 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
| comedies & family ent., branding consultants, redhat, naming, user:jobe6/dontlook, seattle newspapers, mcsweeney's, ernie c, weird, defacement, music magazine, review, washington, enlightenedtheme for wordpress, independent record labels, ecommerce, | The settled rule is that a system of prior restraint "avoids constitutional infirmity only if it takes place under procedural safeguards designed to obviate the bulletin dangers of a censorship system." We reaffirm here that a system bulletin of prior restraint runs afoul of the First bulletin Amendment if it lacks certain safeguards: First, the burden of instituting judicial proceedings, and of proving that the material is unprotected, must rest on the censor. Second, any restraint prior to judicial review can be imposed only for a specified brief period and only for the purpose of preserving the status quo. Third, a prompt final judicial determination must be assured....Procedural safeguards were lacking here in several respects.... MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins, dissenting. The Court asserts that "Hair" contains a nude scene and that this is "the most controversial portion" of the musical. |
Best Mature Paysites
|
| Even if a privately owned forum ernie c had been available, that fact alone would not justify an otherwise impermissible prior ernie c restraint. "[One] is not to have the exercise of his liberty of expression in appropriate places abridged on the plea that it may be exercised in some other place." Thus, it does not matter for purposes of this case that the board's decision might not have had the ernie c effect of total suppression of the musical in the community. Denying use of the municipal facility under the circumstances present here constituted the prior restraint. Labeling respondents' action a prior restraint does not end the inquiry. Prior restraints are not unconstitutional per se. Any system of prior restraint, however, "comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity." In order to be held lawful, respondents' action, first, must fit within one of the narrowly defined exceptions to the prohibition against prior restraints, and, second, must have been accomplished with procedural safeguards that reduce the danger of suppressing constitutionally protected speech..... |
|
Looking for real sex? Find someone now on the
largest sex personals network.FREE signup! Post a FREE erotic ad w/5 photos, flirt in chatrooms, view explicit live Webcams, meet for REAL sex! 30,000 new photos every day! Find SEX now 
|
