Resolution 2413 - Laserfiche WebLink

1 areas , exhibit #103) . These exhibits were admitted in connection 2 with pre-trial issues ,, but were not submitted to the advisory 3 jury . 4 Following extensive pre-trial discovery and preliminary issues resulting in a denial of summary judgment in favor of either 6 party, the case came on for trial . An advisory jury was impa- 7 neled, pursuant to a ruling by the Court that the same was 8 necessary for the establishing of a community standard in applica- 9 tion of the Miller vs . California test . The advisory verdict was 10 returned Monday, January 23 , 1984 (Advisory Jury Verdict , Appendix 11 1 ) . 12 II . NATURE OF THE APPLICABLE ORDINANCE ENACTMENT. 13 The first task involves an analysis of the ordinances as 14 enacted and amended , and the implications of the language uti- 15 lized . (The Text of the Applicable Ordinances . Plaintiff ' s exhi- 16 bits #68 - 71 are as follows , Appendix 2) . 17 As a preliminary summary of current law, ordinances such as 18 that enacted by Renton, will not be stricken as unconstitutionally 19 impermissible restraints upon First Amendment protections, so long 20 as certain tests may be met . Initially it should be observed, 21 that obscene materials in films or otherwise are not afforded 22 First Amendment protection , The problem is to determine which 23 materials may and which may not be so classified and in addressing 24 that classification , the governmental entity has a burden of over- 25 coming a presumption that the ordinance is invalid where freedom 26 of expression is involved . 27 • Reasonable regulations of Lime, place and manner of exhibi- 28 tions of films will be permitted if the regulations are shown to 29 be necessary to further significant governmental interests . 30 Ordinances which effectively curtail total or substantial availa- 31 bility of theatres to the public or prevent entry of new theatres 32 33 MEMORANDUM DECISION - 2