In Evans Theatre Corp. v. Slaton, 227 Ga. 377, 379, 180 S.E.2d 712, 714 (1971), we dealt with depictions of 'acts of sexual intercourse, natural, unnatural, bizarre, and violent.' In Walter v. Slaton, 227 Ga. 676, 680, 182 S.E.2d 464, 467 (1971), the films were of 'actual sexual activity, both natural and unnatural,' which included sexual intercourse, fellatio and cunnilingus. For a similar description of obscene material, see 1024 Peachtree Corp. v. Slaton, 228 Ga. 102, 184 S.E.2d 144 (1971). These decisions are, in effect, interpretations of that portion of the Georgia statutory definition providing that material 'is obscene if . . . its predominant appeal is to prurient interest, that is, a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex or excretion . . .' Code Ann. § 26-2101(b). These cases specifically 'limit' the phrase they interpret, and a fair reading of them leads to the conclusion that the Georgia statute was designed to reach only 'hard-core pornography,' outside of First Amendment protection. Slaton v. Paris Adult Theatre I, 228 Ga. 343, 347, 185 S.E.2d 768 (1971). They reflect substantially the same descriptive language as that used in the examples of the Supreme Court in Miller: 'Patently offensive representations or descriptions of ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated . . . (and) Patently offensive representations or descriptions of masturbation, excretory functions, and lewd exhibition of the genitals.' 413 U.S. at 25, 93 S.Ct. at 2615, supra.
We, therefore, conclude that the Georgia statute has been specifically delineated in a manner consistent with the new Miller standards. In rejecting counsel's constitutional challenge to the statute we therefore reaffirm our prior ruling that it is not overly broad or vague in definition. Gornto v. State, 227 Ga. 46, 178 S.E.2d 894 (1970); see Gable v. Jenkins, 309 F.Supp. 998 (N.D.Ga.1969), aff'd per curiam, 397 U.S. 592, 90 S.Ct. 1351, 25 L.Ed.2d 595 (1970) and noted in Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, supra, 413 U.S. 49, 93 S.Ct. 2628, supra, n. 1.
The appellees contend that the Georgia statute as construed cannot be applied retroactively and that any detriment found in the Miller guidelines, as opposed to the prior Memoirs guidelines (Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413, 86 S.Ct. 975, 16 L.Ed.2d 1 (1966)), upon which Code Ann. § 26-2101(b) is based,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Henry
...Rhodes v. State, 283 So.2d 351 (Fla.1973); Dyke v. The State, 232 Ga. 817, 209 S.E.2d 166 (1974); Slaton v. Paris Adult Theatre, 231 Ga. 312, 201 S.E.2d 456 (1973); People v. Ward, 63 Ill.2d 437, 349 N.E.2d 47 (1976), aff'd 431 U.S. 767, 97 S.Ct. 2085, 52 L.Ed.2d 738 (1977); 400 E. Baltimor......
-
Com. v. MacDonald
...considered the standard to be applied in injunctive proceedings since the decision in Paris Adult Theatre. See Slaton v. Paris Adult Theatre I, 231 Ga. 312, 201 S.E.2d 456 (1973), cert. denied, 418 U.S. 939, 94 S.Ct. 3227, 41 L.Ed.2d 1173 (1974); Hall v. Commonwealth, 505 S.W.2d 166 (Ky.197......
-
People v. Neumayer
...U.S. 937 (94 S.Ct. 3225, 41 L.Ed.2d 1172) (1974); Rhodes v. State, 283 So.2d 351, 357-359 (Fla. 1973); Slaton v. Paris Adult Theater I, 231 Ga. 312, 316, 201 S.E.2d 456, 459 (1973), Cert. denied, 418 U.S. 939 (94 S.Ct. 3227, 41 L.Ed.2d 1173) (1974); People v. Heller, 33 N.Y.2d 314, 327-328,......
-
State v. Aiuppa
...S.Ct. 2628, 37 L.Ed.2d 446 (1973). Upon return of Slaton for reconsideration, the Supreme Court of Georgia in Slaton v. Paris Adult Theatre I, 231 Ga. 312, 201 S.E.2d 456 (1973), upheld the constitutionality of Ga.Code Ann. § 26--2101, after which the Florida statute under consideration was......