Here's a little something that showed up on the Pittsburgh Post Gazette Online today.
Erie wins long fight on nude dancing
Supreme Court upholds ban, 7-2
In what became a federal case, Kandy's Dinner Theater in Erie was short on entrees and long on nude women.
Now the black-robed justices of the U.S. Supreme Court say the establishment finally must obey a city ordinance that requires that strippers wear at least a stitch of clothing.
The justices ruled 6-3 yesterday that an Erie law banning nude dancers was aimed at valid community concerns such as crime, and did not infringe on artistic freedoms protected by the First Amendment.
Erie's 1994 public-indecency ordinance bans public nudity, requiring women who work as nightclub dancers to wear at least pasties and a G-string when performing.
The Supreme Court's decision to uphold the law could have fallout far beyond Erie -- a city of 109,000 people and one all-nude club.
An estimated 3,000 businesses in the United States feature nude dancers. Many of them have warred with city councils that have tried and usually failed to stop the performers from taking everything off.
In McKees Rocks, where the all-nude Club Erotica has long annoyed Mayor Rich Keenan, municipal officials were reviewing news of yesterday's Supreme Court decision.
In Salem, Westmoreland County, proprietor Nick Fratangelo of Climax Gentlemen's Club successfully sued the local government for the right to keep his strippers bare. A Salem ordinance, similar to Erie's, had attempted to ban nudity, but it was toppled when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down the Erie law.
Fratangelo said he didn't know what would happen to his "pop shop" -- so named because it already is prohibited from serving alcohol.
Erie Mayor Joyce Savocchio yesterday said the ruling was a victory for all cities as they try to protect their neighborhoods from falling apart.
"This shows that you can set community standards and still be within First Amendment rights," she said.
Savocchio, Erie's mayor for 11 years, has a history of conflict with Kandy's Dinner Theater, which under a previous owner was known as Kandyland. Erie's city council approved a law six years ago that banned businesses from featuring nude entertainers.
Kandy's, which was sold as the case lumbered through the courts, now operates on Peach Street, a main thoroughfare that nudges an upper-middle-class residential area. A sign out front proclaims: "First Amendment Rights Headquarters."
Savocchio said her administration was concerned about customers drinking alcohol in the club. Clubs that serve alcohol are subject to Pennsylvania's liquor code, which already bans nude entertainers.
Aside from the skirmish over illegal drinking, Savocchio said, the club had disturbed a pleasant, family neighborhood.
Her first move now, she said, would be to make sure Kandy's dancers keep something on.
"We're definitely going to enforce the ordinance for clothing of dancers. We have the obligation to uphold it," Savocchio said.
John H. Weston, attorney for the former Erie club owner who challenged the ordinance, said the ruling may lead to a flurry of attempts to ban nude dancing. But he predicted that "sexually oriented businesses will always thrive" because of consumer demand.
Weston also said the ruling appeared to leave room for club owners to force governments to defend their assumptions that such establishments lead to crime.
The court's main opinion was written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who found that Erie's law was a reasonable attempt to set standards on a matter of public concern.
A key issue was whether city officials enacted a "content-neutral" law against public nudity in general, or whether they specifically targeted nude dancing.
O'Connor said the ordinance was "content-neutral" because it regulated conduct, not First Amendment expression.
"The ordinance regulates conduct, and any incidental impact on the expressive element of nude dancing" is minimal, she said. The city requirement for dancers to wear G-strings and pasties "leaves ample capacity to convey the dancer's erotic message."
O'Connor added that the nude-dancing ban furthers Erie's "interest in combating the negative secondary effects associated with adult entertainment establishments," such as crime.
In that sense, she said, the nude-dancing ban "is no different from the ban on burning draft registration cards" previously upheld by the Supreme Court. In that case, the government "sought to prevent the means of the expression and not the expression of antiwar sentiment itself."
The main part of O'Connor's opinion was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Stephen G. Breyer.
Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, in a separate opinion by Scalia, voted to uphold the law on different grounds, citing "the traditional power of government to foster good morals."
Justice David H. Souter wrote separately that he agreed with O'Connor's analysis but believed the city had not shown its ordinance was designed to deal with "real harms." He said Erie should be given a chance to do so.
Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented from the ruling. They said in an opinion by Stevens that the court had decided for the first time that secondary effects "may justify the total suppression of protected speech."
------------------------------------------
So what's the verdict? I'm kinda curious to see what people really think about this kind of thing.
Erie wins long fight on nude dancing
Supreme Court upholds ban, 7-2
In what became a federal case, Kandy's Dinner Theater in Erie was short on entrees and long on nude women.
Now the black-robed justices of the U.S. Supreme Court say the establishment finally must obey a city ordinance that requires that strippers wear at least a stitch of clothing.
The justices ruled 6-3 yesterday that an Erie law banning nude dancers was aimed at valid community concerns such as crime, and did not infringe on artistic freedoms protected by the First Amendment.
Erie's 1994 public-indecency ordinance bans public nudity, requiring women who work as nightclub dancers to wear at least pasties and a G-string when performing.
The Supreme Court's decision to uphold the law could have fallout far beyond Erie -- a city of 109,000 people and one all-nude club.
An estimated 3,000 businesses in the United States feature nude dancers. Many of them have warred with city councils that have tried and usually failed to stop the performers from taking everything off.
In McKees Rocks, where the all-nude Club Erotica has long annoyed Mayor Rich Keenan, municipal officials were reviewing news of yesterday's Supreme Court decision.
In Salem, Westmoreland County, proprietor Nick Fratangelo of Climax Gentlemen's Club successfully sued the local government for the right to keep his strippers bare. A Salem ordinance, similar to Erie's, had attempted to ban nudity, but it was toppled when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down the Erie law.
Fratangelo said he didn't know what would happen to his "pop shop" -- so named because it already is prohibited from serving alcohol.
Erie Mayor Joyce Savocchio yesterday said the ruling was a victory for all cities as they try to protect their neighborhoods from falling apart.
"This shows that you can set community standards and still be within First Amendment rights," she said.
Savocchio, Erie's mayor for 11 years, has a history of conflict with Kandy's Dinner Theater, which under a previous owner was known as Kandyland. Erie's city council approved a law six years ago that banned businesses from featuring nude entertainers.
Kandy's, which was sold as the case lumbered through the courts, now operates on Peach Street, a main thoroughfare that nudges an upper-middle-class residential area. A sign out front proclaims: "First Amendment Rights Headquarters."
Savocchio said her administration was concerned about customers drinking alcohol in the club. Clubs that serve alcohol are subject to Pennsylvania's liquor code, which already bans nude entertainers.
Aside from the skirmish over illegal drinking, Savocchio said, the club had disturbed a pleasant, family neighborhood.
Her first move now, she said, would be to make sure Kandy's dancers keep something on.
"We're definitely going to enforce the ordinance for clothing of dancers. We have the obligation to uphold it," Savocchio said.
John H. Weston, attorney for the former Erie club owner who challenged the ordinance, said the ruling may lead to a flurry of attempts to ban nude dancing. But he predicted that "sexually oriented businesses will always thrive" because of consumer demand.
Weston also said the ruling appeared to leave room for club owners to force governments to defend their assumptions that such establishments lead to crime.
The court's main opinion was written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who found that Erie's law was a reasonable attempt to set standards on a matter of public concern.
A key issue was whether city officials enacted a "content-neutral" law against public nudity in general, or whether they specifically targeted nude dancing.
O'Connor said the ordinance was "content-neutral" because it regulated conduct, not First Amendment expression.
"The ordinance regulates conduct, and any incidental impact on the expressive element of nude dancing" is minimal, she said. The city requirement for dancers to wear G-strings and pasties "leaves ample capacity to convey the dancer's erotic message."
O'Connor added that the nude-dancing ban furthers Erie's "interest in combating the negative secondary effects associated with adult entertainment establishments," such as crime.
In that sense, she said, the nude-dancing ban "is no different from the ban on burning draft registration cards" previously upheld by the Supreme Court. In that case, the government "sought to prevent the means of the expression and not the expression of antiwar sentiment itself."
The main part of O'Connor's opinion was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Stephen G. Breyer.
Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, in a separate opinion by Scalia, voted to uphold the law on different grounds, citing "the traditional power of government to foster good morals."
Justice David H. Souter wrote separately that he agreed with O'Connor's analysis but believed the city had not shown its ordinance was designed to deal with "real harms." He said Erie should be given a chance to do so.
Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented from the ruling. They said in an opinion by Stevens that the court had decided for the first time that secondary effects "may justify the total suppression of protected speech."
------------------------------------------
So what's the verdict? I'm kinda curious to see what people really think about this kind of thing.
