Free Expression: Inverse Zoning of Adult Theaters Not a Violation of Due Process or Equal Protection
Document Type
Notes
Abstract
Young v. American Mini Theaters, Inc., 427 U.S. 50 (1976).
The plight of large metropolitan urban areas is the focus of much concern in the United States. Recently, the migration to the cities has reversed, and industry and commercial interests have abandoned metropolitan cores. Consequently, urban areas are suffering from neglect, epitomized by loss of an adequate tax base. Sociologists and urban planners have recognized that a major factor contributing to urban blight is the de facto concentration of socalled "adult" establishments in the inner city. Skid rows visibly evolve as commercial residents vacate the older areas of a city, and less respected establishments take their place.
City planners have attempted to control the growth of skid row areas in two ways. The customary approach has been to confine "adult" establishments to certain defined areas. This conventional technique is most notable in Boston, which has established what has been dubbed an "erogenous zone" for pornographic bookstores, X-rated movie houses, and peep-shows. This approach, however, has compounded the problem and has created policing difficulties. A novel approach is to disperse adult establishments so as to prevent the creation or further proliferation of slum areas. An example of this technique was the Detroit plan which was challenged in Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc.
Recommended Citation
Allberry, Charles Fred II
(1977)
"Free Expression: Inverse Zoning of Adult Theaters Not a Violation of Due Process or Equal Protection,"
University of Dayton Law Review: Vol. 2:
No.
2, Article 12.
Available at:
https://ecommons.udayton.edu/udlr/vol2/iss2/12
Publication Date
5-1-1977
