http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050827/...s_restrictions
Printable View
KANSAS CITY, Mo. - 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.
ADVERTISEMENT
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.
Right on
Basically, this bill was doomed from the beginning because an unconstitutional procedural error was made which attempted to attach these anti-dance club provisions to a 'drunk driving' bill, rather than writing a stand-alone anti-dance club bill and voting on that bill as a separate entity as required under MO constitution. As tempting as it might be to think so, the defeat of this bill really wasn't a 'victory' for dancers or clubowners, but simply MO state legislators getting caught trying to slip in this new law without the necessary due process.
The judge's commentary on first amendment expression rights of dancers versus 'proveable' secondary effects was in effect a warning to state senators to phrase the provisions of any rewritten future anti-dance club bill more carefully, which they will undoubtedly now do.
The defeat of this bill may also serve as political motivation to start using alternate means of hassling MO clubs and dancers, i.e. creative interpretations of the state's existing prostitution laws as was recently done in Florida.
Whenever 'strip clubs' wind up in the headlines, dancers and clubowners always wind up losing (even if they appear to win) !
[QUOTE=goo321]KANSAS CITY, Mo. - 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.
I think this is a tremendous victory for the clubs and dancers as the judge Calahan explicity says...
"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."
Proving any of these "secondary effects" are the states responsibility and since RECENT studies have been done in Kansas City that found none of the states/Senator Bartles bogus theories to be TRUE, this indeed bodes well for the clubs and owners. In fact when the states "secondary effects" theories were challenged the only BOGUS evidence they had was an ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND website which cited studies that when read properly were of benefit to the clubs !!!. I find this to be hilarious and scary at the same time. Very pathetic that the lawmakers and governor aren't responsible enough or care to take the time to READ THESE STUDIES. Guess it just shows you how incompetent OR FASCIST some of these idiots we elect are.
Gee, Mel, and I thought I was the cynic. I mean, c'mon, it at least means the difference between me being forced to quit now and having at least another year to decide when to quit. It also meant I had one helluva hangover on Saturday after celebrating Friday night, but that's another (embarassing) story.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonie
It seems to me that the judge shot a lot more holes in the concepts the bill embraced than he could have. He didn't confine his criticism to the state constitution issue like I thought he would. I think his other objections might be applicable to the way the original bill was worded as well. Don't know if I'll go to the trouble to access a copy unless it's posted to the Internet, but I'd like to read the whole ruling.
-Ev
I sense a nationwide conspiracy here? Scott Bergthold aka (Community Defense Counsel) solicits city councils and state lawmakers with his often "bogus" secondary effects studies/theories with the financial support of the Alliance Defense Fund and Citizens for Community Values (RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS), to adopt overly restrictive laws with the sole intent of regulating SOB'S out of business. Lawmakers that want to at least appear pro "family values" on their voting records (although privately wish these issues never come up) vote in accordance with their perceptions of what will get them re-elected; in Matt Bartles case in Missouri- I think it will backfire). Politicians figure they will pass the buck to judges to decide and cover their asses even though most of them would vote differently on these laws if it were a PRIVATE instead of PUBLIC VOTE, judges in turn rule these proposed laws unconstitutional, Bergthold still collects his $$$ from the cities & states he solicits and often gets more $$$ from the cities/states by defending them and re-wording the language. What are your thoughts?