SUPREME COURT MULLS L.A. CURB ON SEX SUPERSTORES

Boston Globe (AP) ^ | 12/5/2001 | Anne Gearan

[Hemingway's Ghost]

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court considered yesterday whether cities may ban one-stop shopping for pornographic magazines, X-rated movies, and the like - a red-light district under one roof.

The court has already said that cities may fight the crime and economic decline associated with traditional red-light districts through zoning regulations, such as forcing sex-related businesses to locate far away from one another.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

An interesting clash between zoning laws and adult businesses. I confess I don't really understand the practical implications over creating sex superstores vice sex stripmalls, but it seems to me the L.A. zoning board is acting within its authority here. Or is it?

[WIMom]

Thank you! Let's make this the shortest fundraiser ever.
5 days into the fundraiser and we are 62% there.
We can be finished in 3 more days
and get back to our regular freeping.
If you can, come on and contribute
to the best web site on the internet.
Or stop by and help bump the thread!

---

Freepathon Holidays are Here Again: Let's Really Light Our Tree This Year - Thread 6

---

Click on the FreeRepublic eagle for secure credit card donations,

or Snail Mail:
FREE REPUBLIC, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794

Send PayPal direct to JimRob@psnw.com

[Britton J Wingfield]

It says it restricts more than one adult business from operating on one property. Businesses like walmart carry everything from groceries to furniture without being classified as multiple individual businesses, for the most part. I'm not sure why they would make that distinction here, except to support a preexisting agenda to suppress adult businesses. Personally, I'd rather have on big adult store than having little ones strung all over the place.

[mindprism.com]

, but it seems to me the L.A. zoning board is acting within its authority here. Or is it?

Zoning is 'conflict prevention', as such it is pre-emptive law which I am against because there are no objective limitations that may be placed on such laws. The question of "How far is society allowed to go to prevent X?" has no answer except "As far as the people let it", which is the essence of the tyranny of democracy.

So the question of authority is unanswerable -- "How hard may you beat your wife to keep her in line?"

[xm177e2]

FYI

[Doctor Stochastic]

SUPREME COURT MULLS L.A. CURB ON SEX SUPERSTORES

SUPREME COURT MULLS L.A. CURB ON SUPER SEX STORES

SUPREME COURT MULLS SEX SUPERSTORES ON L.A. CURB