Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 402.0

529US1

Unit: $U42

[10-11-01 11:58:08] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 529 U. S. 277 (2000)

327

Stevens, J., dissenting

Ante, at 289. To begin with, the preamble to Erie’s ordi-
nance candidly articulates its agenda, declaring:

“Council speciﬁcally wishes to adopt the concept of Pub-
lic Indecency prohibited by the laws of the State of Indi-
ana, which was approved by the U. S. Supreme Court in
Barnes vs. Glen Theatre Inc., . . . for the purpose of
limiting a recent increase in nude live entertainment
within the City.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 42a (emphasis
added); see also ante, at 290.10

As its preamble forthrightly admits, the ordinance’s “pur-
pose” is to “limi[t]” a protected form of speech; its invocation
of Barnes cannot obliterate that professed aim.11

Erie’s ordinance differs from the statute in Barnes in
another respect.
In Barnes, the Court expressly observed
that the Indiana statute had not been given a limiting con-
struction by the Indiana Supreme Court. As presented to
this Court, there was nothing about the law itself that would
conﬁne its application to nude dancing in adult entertain-
ment establishments. See 501 U. S., at 564, n. 1 (discussing
Indiana Supreme Court’s lack of a limiting construction); see
also id., at 585, n. 2 (Souter, J., concurring in judgment).

10 The preamble also states: “[T]he Council of the City of Erie has
[found] . . . that certain lewd, immoral activities carried on in public places
for proﬁt . . . lead to the debasement of both women and men . . . .” App.
to Pet. for Cert. 41a.

11 Relying on ﬁve words quoted from the Supreme Court of Pennsylva-
nia, the plurality suggests that I have misinterpreted that court’s reading
of the preamble. Ante, at 290. What follows, however, is a more com-
plete statement of what that court said on this point:

“We acknowledge that one of the purposes of the Ordinance is to combat
negative secondary effects. That, however, is not its only goal.
Inextri-
cably bound up with this stated purpose is an unmentioned purpose that
directly impacts on the freedom of expression: that purpose is to impact
negatively on the erotic message of the dance. . . . We believe . . . that the
stated purpose for promulgating the Ordinance is inextricably linked with
the content-based motivation to suppress the expressive nature of nude
dancing.”

553 Pa. 348, 359, 719 A. 2d 273, 279 (1998).