Posted on 01/21/2006 11:47:34 AM PST by RedBloodedAmerican
DAYTONA BEACH -- Adult dancers may be clear to take it all off after a federal judge Friday struck down the city's anti-nudity laws. City ordinances prohibiting public nudity and nudity in places that sell alcohol violate the First and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution, U.S. District Judge John Antoon concluded in his ruling. "We won on every single issue," said Daniel Aaronson, a Fort Lauderdale attorney representing Lollipops Gentleman's Club on Grandview Avenue. The victory entitles Aaronson to press for the city to pay attorney fees for Lollipops, which he said exceed $100,000. Daytona Beach failed to prove its claim that adult nightclubs create secondary negative impacts on crime, prostitution and illegal drug activity in neighborhoods, Antoon said in his ruling. Antoon referred to the 2003 case of the Peek-A-Boo Lounge of Bradenton versus Manatee County in his decision. The judge wrote, "gone are the days when a municipality may enact an ordinance ostensibly regulating secondary effects on the basis of evidence consisting of little more than the self-serving assertions of municipality officials." Adult nightclubs asserted in the trial, which ended in May, that convenience stores and non-adult nightclubs were more dangerous. On Friday, attorneys for adult nightclubs and the city were sorting out -- and disagreeing -- about the impact of the ruling. "With no ordinance in place, this raises a question of whether these clubs can strip all their clothes off," said Brett Hartley, a Daytona Beach attorney representing Lollipops. One stumbling block in determining the decision's impact is that the city's zoning restricts businesses displaying nudity to an industrial area on the far west city limit . Antoon upheld the zoning rules in 2004. "Regardless of this ruling, they're still not entitled to remain where they are," said Marie Hartman, deputy city attorney, who has successfully fought challenges to the city's nudity rules since 1981. Aaronson responded, "They'll claim that." City officials said Friday they plan to study the judge's ruling and ask the City Commission about a possible appeal. Friday's ruling also raises questions about enforcement of an agreement in December 2004 that settled another federal lawsuit by Molly Brown's on Seabreeze Boulevard and the Pink Pony on Ridgewood Avenue. Both clubs agreed to drop their legal challenges in exchange for an agreement from the city allowing dancers to wear skimpier bikinis. However, a provision in that settlement requires equal enforcement of city rules to all adult clubs. "The terms of the settlement basically allows those clubs (Molly Brown's and the Pink Pony) to take advantage of this ruling," said Gary Edinger, a Gainesville attorney who represents Molly Brown's. Edinger is also being retained by Lollipops to appeal the judge's ruling upholding the city's zoning laws. He said Antoon's Friday ruling might be the first nationwide for a judge to strike down city nudity laws after a full trial. Some nudity laws have been struck down before trial by a summary judgment from the judge and some municipalities have prevailed after trials. "A lot of what happens next depends in part on how the city reacts," Edinger said. "My guess is the clubs will probably follow suit with whatever change Lollipops might enact." Lollipops representatives said they were savoring the victory and would decide later whether to keep their current topless entertainment, or display full nudity. Aaronson, the Lollipops attorney, said he was willing to negotiate with the city. "Full nudity with alcohol is what the city can expect if they do not resolve this now," said Ron Krenn, owner of Molly Brown's. Daytona Beach is not the only municipality fighting adult nightclubs. Flagler Beach officials and residents are trying to stop an adult nightclub, called Liquid, that recently opened in their city.
Just in time for Spring Break.
And the liberal mayor made a campaign promise to make it into a decent vacation spot again. She was bought by big business.
Massive stare decises potential.
A few decades they tried to clean up Fort Lauderdale. They got rid of nudie bars and tried to make it more family oriented.
NOw the turists don't go there just crack heads.
Ya know, there's a gal who works the Pink Pony living behind me and another who works at Molly Browns two doors down. One of them is nice, you wouldn't know her occupation just talking to her (kind of a "what's a nice girl like you doing in a place like this" person). The other..well, no comment. Whats bad is the people they have hanging around. Probably customers but they sure don't help the neighborhood any.
Maybe he was misquoted, instead saying he was going to clean up (donation-wise) in this sector....?
I can't believe that some moronic "judge" has found nude dancing being addressed in the U.S. Constitution. First, the Commies turned the Constitution into a "living and breathing document" and now we learn that the Constitution is also a nude dancer. These "judges" are truly braindead. Don't do drugs. They make you crazy.
They got the fees wrong it is not 100K it is more like 600K
It seems to me that if nude dancing is wrong, then so is dancing with pasties and a g-string. And if it's wrong to dance nude at a place that serves alcohol, it's wrong to dance nude at a place that serves ice cream or cotton candy.
This society needs to develop a consistent ruling with respect to adult entertainment. Either it's acceptable or it's not. If it is, then it is. Period. If it's not, then it's not. Period.
This waffling is just laughable, and lends itself to these kinds of suits.
Which one do you think is more likely to be changed by her employment and the people she encounters thereby?
It seems to me a simple issue: Do the people who live in a municipality have the right to restrict undesirable businesses from locating there? I can understand why liberals would say no. I cannot understand why conseratives would agree.
Lovely.
Don't tell me you're not familiar with the section in the Constitution that says "the right to dance nude in the Peek-A-Boo Lounge shall not be infringed." :)
LOL!
I am willing to bet this judge is quite a pervert. Then there are Judge Cashman, Judge Greer, the judge in Maryland who said we can't ban gay marriages since it "discriminates," the judge in Arizona who ordered schools to graduate students who had not met the requirements, etc.
The tobacco lobby needs to bring up smoking bans in front of *this* judge.
Now if only this applied to the State legislatures writting gun control laws or restricting CCW.
Actually SCOTUS ruled on a similar case some years ago -- but it wasn't the "Peek-A-Boo Lounge" - it was the "Kitty Kat Nightclub".
This judge's ruling will likely be struck down by the Circuit Court.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/barnes.html
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.