User:Green C51/sandbox

Southeastern Promotions LTD. v. Conrad is a case concerning the right of Southeastern Promotions to conduct a play in a city-funded theatre. Southeastern Promotions was a corporation that would seek out theatres to host the play, “Hair”. One such theatre that Southeastern Promotions attempted to house “Hair”, was the Tivoli Theatre in Chattanooga, Tennessee. However, the owners did not want the play to be seen in their theatre, due to some of its lewd content.

As a result, Southeastern Promotions took the theatre’s owner to court, on the grounds that its first amendment right was being violated by the Tivoli Theatre.

=Background of the case=

Southeastern Promotions LTD was a theatrical production company. One of its uses was to find theatres to host Hair (musical). In its search in Chattanooga, Tennessee, Southeastern Promotions came across the Tivoli Theatre. The Tivoli Theatre was funded and run by the city.

"Hair" was a musical with a variety of lewd content. However, the musical was not in its inception. "Hair" had been shown for three years in over 140 cities, including on Broadway in New York. All of this led it to be a surprise that Southeastern Promotions was bluntly denied the right to show Hair in the Tivoli Theatre.

The theatre decided against allowing Hair to be shown, due to its lewd and inappropriate content. It's statement was that it "would not be in the best interest of the community" to allow Hair to be played. Since the Tivoli Theatre was publicly run, Southeastern Promotions felt it was unconstitutional for a city owned theatre to prevent the showing of their production. In turn, Southeastern Promotions took the case to court.

Question
Was the city of Chattanooga and the Tivoli Theatre denying the playing of Hair (musical) unconstitutional?

Ruling
In a 6-3 judgement, the Supreme Court ruled that Southeastern Promotions LTD. was being unconstitutionally prevented from showing Hair (musical) to audiences in Chattanooga. The reason for their judgement was on the grounds of prior restraint. The position of the Supreme Court was that it was in the free speech rights of Southeastern Promotions to perform the play and that any interference in that matter would be a violation of their first amendment right.

However, the Supreme Court did agree with the district courts, in that free speech should be limited if it is used as a vehicle for obscenity. In this case though, the Supreme Court did not feel as though “Hair” was truly obscene.

Instead, the court felt that the gestures and language used in the play were designed to be part of the story-telling process. The argument made by the Supreme Court was that “Hair’s” obscenity was part of a worthwhile message that was drawing crowds across the country. As a result, the majority of the court felt that it would be a restriction of the first amendment for Hair to be barred from being shown.

Majority Opinion
Justice Harry A. Blackmun wrote the majority opinion on this case for the court. In it, he wrote: “The issue in this case is whether First Amendment rights were abridged when respondents denied petitioner the use of a municipal facility in Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the showing of the controversial rock musical Hair. None of them had seen the play or read the script, but they understood from outside reports that the musical, as produced elsewhere, involved nudity and obscenity on stage. It is established, of course, that the Fourteenth Amendment has made applicable to the States the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech.”

Through the lense of free speech, the majority reached their opinion more narrowly through the use of prior restraint. Prior restraint is the belief that judicial suppression of published or broadcast material, should not occur under the first amendment. The Tivoli Theatre in this case, was violating the free speech rights of Southeastern Promotions, through the lense of prior restraint.

Dissenting Opinion
Dissenting opinions on the judgement were written by Justices' Warren E. Burger, Byron White, and William Rehnquist.

In his dissenting opinion, Justice White wrote: “The First Amendment in my view does not compel municipal authorities to permit production of the play in municipal facilities. Whether or not a production as described by the District Court is obscene and may be forbidden to adult audiences, it is apparent to me that the State of Tennessee could constitutionally forbid exhibition of the musical to children.”

Justice White argued that the play could be forbidden due to its obscene content. This because inappropriate content does not have universal protection via the first amendment. However, this opinion was understood by the majority judges, who deemed that the play was not obscene enough to be worthy of censorship.

=Subsequent Developments=

As a result of the Supreme Court ruling, "Hair" gained the right to perform at the Tivoli Theatre. "Hair" continued to be shown across the country and has developed into one of the most widely popular plays in the U.S. This after its showing was defended by the judiciary and gained protection under the first amendment to be performed across the country.