[goldstategop]

I guess taking off your clothes is free speech but making a political speech is an act of corruption. Welcome to the weird world of liberal First Amendment jurisprudence.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[XR7]

The state may not limit persons of majority age from engaging in lawful expressive conduct...

LOL

[iowamark]

Well, Missouri is the Show Me State.

[cricket]

The state may not limit persons of majority age from engaging in lawful expressive conduct..

So. . .bar/w beds next?

Bed, Bar and Beyond. . .coming to your neighborhood, soon.

( . . .are these patrons allowed to smoke. . .after lap dancing?)

[SkyPilot]

The Founding Fathers wrote the 1st Ammendment with political speech in mind, not lap dancing.

These judges are out of control.

Ironically, political speech is under great duress in this country. Go to any College or University campus and speak out against Homosexuality, Abortion, or Affirmative Action and see how long you last before you are hauled before a kangaroo court of "Student Administrators" and found guilty of "hate-speech."

[EBH]

Lap dancing is protected free speech? So, therefore we must accept it and move on? I am very confused.

[MilspecRob]

Some times I like activist judges!

[Triggerhippie]

[fr_freak]

"The state may not limit persons of majority age from engaging in lawful expressive conduct protected by the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution without a substantial and direct connection to adverse secondary effects

Adverse secondary effects? What the hell does that mean? It sounds to me like this guy is saying "The Constitution protects whatever behavior I feel like saying it protects, unless I decide that it doesn't protect it."

I understand the prohibition against crying "fire" in a crowded theater, but if you're going to specify exceptions to the Constitution, they ought to be pretty darn specific.

[zip]

ping

[R.W.Ratikal]

Strip joints are legal not because to ban them is unconstitutional but because, unless there are local ordinances against them, they are inherently legal.

Not because nude dancing is protected by the Constitution. It is not. The 1st Amendment protects oral speech and the printed word,not any action a human being might perform.

Every human action is "expressive." If the 1st Amendment protected "free expression" then any act could claim protection under the Constitution.

The 1 Amendment is designed to protect the right of every citizen to "speak" to government, "Congress shall make no law..."

Speech between private persons is not so protected. You can say anything you want to say to anyone if you are willing to pay the consequences of your speech.

Even the 1st Amendment is not absolute. Americans are not free to speak or write subversion and are subject to the Supreme Court rulings of what constitutes free speech.

One is also constrained by liable laws, good manners and common sense. Dr. Johnson said, "Sir, you are free to say anything you want to say, and I am free to knock you down for it."

[festus]

methinks that his honor dah judge will be entitled to free dances at the local clubs now or at least a substantial discount.

was that what he was anglin for ?

[RichInOC]

"You can have my lap-dancer when you pry her from my cold, dead hands...."

[Mike Darancette]

The state may not limit persons of majority age from engaging in lawful expressive conduct protected by the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution

Are they talking about the right of the dancer or the patron?

[little jeremiah]

latre pingout.

[elkfersupper]

Well, now. Every once in awhile, there is a judge who actually gets it.

Now, if they would only apply it every time.

Campaign finance reform comes to mind. Swatting down the anti-smoking Nazis and the neo-prohibitionists would be nice also.