ILNews

7th Circuit bars Indianapolis’ hour limits on adult bookstores

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago has tossed an Indianapolis ordinance limiting the business hours of adult bookstores from 10 a.m. to midnight Monday through Saturday.

In a five-page opinion issued Friday, Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote for a panel that reversed a District Court ruling in favor of Indianapolis’ ordinance in long-running litigation, Annex Books Inc, et al. v. City of Indianapolis, 13-1500. The panel ordered Judge Sarah Evans Barker of the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to grant an injunction barring enforcement of the closure ordinance.

Easterbrook wrote the city could no more restrict the hours of an adult bookstore than it could limit the hours during which a Sunday newspaper could be distributed.

“The difference lies in the content of the reading material. Indianapolis likes G-rated newspapers but not sexually oriented books, magazines, and movies,” Easterbrook wrote, noting that in two precedent-setting U.S. Supreme Court rulings, neither “permits units of government to stop the distribution of books because their content is objectionable, unless the material is obscene.”

“Indianapolis does not contend that any of the plaintiffs sells obscene  material; it  follows that  objection to the plaintiffs’ stock in trade cannot justify closure,” the panel held.

The city failed to persuade the court that the ordinance was justified because of claims of fewer armed robberies near adult bookstores during the times they were closed.

“The current justification is weak as a statistical matter,” the panel held, noting the city didn’t control for other potentially important variables such as nearby late-night taverns. In any event, Easterbrook wrote, “The change in the number of armed robberies is small; the difference is not statistically significant. The data do not show that robberies are more likely at adult bookstores than at other late night retail outlets, such as liquor stores, pharmacies, and convenience stores, that are not subject to the closing hours imposed on bookstores.”






 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • fiddling
    Right well Congress is backed by the porn industry as shown by DMCA and they have legalized a veritable sewer-pipe of porn filth into every home via the internet and right into teenagers hands via smart phones so this kind of "adult bookstore" regulation is window dressing and at best spitting into the tsunami, so who cares. Interesting how fifty years ago whatever adult bookstores sold, they wouldn't generally sell homoerotic porn because it was generally considered obscene. Now that sort of sexual activity is itself the subject of "civil rights activity" my how times have changed. So much for all that original intent crap. America, they hate us for our freedoms LOL Like democracy oh wait when a blackrobe strikes down a law is that democratic or is the blackrobe the "enemy of democracy" etc etc. What a lot of doubletalk

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT