Ok, first of all I'm not condemning anything. If you want a lap dance and a stripper is willing to give it to you, fine. And if you want to fight someone who opposes it, then that's cool too. But seriously, for the Judge to rule that it's protected by the Constitution is just too much of a stretch for me. I mean, why wouldn't prostituion be protected then? http://www.kptv.com/news/13601037/detail.html
Who cares? I don't go to strip clubs but why is this even an issue? If you don't like it, don't go. It isn't like they are doing it in public.
dude, i dont care either way about whether it shodl be done or not. my original post clearly says that. i'm just questioning how you can connect it to freedom of speech.
Considering that there's an entire body of law devoted to defining obscenity and its intersection with protected first amendment speech - I don't see why the nexus is that hard to find.
Hold on, it's not protected by THE Constitution according to the judge, it's protected by the Oregon constitution. What Oregon does with their constitution as long as it doesn't hurt anybody is their business.
you're right...my bad folks, I didn't see the Oregon word. I did notice their constitution seems to mirror THE constitution's language about free speech though. http://www.leg.state.or.us/orcons/orcons.html
You learn the reason in law school that nude dancing is indeed an expression of speech, not kidding about that. Unfortunely, that means hotballa will never find out.
I think this goes back to the precedent set when Olivia Newton-John put on some legwarmers and encouraged America to "let me hear your body talk."
