Using a remarkably broad definition of "speech". It is speech that is protected by the First Amendment, not prancing around with your clothes off.
"The federal 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a Maryland strip club law prohibiting employees from being unclothed, showing private parts or simulating sex acts while working at a place serving alcohol is unconstitutional.
The plaintiffs, the Legend Night Club and the Classics Night Club, operate adult entertainment establishments in Prince George's County.
In the opinion issued Thursday upholding a lower court's injunction against enforcing the law, the court said the statute "prohibits a broad swath of expression protected by the First Amendment." The court, quoting another case, said the law could even affect non-erotic performances like "a political satire, a Shakespeare play depicting young love or a drama depicting the horrors of rape."
Source
Left-dominated courts never stop their gross twisting of the constitution. They use it to protect things it does not protect (such as stripping) and also use it to ban things it does protect (such as religious observance). And to top it they find in the constitution protection for things the constitution does not even mention (such as abortion)
9 comments:
There is no twisting of the Constitution here.
The law was written so poorly and broadly that it would have covered scenes from Shakespeare. If you had a play that dealt with rape and simulated the attack, this law would have prohibited it. (Oddly enough, the State argued that no legitimate business would ever put on a play or Shakespeare in an establishment that served alcohol. They must not have heard of dinner theaters.)
The state argued that it would never apply the law to the artistic endeavors but that brings up all sorts of 14th Amendment issues. Cops and District Attorneys would be applying the same law to people differently. No one wants that. Either the law applies to all or it applies to none. The Legislature could have carved out a limit for the law and applied it only to all strip clubs and that would have been fine. As it did not, the law was too broad.
The state then tried to argue that the purpose of the law was to restrict the secondary effects of strip clubs such a violence, drug use, sexual harassment, and lower property values. The court rightfully noted that the legislation itself does not state that as the intent of the law.
In essence, this law was akin to Maryland saying "you can't have sex in a commercial establishment" and then busting in on someone on their honeymoon staying in a hotel.
The law was overly broad and the court rightfully struck it down.
In fact, it was simply an attempt by the very liberal state of Maryland to put these businesses out of business. Using the courts to create the perfect Nirvana that liberals dream of is nothing new in Maryland.
Bible beaters and women's rights prigs alike seem dead set on protecting people from nekkid women. I've always found that truly amazing.
A woman choses (for whatever reason) to make money taking her clothes off in front of a paying audience. And this is demeaning to the woman. Because there are men throwing money at her. For being nekkid. Which was a job choice she made. I'm confused...
But if a someone wants to open a strip club, that bad. Because it corrupts the children...even though they can't come in. And it damages the community...by paying taxes and employing people. And it offends their morals...but since they aren't going to go there the detractors will never see the offending nekkid women to be morally offended in the first place...
And law enforcement say that these places are a haven for crime like prostitution...a crime where it is illegal to sell something you can give away for free.
And drugs...because our experiment with alcohol prohibition taught us nothing.
And viloence, because there are more rapes, murders, and assults in cities with legal exotic dancing than in those that don't have it...except that a quick look at FBI violent crime statistics doesn't support this.
The government should have better thing to do with it's time. Harry Reid told the legislative branch in Nevada today that the state needs to close down the legal brothels to help the state's economy...because closing down buissnesses and putting people out of work is always the first step in getting the economy back on track.
Tell ya what. When the legislative, executive, and judicial branches can manage to avoid their own sex scandals for one presidental term I'll consider taking their advice on anything having to do with morality.
This ruling was entirely correct. There is a specific test (the Miller test) to determine if speech is not protected; it is protected if it passes one of the test's three parts. Naked dancing, and nudity in general, falls under the category of having "artistic value." Nudity and naked dancing have been portrayed in works of art going back to the beginning of recorded civilization. Child pornography is one of the very few forms of speech that isn't covered.
Apparently, Mr. Ray doesn't know jack squat about the Constitution.
Really, Person!, what has "artistic merit" got to do with it - assuming that such a term can be applied to stripping?
Freedom of speech was established to protect the two types of dialogue which a democracy requires to allow the public to make correct decisions: the provision of information, and the expression of opinions. Artists are not involved in the democratic process; they are marketing a product. Although I can accept that the government should stay out of such business as much as possible, it is not an issue of freedom of speech.
And does anyone seriously suggest that the writers of the constitution intended it to protect strippers?
"There is a specific test (the Miller test) to determine if speech is not protected"
Is one allowed to disagree with that test, your majesty?
Nice to see Jon getting into the fray again! Besides, the simplest thing here would just be to have Obama declare the law constitutional. Apparently he has the power to declare a law (DOMA) unconstitutional and decide not to enforce it, so the same principle will work here. Granted, the last time I checked, the Constitution gives the power of deciding what's constitutional only to the Supreme Court, But this is much more efficient!
Granted, the last time I checked, the Constitution gives the power of deciding what's constitutional only to the Supreme Court, But this is much more efficient!
Check again. The Constitution never gave the Supreme Court the ability to settle what was or was not Constitutional. The Constitution only gives the Supreme Court the ability to decide cases using the Constitution.
Marbury v. Madison is where the Supreme Court expanded their power and authority to review laws and determine whether they are Constitutional or not.
Is one allowed to disagree with that test, your majesty?
You are free to disagree with anything Jon.
At the same time, your characterization of what happened in this case is grossly inaccurate. There was no twisting of the Constitution.
The law was struck down as it was overly broad and not applied equally.
That is right in line with the Constitution.
Post a Comment