Judge: Lap Dances Protected By Constitution

[The Central Scrutinizer]

http://www.kptv.com/news/13601037/detail.html

Woo-Hoo!!! Finally, a judge who understands the Constitution!!!

[Cleon]

God bless America.

[Miss Anthrope]

Yet the war on boobies continues.....

[BPSCG]

A Marion County judge said lap dances in Salem are protected by the free speech provisions of the Oregon Constitution.What delicious irony. Banning lap dances would violate the first amendment's guarantee of free speech, but banning a commercial saying, "Don't Vote For John McCain" would not, according to four current justices on the Supreme Court.

If political speech can be banned, then protecting any other form of speech becomes irrelevant.

[BPSCG]

Yet the war on boobies continues.....Do you mean boobies as in hooters, or boobies as in idiots?

Or the bird?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

... They are protected under free speech? WTF? How does that make sense :confused: ?

[Overman]

Booyah!

Gotta love the tuckabucks!

[quixotecoyote]

Better our liberties be interpreted broadly than narrowly.

[marksman]

Man, it's like Footloose meets Striptease!

[Darth Rotor]

Better our liberties be interpreted broadly than narrowly.
So long as the broad gives me a lap dance, yes. :duck:

DR

[MelBrooksfan]

This is a truly great ruling.

[Oakheart]

I like the idea but I am afraid it doesn't fall under free speech in any way shape or form.

[tsg]

What delicious irony. Banning lap dances would violate the first amendment's guarantee of free speech, but banning a commercial saying, "Don't Vote For John McCain" would not, according to four current justices on the Supreme Court.

Do you have a cite for that?

If political speech can be banned, then protecting any other form of speech becomes irrelevant.

Well, depending on the ruling (which I have not read, but would like to), if it is commercial speech, the Supreme Court has long held that it is not protected speech.

It should also be noted that the lap dance ruling is by a County Court based on Oregon's State Constitution, not the Federal Supreme Courte and the US Constitution.

[BPSCG]

Do you have a cite for that?Here you go (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/29/AR2007062902167.html). Opinion piece rather than the actual news story, but Broder gets it right (except for the penultimate paragraph), and he lays out the issue clearly.

If I'm not mistaken, the same four justices who voted in the minority in this case said that "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" is protected speech. I agree, but why shouldn't "Don't Vote For Obama" also be protected speech?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Better our liberties be interpreted broadly than narrowly.

And it's only the broadlies that have the boobies.

[NoZed Avenger]

Well, depending on the ruling (which I have not read, but would like to), if it is commercial speech, the Supreme Court has long held that it is not protected speech.


Commercial speech is still protected; the analysis may differ as it may not be entitled to the same level of protection.

c.f., Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Comm'n, 447 U.S. 557 (1980), for example.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

What delicious irony. Banning lap dances would violate the first amendment's guarantee of free speech, but banning a commercial saying, "Don't Vote For John McCain" would not, according to four current justices on the Supreme Court.

If political speech can be banned, then protecting any other form of speech becomes irrelevant.

What`s A Marion County judge ruling got to do free speech and the Supreme Court?

[tsg]

Here you go (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/29/AR2007062902167.html). Opinion piece rather than the actual news story, but Broder gets it right (except for the penultimate paragraph), and he lays out the issue clearly.

If I'm not mistaken, the same four justices who voted in the minority in this case said that "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" is protected speech. I agree, but why shouldn't "Don't Vote For Obama" also be protected speech?

I just finished reading the dissenting opinion from the SCOTUS case. I can post more detail later, but the essential point Souter makes (and makes a good case for) is that the ads in question were not political speech but rather an attempt to sidestep campaign financing laws.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Okay, so from the Oregon Constitution (http://www.leg.state.or.us/orcons/orcons.html):

Section 8. Freedom of speech and press. No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever; but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of this right. —

Sooo... A lap dance... is an expression of the dancer's opinion of... the attractiveness of the client?

[WildCat]

If they outlaw lap dances they'll have to pry the stripper from my cold dead hands, because only outlaws will be lap dancers. Or something... :boxedin:

[BPSCG]

If I see a a man with a lap dancer on an airplane, I'll kill him!

[Dr Adequate]

They're using the Constitution as a fig leaf.

[Puppycow]

Dance is a kind of art, which is a kind of speech. I totally agree!
Anyway, if it's a consensual transaction between adults, I think its nobody else's business.

[Texas]

http://www.kptv.com/news/13601037/detail.html

Woo-Hoo!!! Finally, a judge who understands the Constitution!!!I hate lap dances the high heels hurt like hell.

[BPSCG]

Get Fuzzy weighs in on Bong Hits 4 Jesus (http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/getfuzzy/archive/getfuzzy-20070703.html). :D

(Second panel...)

[The Painter]

They are protected under free speech

They can talk??? I didn't know that.


With all the boobs in government, of course they're protected. Professional courtesy.

[sphenisc]

Surely this is a natural extension of the right to bare arms?

[strathmeyer]

Get Fuzzy weighs in on Bong Hits 4 Jesus (http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/getfuzzy/archive/getfuzzy-20070703.html). :D

Lap Dances 4 Jesus?

[Beerina]

I just finished reading the dissenting opinion from the SCOTUS case. I can post more detail later, but the essential point Souter makes (and makes a good case for) is that the ads in question were not political speech but rather an attempt to sidestep campaign financing laws.

Yes, but for the purpose of speech. The money is needed for speech.

In a conflict between financing and speech, speech wins. End of story.


"I don't like person X. I want them to lose the election. I want person Y to win because that makes person X lose. I will therefore buy ads on TV to get person X to lose."

Anyone who doesn't like that is anti-freedom. You wish to silence free speech for the purpose of protecting X's position in government. That is no slippery slope. That is the impact when you hit the bottom after falling off the cliff.

[BPSCG]

Yes, but for the purpose of speech. The money is needed for speech.

In a conflict between financing and speech, speech wins. End of story.


"I don't like person X. I want them to lose the election. I want person Y to win because that makes person X lose. I will therefore buy ads on TV to get person X to lose."

Anyone who doesn't like that is anti-freedom. You wish to silence free speech for the purpose of protecting X's position in government. That is no slippery slope. That is the impact when you hit the bottom after falling off the cliff.:clap:
Winner, July Pith Award.

[tsg]

Yes, but for the purpose of speech. The money is needed for speech.

In a conflict between financing and speech, speech wins. End of story.


"I don't like person X. I want them to lose the election. I want person Y to win because that makes person X lose. I will therefore buy ads on TV to get person X to lose."

Anyone who doesn't like that is anti-freedom. You wish to silence free speech for the purpose of protecting X's position in government. That is no slippery slope. That is the impact when you hit the bottom after falling off the cliff.

Is it still speech when the ads are only purchased to gain access (ie curry favor) with a legislator?

As usual, it's not that simple.

Restrictions on campaign financing go back over 100 years. This is not new. In 1907, Congress banned corporate donations to candidates. In 1943 the same ban was applied to labor unions. Corporations simply sidestepped the ban by making the purchases for the candidates directly in lieu of making donations, prompting Congress to extend the ban on contributions to expenditures in 1947. Unfortunately the wording was so vague the Supreme Court was forced to restrict the ban on expenditures to advertising containing certain "magic words" indicating advocacy for or against a particular candidate. Corporations sidestepped that by simply not using those words. In 2002, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act banned ads paid for by corporations from their general treasury funds that were the "functional equivalent" of an express advocacy ad played on any broadcast, cable or satellite medium within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of a general election. Ads that address a particular issue (as opposed to advocating a particular candidate, for or against) are not regulated. Ads that are paid for out of PAC funds are not regulated. The BCRA is intended to prevent corporations from "buying" elected officials with campaign donations. The dissenting opinion's concern in Federal Election Commission v Wisconsin Right To Life was that the decision essentially guts the BCRA by providing an exception for ads that "may reasonably be interpreted as some-thing other than an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate". In fact, Justice Souter makes a very good case that the ads in question are the functional equivalent of advocacy ads when their intent and effect is examined, which the decision claims should not be considered.

I am not saying that I necessarily agree with the dissenting opinion, especially since I haven't seen the ads in question, but it is far more complicated an issue than simply claiming that "Don't Vote For X" is protected by the First Amendment and anyone who disagrees is anti-freedom. Firstly, the only entities the BCRA affects are corporations. Secondly, it only affects specific types of ads within a blackout period prior to an election. Thirdly, it only affects ads that are paid for out of general treasury funds. You, as an independent citizen, can buy as many ads as you like saying "Don't vote for X" up to the day of the election. Anyone, corporations included, can buy ads about specific issues up to the day of the election.

It isn't about silencing critics to protect X's position in the government. It's about preventing corporations gaining favor with Y in return for campaign financing. Neither your, my, nor any other individual's rights are being infringed upon.

The Constitution also guarantees a government that represents the people of the United States, not one that represents corporations with the deepest pockets. The BCRA was enacted to help ensure that. Don't forget that coporations aren't people. They exist only on paper. This is not to say that the government should be allowed to silence them at will, but their rights must be subservient to the rights of the people.

Arguing that trading freedom of speech for prevention of corruption is not a valid trade off misses the point entirely. Your freedom of speech isn't in danger. At all. What is in danger is your representation in the government.

[ponderingturtle]

Is it still speech when the ads are only purchased to gain access (ie curry favor) with a legislator?


But it is still all about freedom, the freedom of legislators to whore themselves out. Are you against FREEDOM now?

[BPSCG]

Firstly, the only entities the BCRA affects are corporations. So what? Why is "Don't vote for X" bad coming from a corporation or a union or an advocacy group, but good coming from my mouth?

Secondly, it only affects specific types of ads within a blackout period prior to an election. Why is it bad to call for X's defeat six days before the election, but not six months?

Thirdly, it only affects ads that are paid for out of general treasury funds. You, as an independent citizen, can buy as many ads as you like saying "Don't vote for X" up to the day of the election. But I don't have much money. I can't afford to buy even fifteen seconds during the season premiere of 24. The only way I can really make my voice heard over the din is to organize with other like-minded people, and pool our money, and buy the time. But that's forbidden. The only avenue by which I can make a real difference is blocked.

Anyone, corporations included, can buy ads about specific issues up to the day of the election.As long as the ad doesn't target a candidate. That's ridiculous. Campaigns are about candidates and their stands on the issues. That's the whole point.
It isn't about silencing critics to protect X's position in the government. It's about preventing corporations gaining favor with Y in return for campaign financing. Neither your, my, nor any other individual's rights are being infringed upon. My right to asociate with other people and pool our financial resources to make our voices heard, is being infringed.

The Constitution also guarantees a government that represents the people of the United States, not one that represents corporations with the deepest pockets. The BCRA was enacted to help ensure that. Don't forget that coporations aren't people. They exist only on paper. This is not to say that the government should be allowed to silence them at will, but their rights must be subservient to the rights of the people.Corporations are organizations of people. What you're saying is that disorganized people are not a threat to democracy, but organized ones are. BTW, don't just rail against corporations. Save some of your fire for unions and civic organizations from the Sierra Club to the NRA.

Arguing that trading freedom of speech for prevention of corruption is not a valid trade off misses the point entirely. Your freedom of speech isn't in danger. At all. My ability to make myself heard is. What good is your speech if you can't make anyone hear you?

[tsg]

So what? Why is "Don't vote for X" bad coming from a corporation or a union or an advocacy group, but good coming from my mouth?

I didn't say it was. What the law says is that corporations aren't allowed to sidestep campaign finance regulations by purchasing ads for the candidate directly using their general funds within the blackout period.

Why is it bad to call for X's defeat six days before the election, but not six months?

It's not and I didn't say it was.

But I don't have much money. I can't afford to buy even fifteen seconds during the season premiere of 24. The only way I can really make my voice heard over the din is to organize with other like-minded people, and pool our money, and buy the time. But that's forbidden. The only avenue by which I can make a real difference is blocked.

It is not forbidden. You just have to follow the regulations in order to do it. Pay for the ad out of a PAC fund. ETA: In fact, what you are describing is precisely what PACs were set up to do.

As long as the ad doesn't target a candidate. That's ridiculous. Campaigns are about candidates and their stands on the issues. That's the whole point.

I don't disagree. The BCRA doesn't prevent you from doing that.

My right to asociate with other people and pool our financial resources to make our voices heard, is being infringed.

No, it isn't. You just have to play by the rules.

Corporations are organizations of people. What you're saying is that disorganized people are not a threat to democracy, but organized ones are.

I said no such thing.


BTW, don't just rail against corporations. Save some of your fire for unions and civic organizations from the Sierra Club to the NRA.

Both the Sierra Club and the NRA are incorporated, so I'm not sure what your point is here.

My ability to make myself heard is. What good is your speech if you can't make anyone hear you?

Not much, but the BCRA isn't preventing you from being heard.

[drkitten]

Yes, but for the purpose of speech. The money is needed for speech.

Doesn't matter.

You can speak all you like -- but you still need to follow rules.


"I don't like person X. I want them to lose the election. I want person Y to win because that makes person X lose. I will therefore buy ads on TV to get person X to lose."

That's fine. But if there are restrictions on buying ads -- or on what kind of ads you can buy -- then you still have to follow them.

As a simple example, the town where I grew up has a size restriction on billboards. I don't remember the exact size -- let's say it's four meters by twelve.

If you want to put up a billboard to get person X to lose, it still needs to be no more than four by twelve. Just because it's a "political" ad, doesn't mean that it can ignore size restrictions. And if you put up a five-by-fifteen ad saying "Vote for Jones," it will probably be removed by court order -- without violating your "freedom of speech."

And, in fact, the local council could probably get away with making rules that political ads could only be three-by-nine, as long as those rules were applied to all political ads equally.

Yo

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Could we get back to discussing lap dances?

[fuelair]

... They are protected under free speech? WTF? How does that make sense :confused: ?Freedom of expression actually. At a bare minimum, that was established in the 60's with the elimination/throwing out of laws on wearing/damaging/destroying American flags and was tied to the Speech position.:)

[fuelair]

Okay, so from the Oregon Constitution (http://www.leg.state.or.us/orcons/orcons.html):



Sooo... A lap dance... is an expression of the dancer's opinion of... the attractiveness of the client?
More precisely, the courts are trying to avoid decisions that will likely be overturned on appeal - who determines that nudity in a play in the big city is art but nudity in a strip club isn't and who wants to get into a class struggle
legal zone (full nudity is o.k. for the wealthy in a big theater but not for workers having a beer in the local? Bad idea!)

[Dr Adequate]

On campaign finance, I propose a compromise. Politicians should be allowed to take as much money as they like from businesses, on the condition that, like athletes with corporate sponsors, they display the corporate logos of their benefactors prominently on their clothing.

Free speech, after all, is nothing to be ashamed of.

[BPSCG]

On campaign finance, I propose a compromise. Politicians should be allowed to take as much money as they like from businesses, on the condition that, like athletes with corporate sponsors, they display the corporate logos of their benefactors prominently on their clothing.

Free speech, after all, is nothing to be ashamed of.Make that, "publish it on their web page within 24 hours of receipt" and I'm with you. If you accept $10,000 from the American Nazi Party or Earth First (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_First%21)!, people should know who your idealogical soulmates are.

[tsg]

Make that, "publish it on their web page within 24 hours of receipt" and I'm with you. If you accept $10,000 from the American Nazi Party or Earth First (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_First%21)!, people should know who your idealogical soulmates are.

http://www.opensecrets.org/