Glen Theatre, Inc. v. Barnes

Two Charities’ Attempt at Full-Naked Dance as Entertainment

Two charities in Indiana wanted to offer a full-naked dance as entertainment. The District Court was present at the performance to see the dancers’ enforcement of the state’s public indecency legislation. The involved dancers were required by law to don a G-string and panties. They argued that the First Amendment was violated by this regulation, which prohibited complete nudity in public. One of the 10 amendments that make up the Bill of Rights is the First Amendment. In the constitution of the United States, the first amendment bars the creation of any law that respects the establishment of any religion, making certain that free practice of religion is not prohibited, ensuring there is freedom of speech (Piety Tamara, 2012, 7). The amendment also prohibited making of laws that limit the freedom of the press, interfere with the right to assemble peaceably or even forbid the petition for an administrative remedy of grievances. The amendment was adopted on 15th December 1791.

Court’s Response to Nude Dancing and First Amendment

In response, the court held that the act of nude dancing which was involved during the entertainment session was not an act of expressive conduct. The Court of Appeal reversed the ruling, and it remanded the district court so that the plaintiffs would pursue the claim that the state’s law violated the First Amendment which had been applied in the dancing. After the District Court had been remanded, it concluded that the dance which the Plaintiffs wished to perform was not expressive act and hence was not protected by the United States Constitution. They also ruled in favor of the defendant. The case was appealed again, and a panel of the court reversed the District Court. The Court of Appeal provided a series of incredibly thoughtful and comprehensive opinions. Eventually, the majority concluded that the non-obscene nude dance which was performed for entertainment was a protected expression. It also stated that the court’s ruling was an improper transgression of the activity as its purpose was meant to avert sexuality and eroticism message conveyed by the dancers.

Role of American Legal System in Protecting Art and Freedom of Expression

The American legal system plays a very crucial role in ensuring that art is protected and that their freedom to express views is not prohibited. This is seen when the court of appeal remands the district court for ruling that the nude dance was not an expressive act and that it violated the law of public indecency. Justice Scouter agreed that the nude dancing in the entertainment was subject to protection under the First Amendment as it was an artistic activity. However, he also came to a conclusion that the state’s concern to prevent the effect of entertainment containing adult content such as sexual assaults and prostitution was sufficient to justify the enforcement of laws which were against nude dancing. The law also has a constraint that limits certain aspects of art. This is evident in Indiana’s law of public indecency. It prohibits total nudity in public place and states that the entertainers should wear panties to avoid exposing their private parts. These rules ensure that morality is upheld in the society. At the same time, the law protects people and producers of various types of entertainment from being barred from freedom of expression. The American legal system also plays a significant role in ensuring that the rights of people in the art industry are not violated in any way. These laws have resulted in a significant development in the art industry in the United Stated.

Notes

The first amendment bars the creation of any law that respects the establishment of any religion, making certain that free practice of religion is not prohibited, ensuring there is freedom of speech.

The law of public indecency Indiana requires that dancer wears a G-string and panties to prevent exposing their private parts (Gottlieb Stephen 1993, 36).

The court of appeal concluded that the non-obscene nude dance which was performed for entertainment was a protected expression by the First Amendment.

The nude dancers had an aspect of expressive conduct and hence were protected by the First Amendment at some degree.

Indecency according to the public indecency law was the act of knowingly, in a public place engaging in sexual misconduct and appearing nude.

Two Indiana businesses wished to provide nude dancing as entertainment.

The owners of the Indiana’s establishment claimed that the public Indecency law violated the First Amendment which protected freedom of expression.

The District Court claimed that the nude dance was not an act of expressive action and that it was a violation of the public indecency law.

Work cited

Piety, Tamara R. Brandishing the First Amendment: Commercial expression in America. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2012. Print.

Gottlieb, Stephen E. Public values in constitutional law. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1993. Print.