http://www.gazette.net/stories/07190...46_32356.shtml
THE JUDGE APPLIED "OBSCENITY STANDARDS" TO PROTECT LAP DANCING AS A FORM OF FREE EXPRESSION. THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE JUDGES ACROSS OUR COUNTRY LIKE MR. GARBIS!
http://www.gazette.net/stories/07190...46_32356.shtml
THE JUDGE APPLIED "OBSCENITY STANDARDS" TO PROTECT LAP DANCING AS A FORM OF FREE EXPRESSION. THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE JUDGES ACROSS OUR COUNTRY LIKE MR. GARBIS!





There is another thread on this subject in Member Boards. Basically, this MD/DC federal court ruling is a Pyrrhic Victory.
A. it still requires dancer's licensing with that information becoming a matter of MD public record (thus available to virtually anyone who asks ... club customers, neighbors, family court, potential future employers, MD state income tax agency ).
B. there is no such thing as an accurate definition of 'obscenity'. A supreme court justice once defined obscenity as 'I know it when I see it'. This opens the door for MD law enforcement and local judges / juries to interpret 'obscene acts' by dancers according to their OWN standards and bust dancers accordingly. Granted that dancers could probably beat a lower court conviction based on a 'strict' interpretation of obscene acts by local judges and juries ... but it will cost her $5000+ in legal fees to mount an appeal to a higher court in order to prove her innocence ! If the dancer doesn't have this sort of money to spare, she's probably stuck accepting a plea bargain arranged by the club's attorney = a de-facto guilty plea to a sex crime ... as opposed to pleading innocent, going to a local court, being convicted of a sex crime by local jury members with an axe to grind, and being sentenced a few days in jail plus a larger fine by the local judge.
C. the law ostensibly allows LE to bust club customers right along with dancers for 'obscene' acts, which will undoubtedly make some local businessmen, philandering husbands etc. think twice about risking future trips to local strip clubs.
D. the federal court precedent only applies to this one circuit - which is uncharacteristically liberal compared to most other federal circuits (with the exception of the 11th circuit covering the West Coast).
~
Last edited by Melonie; 07-22-2007 at 11:07 AM.
Well Melonie in Florida, attorney Luke Lirot initially & successfully convinced a judge that "lewd behavior" only applies to the consenting adults partaking in the lap dances or whatever conduct that may deemed "lewd" between themselves. The courts then overturned this to allow law officers to be an offended party. If this was truly in a PRIVATE aka (LAWRENCE vs. TEXAS) area where nobody else could view, I don't think the "obscenity" standards or lewdness charges standard would hold much legal muster. This really doesn't make much sense, if you don't like these places don't patronize them, if something offends you on tv change the channel, people freely choose to go to adult entertainment venues at THEIR choice as to what is acceptable boundaries. WHAT BUSINESS is this of anyone else other than those "consenting adults" who choose to engage in such activities such as good hard grinding lap dancing without sex of course?? Swing clubs never get harassed like strip clubs and there is full blown sex going on, but that is an entirely different matter as they typically are "private clubs" where no money is directly exchanged between the consenting parties...





^^^^^^^^^Preach, man, preach!!!!!!!!!
“What a caterpillar calls the end of the world we call a butterfly.” - ECKHART TOLLE





your example of Swing Clubs indeed points out the two very important distinctions re potential application of Lawrence v. Texas to the exotic dancing business.
A.) strip clubs are open to the public i.e. they allow anybody to walk in the club's front door with no conditions other than paying the cover charge, which by definition makes a strip club a 'public' place. In comparison, Swing Clubs are members only with lots of conditions, which arguably constitutes a 'private' venue.
B.) strip clubs and dancers selling lap dances are definitely conducting a 'for profit' business activity. In comparison, Swing Clubs are arguably non-profit social organizations and do not involve any direct transfer of money (although there may be some barter exchange going on LOL)
I respect Luke Lirot for his legal creativeness, but outside of Florida or Oregon the constitutional free expression argument isn't going anywhere. It arguably isn't going anywhere in these states either if a 'for profit' business transaction is involved. Judges have already stated that, regardless of any supposed new constitutional right of adults to voluntarily engage in mutually agreed sexual acts in a private place, states' right to regulate intrastate commerce will absolutely apply to dancers selling 'sexual contact' in a place of business open to the public. This will be the case regardless of whether or not that 'sexual contact' is viewable by other customers / dancers, or whether it takes place behind the closed doors / curtains of a private dance area / VIP room.
Back to the immediate subject at hand, IMHO judge Garber's ruling merely offers a tantalizing new angle for theoretical future litigation on the basis of 'obscenity standards' (thus lots of legal fees), but more importantly contains a number of very non-theoretical very concrete negative restrictions now being applied to MD clubs and dancers and customers. This is NOT a cause for celebration for MD clubowners or dancers, only MD attorneys and liberals !!!
~
Last edited by Melonie; 07-22-2007 at 07:18 PM.




So does this mean that dancers in MD (possibly DC) would have to be licensed?Sorry if I didn't understand correctly.





^^^ Judge Garbis did NOT strike down the proposed law's provision for dancer licensing. This means that the MD state gov't and/or local MD city/county gov'ts are legally free to enact dancer's licensing procedures. As to whether or not this is being organized yet I have no way to know.
Bookmarks