Court Opinion

ID: 9576931
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:30:06.043125+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:19:44.143545
License: Public Domain

Sears, Justice,
concurring.
Unlike the records in Discotheque, Inc. v. City Council of Augusta, 264 Ga. 623 (449 SE2d 608) (1994), and Club Southern Burlesque v. City of Carrollton, 265 Ga. 528 (457 SE2d 816) (1995), the record in this case demonstrates that the City of College Park had adequate factual grounds on which to base a reasonable belief that its ordinance furthered an important governmental interest and that the city considered those factual grounds before enacting the ordinance.2 Moreover, the record also demonstrates that the city did not have an impermissible motive — the suppression of protected expression — in enacting the ordinance.3 For these reasons, I concur in the majority opinion.

 See Krueger v. City of Pensacola, 759 F2d 851, 855 (11th Cir. 1985) (where governmental regulation of fundamental interest such as free speech is concerned, the government must show that “the articulated concern had more than merely speculative factual grounds”).

 Id. at 855-856, n. 6.