From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1975 United States Supreme Court case
Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville Full case name Richard Erznoznik etc. v. City of Jacksonville Citations 422 U.S. 205 (more )95 S. Ct. 2268; 45
L. Ed. 2d 125; 1 Media L. Rep. 1508
Prior 288 So. 2d 260 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1974), cert. denied , 294 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1974), prob. juris. noted , 419 U.S. 822 (1974). The Court ruled that the ordinance was invalid on its face because the ordinance discriminated among movies solely on the basis of nudity, but not all offensive content so it could not be justified.
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William O. Douglas · William J. Brennan Jr. Potter Stewart · Byron White Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun Lewis F. Powell Jr. · William Rehnquist
Majority Powell, joined by Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, Blackmun Concurrence Douglas Dissent Burger, joined by Rehnquist Dissent White U.S. Const., amend. I; Jacksonville Municipal Code § 330.313
Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville , 422 U.S. 205 (1975), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning a city ordinance prohibiting the showing of films containing nudity by a drive-in theater located in Jacksonville , Florida .[ 1]
The Supreme Court issued a ruling invalidating the ordinance and held:
(a) The ordinance by discriminating among movies solely on the basis of content has the effect of deterring drive-in theaters from showing movies containing any nudity, however innocent or even educational, and such censorship of the content of otherwise protected speech cannot be justified on the basis of the limited privacy interest of persons on the public streets, who if offended by viewing the movies can readily avert their eyes. Pp. 208–212.
(b) Nor can the ordinance be justified as an exercise of the city's police power for the protection of children against viewing the films. Even assuming that such is its purpose, the restriction is broader than permissible since it is not directed against sexually explicit nudity or otherwise limited. Pp. 212–214.
(c) Nor can the ordinance be justified as a traffic regulation. If this were its purpose, it would be invalid as a strikingly under-inclusive legislative classification since it singles out movies containing nudity from all other movies that might distract a passing motorist. Pp. 214–215.
(d) The possibility of a narrowing construction of the ordinance appears remote, particularly where appellee city offered several distinct justifications for it in its broadest terms. Moreover, its deterrent effect on legitimate expression in the form of movies is both real and substantial. Pp. 215–217.
Public displays and ceremonies Statutory religious exemptions Public funding Religion in public schools Private religious speech Internal church affairs Taxpayer standing Blue laws Other
Unprotected speech
Incitement and sedition Defamation andfalse speech Fighting words and the heckler's veto True threats Obscenity
Rosen v. United States (1896)
United States v. One Book Called Ulysses (S.D.N.Y. 1933)
Roth v. United States (1957)
One, Inc. v. Olesen (1958)
Smith v. California (1959)
Marcus v. Search Warrant (1961)
MANual Enterprises, Inc. v. Day (1962)
Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964)
Quantity of Books v. Kansas (1964)
Ginzburg v. United States (1966)
Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966)
Redrup v. New York (1967)
Ginsberg v. New York (1968)
Stanley v. Georgia (1969)
United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs (1971)
Kois v. Wisconsin (1972)
Miller v. California (1973)
Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (1973)
United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film (1973)
Jenkins v. Georgia (1974)
Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad (1975)
Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville (1975)
Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc. (1976)
Vance v. Universal Amusement Co., Inc. (1980)
American Booksellers Ass'n, Inc. v. Hudnut (7th Cir. 1985)
People v. Freeman (Cal. 1988)
United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc. (1994)
Reno v. ACLU (1997)
United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. (2000)
City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc. (2002)
Ashcroft v. ACLU I (2002)
United States v. American Library Ass'n (2003)
Ashcroft v. ACLU II (2004)
Nitke v. Gonzales (S.D.N.Y. 2005)
United States v. Williams (2008)
American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland (6th Cir. 2009)
United States v. Kilbride (9th Cir. 2009)
United States v. Stevens (2010)
Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass'n (2011)
FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. (2012)
Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton (2025)
Speech integral to criminal conduct
Strict scrutiny Overbreadth Vagueness Symbolic speech versus conductContent-based restrictions Content-neutral restrictions
Compelled speech Compelled subsidy of others' speech
Government grants and subsidies Government as speaker Loyalty oaths School speech Public employees Hatch Act and similar lawsLicensing and restriction of speech Commercial speech
Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942)
Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dept. (1970)
Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm'n on Human Relations (1973)
Lehman v. Shaker Heights (1974)
Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar (1975)
Bigelow v. Virginia (1975)
Virginia State Pharmacy Bd. v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council (1976)
Linmark Assoc., Inc. v. Township of Willingboro (1977)
Carey v. Population Services International (1977)
Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977)
In re Primus (1978)
Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association (1978)
Friedman v. Rogers (1979)
Consol. Edison Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n (1980)
Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission (1980)
Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego (1981)
In re R.M.J. (1982)
Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. (1982)
Zauderer v. Off. of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio (1985)
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Comm'n of California (1986)
Posadas de Puerto Rico Assoc. v. Tourism Co. of Puerto Rico (1986)
San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. U.S. Olympic Committee (1987)
Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Association (1988)
Riley v. Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind (1988)
State University of New York v. Fox (1989)
Peel v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of Illinois (1990)
City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network (1993)
Edenfield v. Fane (1993)
United States v. Edge Broadcasting Co. (1993)
Ibanez v. Florida Dept. of Business and Professional Regulation, Bd. of Accountancy (1994)
Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. (1995)
Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co. (1995)
Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc. (1995)
44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island (1996)
Glickman v. Wileman Brothers & Elliot, Inc. (1997)
Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Assn., Inc. v. United States (1999)
Los Angeles Police Department v. United Reporting Publishing Co. (1999)
United States v. United Foods Inc. (2001)
Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly (2001)
Thompson v. Western States Medical Center (2002)
Nike, Inc. v. Kasky (2003)
Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Ass'n (2005)
Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn. v. Brentwood Academy (2007)
Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. United States (2010)
Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA (2010)
Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. (2011)
Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman (2017)
Matal v. Tam (2017)
Iancu v. Brunetti (2019)
Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants (2020)
Vidal v. Elster (2024)
Campaign finance and political speechAnonymous speech State action Official retaliation Boycotts Prisons
Organizations Future Conduct Solicitation Membership restriction Primaries and elections