Does that mean women have to wear those silly hats and dress like a ho?
Posted on 02/23/2007 4:18:57 AM PST by ShadowDancer
Social Dancing Banned In New York
Appeals Court Rules Ban Is Constitutional
POSTED: 9:22 pm EST February 22, 2007
NEW YORK -- Should you find yourself in a bar in New York City, and the music playing makes you want to get up and dance, please resist the urge.
A state court on Thursday upheld the city's Prohibition-era law that bans social dancing in bars, restaurants and certain clubs.
Those who like to get up and boogie sued, arguing the law illegally infringes on their right of free expression. The city's Cabaret Law, which was enacted 80 years ago, bans social dancing in all but specially licensed venues.
The Gotham West Coast Swing Club and several people filed a lawsuit complaining that because the Cabaret Law barred them from dancing with other people, it illegally infringed on their right of free expression.
The appeals court disagreed, saying recreational dancing is not a form of expression protected by the federal or state constitutions.
Plaintiffs lawyer Norman Siegel said he was "very disappointed" by the decision and is considering an appeal.
Does that mean women have to wear those silly hats and dress like a ho?
"So dancing naked in strip clubs for dollar tips is legally protected free speech in NY but two people in a bar wanting to dance to the juke box are committing a crime?"
Depends on what kind of music the juke box is playing.
What re-activating the law did was to limit the size of bars in many residential areas.
So dancing is not a form of free expression, but you can't regulate porn or ban it because it is?
They have regulated it -- you can't have a shop within a certain number of feet from a church or school.
It's stupid stuff like this that lowers the respect of the legislative and judicial branch of government.
In Rochester, NY, circa 1850, there was an old article about church members who decided to go to a dance. The church actually kicked them out calling it disgusting. I wish I could remember which book it was in. It sure was an eyepopper.
Regardless, good laws should relate to health, safety and welfare. The present law relates to none.
ah religious big government wackos. Some things never change.
It’s not too unusual. Many places where I’ve lived banned dancing unless the club had a special dance hall license. I don’t agree with it, but the courts are not the place to change laws. We have too much of that going on.
I've never seen anyone have an epileptic fit standing up.
My apologies to any epilepsy sufferers among the Free Republic family. My only defense: it was too good to pass up.
http://www.1010wins.com/pages/263184.php?contentType=4&contentId=345955
Court: Ban on Social Dancing in NY Bars Legal
NEW YORK -- You can listen to the music in a New York City bar, but you better not begin tapping your feet because it could lead to dancing.
A state appeals court Thursday ruled that an 80-year-old law banning dancing in New York City bars, restaurants and certain clubs is legal.
The state Supreme Court's Appellate Division ruled that the city's Cabaret Law, permits dancing only in places that have a license.
The Gotham West Coast Swing Club and several people filed a lawsuit complaining that because the Cabaret Law barred them from dancing with other people, it illegally infringed on their right of free expression.
The appeals court disagreed, saying, recreational dancing is not a form of expression protected by the federal or state constitutions.
Lawyer Norman Siegel represented the dancers and says he's considering an appeal.
http://home2.nyc.gov/html/law/downloads/pdf/pr022207.pdf
NYC Law Department Press Release: Court Upholds Challenges to Cabaret Laws
Check this out.
nanny?
ping
http://www.lawandsocietysummerinstitutes.org/workshop05/paper9/Laam%20Hae.DOC
Excerpt:
In the early to mid 1990s, mayor Giuliani provided profuse tax incentives to corporations to move into Manhattan, and initiated a “quality of life” campaign in order to cleanse the urban space of cultural and social elements undesired by these corporate citizens. As part of this campaign, Giuliani established the Multi-Agency Nightclub Enforcement Task Force in 1997, in order to monitor violations of the cabaret law. What distinguished the enforcement of the cabaret law by Giuliani from that of his predecessors is that he rendered it illegal for more than three patrons to move rhythmically together in an unlicensed place, and therefore, any incidental dance to the music that could happen by patrons in any bar not zoned for dancing became a violation of the cabaret law. It is next to impossible for live rock music venues or DJ bars to stop customers from head banging or dancing, and get them to sit down and quietly listen to the music. The landscape inside bars that has a “No Dancing” sign next to “No Smoking” has become common.
In response to this increased harassment during the Giuliani regime, an organization, called No Dancing Allowed, later renamed as Legalize Dancing New York City (LDNYC), was formed by cultural critics, club owners, DJs, performers and promoters. The tension that has arisen between LDNYC and NYNA is worth a mention here, because it shows how the city’s club industry has been divided within itself, how this division has been enmeshed in the government’s drive of zoning out dance clubs, and how this division signifies who are the winners in the city’s club industry. LDNYC has been employing street performances and mobilizing the local media in order to secure public support for their drive to ease or get rid of the legal provision that criminalizes dancing in the cabaret law. However, NYNA, which has significant political and financial power, has not been in favor of repealing the provision. NYNA represents licensed establishments, indicating its members are affluent proprietors who can afford the expensive cabaret licensing process, and who are primarily concerned about catering to celebrities, tourists, or newly transplanted dot.com corporation workers. It goes without saying that NYNA’s objection to abolishing the cabaret law is, to a significant degree, latched on to its members’ desire to retain a monopoly in the industry. So, people point to the reality that the cabaret regulation has effectively created a club cartel composed of a few mega clubs and expensive bars, while little venues featuring obscure DJs or experimental music and are not able to afford a cabaret license are more and more closing their businesses.
This law was 'dusted off' in the 90s.
The effects have been interesting: The rise of the big box clubs on the west side.
It's about licensing, and licensing fees I suspect.
first attempt on Towers was in 93' wasn't it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.