Jeffrey D. Sadow is an associate professor of political science at Louisiana State University Shreveport. If you're an elected official, political operative or anyone else upset at his views, don't go bothering LSUS or LSU System officials about that because these are his own views solely. This publishes five days weekly with the exception of 7 holidays. Also check out his Louisiana Legislature Log especially during legislative sessions (in "Louisiana Politics Blog Roll" below).
13.3.17
With changes, LA stripping age limit law may work
The race is on between whether a federal court will
toss out a Louisiana law limiting exotic dancing for those under 21 years or
age or the state can fix apparent defects in the law prior to that.
Last week, Eastern Louisiana District Court Judge Carl Barbier extended
injunctive relief to plaintiffs against Act 395 of
2016. The law prohibits people aged 18-20 years from working as strippers
in places that serve alcohol. This continues an order granted last year against
the measure that seeks to reduce the incidence of human trafficking, arguing
that younger adults face heightened risk at being sucked in to prostitution
through nude dancing.
Such municipal ordinances – New Orleans has one
with more specific language – and state laws historically have had a tough row
to hoe because of concerns over the chilling effect that such a prohibition has
on First Amendment rights. For decades, constitutional law has recognized nude
expression as a protected form of speech, creating demanding standards to
regulate it in any way.
As currently written, the statute has warts, Barbier
opined.
While it met a number of tests, principally that it could behave in a
content-neutral fashion where the state had adequate justification to permit
its enforcement, he wrote it failed in two significant ways. First, it suffered
from the potential of overbroad application; for example, it would apply to
situations with no real risk to encourage trafficking such as a theater that
serves alcohol staging nude performances. Second, it too vaguely defined what
constituted the nudity subject to enforcement.
Thus, Barbier declared that the plaintiffs had a
reasonable chance of succeeding in their claim and therefore the injunction would
continue to prevent enforcing the law. But he also pointed out potential solutions
to the defects he saw. For example, the New Orleans ordinance provided a more
exacting definition of nudity, and another from Spalding, GA had language
exempting venues outside of strip clubs.
This gave hope to state Sen. Ronnie Johns, who had sponsored the bill.
Johns indicated
he would return with a bill this spring to iron out whatever difficulties
judicial decisions seemed to identify. In essence, as long as government demonstrated
that its regulatory approach reasonably could achieve its objective without
much intrusion into free expression, Barbier indicated he would uphold the law.
If so, this could make Louisiana a pathbreaker in
this kind of legislation. No state has successfully kept on the books a law
that limits dancers’ ages. While a “pole
tax” approach might produce results less at risk constitutionally and more
effectively, with modifications this course may work, and therefore
policy-makers should pursue it.
No comments:
Post a Comment