Citation network
Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. Vs. Conrad
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 18, 1975
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 546 (1975) U.S. Supreme Court Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. ConradSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U.S. 546 (1975) Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. ConradSearch
-
which was based on the board members' judgment of the musical's content, constituted a prior restraint. Shuttlesworth v. BirminghamSearch
-
the Fourteenth Amendment has made applicable to the States the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. Douglas v. CitySearch
-
actions consistently identified as prior restraints in a long line of this Court's decisions. See Shuttlesworth v. BirminghamSearch
-
Staub v. CitySearch
-
Kunz v. NewSearch
-
Lovell v. GriffinSearch
-
U.S. at 394 U. S. 150 -151. In Hague v. CIOSearch
-
was held void on its face. Id. at 307 U. S. 516 (opinion of Roberts, J.). In Cantwell v. ConnecticutSearch
-
Rather, they denied the application in anticipation that the production would violate the law. See New York Times Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
was present. Petitioner was not seeking to use a facility primarily serving a competing use. See, e.g., Cameron v. JohnsonSearch
-
Adderley v. FloridaSearch
-
Brown v. LouisianaSearch
-
regulation of time, place, or manner related to the nature of the facility or applications from other users. See Cox v. NewSearch
-
Poulos v. NewSearch
-
of individuals in surrounding areas were violated by noise or any other aspect of the production. See Kovacs v. CooperSearch
-
U. S. 77 (1949). There was no captive audience. See Lehman v. CitySearch
-
for First Amendment purposes by standards suited to it, for each may present its own problems. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. WilsonSearch
-
Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCCSearch
-
a prior restraint does not end the inquiry. Prior restraints are not unconstitutional per se. Bantam Books, Inc. v. SullivanSearch
-
U. S. 58 , 372 U. S. 70 n. 10 (1963). See Near v. MinnesotaSearch
-
Times Film Corp. v. ChicagoSearch
-
New York Times Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Carroll v. PrincessSearch
-
and illegitimate speech is often so finely drawn that the risks of freewheeling censorship are formidable. See Speiser v. RandallSearch
-
with procedural safeguards that reduce the danger of suppressing constitutionally protected speech. Bantam Books, Inc. v. SullivanSearch
-
U. S. 51 , 380 U. S. 58 (1965). See United States v. Thirty-sevenSearch
-
U. S. 139 , 390 U. S. 141 -142 (1968). See also Heller v. NewSearch
-
Court has applied Freedman to the system by which federal customs agents seize imported materials, United States v. Thirty-sevenSearch
-
Photographs, supra, and to that by which postal officials restrict use of the mails, Blount v. RizziSearch
-
below was sufficiently precise or substantively correct, or whether the production is, in fact, obscene. See Hamling v. UnitedSearch
-
Lewis v. CitySearch
-
Miller v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. ConradSearch
-
Douglas v. CitySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial