Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> -- ---- <br /> ?GIg>;) I <br /> .1 <br /> , <br /> Justice Stevens did not expressly describe the standard he had used, but it was <br /> I <br /> clear that the plurality would afford non-obscene sexually explicit speech lesser Firsf <br /> Amendrnent protection than other categories of speech. However, four dissenters and I <br /> one concurring justice concluded that the degree of protection afforded speech by the <br /> First Amendment does not vary with the social value ascribed to that speech. In his <br /> concurring opinion, Justice Powell stated that the four-part test of United States v. I <br /> O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 377, 88 S.Ct. 1673, 1679 (1968), should apply. Powell <br /> explained: I <br /> Under that test, a governmental regulation is sufficiently justified, despite its I <br /> incidental impact upon First Amendment interests, "if it is within the <br /> constitutional power of the Government; if it furthers an important or <br /> substantial governmental interest; if the governmental interest is unrelated to I <br /> the suppression of free expression; and if the incidental restriction on . . . <br /> First Amendment freedom is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of <br /> that interest." I <br /> 427 U.S. at 79-80, 96 S.Ct. at 2457 (citation omitted), (Powell, J., concurring). .1 <br /> Perhaps because Justice StevenS' plurality opinion did not offer a clearly <br /> I articulated standard of review, post-Younq courts often applied the O'Brien test I <br /> advocated by Justice Powell in his concurring opinion. Many ordinances regulating <br /> I sexually oriented businesses were invalidated under the O'Brien test. See A.M. Stein, I <br /> 1 Requlation of Adult Businesses Throuqh Zoninq After Renton, 18 Pac. L.J. 351, 360 <br /> I <br /> (1987) ("consistently invalidated"); SA. Bender, Requlatinq Pornoqraphy Throuqh I <br /> I Zoninq: Can We 'Clean Up' Honolulu? 8 U. Haw. L. Rev. 75, 105 (1986) (ordinances <br /> upheld in only about half the cases). <br /> [ I <br /> Applying Younq, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated a zoning ordinance <br /> I adopted by the city of Minneapolis. Alexander v, City of Minneapolis, 698 F.2d 936 (8th . I <br /> Cir. 1983). In Alexander, the challenged ordinance had three major restrictions on <br /> I sexually o"riented businesses: distancing frorn specified uses, prevention of I <br /> concentration and amortization. It prohibited a sexually oriented business from <br /> I operating within 500 feet of districts zoned for residential or office-residences, a church; . <br /> I -32- -. <br /> I I <br />