John Meinzer, owner of The Dirty Dawg nude dancing parlor in Santa Barbara, claims that the cityÆs recently drafted regulations for adult establishments infringe on his First Amendment rights. This paper will address the constitutionality of those regulations based on several Supreme Court decisions.
The city has drafted a two-part ordinance. The first component addresses zoning issues. Businesses offering adult entertainment would be limited to commercial and industrial areas. No such establishment would be allowed within 500 feet of a residential area or another adult business. Moreover, no adult business could be within 700 feet of any house of worship, school, park, or beach. These rules would apply to adult bookstores, novelty stores, video stores, movie theaters, arcades, and live entertainment, which is what MeinzerÆs establishment offers.
The second component addresses the conduct of entertainers in establishments such as MeinzerÆs. The ordinance would prohibit nude dancers from coming within 10 feet of patrons, and prohibit them from touching patrons in any way.
Meinzer argues that the First Amendment rights of him and his dancers would be infringed in two ways. First, the limitations on his dancers constitutes content discrimination, which almost always violates the Constitution. The restriction is designed to muzzle lap dancers and their message that sex is healthy and not shameful. Second, the entire ordinance is an unlawful attempt to silence him and his dancers by limiting where they can work. MeinzerÆs business should be permitted anywhere that other lawful businesses are permitted.
Our analysis begins with the zoning portion of the ordinance. The law drafted by Santa Barbara is similar to the one enacted by Renton, Washington, which the United States Supreme Court upheld in Renton v. Playtime Theatres (1986). RentonÆs ordinance prohibited adult theaters within 1,000 feet of residential ...