Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> C-/b/~ I <br /> .. <br /> in mind are that regulations must be narrowly crafted to address adverse secondary <br /> effects, they must be reasonably related to reduction of these effects and they must be I <br /> capable of objective application. If these standards can be met, licensing and other- <br /> regulatory provisions may play an important role in preventing unwanted exposure to I <br /> sexually oriented materials and in reducing the crime problems associated with <br /> sexually oriented businesses. I <br /> It is clear that failure to act upon a license application for a sexually oriented I <br /> business cannot take the place of regulation. Without justification, denial or failure to <br /> grant a license is a prior restraint in violation of the First Amendment. Parkway Theater <br /> Corporation v. City of Minneapolis, No. 716787, slip. op. (Henn. Co. Dist. Ct., Sept. 24, I <br /> 1975). <br /> An ordinance providing for license revocation of an adult motion picture theater if I <br /> the licensee is convicted of an obscenity offense is also likely to be held I <br /> unconstitutional as a prior restraint of free speech. Alexander v. City of St. Paul, 227 <br /> N.W.2d 370 (Minn. 1975). The Alexander court stated: -. <br /> [WJhen the city licenses a motion picture theater, it is . licensing an <br /> activity protected by the First Amendment, and as a result the power of the I <br /> city is more limited than when the city licenses activities which do not have <br /> First Arnendment protection, such as the business of selling liquor or running <br /> a massage parlor. . <br /> Id. at 373 (footnote omitted); ~ also, Cohen v. City of Daleville, 695 F. Supp. 1168, . <br /> l. 1171 (M.D. Ala. 1988) (past sale of obscene material cannot justify revocation of <br /> license). <br /> 1 I <br /> I However, the courts have permitted communities to deny licenses to sexually <br /> I - <br /> , oriented businesses if the person seeking a license has been convicted of other crimes . <br /> ! which are closely related to the operation of sexually oriented businesses. <br /> [ In Dumas v. City of Dallas, supra, the court reviewed a requirement that a license I <br /> applicant not have been convicted of certain crimes within a specified period. Five of <br /> . <br /> l the enumerated crimes were held to be not sufficiently related to the purpose of the <br /> -I <br /> I -42- <br /> I I <br /> i <br />