data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ed8a8/ed8a84e686ba12506daa08d9c3a35d12cde9fd73" alt=""
WEIGHT: 49 kg
Bust: E
One HOUR:100$
NIGHT: +80$
Sex services: French Kissing, Food Sex, Toys, Massage anti-stress, Golden shower (in)
Argued February 26, Decided June 23, Maness argued the cause and filed a brief for appellant. William Lee Allen argued the cause for appellee. With him on the brief was Harry Louis Shorstein. This case presents a challenge to the facial validity of a Jacksonville, Fla. Violation of this section shall be punishable as a Class C offense. Appellant, with the consent of the city prosecutor, successfully moved to stay his prosecution so that the validity of the ordinance could be tested in a separate declaratory action.
In that action appellee, the city of Jacksonville, introduced evidence showing that the screen of appellant's theater is visible from two adjacent public streets and a nearby church parking lot. There was also testimony indicating that people had been observed watching films while sitting outside the theater in parked cars and in the grass. The trial court upheld the ordinance as a legitimate exercise of the municipality's police power, and ruled that it did not infringe upon appellant's First Amendment rights.
City of Grand Prairie, F. We noted probable jurisdiction, [3] U. Appellee concedes that its ordinance sweeps far beyond the permissible restraints on obscenity, see Miller v. California, U. See Joseph Burstyn, Inc. Wilson, U. Georgia, U. Nevertheless, it maintains that any movie containing nudity which is visible from a public place may be suppressed as a nuisance.
Several theories are advanced to justify this contention. Appellee's primary argument is that it may protect its citizens against unwilling exposure to materials that may be offensive.
Jacksonville's ordinance, however, does not protect citizens from all movies that might offend; rather it singles out films containing nudity, presumably because the lawmakers considered them especially offensive to passersby. See, e. Cooper, U. Alexandria, U. City of Shaker Heights, U. See generally Haiman, Speech v. Such cases demand delicate balancing because:. Cohn, U. Although each case ultimately must depend on its own specific facts, some general principles have emerged.