|
Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc., 478 U.S. 697 (1986)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc., 478 U.S. 697 (1986)
JUSTICE O’CONNOR, with whom JUSTICE STEVENS joins, concurring.
I agree that the Court of Appeals erred in applying a First Amendment standard of review where, as here, the government is regulating neither speech nor an incidental, nonexpressive effect of speech. Any other conclusion would lead to the absurd result that any government action that had some conceivable speech-inhibiting consequences, such as the arrest of a newscaster for a traffic violation, would require analysis under the First Amendment. If, however, a city were to use a nuisance statute as a pretext for closing down a bookstore because it sold indecent books or because of the perceived secondary effects of having a purveyor of such books in the neighborhood, the case would clearly implicate First Amendment concerns and require analysis under the appropriate First Amendment standard of review. Because there is no suggestion in the record or opinion below of such pretextual use of the New York nuisance provision in this case, I concur in the Court’s opinion and judgment.
* Our past cases cannot sensibly be distinguished on the ground that they involved regulation of nonexpressive effects of speech, or regulation of nonspeech "intimately related to expressive conduct," ante at 706, n. 3; our concern clearly has been to avoid any exercise of governmental power that "unduly suppress[es]" First Amendment interests. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 308 (1940). Would the Court feel differently about the present case if respondents had introduced evidence that the illegal sexual activity at their bookstore had been spurred by the passages read by browsing customers? Under the Court’s apparent theory, paradoxically, a bookstore which sold books that induced such activity would have more protection than a bookstore whose wares had no effect on the sexual behavior of its clientele.
Contents:
Chicago: O'Connor, "O’connor, J., Dissenting," Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc., 478 U.S. 697 (1986) in 478 U.S. 697 Original Sources, accessed March 20, 2023, http://www.originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=LAITDSVKNHWDBQ1.
MLA: O'Connor. "O’connor, J., Dissenting." Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc., 478 U.S. 697 (1986), in 478 U.S. 697, Original Sources. 20 Mar. 2023. http://www.originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=LAITDSVKNHWDBQ1.
Harvard: O'Connor, 'O’connor, J., Dissenting' in Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc., 478 U.S. 697 (1986). cited in 1986, 478 U.S. 697. Original Sources, retrieved 20 March 2023, from http://www.originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=LAITDSVKNHWDBQ1.
|