My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Resolution 2413
>
Resolutions
>
Resolution 2413
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2017 9:32:50 AM
Creation date
8/3/2017 9:32:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Resolutions
Resolution Number
2413
Date
4/18/1984
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
59
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
1 wound their way through the state and federal systems with triers <br /> 2 of fact at odds over the application of a subjective standard with <br /> 3 appellate revieof the final five U .S. Supreme Court Justices <br /> 4 being required for finality to the challenge . <br /> 5 If there be a chameleon area of the law reflecting the tenor <br /> 6 of the times and public mood , surely this is it. Any review of <br /> 7 the development of the law of obscenity illustrates clearly the <br /> 8 dramatic change in acceptability of materials and publications in <br /> 9 film and mass communications . The shock over such books as <br /> 10 "Ulysses" by James Joyce or D. H. Lawrence' s "Lady Chatterley' s <br /> 11 Lover" seem remote, except that one must consider these celebrated <br /> 12 legal challenges occurred with respect to these materials not so <br /> 13 very long ago in this century . In a society which prizes liberty, <br /> 14 tolerance and learning , we are loathe to compromise such values to <br /> IS the realm of easily abused and difficult to define censorship, <br /> 16 lest our entire political structure be adversely and irrevocably <br /> 17 impacted, as has been demonstrated in other nations where issues <br /> 18 of public morality were subsumed by political repression. <br /> 19 At the same time , we must be mindful of competing interests <br /> 20 advanced by a public entity on behalf of its citizenry to restrict <br /> 21 the exercise of certain activities in support of other legitimate <br /> 22 community goals . In assessing the reasonableness of the effort <br /> 23 being made through its regulation , it should be recognized that a <br /> 24 community has the right and obligation to safeguard its environ- <br /> 25 ment in many ways for the enhancement of the quality of life for <br /> 26 its citizens . The government has the right not only to maintain <br /> 27 environmental standards of a physical nature, but in a broader <br /> 28 moral , public safety and aesthetic environmental framework. <br /> 29 Deference should be accorded a local community to set its own <br /> ;0 parameters unless it must be prevented from doing so because of <br /> 31 constitutional prohibitions which must be enforced to safeguard <br /> 32 <br /> 33 <br /> MEMORANDUM DECISION - 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.