# Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad

> Supreme Court of the United States · March 18, 1975 · 420 U.S. 546

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9426023

## Case

- **Full name:** SOUTHEASTERN PROMOTIONS, LTD. v. CONRAD Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** March 18, 1975
- **Citations:** 420 U.S. 546; 1 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1140; 95 S. Ct. 1239; 43 L. Ed. 2d 448; 1975 U.S. LEXIS 3
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Douglas
- **Judges:** Blackmun, Douglas, White, Rehnquist
- **Cited by:** 1,080 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9426023

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that denial of municipal auditorium for production of the musical “Hair” was an invalid prior restraint and noting that “one is not to have the exercise of his liberty of expression in appropriate places abridged on the plea that it may be exercised in some other place.”
- holding that denial of use of municipal auditorium for a production because of its content constitutes a prior restraint and violates the First Amendment because of a lack of procedural safeguards
- explaining that a “prior restraint avoids constitutional infirmity only if it takes place under procedural safeguards designed to obviate the dangers of a censorship system” (citation omitted)
- explaining that prior restraints “g[i]ve public officials the power to deny use of a forum in advance of actual expression”
- finding that a city can limit use of a certain venue only to theatrical produc tions

## Opinion text

*563 Mr. Justice Douglas,
dissenting in part and concurring in the result in part.
While I agree with the Court’s conclusion that the actions of the respondents constituted an impermissible prior restraint upon the performance of petitioner’s rock musical, I am compelled to write separately in order to emphasize my view that the injuries inflicted upon petitioner’s First Amendment rights cannot be treated adequately or averted in the future by the simple application of a few procedural band-aids. The critical flaw in this case lies, not in the absence of procedural safeguards, but rather in the very nature of the content screening in which respondents have engaged.
The Court today treads much the same path which it walked in Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U. S. 51 (1965), and the sentiment which I expressed on that occasion remains equally relevant: “I do not believe any form of censorship — no matter how speedy or prolonged it may be — is permissible.” Id., at 61-62 (concurring opinion). See also Star v. Preller, 419 U. S. 956 (1974) (dissenting opinion); Times Film Corp. v. Chicago, 365 U. S. 43, 78 (1961) (dissenting opinion).
A municipal theater is no less a forum for the expression of ideas than is a public park, or a sidewalk; the forms of expression adopted in such a forum may be more expensive and more structured than those typically seen in our parks and streets, but they are surely no less entitled to the shelter of the First Amendment. As soon as municipal officials are permitted to pick and choose, as they are in all existing socialist regimes, between those productions which are “clean and healthful and culturally uplifting” in content and those which are not, the path is cleared for a regime of censorship under which full voice can be given only to those views which meet with the approval of the powers that be.
*564 There was much testimony in the District Court concerning the pungent social and political commentary which the musical “Hair” levels against various sacred cows of our society: the Vietnam war, the draft, and the puritanical conventions of the Establishment. This commentary is undoubtedly offensive to some, but its contribution to social consciousness and intellectual ferment is a positive one. In this respect, the musical's often ribald humor and trenchant social satire may someday merit comparison to the most highly regarded works of Aristophanes, a fellow debunker of established tastes and received wisdom, yet one whose offerings would doubtless meet with a similarly cold reception at the hands of Establishment censors. No matter how many procedural safeguards may be imposed, any system which permits governmental officials to inhibit or control the flow of disturbing and unwelcome ideas to the public threatens serious diminution of the breadth and richness of our cultural offerings.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9426023. Public record. Not legal advice.