Mo. Supreme Court upholds strip club restrictions

Originally published November 15, 2011 at 1:31 p.m., updated November 15, 2011 at 9:18 p.m.

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Missouri strip clubs and other sexually themed businesses must abide by a 2010 state law that banned nudity, alcohol and touching between scantily clad employees and customers, the state Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

The court in a unanimous decision rejected claims from the adult entertainment industry that Missouri's law infringed on free expression rights and was passed in violation of legislative procedures. Instead, it ruled that legislators justifiably cited public health, welfare and safety concerns in restricting the operation of such businesses.

The ruling marked a long-sought victory for conservative lawmakers, who have tried for years to limit the sexually themed businesses that have proliferated along the state's main highways and in some cities. The state Supreme Court struck down a similar 2005 state law because it was attached to an unrelated bill about drunken driving.

As a result of Tuesday's ruling, "Missouri now retains one of the toughest and most comprehensive laws regulating sex shops and strip clubs of any state in the nation," Joe Ortwerth, executive director of the Missouri Family Policy Council, said in an email to supporters. He added: "We praise God for this tremendous victory."

Dick Bryant, an attorney for the affected business owners and employees who challenged the law, said he was considering an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"We believe the decision is a major erosion of rights of free expression afforded under the constitutions of Missouri and the United States," he said in an email to The Associated Press.

The 41-page opinion by the state Supreme Court affirms the decision of a Cole County judge, who had refused a request to block the law from taking effect on Aug. 28, 2010.

The Missouri law applies to strip clubs, adult video and book stores and other businesses of a sexual nature. It bans full nudity, alcohol, anyone younger than 18 and touching between semi-nude employees and customers. To ensure strippers are off-limits, the law requires semi-nude employees to remain on a stage at least 18 inches high and at least 6 feet from customers. The law also requires sexually oriented businesses to stay closed between midnight and 6 a.m., and it prohibits closed-door viewing booths for pornographic movies, requiring that patrons remain within the clear view of employees.

The state Supreme Court rejected the lawsuit's contention that the restrictions were aimed at free speech. Instead, the court cited wording from the legislation stating that the restrictions were intended to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the public by limiting the negative societal effects associated with such businesses, including crime, prostitution, the spread of diseases, drug use and urban blight.

Former state Rep. Ed Emery, who handled the bill in the House, said lawmakers carefully crafted its preamble with the goal of surviving a court challenge. He was pleased to hear they succeeded.

"The research that had gone into the preparation of that bill assured that it would be constitutional, but in this day and age you just never know until the ruling comes down," said Emery, a Republican from Lamar.

Former Sen. Matt Bartle, a Republican from Lee's Summit who sponsored the legislation, said he hoped the Supreme Court ruling would lead to broader enforcement of the law by local prosecutors.

The high court rejected the adult entertainment industry's assertion that the state had to show that negative effects were more common at their businesses than at other places. To the contrary, the court said the plaintiffs failed to produce evidence directly casting doubt on lawmakers' contention that banning things such as nudity and touching promotes public health and safety.

Some owners of the affected businesses have complained that the law harms them financially and could force them to close. But the state Supreme Court said that was no reason to strike down the law.

"To the extent that the no-touch, six-foot buffer, alcohol ban and open-booth restrictions reduce patronage at sexually oriented businesses, it is not because the restrictions unduly reduce speech, but because they reduce the very types of secondary effects that the government is entitled to and intends to reduce," Judge Laura Denvir Stith wrote.

The Supreme Court also rejected an argument that the Legislature violated the state constitution because a particular committee did not hold a hearing on a lawmaker's challenge to the bill's cost estimate. The court said the constitution only requires the committee to be established and meet and does not provide any basis to strike down a law because of a procedural error.

More like this story

gofish 1 year, 6 months ago

Missouri's conservatives pride themselves on having LESS government and LESS government intrusion. UNLESS, the conservatives deem it a moral issue and THEN, the hypocrits want government to CONTROL the individual rights and freedoms of each and every citizen without regard to any other constitutional guarantee, such as the right to peacefully assemble or the freedom of speech, or the separation of church and state.

When it comes to morals, the conservatives masquerade as liberals, wanting the government to control every vice. When it comes to big business, greed, pollution, or taxation the conservatives want government to butt out. When it comes to social programs the conservatives scream "personal responsibility" and want the government to scorn the less fortunate. But when it comes to abortion, personal responsibility is a dead end that the conservative want left closed.

If the topic is WALL STREET and Capitalism, the conservatives will insist upon exercizing the market's free will. But try to OCCUPY WALL STREET and the conservatives will demand that the riot police disrupt your peaceful assembly and assault you with chemical weapons, batons, and "impact weapons" when you freely speak.

Confused about what you should and shouldn't do? Just wait, there will be a conservative republican who will let you know when you are intelligent enough to be personally responsible for the actions they agree with. And when you breach some moral boundary of theirs, there will be the same conservative republican waiting to inform you that "THEY" "The Government" will be telling you what you can and cannot do.

Hypocrits. All of them! Hypocrits.

I wonder.......will the US Supreme Court be any smarter than a group of Missouri conservatives?

asb 1 year, 6 months ago

By definition.

tonto_goldberg 1 year, 6 months ago

Precisely. After the Citizens United decision, we know who and what counts to the Roberts court.

JMO 1 year, 6 months ago

A well thought out, well written and absolutely accurate statement gofish. Don't forget that all the while the right wing is screaming that liberals want to force them to accept what they view as immoral. They don't have to accept it - they just have to live with the fact that other's do and are entitled to do so.

gofish 1 year, 6 months ago

Thank you JMO

JCLifer 1 year, 6 months ago

Conservatives could do so much better in the elections if they would get out of the bedroom. The messages about limited government, fiscal and personal responsibility are quite sound, but they lose so many votes by wildly persecuting gays, attempting to control a couple's reproductive business, and trying to protect people from evil thoughts through ponography and pot.

Hypocrit is a good description. They lose so many elections through their own stupidity. If they would just concentrate on separating religion and government and not imosing their puritanical beliefs regarding these personal freedoms, they would do so much better in elections.

tonto_goldberg 1 year, 6 months ago

I don't think so. The conservative movement is a kind of catch-all group for grumpy people who know a lot about what they don't like and what they want done about it. The language has gotten twisted to suit the politics. The people who call themselves conservative are not bothered by the inconsistencies nor the hypocrisy. They don't care what Barry goldwater would think about his legacy.

JMO 1 year, 6 months ago

I agree with you. I think there are a great many good ideas being promoted by conservatives, but I won't be voting for someone who wants to legislate away the rights of consenting adults to do as they wish with each other.

Sequoia 1 year, 6 months ago

Hey, look! I agree with Graceful on this! A strip club is commerce.

There is no absolute right for someone to buy a piece of land and do whatever they want on it. Businesses exist in the context of a community, and the community has legitimate power through its legislators to regulate the economic activity and its externalities in their own communities.

The Supreme Court should offer no relief: economic regulations require only a reasonable relationship between the regulation and public policy goals. This regulation is squarely within a state's "police powers."

Don't like it? Vote! Personally, I would like to see Missouri's strip club workers initiate an OWS-style protest at the state capitol. My commute would be much more interesting.

Frankenstein27 1 year, 6 months ago

Great idea, maybe a stripper-occupation of the capitol will bring in some new legislators who aren't just out for a power trip! Seriously though, just because the law is constitutional does not mean it is a good idea. We see this on both the right and the left and it's disgusting. It's about time the government quits taking my money to protect me from myself or some imagined demon. I wish the Republicans would put up candidates I could actually stomach voting for. Dear Republican committee: there are lots of real conservatives in Missouri, we're not all religious fundamentalists and neocons. Please quit making us vote for Democrats.

JCLifer 1 year, 6 months ago

"Dear Republican committee: there are lots of real conservatives in Missouri, we're not all religious fundamentalists and neocons. Please quit making us vote for Democrats."

AMEN!

gofish 1 year, 6 months ago

Then I will be expecting the Republican RIght to begin restoring the Medicaid cuts to the elderly and disabled to promptly begin in January on the opening day of session? That's good to know. I'll be waiting with the optomism of a child on Christmas eve. Surely our Government that has spend so much time and money to protect me from strippers won't disappoint with medical care.

asb 1 year, 6 months ago

Conservatives = " . . . grumpy people who know a lot about what they don't like and what they want done about it." Oh thank you! I'll memorize this and beat this drum forever!

gofish 1 year, 6 months ago

The social fabric as defined by the subjective ideals of those who only want it "their way" when the outcome suits their objective to retain power and wealth. Do as I say, not as a I do is their "golden rule". I thought it was pretty depraved when the Republican Right cut Medicaid benefits for the elderly and disabled a few years ago.

evenkeel 1 year, 6 months ago

This is so rich! Pyromaniacs in a field of straw men! Here is gofish, asb, JMO and Tonto defining to each other what conservatives stand for. Go ahead and play with matches for awhile.

Thanks for the laugh. I am never grumpy, but I can always use another laugh and you folks provided me with a good deep belly laugh today.

tonto_goldberg 1 year, 6 months ago

OK, here's your opportunity to provide a better explanation for all those things that gofish points out. They look like contradictions and hypocrisy to the rest of us. We're waiting, patiently. Use small words, if you know what I mean.

TraceyT 1 year ago

The biggest problem is when people "want to impose their corrupt and immoral ways upon society". Many people in both political camps want to impose their view in the name of morality, but they never seem to recognize that the power they want to exercise would be abhorrent to them in the hands of any other group. If you wouldn't be willing to put the same power in the hands of the most extreme Muslims, or the members of the protesting church in Kansas, or some other extremist group whether Christian, Athiest, Environmentalist, etc, you need face the fact that you are doing nothing more than pushing your viewpoint on others with the only justification being that "you are right".

JCLifer 1 year, 6 months ago

Puritanical dominionism.

TraceyT 1 year ago

I think we need to get rid of politicians for the purpose of "limiting the negative societal effects associated with such businesses, including crime, prostitution, the spread of diseases, drug use and urban blight"

Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting

Or login with:

OpenID

News Tribune