2020 Georgia Code
Title 16 - Crimes and Offenses
Chapter 12 - Offenses Against Public Health and Morals
Article 3 - Obscenity and Related Offenses
Part 1 - General Provisions
§ 16-12-82. Public Nuisances
The use of any premises in violation of any of the provisions of this part shall constitute a public nuisance.
(Code 1933, § 26-2103, enacted by Ga. L. 1971, p. 344, § 2.)Cross references.
- Definition of public nuisance, § 41-1-2.
Procedure for abatement of houses of prostitution, buildings used for purposes of lewdness, solicitation of sodomy, T. 41, C. 3.
Expression outside defined area is constitutionally protected expression.
- Any statute or ordinance which seeks to impose criminal or civil sanctions for exercise of expression that is not obscene cannot withstand a proper constitutional attack for overbreadth. Sanders v. State, 231 Ga. 608, 203 S.E.2d 153 (1974).Suppressing distribution of literature on basis of previous publications.
- An injunction is impermissible and unconstitutional where it operates not to redress alleged private wrongs but to suppress, on the basis of previous publications, distributions of literature of any kind. Sanders v. State, 231 Ga. 608, 203 S.E.2d 153 (1974).
One obscene book on premises of bookstore does not make entire store obscene. Sanders v. State, 231 Ga. 608, 203 S.E.2d 153 (1974).Padlocking premises based on sale of single obscene publication constitutes prior restraint.
- Former Code 1933, § 26-2103 (see now O.C.G.A. § 16-12-82) was an unconstitutional prior restraint when construed and applied to authorize padlocking of premises on grounds that sale of single obscene publication rendered premises a nuisance. 660 Lindbergh, Inc. v. City of Atlanta, 492 F. Supp. 511 (N.D. Ga. 1980).Closing portion of business after finding violations of this article not prior restraint.
- Court's ordering closure of portion of business under nuisance statute after finding instances of lewdness, public indecency, solicitation of sodomy, and sodomy, does not constitute a prior restraint on plaintiffs' rights under U.S. Const., amend. 1. 660 Lindbergh, Inc. v. City of Atlanta, 492 F. Supp. 511 (N.D. Ga. 1980).
Cited in Speight v. Slaton, 415 U.S. 333, 94 S. Ct. 1098, 39 L. Ed. 2d 367 (1974).
- Modern concept of obscenity, 5 A.L.R.3d 1158.
Exhibition of obscene motion pictures as nuisance, 50 A.L.R.3d 969.
Porno shops or similar places disseminating obscene materials as nuisance, 58 A.L.R.3d 1134.
Validity and application of statute authorizing forfeiture of use or closure of real property from which obscene materials have been disseminated or exhibited, 25 A.L.R.4th 395.
Admissibility of evidence of public-opinion polls or surveys in obscenity prosecutions on issue whether materials in question are obscene, 59 A.L.R.5th 749.