American Booksellers Assn v.

Hudnut
Facts. Indianapolis enacted an ordinance defining pornography as a practice that discriminates against women or the use of men, children, or transsexuals in the place of women. This ordinance does not refer to the prurient interest, to offensiveness, or to the standards of the community. It demands attention to particular depictions, not to the work judged as a whole. Supporters of the ordinance say that it will help reduce the tendency in men to view women as sexual objects. Those who oppose the ordinance point out that much radical feminist literature is explicit and depicts women in ways forbidden by the ordinance.

Issue. Whether Indianapoliss ordinance definition of pornography is constitutional?

Held. No. Judgment of the lower court affirmed. The ordinance discriminates on the ground of the content of the speech. Speech treating women in the approved way, in sexual encounters premised on equality, is lawful no matter how explicit. Speech treating women in the disapproved way, as submissive in sexual matters or enjoying humiliation, is unlawful no matter how significant the literary, artistic or political qualities of the work taken as a whole. Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution (Constitution), the government must leave to the people the evaluation of ideas. This ordinance is thought patrol. It establishes an approved view of women, of how they must react to sexual encounters and how the sexes may relate to each other. This speech is protected no matter how insidious. Therefore, Indianapoliss ordinance definition of pornography is not constitutional.

Discussion. Where a restriction of speech is overbroad, sweeping in protected speech as well as unprotected speech, it will be held unconstitutional.