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
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
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)
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)
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
To: Crackingham
Well, Missouri is the Show Me State.
5
posted on
08/27/2005 1:59:30 AM PDT
by
iowamark
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)
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.)
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.)
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
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)
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
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.)
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
To: Crackingham
14
posted on
08/27/2005 4:22:03 AM PDT
by
Triggerhippie
(Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.)
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
To: Wilhelm Tell
16
posted on
08/27/2005 4:24:54 AM PDT
by
mlc9852
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.
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.)
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.)
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!
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'!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson