We believe the decision is a major erosion of rights of free expression afforded under the constitutions of Missouri and the United States -Dick Bryant, attorney representing Missouri’s strip clubs
Tuesday, in the latest ruling in a case that’s been argued for the past year and a half, the Missouri Supreme Court — in a 40-page opinion — upheld a Cole County judge’s ruling allowing Missouri to impose a number of restrictions (“one of the toughest and most comprehensive laws… of any state,” according to Joe Ortwerth, the Missouri Family Policy Council’s executive director) on strip clubs and adult book and video shops, including bans on alcohol, full nudity, and any physical contact between customers and employees.
Dick Bryant, the attorney representing the clubs, says he’s considering an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In case this seems like déjà vu: Texas Supreme Court Upholds “Pole Tax” on Strip Clubs
Geez, this goes back to at least the 60s! Of _course_ it is expression, and is covered by 1st Amendment protections. (Even if not covered by much more, heh.) That’s not to say the protection is absolute, and states (or municipalities, their creatures) can make regulations, such as zoning restrictions. But you can’t revert it all the way to “How can this be protected expression?” — that has been settled law for a long time.
The road to grinding out the meaning of the First Amendment is a bumpy one indeed.
I really doubt the Founding Fathers had nude dancing in mind, but since the Constitution is deemed a “living document”, it’s scope grows constantly, though, unfortunately, tends to be flabby.
Protectors of dissent against the Government shouldn’t expend much effort in defending nude dancing; If a slippery-slope is feared, it is one of vast length.
But, no constitutional question is “settled”, as long as the Supreme Court interprets the law.
In the wake of the recent decision protecting graphic violence in video games, didn’t the Chief Justice say something to the effect that protecting minors from sexual material could override First Amendment concerns? Conceivably, it could be argued that the mere existence of strips clubs endangers kids who might mistake them for 7-11s.
Property law permits landowners/lawful tenants to expel trespassers, forcibly if necessary, so even if Junior thinks it’s a 7-11, he’s getting 86′d.
There’s a case (I can’t remember which one off the top of my head) that stands for the proposition that you can’t limit what adults have access to because of concerns that children might get ahold of it. You can make the store put it on the top shelf or behind the counter, but you can’t make them take it out of the store.
Oregon’s constitution has a broader protection of free speech than does the federal one, so in cases here things have gone the strip clubs’ way. Twice the anti-strip-club folks put constitutional amendments on the ballot to strip the freedom down to the federal level, and twice Oregonians collectively told them to get lost.
And now you know why all those settlers risked dysentery and left St. Louis on the Oregon Trail… they wanted more freedom of expression.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So you write the comment first, then the CAPTCHA code. GOTCHA.
Anyway, where does the first amendment mention naked women gyrating?
Ooten Aboot has it is one.
There is no “Freedom of Expression” guarantee in the Bill of Rights. So no “right” has been lost. A State can pass any law that does not contravene the US Constitution and since “Freedom of Expression” is not protected by the Constitutional, Missouri is well within its rights to either regulate the practice – or ban it outright.
Ooten Aboot and Detcord are making the specific mistake that the Federalist Papers warned about. Alexander Hamilton was worried that, if a Bill of Rights was put in, then people would argue that ONLY the enumerated rights were protected, which was the reason for the Ninth Amendment.
Ian, Our position is not a “mistake”. It is one side of an arguement that continues to this day. Strict constructionists mantain the “Ninth Amendment is too vague to have any binding authority”. The other side “use it to protect implicit rights hinted at but not explicated elsewhere in the Constitution”.
I can see both sides of the arguement, but the latter position, in my opinion, allows the creation of rights without recourse to the people – which would be by way of amendment to the Constitution. Since English Common Law was so familiar to the Founders, they took its tenets as “self-evident” and I will grant that this probably a source of confusion.
Still, the whim or fiat by a judge is not how the United States was intended to be goverened by its founders – and even Alexander Hamilton knew that.
“Strict constructionists mantain the “Ninth Amendment is too vague to have any binding authority”. ” I’m not familiar with this, and it runs counter to the well-developed rule of Constitutional (and statutory) construction that words added are not surplusage, and are therefore to be given meaning.
Perhaps this rule is of less important in construing statute, as it is fairly straightforward for the legislature to re-draft a statute if the courts apply it in a way not originally intended.
The only case I can think of that involved declaring a piece of the Constitution surplus and therefore non-effective was the slaughterhouse-cases, which just about read a big piece of the 14th amendment completely out back in, I think, 1883. And even that reading didn’t completely pull the teeth of the “privileges and immunities” clause.