Glen Theatre and the Kitty Kat Lounge in South Bend, Indiana, operated entertainment establishments with totally nude dancers. An Indiana law regulating public nudity required dancers to wear "pasties" and a "G-string" when they perform. The Theatre and Lounge sued to stop enforcement of the statute.
Does a state prohibition against complete nudity in public places violate the First Amendment's freedom of expression guarantee?
No. The Court was fractured and there was no majority opinion. Chief Justice Rehnquist, in a plurality opinion, conceded that nude dancing was a form of expressive activity. But he maintained that the public indecency statute is justified despite the incidental limitations on such expressive activity. The statute "furthers a substantial government interest in protecting order and morality." The proscription on public nudity is unrelated to the erotic message the dancers seek to convey.
Decisions
Decision: 5 votes for Barnes, 4 vote(s) against Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly
Sort by Ideology
Judgment of the Court by Justice William H. Rehnquist
