Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 365

529US1

Unit: $U42

[10-11-01 11:58:07] PAGES PGT: OPIN

290

ERIE v. PAP’S A. M.

Opinion of O’Connor, J.

nudity. Respondent counters that the ordinance targets
nude dancing and, as such, is aimed speciﬁcally at suppress-
ing expression, making the ordinance a content-based re-
striction that must be subjected to strict scrutiny.

The ordinance here, like the statute in Barnes, is on its
face a general prohibition on public nudity. 553 Pa., at 354,
719 A. 2d, at 277. By its terms, the ordinance regulates
conduct alone.
It does not target nudity that contains an
erotic message; rather, it bans all public nudity, regardless
of whether that nudity is accompanied by expressive activity.
And like the statute in Barnes, the Erie ordinance replaces
and updates provisions of an “Indecency and Immorality” or-
dinance that has been on the books since 1866, predating the
prevalence of nude dancing establishments such as Kandy-
land. Pet. for Cert. 7a; see Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc.,
supra, at 568.

Respondent and Justice Stevens contend nonetheless
that the ordinance is related to the suppression of expression
because language in the ordinance’s preamble suggests that
its actual purpose is to prohibit erotic dancing of the type
performed at Kandyland. Post, at 318 (dissenting opinion).
That is not how the Pennsylvania Supreme Court inter-
preted that language, however.
In the preamble to the or-
dinance, the city council stated that it was adopting the
regulation

“ ‘for the purpose of limiting a recent increase in nude
live entertainment within the City, which activity ad-
versely impacts and threatens to impact on the public
health, safety and welfare by providing an atmosphere
conducive to violence, sexual harassment, public intoxi-
cation, prostitution, the spread of sexually transmitted
diseases and other deleterious effects.’ ” 553 Pa., at
359, 719 A. 2d, at 279.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court construed this language
to mean that one purpose of the ordinance was “to combat
negative secondary effects.”

Ibid.