Adult Stores, Threatened With Huge Fines, Vow to Remain Open

CNSNews.com ^ | November 19, 2001 | Rick Sarlat

[Stand Watch Listen]

Daytona Beach, Florida (CNSNews.com) - Several adult-oriented businesses are embroiled in a bitter feud with Daytona Beach, Fla. officials who have ordered them to shut down or pay a hefty price.

Three adult stores, XTC Adult Supercenter, The Banned Bookstore and House of Leather were warned to cease offering sexually explicit merchandise or they would be fined $1,000 a day. Four adult clubs have been given a harsher ultimatum -- cease and desist altogether or be fined up to $5,000 a day.

The dispute landed in federal court over the summer, with the businesses suing the city over ordinances which control where such adult-oriented businesses can be placed. Late last month, a federal judge ruled the city could not shut the businesses down, but could levy fines as it saw fit. City officials recently began issuing notices warning about the fines, which are scheduled to take effect this week.

"All they have to do is shut down to avoid the fines,'' said Mayor Baron H. Asher.

The business owners, however, are adamant in their refusal to comply. "The deadline is bogus," said Mike Piscitelli, an associate with Ellenton Video Inc., which owns the XTC. "We're aware of their ultimatum and we know that they can issue citations up to $5,000 a day. However we are absolutely never leaving this location, under any circumstances or conditions.''

Ron Krenn, owner of Molly Brown's I and Molly Brown's II, a bikini dancing club and a nude dancing club respectively, echoed those sentiments.

"We're staying open no matter what," he said. "This whole thing is a circus show. They think they're going to fine us out of business, but we're not going anywhere."

Krenn said city officials have gone as far as fabricating violations to drive him out of business. Molly Brown's I was issued a $2,500 fine for one its female entertainers showing too much skin.

But Asher denied the fine was trumped up and said the city intends to fight until the end.

"We don't intend to back off one iota," Asher said. "We are going to rigidly enforce our zoning ordinances and land-development codes. Period. Exclamation point."

Asher added that if inspectors can prove the adult clubs, which include two others named The Pink Pony and Lollipops, remained open between the time of the first fine until the code board's December meeting, each will face a $100,000 fine.

[slhill]

Be careful, Dataman. You have accused me of being addicted to porn. You have no proof to back up those claims. You do not even know whether I have ever chosen to see any porn. You're sailing pretty close to the edge of what's banned in this forum, personal attacks. Watch your mouth and your keyboard.

Your particular argument, "if you can't prove to me it's wrong, it must not be wrong," is substantially vacant. It becomes clearer as these porn threads continue that the defenders of porn cannot be dissuaded. After all, porn is addicting and who can break an addiction with words?

That is not my particular argument. It is not even close. My particular argument, if you must paraphrase, is "if you want to ban it, show the harm (and incidentally show that the harm is not outweighed by the harms inherent in bannig)". I fully accept that something may be harmful in the absence of evidence. You have tried to rephrase my argument on your own terms so that you can defeat it more readily. That is a reprehensible debating tactic. And by the way, the use of the word "vacant" does not make sense in the context above. It is poor English. I presume you were attempting to say that my argument lacked substance.

Very well, slhill, I will give you some objective evidence for the banning of pornography, although you will not accept even one reason because your addiction impedes your ability to reason.

I am not only able to reason well enough to earn a degree from a very good university and a salary from a good employer for a demanding and difficult job, I am able to write grammatically and syntactically correct English that conforms to common stylistic principles. One of those rules is to avoid repetition of the same word in the same sentence, as you have done above. 1) Man has a higher nature and a lower brutish nature. This is basic. If you want to know more about this, consult your nearest library. The brutish nature of man must be controlled if civilization is to exist. The higher nature pursues good; love beauty, wisdom, art, God, etc. The lower nature is fueled by lust, hate, greed, envy and the like. To which nature does porn appeal? The lower nature. There is a word for ministering to the lower nature: Pandering. The very nature and purpose of porn is to generate money by appealing to lust, a base desire.

You state this as a given. Where is your evidence that man has a dual nature? You say "consult the nearest library"; what sections of the library provide details of man's "dual nature"? How do we know that you have characterised this nature adequately? Judaism states that humans have a dual nature, but considers that both aspects of humanity are holy. In this, it differs from Christianity. It is, in any event, a religious belief and not a matter of fact which should be made to bind non-believers by the rule of law. Incidentally, your final statement appears to suggest that you think that porn made by husband and wife is acceptable. Is that the case?

2) The Attorney General's Commission on Pornography found links between pornography and violence against women, child molestion, failed marriages and organized crime. You may not like the conclusions of the Commission. I can understand that. It is, nonetheless, objective evidence.

Very good. A piece of evidence. I have not read or reviewed it, but I am sure that you have adequately characterised its contents. One critical point of evidence has not appeared in what you have written: was a causal link established? In other words, did the use of pornography directly result in the various dreadful deeds you list? The difference between causation and correlation is fundamental to scientific enquiry. If the Commission has established causation to the satisfaction of the relevant peer community (that's social and possibly other scientists) I would be astonished, impressed and convinced.

In the case of item 2, you may dispute that men who would molest kids or beat women didn't become that way because of porn. The evidence says otherwise, but even if I grant you that it still says that woman-beaters and child molesters are porn users.

That last statement demonstrates that you appear to be unaware of why causation is important (and Set Theory as well). Woman-beaters and child molesters may generally use porn, but they also generally eat, drink and go to the john. Equally,

[nagdt]

House of Leather

It sounds like a perfectly respectable business!;>)

Must be an election year...

[section9]

I hate it when that happens.

You get a good pic of a girl and the link won't work. Oh well, Catharine Zeta-Jones isn't supposed to be used on FR unless you're responding to a Maureen Dowd screed. Just to remind the world that there is a God and he is Just.

Meanwhile, yet another "within the guidelines" pic of Midori to break the boredom....

Which should make any man wonder why those Al-Quaeda goons are so damned mysoginistic? Mohammed Atta didn't even want a woman near his grave. The rest of these clowns treat women as chattel, to be hidden away.

Not only are jihadists a bunch of murderous thugs, they're probably a posse of closet queens as well.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[Phantom Lord]

I'd vote to make my county porn free to.

Would you also make it illegal for one to bring porn into the county? Meaning residents couldnt buy it in another county and bring it home.

I am all for states rights and counties being able to set their own rules. I live in NC. We have many many dry counties. And no, I do not live in one and i never would. Well, maybe just over the line so It would be a quick jump to buy some hooch.

My main disagreement currently is that they want to fine them out of existence. How about passing a law making the operation of porn shops illegal in the county and then properly compensating the business owners for the shutting down of their business.

[joathome]

We have freedom of religion in this country. We, also, have free speech in this country. The founding fathers never intended for dancing naked to be included in either one. End of story.

[joathome]

haha No, I don't think that applies to wives (in private). I'm suggesting that lewd dancing is not a free speech issue, so, therefore, communities may set standards for that type of activity. And I believe the intent of the founding fathers was to agree with me.

[joathome]

Your gun store and bible store should both be protected under the constitution as valid businesses.

And just because a business remains open doesn't mean that a majority of the town's citizen's want it to remain open. A relatively small segment of the population can keep that joint open.

If you don't like my take on this, take it up with the founding fathers. :) Do you really believe they intended for porn joints to be protected SPEECH?

[Chad Fairbanks]

Do you actually believe they didn't???? I don't see anywhere in the constitution where it says, "Everyone has free speech, except for Porn Shops. Oh, and by the way, we, the founding fathers, also want to leave this open-ended so that in the future, you can add anyone else to this list that you don't like." It's either all or nothing, take your pick...

[joathome]

Communities set standards all the time back then. Just because they weren't disgusting enough to open up a porn shop, doesn't mean the same principle doesn't apply. Have a nice day.

[slhill]

OK, I follow you so far. I'd like to know where you think the boundary lies. It's OK for wives to do it. Is it OK for girlfriends? Not in the sense of "is it morally proper?" but "should it be against the law?".

[FreePaul]

Try harder to keep your children out of the porn shops. Good luck.

[slhill]

The reason for my question about boundaries is that I'm trying to find out which bit of the behaviour it is that you object to: the dancing per se (it seems not); the nature of the participants (perhaps, I'm hoping you'll let me know); the fact that there is a charge (again, perhaps); or the fact that the activity takes place via a fixed place of business (again, perhaps). Or possibly something else. I understand that you don't believe this is a free speech issue. However, I don't understand what you believe is happening that the government should ban.

[culpeper]

Just an observation. Would you want a porn shop in your neighborhood? Talk is cheap.

[Chad Fairbanks]

There again, you are confusing the "community" setting standards, with the government setting standards. The two are different. In this case, it's government officials setting standards, through arbitrary "zoning", not the community.

You have a good day, as well... :0)

[Kevin Curry]

The essential difference of course, is that--contrary to what you learned in Prof Harry Browne's Con Law 101 course--sexually obscene materials have no Constitutional protection, but religion and gun ownership do. SCOTUS would have to legislate from them bench a la Roe v. Wade for the opposite view to hold.

The community has the right and power to empty these scum bucket places and send the porn purveyors packing.

As much as that might anger the pro-dope, pro-porn, pro-sodomy libertarians, that's just the way it is.

[joathome]

sigh What a wife wants to do for her husband is their business.....as long as it doesn't take place on the town square. :)

[joathome]

Local communities should have the right to ban businesses that don't reflect the general morality of that community as long as it is not protected by the government, like porn shops, topless dancing, etc.

[All-American Medic]

"We have freedom of religion in this country. We, also, have free speech in this country. The founding fathers never intended for dancing naked to be included in either one. End of story." And you know that how?? If i wanted to dance naked in my own house is that your business? That's what kills me about you moralists, you constantly slam the non-religious for trying to indoctrinate your kids, but you seek to have everyone else conform to your standard. If two consenting adults decide freely to involve themselves in a business venture which is LEGAL, now remember porn is legal and so is exotic dancing, why do you feel you have the right to tell them how to behave?? Dont purchase the product. I work for a municipal police dept. in an area which has a nude dance club within the confines of its patrol area, On friday and saturday night, that place gives us much less trouble than any place else in town. We spend much more time at Bars that serve alcohol than we do at the strip club. We have many weekends where there isnt a peep out of that place, but going to calls at the local bars every twenty minutes.