Talk:City of Erie v. Pap's A. M.

Assessment

Needs some WP:MOS work and more citations from outside of the case (say the editor's notes in your casebook or commentary from journals, ALR, etc. otherwise it is more your interpratation/your law professor's view of what it means if you just cite the case, which means it is WP:OR). For instance the court does not apply an O'Brien test, they apply O'Brien and your professor or case book may have termed it the O'Brien test. More importantly, this looks like a case brief, which is not encyclopedic and rather difficult to follow for someone without legal training. News coverage of the decision and effects are great material to add. Aboutmovies 02:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The O'Brien test term comes from the actual opinion. And I disagree, it's a summary of the case, not a brief, and I certainly don't brief my cases that way. I do agree news coverage and effects would be good to add though.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the test part in the opinion (my case book omits those parts), but this still looks like a brief, not an encyclopedia article. See United States v. O'Brien, Brandenburg v. Ohio, Marbury v. Madison, Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., Brown v. Board of Education for examples of what a case article should look more like (there is no set standard, but sections like rules of law and prior history are legalise). Background works better than prior history, plus all history is prior history. Terms like respondent, summary offense, and least restrictive means (which there is no explanation for in the article) should be avoided as people without legal knowledge will not understand the subject. Basically, dumb it down to the high school level or so. Otherwise great job for filling in a gap of the free speech lineage. Aboutmovies 21:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I know, yeah. The object is to start filling in all these SCOTUS cases that aren't filled in yet into at the least, brief-style stubs, and then develop good and workable prose out of them. Just because we have a prose-written article doesn't mean that we have to make it useless to law students. I appreciate the constructive criticism though. I'm going to continue to work on it. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 00:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Not very useful as it is

This article is written in a very convoluted way and I can't make out the meaning. Did the SCOTUS actually ban public nudity in the whole USA?

What about freedom of religion? If some hindu mystic obtained citizenhip in the USA and wandered around butt naked as required by his religion, he could be locked up, thus aking away his right to free excercise thereof?

What about little kids who play naked on a beach, etc., which is very common in Europe?

The article explains none of these and is written in such an obscured manner, only holders of legal degree can decipher it. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)