Michael,
Your post displays a fundamental (and common) misunderstanding of democracy. We are self-governing. Even on constitutional issues, we are self-governing. If we want to close down full or partial nudity dancing bars within a jurisdiction (local, state or federal) we should be able to do so by voting on it. Is it freedom of expression (artistic dancing) for a girl (or boy) to strip and then gyrate while sitting in a customer's lap? Is that a constitutionally protected right? Only the courts from the 60s and 70s could come to that conclusion.
Why can't we legislate what goes on the public airwaves, if we are truly self-governing? That should also go to items like gun control (which probably needs a constitutional amendment to get it), abortion, and other areas.
Democracy means, or should mean, that we take an active role in deciding what rules we wish to live under. That includes legislation about when and where certain activities can take place, and whether they should take place at all. Think about this: a popular restaurant, located across the street from the new City Cultural Center, goes out of business. The building owner rents it to a new business: Tiger Leigh and Her Kittens, Nude Dancing and Massage.
Should the citizens, who paid for the center with a bond measure, have the right to restrict businesses operating in the downtown center (which is, or was, on the rebound), or is this just free speech?
Somehow the idea of those guys in powdered wigs thinking that Article One, which says the government cannot "abridge" the freedom of speech, actually meant that sleazoids could have "wildlife" lap dancing is beyond the pale. AND let us remember that "abridge" means to reduce in scope--that is, that there should be no law reducing in scope the THEN EXISTING rights to free speech, reasonably expanded with the growth of a nation. I would be perfectly in favor of total nude dancing, on the street corners if that's what they want, if a legislature would vote it into law.
Kb |
