Resolution 2413 - Laserfiche WebLink

1 into a limited market , will not be sustained . This would be 2 construed as a total suppression of vital speech interests and 3 would operate as a prior, restraint on the content of speech . 4 When a zoning ordinance infringes upon protected liberty, such 5 as freedom of expression , it must necessarily be narrowly drawn to 6 further a sufficiently substantial governmental interest and is 7 subject to close scrutiny by the courts . 8 To justify a sufficiently substantial governmental interest , 9 the City must produce some basis in fact and demonstrate that the 10 factual basis was considered in passing the ordinance . 11 The ordinance in question is modeled after the Detroit ordi- 12 nance in Young v. American Mini Theatres , 427 U .S . 50, 49 L.Ed. 2d 13 310 ( 1976 ) , 96 Sup. Ct . 2440 relied upon by our own court and 14 Northend Cinema, Inc. v. The City of Seattle , 90 Wn. 2d 709 , 585 15 P. 2d 1153 ( 1978 ) . 16 By way of some difference, in addition to the prohibition of 17 the display of sexually explicit materials in a manner which 18 appeals to prurient interests within 1 , 000 feet of certain family 19 uses, the Renton ordinance originally prohibited displays within 20 one mile of a public or private school ( Ordinance 3526 , Section 21 II ( a) ( 2) ) and was subsequently reduced to 1 , 000 feet by 22 amendment . 23 This court will not restate the long and tortuous history of 24 the struggle for definition in this area of the law since Roth v. 25 The United States , 354 U 476 , 1 L. Ed. 2d 1498 , 77 Sup. Ct. 26 1304 ( 1957) and forward . Many of the cases involve the applica- 27 tion of standards with criminal prosecutions being the primary 28 remedy. In recent years , civil proceedings such as abatement for 29 nuisance have been utilized . The decisions are replete with 30 illustrations of the difficulty of obtaining concensus and 31 agreement in individual cases . Literally hundreds of cases have 32