Court Opinion

ID: 9618487
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:13:09.454131+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:38:02.912573
License: Public Domain

Fletcher, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the judgment because the city met its burden of proof.1 It presented sufficient evidence showing that it had important government interests in passing its adult entertainment ordinance that were unrelated to the suppression of speech. I write separately only to disagree with the dissent’s assertion that this opinion would permit a city council to regulate a “mainstream art museum.” This court has previously rejected that argument.2 Nothing in the majority opinion resurrects it.

 See Quetgles v. City of Columbus, 264 Ga. 708, 709 (450 SE2d 677) (1994) (Fletcher, J., concurring).

 See Gravely v. Bacon, 263 Ga. 203, 206-207 (429 SE2d 663) (1993).