ABSTRACT
The city defends its ordinance as the kind of reasonable regulation of the "nuisance aspect" of sexually explicit material in the interests of "minors and beleaguered neighbors" left open in the quoted paragraph. The Portland ordinance, in contrast, undertakes to prevent what the city believes to be the effects of the trade in sexually explicit verbal or pictorial material by describing the content of the communicative material. The city has placed the geographic restriction on "adult businesses" among its planning and zoning ordinances, and it maintains that the restrictions are the kind of "reasonable time, place and manner regulations" that the court did not "rule out" in the quoted passage from State v. Henry. The role of the requirement is shown by the history of political, social, and religious issues far more central to the constitutional freedom of expression than the kind of "adult" materials covered by this ordinance.
