Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. V. Conrad Case - 1668 Words

Cloe Michaud History 11 Southeastern promotions, Ltd. V. Conrad In 1974, the Southeastern promotions, Ltd. V. Conrad case came to the Supreme Court. This came to the court because they believed it violated the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects freedom of religion, speech, press, petition and assembly. In Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. V. Conrad it was argued that Southeastern Promotions was stripped of their freedom of speech because they were denied the use of the Tivoli Theater in Chattanooga, Tennessee to put on the rock musical Hair. The Supreme Court had to uphold the First Amendment while still allowing the theater to keep their reputation of being a family establishment. Southeastern Promotions wanted to put on the†¦show more content†¦Then it was brought to The United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and that court affirmed the decision of The Districted Court (The Oyez Project). When the case was brought to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court had to make sure they balanced the First Amendment rights along with the requests of the theater in upholding their family theater reputation. The Supreme Court finally ruled that that Chattanooga’s denial of the request was a â€Å"prior restraint† and violated the free speech clause of the First Amendment (The Oyez Project). A prior restraint is â€Å"the prohibition of expression before it is spoken or published (Friedman 68). There were 6 votes for Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. and 3 votes against. There was one majority written along with a concurrence and a dissent. Both the majority opinion and the dissenting opinion were strong in this case, but the majority opinion won. The majority opinion wanted to make sure the jury remembered that the theater needs to be treated as a public space and therefore be protected under the First Amendment. As stated in the majority opinion By its nature, theater usually is the action out -- or singing out -- of the written word, and frequently mixes speech with live action or conduct. But that is no reason to hold theater subject to a