Stephen's Angry Rant #1--Don't Tell Me Nude Dancing is Immoral - March 28, 2000 - Movies

Yesterday the Supreme Court decided to take yet another chip away from the cornerstone of the First Amendment. By a 6-3 vote, the justices voted to reinstate an Eerie, PA, ordinance that forced dancers in strip clubs to wear g-strings and pasties while they performed. The Pennslyvania court struck down the statute, saying it infringed on the First Amendment, but the Supreme Court then reversed the decision.

While admitting that the dancers had protection for their "expressive conduct," said Sandra Day O'Connor in the main opinion, but the main interest lay in that city's effort to "combat the negative secondary effects associated with adult entertainment." In other words, completely nude dancing causes crime. Granted these places are more than likely patronized by some less than desirable people, so are all bars, pool halls, and clubs. And there is no way someone can tell me that with pasties on crime will be lower than without the pasties. No, I think O'Connor and those agreeing with the main opinion had ulterior motives, but knew that since their argument held no legal merit, they had to find their way around it. I think they agreed with the separate opinion.

Judges Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia wrote that it is the "traditional power of the government to foster good morals...and the acceptability of the traditional judgment...that nude public dancing itself is immoral." I have agrgued until I am sick of arguing that the government has no business dabbling in morality issues, regardless of that the right wing and the Moral Majority say. Whose morals shall we go by? Who defines morals anyway? These justices are applying the Judeo-Christian moral code to policy and in turn are banning something that causes no harm to anyone. So long as the clubs are patronized by consenting adults of at least 21 years of age and the naked women are not in plain view of those who choose not to see it, then there is nothing legally or morally wrong with what they are doing. Yes, the Bible can be interpreted to condemn such things, but some people read a different interpretation, some do not believe the Bible, and that's all irrelevant because the Bible has no place in public policy to begin with. When a grown adult male if he so wishes cannot walk into an establishment and see a completely naked woman dancing, then it is more than a crime--it's a mockery of freedom and First Amendment rights.

Thomas, Scalia, O'Connor, and the other three concurring justices are great legal minds, and I have all the respect in the world for them. However, I do not want to live by their moral standards any more than I wish to live by Congress's or any other elite group's. The whole idea of America is that the majority rules, but those in the minority are still offered basic protections. Anything else would be a step towards despotism. In the dissenting opinion, John Paul Stevens wrote that this decision "may justify the total suppression of protected speech." Thank goodness there are a few on the court who still see that. It's just a pity they are not a majority.

Xanadu8503@aol.com

Visitors: 02227

Page Updated Wed May 3, 2000 3:41am EDT