Posted on 06/26/2005 6:44:25 AM PDT by Libloather
New Yorkers sue for the right to shimmy
Fri Jun 24,12:52 PM ET
People dance at a ball at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York City. A group of dancers jointly filed a lawsuit in New York Supreme Court that seeks to declare a city ordinance forbidding dancing in clubs without cabaret licenses as unconstitutional.(AFP/File/Stan Honda)
NEW YORK (AFP) - Despite living in a city renowned for its vibrant nightlife, a group of New Yorkers have deemed it necessary to embark on a legal battle to win the right to go out dancing.
A group of social dancers, dance teachers and a dance club jointly filed a lawsuit Thursday in State Supreme Court that seeks to declare a city ordinance forbidding dancing in clubs without cabaret licenses as unconstitutional.
"The time has come for us to allow New Yorkers to dance," said Norman Siegel, a civil rights lawyer who helped draw up the suit. "It's time to change this anti-freedom and anti-fun aspect of New York life."
The target of the lawsuit is the city's 1926, prohibition-era "cabaret laws," originally designed to control black speakeasies in Harlem.
The laws limited the music that could be played and required ID cards and fingerprinting for everyone who officially worked in a "cabaret."
Over the years, the restrictions have been whittled away, but one crucial statute has remained -- a ban on dancing in any restaurant, bar or club that does not have a cabaret license.
Twenty people sitting in a bar without a cabaret license listening to, say, Brazilian music, is perfectly legal. However, should one couple decide to stand up and indulge in a quick samba, the bar could be closed down immediately.
City officials say the law helps with "quality of life" issues such as reducing noise levels and crowd control.
Opponents say it is oppressive and aimed at creating a cartel of "super-clubs" that can afford the cabaret license.
Back in 1960, there were 12,000 places for New Yorkers to get their groove on. Today there are barely 250 with licenses.
Siegel dismisses the noise reduction argument out of hand.
"When I dance, I don't make noise, I sweat," said Siegel. "It's a basic human reaction to move to music. It should be encouraged, not seen as a negative."
In arguing that the cabaret law violates the state constitution, the lawsuit states that dancing is "a basic form of cultural expression" and that the restrictions currently in force are an "arbitrary and capricious exercise" of the city' legislative power.
The whole thing is kind of stupid.
Many people here would say that it is in inappropriate use of taxpayer money to maintain a force of detectives whose job is to look for illegal dancing.
How much is a taxi medallion in NYC worth? Why?
Why is it that one man alone has for years enjoyed the right to operate his taxi cabs in Fort lauderdale airport to the exclusion of all others?
This is why the condemnation case is such bad law, it gives the politicians yet another cash cow to disperse.
I believe there is a much older law....way back to the 1800's...it was a religious backed thing. In my area in Upstate NY, you were simply kicked out of the Religious organizations. It's well documented!!
This is an outrageous extension of big government. Why the hell should you need the government's permission if you want to dance?
This law should have been implemented during the disco days of Studio 54.
I think Kevin Bacon should show up and these those uptight backwards hicks from New York City how to cut loose! And then he can fall in love with the preacher's daughter.
"This is an outrageous extension of big government." Lets qualify this and reinstate that "big government is outrageous".
ping
bookmark
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.