The proximity sales ban was a law enacted in several Florida counties that prohibited the sale of adult magazines such as Hustler within a specific distance from school grounds. This ban was met with opposition from Larry Flynt, publisher of Hustler magazine, who filed a federal lawsuit against it. He argued that this law violated his First Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of the press. The case went all the way up to the Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the county governments and upheld their right to regulate obscene material near schools.
Florida's proximity sales ban was designed to protect children from exposure to pornography while they were attending school. It was passed after an increase in reports of minors accessing pornographic materials at local libraries and bookstores. The law required that any store selling adult magazines must be at least one thousand feet away from the nearest public or private school, library, church, park, or playground. Those found in violation would face penalties ranging from fines to imprisonment.
Larry Flynt challenged these restrictions as unconstitutional zoning laws because he believed they targeted a particular type of publication and did not apply equally to other types of publications such as Playboy or Penthouse. He also claimed that the ban interfered with his constitutionally protected rights to free speech and freedom of the press. In 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida dismissed the suit, but the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision and allowed the case to proceed.
In June 2007, the Supreme Court heard arguments on whether Florida's proximity sales ban could stand. After much deliberation, the court ruled in favor of the counties, stating that the ban was a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction on free expression. This meant that the government had the authority to limit certain forms of expression in specific areas for specific purposes, so long as those limits do not unduly burden free speech.
The court noted that the ban only applied to adult magazines and did not prevent people from purchasing them elsewhere. They also stated that the ban served an important purpose by protecting children from exposure to potentially harmful materials. However, the court warned that future bans should be tailored more narrowly to focus on specific harmful content rather than entire genres or categories of material. The decision remains controversial today, with some arguing it sets a dangerous precedent for censorship.