The "Luciann" name still can be seen in ornate cast-concrete letters above the Paris marquee, and in the terrazzo tile outside the now shuttered entrance. With understandably no fanfare, the Paris closed Oct. Although business at the Paris "was okay," he said, "the reason we closed the store is that it was going to cost too much to renovate it, to bring it up to a reasonable standard. Memphis movie theater historian Vincent Astor, author of "Images of America: Memphis Movie Theatres," said the Luciann "had the prettiest front of any neighborhood theater in Memphis. He said "a lot of the old Luciann" remains in the building, even though the original sloping floor had been flattened out when it became a bowling alley.
Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton - 413 U.S. 49, 93 S. Ct. 2628 (1973)
Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton | The First Amendment Encyclopedia
Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free. Commerce in obscene material is unprotected by any constitutional doctrine of privacy. The states have a legitimate interest in regulating commerce in obscene material and in regulating exhibition of obscene material in places of public accommodation, including so-called "adult" theaters from which minors are excluded. Pursuant to Georgia law, state officials filed civil complaints in the Superior Court, Fulton County, Georgia, for a declaration that certain movies being shown at the defendants' "adult" theaters were obscene as defined in a Georgia criminal statute, and for an injunction against their continued presentation to the public.
Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton , U. Supreme Court upheld a state court's injunction against the showing of obscene films in a movie theatre restricted to consenting adults. Georgia ,  saying that the privacy of the home that was controlling in Stanley was not present in the commercial exhibition of obscene movies in a theatre. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Respondents sued under Georgia civil law to enjoin the exhibiting by petitioners of two allegedly obscene films. There was no prior restraint. In a jury-waived trial, the trial court which did not require "expert" affirmative evidence of obscenity viewed the films and thereafter dismissed the complaints on the ground that the display of the films in commercial theaters to consenting adult audiences reasonable precautions having been taken to exclude minors was "constitutionally permissible. Obscene material is not speech entitled to First Amendment protection.