-
-
Two Indiana businesse decided they wanted to show naked exotic dancers as entertainment (http://law.jrank.org/pages/23511/Barnes-v-Glen-Theatre-Inc-Significance.html). Previous to this idea, the Glen Theatre and Kitty Kat Lounge were known for selling alcohol, adult magazines, videos, and books. They also had live exotic dancers that people could pay to watch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnes_v._Glen_Theatre,_Inc.).
-
After talking it out and brainstorming, the two businesses decided to go for it. But, they found out it wasn’t legal to show completely nude girls in public for entertainment. The Indiana law states dancers must wear “pasties” and “g-strings”, and they thought that was a violation of the First Amendment (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/501/560/case.html).
-
The First Amendment by law is “guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.” (http://www.law.cornel
-
Glen Theatre lost the case to the District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. The District Court didn’t think not having to wear pasties and a g-string was a violation of the First Amendment whatsoever. They thought “that the intent of the law was not to prohibit nude dancing, but to prevent public nudity, which has nothing to do with free expression.”. They believe that the Indiana law provides the dancers with “minimal protection” which would not be a violation of the First Amendmen
-
The Seventh District Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s decision of denying the dancers to dance nude based on “prior suit”. The case was then given back to the District Court to further debate about the dancing and not the “unconstitutional overbreadth” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnes_v._Glen_Theatre,_Inc.).
-
After the District Court looked over the case again, they decided that the dancing was “not constitutionally protected”. The case was then appealed over the the Seventh District Court of Appeals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnes_v._Glen_Theatre,_Inc.).
-
The two businesses and three exotic dancers chose to sue the District Court (http://access.newspaperarchive.com/us/iowa/cedar-rapids/cedar-rapids-gazette/1990/10-02/page-5?tag=barnes+vs+glen+theatre&rtserp=tags/barnes-vs-glen-theatre). They sued to stop the enforcement of the law becuase they believe it was unconstitutionally applied (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1990/1990_90_26).
-
The arguments of Kennedy, Uhl, and O'Connor, were heard on January 8, 1991 by the Supreme Court. Lawyers brought up lots of different scenarios of when it would and would not be okay to be nude in public (http://access.newspaperarchive.com/us/new-mexico/alamogordo/alamogordo-daily-news/1991/06-28/page-19?tag=barnes+vs+glen+theatre&rtserp=tags/barnes-vs-glen-theatre?pr=30&psb=date&page=20&ndt=by&py=1990&pey=1999).
-
"The requirement that the dancers don pasties and a G-string does not deprive the dance of whatever erotic message it conveys; it simply makes the message slightly less graphic. The perceived evil that Indiana seeks to address is not erotic dancing, but public nudity...Public nudity is the evil the state seeks to prevent, whether or not it is combined with expressive activity." In the end, people agreed that it is “not unconstitutional” to be nude in public (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnes_
