Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/05/2004

Home

Page 8 --January 10, 2004 The dancers appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The new ordinance did not violate the dancers' rights to freedom of expression. The requirement of wearing pasties and G-strings was a minimal restric- tion in furtherance of the asserted governmental interests, and the restriction left ample capacity to convey the dancers' erotic message. Nudity was not a message in itself, but it could be used to convey any number of artistic messages. Often, nudity wasn't communicative at all. But, by banning nudity in sexually-oriented businesses, the city did not preclude the expression of any particular set of ideas, but only protdbited one particular manner or conveying those ideas because it was convinced that manner caused negative secondary erects. The important point was that the dancers were allowed to convey their message, not that they were able to do so in a state of undress. The government interest, controlling negative secondary effects, was com- pletely unrelated to freedom of expression. The city gathered evidence, and was entitled to as great a degree of deference in using that evidence as any other city. Citation: Heideman v. So~tth Salt Lake City, lOth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 02-4030 (2003). The loth Circuit has jurisdiction over Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming. see also: City of Erie v. Pap's A.M., 529 U.S. 277 (2000). see also: T~trner Broadcast System Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (1994). 156 Zoning Bulletin To order Zoning Bulletin, call (800) 229-2084, or complete and return this form to Quinlan Publishing Group, 23 Drydock Ave., Boston, MA 02210-2387, or fax (800) 539-8839. $107 (plus $9.81 s&h)-- 1 year (24 issues) .'~ New subscription Q Payment enclosed ,D Renewal subscription Q Bill me Z~3N4 Name Organization Address City State Phone Fax Emaii Zip