View Full Version : Ohio Senate Bill 16
Littlelo
06-01-2007, 04:43 PM
^^ That last bit had not really occured to me. Ugh...I'm very bothered.
Melonie
06-02-2007, 03:39 AM
^^^ well, in other cities which have enacted similar anti-lap dance ordinances, where clubs and dancers have decided to 'bend' the law on a nightly basis in terms of lap dance contact levels in order to still earn decent money, inevitably some girls figure out that they can earn lots more money in exchange for zero additional negative risk factors by giving customers HJ's BJ's and FS. This only makes it harder for 'clean' dancers to sell illegal lap dances to customers versus equally illegal HJ's and BJ's !
And ironically it is the girls who are earning big money from HJ's, BJ's and FS who are actually the LEAST likely to take a bust and conviction, since their greater earnings potential allows them to afford the thousands of dollars worth of personal legal fees required to file an appeal - whereas most 'clean' dancers earning minimal amounts by only selling illegal lap dances cannot afford this and are therefore forced to accept a plea bargain so that the club will foot their bail + legal fees + fine. But the 'dirty' girls wind up being found innocent on appeal (thus no marks on their record, thus able to obtain/renew dancers licenses etc), where the 'clean' dancers wind up making a de-facto guilty plea (thus leaving a big black mark on their record, and unable to obtain/renew dancers' licenses).
Don't you just love the 'law of unintended consequences' !
laplover69
06-07-2007, 02:53 PM
Being put on the ballot to overturn this silly law. VOTE!! http://www.myfoxcleveland.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=3427997&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070608/NEWS24/706080350/-1/NEWS
Littlelo
06-07-2007, 09:28 PM
I really really doubt that this will be overturned on the ballot, but I'll cross my fingers and toes. Thanks for the update, I hadn't heard anything about this.
laplover69
06-17-2007, 04:21 AM
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070616/NEWS24/706160441
SOUNDS LIKE OHIO AT LEAST HAS A GOOD ATTORNEY GENERAL!
Melonie
06-17-2007, 05:52 AM
^^^ the fact that the state Attorney General interpreted state election law in a way that results on this Bill being put before the voters if enough signatures are gathered really doesn't say much about the Attorney General's personal / political position on this bill.
However, your news link does confirm one fact that is likely to have profound consequences on Ohio club when this bill becomes law ...
(snip) [from Bill 16 - sic] "if the touch involves a "specified anatomical area," defined as the genitals, the pubic region, and a portion of the female breast, the charge would be elevated to a first-degree misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine."(snip)
This is exactly the same legal penalty applied in Ohio for an outright prostitution conviction !
laplover69
06-17-2007, 06:19 AM
I am surprised that the clubs didn't challenge the constitutional issues on this law BEFORE taking it to the ballot box via referendum. Just because it may or may not be the will of Ohio voters doesn't mean the law will ultimately be ruled constitutional or not... Most of the voters are not club patrons or employees SO REALLY is IT any of THEIR business to decide? Most of us know that the "perceived negative secondary effects" studies used by groups like CCV are outdated or irrelevant to the city state in question. I am still hopeful that enough Ohioans believe in LESS government involvement and will see this silly law as just a guise for the Fascist-Theocrats to impose their unique morality onto others who don't share their views.
Melonie
06-17-2007, 06:44 AM
^^^ well, with the exception of a 'remote' chance that last year's US Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v Texas serving as a precedent for a constitutional determination that dancers have a constitutional right to engage in sexual contact with club customers FOR FREE, the US Supreme Court's previous ruling in Erie vs PAPS essentially granted constitutional authority to states and cities to pass laws like Bill #16 by establishing that any first amendment protections applying to erotic dancing do not also apply to nudity or proximity to the 'audience' while the erotic dancing is taking place ! This is the reason that clubowners' attorneys probably advised them not to waste money attempting to appeal the constitutionality of this bill's authority to regulate the 'time, place and manner' in which adult businesses may or may not operate.
Of course, providing sexual contact or any other service (sexually related or not) in exchange for money falls under the constitutional authority of states to regulate intrastate commerce. There hasn't been a US Supreme Court case which directly involved the 'crime' of prostitution i.e. a test of states' intrastate commerce regulatory powers vs any potential implied constitutional right of privacy allowing girls to legally provide sexual contact in exchange for money. To the best of my knowledge only judge Ruth Bader Ginzburg has ever expressed the legal opinion that the legalization of prostitution should be reviewed. At any rate, it would cost clubowners several million dollars to raise this issue in the Federal courts and US Supreme Court, with little probability of a 'favorable' ruling from the majority of current SC Justices.
Yes, there have been a few successful appeals of similar ordinances enacted in other cities. However, the basis of the successful appeals was the particular verbage of these laws being unconstitutional on the basis of unequal treatment or some other technicality, or the basis of the successful appeals was based on the authors of the law 'overreaching' their constitutional limits i.e. attempting to de-facto totally ban adult businesses in a particular city. New York City's ordinance was thrown in the dumper because it attempted to impose a 1000ft proximity limit between adult businesses and schools/churches/residences ... which amounted to a de-facto total ban since there isn't ANYWHERE in NYC where you can draw a 1000ft radius circle on a map and not find a school/church/apartment building ! However that did not preclude NYC politicians from 'fixing' the original law via zoning one particular area for adult businesses to operate in and getting the 'fixed' law enacted.
My point here is that there have now been enough initial attempts by cities to pass anti-strip club ordinances, enough legal challenges by clubowners and other groups, enough 'fixes' having been rewritten into anti-strip club ordinances, and enough subsequent legal challenges and appeals to the rewritten ordinances, that the body of appeals court rulings has now pretty well established anti-strip club legal verbage which will be appeal-proof. The Ohio Bill appears to have made use of this sort of verbage, thus the odds of a technicality being found that would provide grounds for a successful appeal of the Ohio Bill are extremely low at this point. As stated above, other than a potential Lawrence v Texas based appeal which might allow dancers to engage in sexual contact with customers in a 'private room' FOR FREE, there really isn't much chance of a successful appeal on other constitutional grounds.
Plus, clubowners would be facing a multimillion dollar legal bill if they attempt to raise a Lawrence v Texas or other constitutional rights based appeal in federal court ... because it is virtually guaranteed to get bounced to the US Supreme Court by the bible thumpers should the lower federal court actually rule in favor of the clubowners ! Since Ohio Bill 16 directs essentially all of the criminal consequences at the dancers rather than the clubowners, just like most other anti-strip club laws, the clubowners have very little motivation to pony up millions in appeal money. From their standpoint, it's much more profitable to let the law go into effect, to look the other way when dancers break the law in order to make money (with the club obviously collecting their 'cut' of that money), and then the clubowner having to occasionally pony up thousands in bail money and legal fees when dancers are busted.
With that said, the only 'reprieve' for Ohio strip clubs and dancers appears to be the 'delay' until Ohio Bill 16 can be put on the ballot during the next state election that was created by the Ohio Attorney General. From that point forward, IMHO it is a foregone conclusion that the majority of registered voters in Ohio will support this law being enacted.
~
laplover69
06-17-2007, 06:49 AM
^^^ well, with the exception of a 'remote' chance that last year's US Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v Texas serving as a precedent for a constitutional determination that dancers have a constitutional right to engage in sexual contact with club customers FOR FREE, the US Supreme Court's previous ruling in Erie vs PAPS essentially granted constitutional authority to states and cities to pass laws like Bill #16 !
True, Melonie but Erie v Paps left ample room for the clubs to challenge the often bogus/outdated and irrelevant "secondary effects" b.s. There has been some courts that uphold the clubs positions when the "secondary effects" theories are challenged...
Melonie
06-17-2007, 08:02 AM
^^^ true, but that has nothing to do with the states rights to regulate intrastate commerce i.e. dancers engaging in sexual contact in exchange for money, or the states rights to regulate the 'time, place, and manner' under which any business is allowed to operate. And again, even if a successful constitutional appeal were to be mounted on the basis of 'non-existant' secondary effects in a state court or federal court, it is going to cost the clubowners millions to fight the bible thumpers who will carry that case all the way to the US Supreme Court if lower courts find in favor of the clubowner ! Ultimately, this will be less about principles of law and more about economic intimidation via threatened litigation costs, as is already the situation for a ton of other lawsuits and cases involving unrelated subjects.
Yet another recent US Supreme Court case provides even more incentive for clubowners to save their money. You may recall that California Celebrity 'Madam' Deborah Palfrey asked the SC for an emergency stay against prosecution on a 'promoting prostitution' charge - which they denied. Palfrey announced her intention to sue girls that had been working for her 'escort agency' for breach of contract due to the fact that they had engaged in sexual contact with agency customers which was contrary to the terms of their employment contracts. Neither the Supreme Court or any other court disputed her right / ability to bring such lawsuits. This of course strongly implies that it is now possible for an 'escort agency' owner or the analogous strip club owners to claim 'plausible deniability' in regard to ignorance of the sexual contact practices of their independent contractor workers as a defense ... probably meaning that Ohio clubowners are confident that any legal headaches which stem from the new Ohio law will fall squarely on the shoulders of dancers and barely touch the clubowner as long as some wording in their job application which was signed by the dancers points out that contact with customers is illegal. This exact same legal 'ass covering' has been used successfully by NY clubowners for years, but the Palfrey case more or less confers federal status to similar 'ass covering' by clubowners in every state.
I suppose that it's still remotely conceivable that some other party besides Ohio clubowners would be willing to put up a one million dollar stake and hire high powered constitutional law attorneys in an attempt to bring a successful appeal on constitutional grounds. However, Ohio isn't California or New York in the sense of having a significant population of Billionaire Liberals willing to donate to such a cause. Also, Ohio isn't California or New York in the sense of having a state/local media who might promote the constitutional liberties aspect over and above family values. Thus it's highly unlikely that any champions of liberal constitutional interpretation are going to step forward with a shitload of money !
If Ohio dancers seriously wanted to take this on themselves, they DO have the intervening time between now and the next election to raise a one million dollar stake for a constitutional appeal on their own. I would guess that this would mean that every dancer in Ohio would have to pony up somewhere between $2000 and $3000 out of her own pocket to 'donate' to the legal fund. What do you suppose the odds are that this would actually happen ?
~
frankmcgraw
08-17-2007, 02:24 PM
According to Ohio public radio station WKSU (Kent OH) the strip clubs have obtained enough signatures to have Senate Bill 16 put on the November 2007 ballot.
Whether all the signatures gathered are valid or not, and the matter gets on the ballot, is another question. On petition drives it is not uncommon for many signatures to be invalidated, for being illegible or from a person not registered to vote, etc. Just ask Ralph Nader, who tried to get on the Ohio ballot in 2004 as the Green Party presidential candidate.
Deogol
08-27-2007, 10:27 AM
I am surprised that the clubs didn't challenge the constitutional issues on this law BEFORE taking it to the ballot box via referendum. Just because it may or may not be the will of Ohio voters doesn't mean the law will ultimately be ruled constitutional or not... Most of the voters are not club patrons or employees SO REALLY is IT any of THEIR business to decide?
There's a good sense of community!
First you want people to get involved with petitions.
Now you want them to STFU.
Is it any of your business to go out and vote on items on the ballot?
laplover69
08-27-2007, 05:00 PM
There's a good sense of community!
First you want people to get involved with petitions.
Now you want them to STFU.
Is it any of your business to go out and vote on items on the ballot?
I'm not generally against referendums on issues that effect EVERYONE such as higher taxes etc. Strip clubs are attended by only a small percentage of the population, and even if the voters vote for or against the clubs, it still doesn't mean squat as far as the law being constitutional or not. Even if the clubs win at the voting booth, the CCV will challenge in court; if the clubs lose they will challenge in court.... So this is kinda a moot point either way, maybe some judges will take into account the voters wills, but it still doesn't mean the voters can trump court challenge(s)...
laplover69
09-01-2007, 02:15 AM
Maybe the 6th circuit of appeals isn't too bad after all...
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070831/METRO/708310360/1003
Melonie
09-01-2007, 02:57 AM
^^^ that ruling re one specific club in MI doesn't do anything to help the Ohio situation ... other than offer 'false hope'.
laplover69
09-03-2007, 03:19 AM
More updates here: http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2007/09/stripclub_group_could_force_a.html
laplover69
09-10-2007, 11:56 PM
http://www.columbusdispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2007/09/09/CLASH.ART_ART_09-09-07_B1_EL7RN7Q.html?sid=101
Melonie
09-15-2007, 01:39 PM
^^^ any news about challenges to the petition signatures yet ?
laplover69
09-21-2007, 03:54 AM
http://www.columbusdispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2007/09/20/strip.html
Melonie
09-21-2007, 01:46 PM
from your link
(snip)"The Vote No committee is circulating its petition to gather 241,366 valid signatures of registered voters needed to qualify to place the strip-club law on the Nov. 6 ballot as a referendum, even as the secretary of state's office awaits word on the validity of names already submitted."(snip)
... which tells us that the number of signatures is marginal, and the validity of those signatures is being questioned.
Deogol
09-21-2007, 03:22 PM
from your link
(snip)"The Vote No committee is circulating its petition to gather 241,366 valid signatures of registered voters needed to qualify to place the strip-club law on the Nov. 6 ballot as a referendum, even as the secretary of state's office awaits word on the validity of names already submitted."(snip)
... which tells us that the number of signatures is marginal, and the validity of those signatures is being questioned.
Yea, but everyone's petitions signatures are questioned. The general rule is that one should get as many signatures as possible.
One would be surprised by how many rules they have to drop signatures off petitions.
laplover69
09-21-2007, 06:19 PM
Not enough valid signatures? http://www.columbusdispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2007/09/21/signatures_lacking.html
Melonie
09-22-2007, 01:54 AM
from your link ...
(snip)"Brunner's tabulation of signatures checked by individual county boards of election showed that the Vote No on Issue 1 Committee collected 125,430 valid signatures of registered voters who support putting the referendum to a public vote.
They need 241,366.
Once the committee has been officially notified by Brunner, it will have 10 days to collect more signatures. Once those newly submitted names are reviewed, Brunner will determine whether the total number suffices to make the ballot.
A stunningly low rate of valid signatures plagued the committee in most large urban areas, including Franklin County. The board of elections here tossed more than two of every three names, mostly because the signers were not registered or were registered at the wrong address."(snip)
it would appear that the Ohio anti-strip law group now has 10 days to raise 115,000 more valid signatures - nearly equal to the total number of 125,000 valid signatures they have actually been able to collect over the last two months (which simply isn't going to happen) - meaning that the new law as written will go into effect soon after. If I were an Ohio dancer, I would start packing - actually I would have packed and moved a few months ago when this new law was first approved !
But hey look at the bright side ... this petition effort did delay the new law from going into effect for a couple of months, which provided Ohio clubs and dancers with a couple of months worth of decent earnings they wouldn't have had if the law was immediately put into affect after it was first approved.
I suppose there is some dim hope of an appeals case being brought on constitutional grounds. However, money talks where appeals are concerned - and so far the Ohio clubowners and dancers haven't been able to pony enough money for legal fees to accomplish anything meaningful. To mount an appeal in a federal court, we're talking about a $1 million legal fund ... with the Ohio clubowner's fund being 1/8th of that amount so far ! I seriously doubt that Ohio clubowners or dancers are going to be willing to pony up major bucks out of their own pockets to mount such an appeal, but hey you never know.
Far more likely is a scenario where the new law takes effect in October, where club and dancer earnings potential drops like a stone, and by the time November rent is due some dancers will start breaking the new law (with the tacit approval of clubowners) in order to earn enough to cover their bills. Soon after that, some Ohio dancers are going to figure out that they can earn far more money with equal legal risk and penalties by giving full blown 'extras' to customers instead of 'merely' dancing too close to customers. After that, it will be impossible for any 'clean' dancer to earn enough money in Ohio clubs to be worth their time trying. Thus, like other cities that have enacted ordinances where the penalties for dancing too close to a customer are exactly the same as the penalties for full-blown acts of prostitution, Ohio will wind up with clubs that resemble brothels more than gentlemen's clubs.
~
Deogol
09-22-2007, 01:32 PM
I suppose there is some dim hope of an appeals case being brought on constitutional grounds. However, money talks where appeals are concerned - and so far the Ohio clubowners and dancers haven't been able to pony enough money for legal fees to accomplish anything meaningful. To mount an appeal in a federal court, we're talking about a $1 million legal fund ... with the Ohio clubowner's fund being 1/8th of that amount so far ! I seriously doubt that Ohio clubowners or dancers are going to be willing to pony up major bucks out of their own pockets to mount such an appeal, but hey you never know.
Yea, I can see that happening about the same time Bush apologizes for Iraq.
"Money to lawyers and fuck nut club owners to protect my freedoms!?!? There is a new dress I want to buy!" says the dancer.
laplover69
09-26-2007, 10:42 AM
http://www.recordpub.com/news/article/2592052
Deogol
09-27-2007, 10:00 AM
Sorry man, knew this was important to you.
laplover69
09-27-2007, 03:01 PM
http://uweekly.com/newsmag/09-26-2007/6527
laplover69
10-04-2007, 08:06 PM
http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=75517&provider=gnews