[bourbon]

Now, I can't help but think that people usually reach for the secondary-effects argument when considering nude dancing, pornography, and the like, so let's try our hands at a little creative editing.

The USSCT has consistently refused to extend the secondary-effects analysis beyond its opinion in Renton v. Playtime Theatres. In that case, the Court found that a zoning ordinance restricting nude dancing to a certain part of the city did not offend the 1st Amendment because it did not seek principally to restrict the underlying speech but only sought to regulate its harmful "secondary effects."

Though frequently argued outside of the nude dancing context to justify state action, this argument is a non-starter with the Court.

[general_re]

The USSCT has consistently refused to extend the secondary-effects analysis beyond its opinion in Renton v. Playtime Theatres.

Depends on what you mean by "extend". If you mean that the Court has declined to apply the secondary-effects analysis to areas beyond adult businesses, then I agree. If, hoever, you mean that the secondary-effects analysis of Renton remains the same now as it was in 1986, that's not at all the case - City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books has made the secondary effects analysis of Renton into a complete joke. If it holds up, municipalities won't have to do much more than assert that negative secondary effects exist, where any evidence at all supporting the existence of secondary effects is acceptable, and therefore any old fig leaf will do...