Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/03/2005

Home

Page 2 -- January 25, 2005 g.g. Adult Entertainment-- Holder of liquor license must get prior approval before providing entertainment Exotic dancing requests denied after several alcohol violations Citation: King's Grant Inn v. Town of Gilford, U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, No. 03-249-SM (2004) NEW HAMPSIqlRE (11/19/04) -- King's Grant Inn was a bar and restaurant, operating under a New Hampshire hquor license. Consequently, it had to re- ceive wadtten authorization from the town before it could provide entertainment of any type. King's Grant was given several warnings involving liquor-taw violations. Over a period of several months, King's Grant asked the town selectmen to authorize exotic dancing on seven separate occasions. All of the permit re- quests were authorized. However, when a new selectman joined the town's licensing authority, he refused to authorize any of King's Grant's exotic danc- ing requests because of King's Grant's history of alcohol violations. King's Grant sued, arguing the licensing policy resulted in an unconstitu- tional restraint on its free speech fights. DECISION: Judgment in favor of King's Grant. The town had to prove that its regulation was not a facially unconstitu- tional and invalid prior restraint on protected speech. The court stated the town's policy was not a zoning ordinance aimed at restricting exotic dancing to particular geograpttic locations to protect the town from the secondary effects often associated with such entertainment. Rather, the town's policy was closer to a licensing scheme that effectively operated as a form of prior restraint on a particular type of artistic speech.. The town showed no evidence that, before enacting the policy, it collected or examined evidence pertaining to likely adverse secondary effects of exotic dancing. Moreover, the tOwn did' not identify any legally-sufficient secondary effects or problems resulting from exotic dancing. Finally, there was no evi, dence liquor-law violations resulted from exotic dancing performances. Alaw subjecting the exercise'of First Amendment freedoms to the prior restraint of a license, without narrow, objective, ~d definite standards to guide the licensing authority, was unconstitutional. Without the constraint of specific standards to guide the decision-maker in judging whether or not a license should issue, an impermi.~ibie danger existed that a government official could decide to exercise his or her judgment to suppress speech he or she personally found distasteful or that an applicant could feel. compelled to censor his or her own speeCh. Because the selectmen seemed to have had unfettered discretion under the liquor-licensing scheme, the liquor policy .appeared unconstitutional without further information from the town. see also: Fly Fish Inc. v. City of Cocoa Beach, 337 F. 3d 1301 (2003). 92 2005 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited, For more information please call (617) 542-0048.