Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge Declares New State Strip Club Restrictions Unconstitutional
AP ^ | Aug 27, 2005 | Jeff Douglas

Posted on 08/27/2005 1:44:34 AM PDT by Crackingham

A new state law banning seminude lap dances at Missouri strip clubs was declared unconstitutional by a judge Friday, two days before it was to go into effect. Cole County Circuit Judge Richard Callahan said provisions of the law violate First Amendment protections and state constitutional limits on amending a bill beyond its original purpose.

"The state may not limit persons of majority age from engaging in lawful expressive conduct protected by the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution without a substantial and direct connection to adverse secondary effects, a showing that has not been made," Callahan said in the declaratory judgment.

Under the law, signed in July by Gov. Matt Blunt, seminude lap dances would have been banned and dancers would have had to stay at least 10 feet from each other. Customers would have faced misdemeanor charges for tucking money into a dancers' G-strings, and the minimum age for dancers and customers would have risen from 19 to 21. The adult entertainment industry's attorneys had argued the law violated free-speech and expression rights, and they also said it violated a state constitutional requirement that bills relate to one subject and remain tied to their original purpose.

The bill that included the strip club restrictions initially was labeled as a bill for alcohol-related traffic offenses but was passed under the heading of "crime." The attorney general's office said it was reviewing the judge's decision and didn't yet know what actions it might take.

Joe Spinello, general manager of the Shady Lady Lounge in Kansas City, said the restrictions probably would have forced him to cut staff. He said clubs hurt most by law would be ones that rely on customers and employees who are under 21.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: Missouri
KEYWORDS: freeexpresion; freeexpression; freespeech; gstring; lapdance; lapdancing; lewdness; nudity; prurientinterest; showgirls; stripclub; strippers; thong; tittybar

1 posted on 08/27/2005 1:44:35 AM PDT by Crackingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
I guess taking off your clothes is free speech but making a political speech is an act of corruption. Welcome to the weird world of liberal First Amendment jurisprudence.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
2 posted on 08/27/2005 1:47:10 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Well, I have only been to a strip club once for a bachelor party but that show certainly said something to me!


3 posted on 08/27/2005 1:53:49 AM PDT by AntiGuv ("Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." Philip K. Dick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
The state may not limit persons of majority age from engaging in lawful expressive conduct...

LOL

4 posted on 08/27/2005 1:55:03 AM PDT by XR7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

Well, Missouri is the Show Me State.


5 posted on 08/27/2005 1:59:30 AM PDT by iowamark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

This is not a First Ammendment issue. It's a Fifth Ammendment issue. The reason is because it's the Fifth Ammendment that recognizes the Right to Liberty--and the Right to Liberty is the reason that it's Unconstitutional to criminalize the actions that occur in these night clubs. The Right to Liberty is the right to do whatever does not violate the rights of others.


6 posted on 08/27/2005 2:03:09 AM PDT by sourcery ("Compelling State Interest" is the refuge of judicial activist traitors against the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham; XR7
The state may not limit persons of majority age from engaging in lawful expressive conduct..

So. . .bar/w beds next?

Bed, Bar and Beyond. . .coming to your neighborhood, soon.

( . . .are these patrons allowed to smoke. . .after lap dancing?)

7 posted on 08/27/2005 2:30:31 AM PDT by cricket (.Just say NO U.N.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
It is amazing how the Constitution is judged to be extremely expansive in one case and extremely limited in another.

There is an expansive view of the First Amendment when it comes to unimportant things like the "self-expression" of dancers in bars but, as you noted, the First Amendment is not seen protect anything important like political speech. Speaking out about an issue or a candidate before an election is an intolerable act of corruption (how dare mere citizens take politics into there own hands), but some nekkid dancer's self-expression is a precious First Amendment right.

That, and the First Amendment is seen as only protecting the counter culture. If an artist uses public funds to make "art" featuring, say, a cross inside a toilet and this "art" is displayed in a public museum, well, this "art" is a precious expression of First Amendment rights that we all must fund through taxes. But let there be, oh, I don't know -- a privately-funded cross on public land in San Diego commemorating war hereos, and suddenly a cross becomes an intolerable violation of the First Amendment.

8 posted on 08/27/2005 3:17:21 AM PDT by Wilhelm Tell (True or False? This is not a tagline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

The Founding Fathers wrote the 1st Ammendment with political speech in mind, not lap dancing.

These judges are out of control.

Ironically, political speech is under great duress in this country. Go to any College or University campus and speak out against Homosexuality, Abortion, or Affirmative Action and see how long you last before you are hauled before a kangaroo court of "Student Administrators" and found guilty of "hate-speech."

9 posted on 08/27/2005 3:38:16 AM PDT by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

Lap dancing is protected free speech? So, therefore we must accept it and move on? I am very confused.


10 posted on 08/27/2005 3:47:18 AM PDT by EBH (Never give-up, Never give-in, and Never Forget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sourcery

This is not a First Ammendment issue. It's a Fifth Ammendment issue.



May be for you but not the judge.


11 posted on 08/27/2005 3:52:07 AM PDT by KeyWest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
Some times I like activist judges!
12 posted on 08/27/2005 4:02:17 AM PDT by MilspecRob (Most people don't act stupid, they really are.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sourcery

So it should cover drug use, shouldn't it? If I want to "express myself" by smoking pot in my home, I should be able to, right? It isn't violating any rights of others. And prostitution should certainly be legal - again, right of "free expression". Two (or more) consenting adults should be able to express themselves any way they want.


13 posted on 08/27/2005 4:18:12 AM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
Image hosted by Photobucket.com
14 posted on 08/27/2005 4:22:03 AM PDT by Triggerhippie (Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
"The state may not limit persons of majority age from engaging in lawful expressive conduct protected by the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution without a substantial and direct connection to adverse secondary effects

Adverse secondary effects? What the hell does that mean? It sounds to me like this guy is saying "The Constitution protects whatever behavior I feel like saying it protects, unless I decide that it doesn't protect it."

I understand the prohibition against crying "fire" in a crowded theater, but if you're going to specify exceptions to the Constitution, they ought to be pretty darn specific.
15 posted on 08/27/2005 4:22:07 AM PDT by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wilhelm Tell

Very good point.


16 posted on 08/27/2005 4:24:54 AM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot
The Founding Fathers wrote the 1st Ammendment with political speech in mind, not lap dancing.

I'll take it one step further: The founding fathers wrote the First Amendment with political speech concerning the English Crown in mind,and therefore any speech that doesn't concern the British Crown isn't protected under the First Amendment.

17 posted on 08/27/2005 4:33:26 AM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
This is not a First Ammendment issue. It's a Fifth Ammendment issue. The reason is because it's the Fifth Ammendment that recognizes the Right to Liberty--and the Right to Liberty is the reason that it's Unconstitutional to criminalize the actions that occur in these night clubs. The Right to Liberty is the right to do whatever does not violate the rights of others.

I am with you counselor. Like the interstate commerce clause and the general welfare clause, the free speech right has been stretched far beyond its limits. Even so, if the Campaign Finance Reform act does not violate free speech this misses by a mile.

18 posted on 08/27/2005 4:34:45 AM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done needs to be done by the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: cricket
( . . .are these patrons allowed to smoke. . .after lap dancing?)

Only if the friction is too great. I have seen some scorched pants.

19 posted on 08/27/2005 4:36:17 AM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done needs to be done by the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot
Only if the friction is too great. I have seen some scorched pants.

Holy Moly! I need to go to THAT club!

Image hosted by Photobucket.com
What We Are About To Do Here Is What The Good Lord Would Call A Cleansing of the Wicked. I Call It A Good Old Fashioned Texas Ass Kicking.
20 posted on 08/27/2005 4:46:59 AM PDT by speed_addiction ( Somethings gnaw on a man worse'n dyin'!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
I guess taking off your clothes is free speech but making a political speech is an act of corruption. Welcome to the weird world of liberal First Amendment jurisprudence.

Well, that is a part of it... The main reason is that the ban on stripping was a direct violation of the MO State Constitution. It's got a feature that would be WONDERFUL in the US Consitution: There's a provision that you can't just tack-on amendments to a bill that have nothing to do with the original bill's intent. Can you imagine how a ban on that sort of nonsense would cut back on pork spending, as well as "little surprises" when legislation passed? Heck, some legislators might actually try reading the bills before they vote on them! And there would be no more 900 page omnibus bills!

What happend is the guy behind the bill couldn't get enough support for the bill to pass on its own, so he tacked the provisions on to (I believe) a bill that deals with drunk driving (I can't remember the exact bill right now). That's what violated the MO Constitution.

Mark

21 posted on 08/27/2005 4:59:42 AM PDT by MarkL (It was a shocking cock-up. The mice were furious!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BOBWADE

ping


22 posted on 08/27/2005 5:00:31 AM PDT by zip (Remember: DimocRat lies told often enough become truth to 48% of all Americans (NRA))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
Strip joints are legal not because to ban them is unconstitutional but because, unless there are local ordinances against them, they are inherently legal.

Not because nude dancing is protected by the Constitution. It is not. The 1st Amendment protects oral speech and the printed word,not any action a human being might perform.

Every human action is "expressive." If the 1st Amendment protected "free expression" then any act could claim protection under the Constitution.

The 1 Amendment is designed to protect the right of every citizen to "speak" to government, "Congress shall make no law..."

Speech between private persons is not so protected. You can say anything you want to say to anyone if you are willing to pay the consequences of your speech.

Even the 1st Amendment is not absolute. Americans are not free to speak or write subversion and are subject to the Supreme Court rulings of what constitutes free speech.

One is also constrained by liable laws, good manners and common sense. Dr. Johnson said, "Sir, you are free to say anything you want to say, and I am free to knock you down for it."
23 posted on 08/27/2005 6:28:12 AM PDT by R.W.Ratikal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

methinks that his honor dah judge will be entitled to free dances at the local clubs now or at least a substantial discount.

was that what he was anglin for ?


24 posted on 08/27/2005 6:37:52 AM PDT by festus (The constitution may be flawed but its a whole lot better than what we have now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot
Only if the friction is too great. I have seen some scorched pants

Scorched pants. . .hmmmm; where there is smoke. . .there is a public health hazard. This law sounds self-serving and contradictory. . .

25 posted on 08/27/2005 6:49:30 AM PDT by cricket (.Just say NO U.N.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos

Check.


26 posted on 08/27/2005 6:53:55 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

"You can have my lap-dancer when you pry her from my cold, dead hands...."


27 posted on 08/27/2005 6:55:51 AM PDT by RichInOC ("FREEDOM!!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks
I'll even take the argument one step further -- When drafting the 2nd Amendment, the Founding Fathers had smooth bore muskets and pistols and swords in mind and therefore, the right to bare anything other than a smooth bore musket or pistol or sword is not protected under the 2nd Amendment. The moral of the story is that you're going to be a strict constructionist, then you had better be consistent and be careful what you wish for.
28 posted on 08/27/2005 7:06:27 AM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos
I'll take it one step further: The founding fathers wrote the First Amendment with political speech concerning the English Crown in mind,and therefore any speech that doesn't concern the British Crown isn't protected under the First Amendment.<.i>

That would be in line with how the left views the Second Amendment.

29 posted on 08/27/2005 7:51:02 AM PDT by Wilhelm Tell (True or False? This is not a tagline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Wilhelm Tell

I think you missed my point: If you're going to strictly interpret the Constitution based soley upon what you think the Founding Fathers intended, then you may end up with unintended consequences.


30 posted on 08/27/2005 8:11:44 AM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
The state may not limit persons of majority age from engaging in lawful expressive conduct protected by the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution

Are they talking about the right of the dancer or the patron?

31 posted on 08/27/2005 9:15:58 AM PDT by Mike Darancette (Mesocons for Rice '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cricket
Are these patrons allowed to smoke. . .after lap dancing?)

LOL!
Not in most states. Smoking in bars is verboten.

32 posted on 08/27/2005 1:48:50 PM PDT by XR7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: cricket

Well it would add a whole new meaning to the term B and B.

:)


33 posted on 08/27/2005 2:58:02 PM PDT by TheFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Allosaurs_r_us; Abram; AlexandriaDuke; Annie03; Baby Bear; bassmaner; Bernard; BJClinton; ...
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
34 posted on 08/27/2005 3:08:02 PM PDT by freepatriot32 (Deep within every dilemma is a solution that involves explosives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: abbi_normal_2; adam_az; Alamo-Girl; Alas; alfons; alphadog; AMDG&BVMH; amom; AndreaZingg; ...
Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

List of Ping lists

35 posted on 08/27/2005 3:09:31 PM PDT by freepatriot32 (Deep within every dilemma is a solution that involves explosives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

latre pingout.


36 posted on 08/27/2005 3:10:51 PM PDT by little jeremiah (A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
Well, now. Every once in awhile, there is a judge who actually gets it.

Now, if they would only apply it every time.

Campaign finance reform comes to mind. Swatting down the anti-smoking Nazis and the neo-prohibitionists would be nice also.

37 posted on 08/27/2005 3:42:53 PM PDT by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos

"When drafting the 2nd Amendment, the Founding Fathers had smooth bore muskets and pistols and swords in mind and therefore, the right to bear anything other than a smooth bore musket or pistol or sword is not protected under the 2nd Amendment."

No, they had ALL weapons and arms in mind, including those of future generations, for national and self defense purposes and for overthrowing the government if need be. I think you're way off here. Better leave the 'strict construction-ism' to the experts.


38 posted on 08/27/2005 9:37:08 PM PDT by GoodWithBarbarians JustForKaos (I've been tortured by a voice on the news for 21 days now! - C$%& S&)#)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: festus

did you mean to say 'anglin' or 'danglin'?


39 posted on 08/27/2005 9:43:56 PM PDT by teeman8r
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

BTTT!!!!!


40 posted on 08/28/2005 3:13:14 AM PDT by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: GoodWithBarbarians JustForKaos
No, they had ALL weapons and arms in mind, including those of future generations.

Explain to me how that could have had something in mind that didn't even exist at the time they drafted the Constitution.

41 posted on 08/28/2005 5:37:03 AM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos

Reread post #38. The Founding Father's wanted the 2nd Amendment to insure 'future' generations could defend themselves, the country and have the ability to overthrow tyranny with any means possible including any and all weapons. To limit their statements to 1780's technology when they were meant for future generations also, is ridiculous!


42 posted on 08/29/2005 12:35:32 PM PDT by GoodWithBarbarians JustForKaos (I've been tortured by a voice on the news for 23 days now! - C$%& S&)#)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson