Glen Theatre Inc., there is a conflict a between organizations and the state. Glen Theatre as well as Kitty Kat Lounge are entertainment places in South Bend, Indiana that have entirely nude dancers in order to entertain the audience (oyez.org). As a result, the state of Indiana was not please and decided to pass a law. This law created by the state of Indiana which deals with public nudity requires all nude dancers to wear a top and underwear when they dance (oyez.org). As a result of this law that was passed by the state of Indiana, Glen Theatre and Kitty Kat Lounge decide to sue the state. Barnes v. Glen Theatre Inc. was argued on January 08, 1991 and was decided on June 21, 1991 (oyez.org). It took little more than six months for the justices involved with the case to decide on a verdict. The main reason why Barnes v. Glen Theatre Inc. is a significant case when it comes to other obscenity cases in the courts is because it marks a changing point on the Court’s previous opinion about how nude dancing is not considered obscene but another form of free expression that is protected by the First Amendment (law.jrank.org). Barnes v. Glen Theatre Inc. relates to the First amendment. In Barnes v. Glen Theatre Inc., Glen Theatre as well as Kitty Kat Lounge believe that their freedom of expression under the First Amendment is being suppressed where their dancers are forced to wear clothes and not express their nudity (caselaw.findlaw.com). Nudity can allow people to express themselves and is a form of free expression. There are people who view nudity as a form of obscenity because it deals with
Glen Theatre Inc., there is a conflict a between organizations and the state. Glen Theatre as well as Kitty Kat Lounge are entertainment places in South Bend, Indiana that have entirely nude dancers in order to entertain the audience (oyez.org). As a result, the state of Indiana was not please and decided to pass a law. This law created by the state of Indiana which deals with public nudity requires all nude dancers to wear a top and underwear when they dance (oyez.org). As a result of this law that was passed by the state of Indiana, Glen Theatre and Kitty Kat Lounge decide to sue the state. Barnes v. Glen Theatre Inc. was argued on January 08, 1991 and was decided on June 21, 1991 (oyez.org). It took little more than six months for the justices involved with the case to decide on a verdict. The main reason why Barnes v. Glen Theatre Inc. is a significant case when it comes to other obscenity cases in the courts is because it marks a changing point on the Court’s previous opinion about how nude dancing is not considered obscene but another form of free expression that is protected by the First Amendment (law.jrank.org). Barnes v. Glen Theatre Inc. relates to the First amendment. In Barnes v. Glen Theatre Inc., Glen Theatre as well as Kitty Kat Lounge believe that their freedom of expression under the First Amendment is being suppressed where their dancers are forced to wear clothes and not express their nudity (caselaw.findlaw.com). Nudity can allow people to express themselves and is a form of free expression. There are people who view nudity as a form of obscenity because it deals with