Slaton v. Paris Adult Theatre I
|05 November 1971
|185 S.E.2d 768,228 Ga. 343
|Lewis R. SLATON et al. v. PARIS ADULT THEATRE I et al.
|Georgia Supreme Court
Syllabus by the Court
The films involved in this case are hard core pornography. Their commercial exhibition is not protected by the first amendment, and the trial court erred in refusing to enjoin their exhibition in a theater where all adult persons willing to pay the price were admitted.
Hinson McAuliffe, Sol., Atlanta, Thomas E. Moran, Sandy Springs, W. Baer Endictor, Thomas R. Moran, Atlanta, for appellants.
D. Freeman Hutton, Atlanta, Robert Eugene Smith, Towson, Md., for appellees.
The appeal in this case is from the judgment and order of the Superior Court of Fulton County refusing a temporary injunction against the showing by the defendants, Paris Adult Theater No. I and Paris Adult Theater No. II, of two allegedly obscene motion pictures. Following the procedure approved by this court in Evans Theatre Corp. v. Slaton, 227 Ga. 377, 180 S.E.2d 712, and followed in Walter et al. v. Slaton, 227 Ga. 676, 182 S.E.2d 464, and in 1024 Peachtree Corp. v. Slaton, 228 Ga. 102, 184 S.E.2d 144. Lewis R. Slaton, as District Attorney of the Atlanta Judicial Circuit, and Hinson McAuliffe, as Solicitor General of the Criminal Court of Fulton County, filed a complaint against the theaters and named individuals praying for a rule nisi to require the defendants to show cause on a date certain why the motion picture films, 'It All Comes Out in the End,' and 'Magic Mirror,' should not be declared obscene and subject to be seized, and seeking in each case an order requiring the defendants to produce the aforesaid motion picture films and that they be temporarily and permanently enjoined from exhibiting the same. The rule nisi was duly issued and served in each case, and an adversary hearing was held pursuant thereto on January 13, 1971 before a Judge of the Superior Court of Fulton County. The parties agreed to waive a jury trial and a preliminary hearing and stipulated that the judgment and order entered by the trial judge would be a final judgment and order in each case. After viewing the motion pictures and hearing the evidence, the trial judge rendered the following judgment. "The State contends that the motion pictures under review in the above actions are obscene. The titles of the films are, 'It All Comes Out in the End,' and 'Magic Mirror.' Assuming that obscenity is established by a finding that the actors cavorted about in the nude indiscriminately, then these films may fairly be considered obscene. Both films are clearly designed to entertain the spectrator and perhaps, depending on the viewer, to appeal to his or her prurient interest. The portrayal of the sex act is undertaken; but the act itself is consistently only a simulated one if, indeed, the viewer can assume an act of intercourse or of fellatio is occurring from the machinations which are portrayed on the screen. Each of the films is childish, unimaginative, and altogether boring in its sameness.
'It appears to the court that the display of these films in a commercial theater, when surrounded by requisite notice to the public of their nature and by reasonable protection against the exposure of these films to minors, is constitutionally permissible.
'It is the judgment of this court that the films, even though they display the human body and the human personality in a most degrading fashion, are not obscene.
'The actions against the defendants, therefore, are dismissed.
'This 12th day of April, 1971.
Atlanta Judicial Circuit.'
The appeal is from this order. The grounds of enumerated error are that the court erred in declaring each of the films to be not obscene, in refusing to enjoin the defendant from exhibiting each of said motion pictures, and in dismissing the appellant's complaint against the defendants.
Appellees contend, and the judge of the superior court found that, inasmuch as the evidence in this case shows that the films which the solicitor seeks to seize are shown in a theater which carries on the front thereof the warning that it is for adults only and that the exhibition of the films in this context is permissible and that the State cannot, without violating first amendment rights, constitutionally prohibit it. They rely in support of this position upon the case of Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 89 S.Ct. 1243, 22...
To continue readingRequest your trial
State ex rel. Andrews v. Chateau X, Inc.
...leaving "little to the imagination" and held that their further exhibition should have been enjoined. Slaton v. Paris Adult Theatre I, 228 Ga. 343, 347, 185 S.E.2d 768, 770 (1971). The United States Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision essentially approved the Georgia civil injunction procedure.......
Paris Adult Theatre v. Slaton 8212 1051
...Amendment standards newly enunciated by the Court in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 37 L.Ed.2d 419. Pp. 69—70. 228 Ga. 343, 185 S.E.2d 768, vacated and Robert Eugene Smith, Atlanta, Ga., for petitioners. Thomas E. Moran, Atlanta, Ga., for respondent. Mr. Chief Justice BUR......
State v. Aiuppa
...Corp. v. Slaton, 228 Ga. 102, 184 S.E.2d 144 (1971) (similar description of the material involved); and Slaton v. Paris Adult Theatre, I, 228 Ga. 343, 185 S.E.2d 768 (1971) (simulated sexual activity including portrayal of sexual intercourse and fellatio). All of these authoritative constru......
State v. Gulf States Theatres of Louisiana, Inc.
...standards of decency. The Georgia Supreme Court had ruled in that case very much as the majority has here. Slaton v. Paris Adult Theatre I, 228 Ga. 343, 185 S.E.2d 768. In addition to a review of the Georgia Supreme Court's holding and the questions set forth, the United States Supreme Cour......