Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/06/2003

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I i I February 25,.2003 __.page 3 Discrimination -- Village prohibits alcoholin "Sexually Oriented Businesses" Bar claims ordinance violates its Freedom of Exl)resMon WISCONSIN (01/17/03) The V'fllage of Somerset enacted an ordinance that banned the sale, use, or Consumption of'alcohol On the premises of"Sexu' ally Oriented Businesses." The village stated it was trying to control the ad-' verse secondary, effects of sucl:t.businesses, sUch as crime, falling property val- ues, public health risks, and the influence of organized crime~ Ben's Bar Inc. sued, claiming the ordinance violated its right to Freedom-°f Expression. Ben's Bar argued its erotic dancers would ultimately be required to wear more than the pasties and G-strings allowed by local law so the bar could keep its liquor license, thus significantly impairing the conveyance of an- erotic message. . The court ruled in favor of the village.' . Ben's Bar appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The village could prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages in "Sexually Oriented Businesses." The central problem with Ben's Bar's argument was that the ordinance restricted the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages in establishments that served as venues for adult entertainment, not the attire of the nude 'dancers. In the absence of alcohol, Ben's Bar's dancers were free to expresS.them- selves all the way down to their pasties and G-strings. The question was not whether the village.could require nude dancers to-wear more attire than pasties, and G-Strings, but whether it could attempt to prevent the negative second~g-y effects ari'sing from the explosive combination of nude dancing and alcohol consumption. : :' The ordinance had no impact whatsoever on Ben's Bar's ability to offer nude or semi-nude dancing to its patrons; it sought to regulate alcOhol and nude or semi-nude dancing without prohibiting either..The village,s citizens could still buy a drink and watch.nude or semi-nude dancing.'They were not, however, constitutionally entitled to do both at the same time and in the same place. PerhaPs a sober patron would find the performance less tantalizing, and the dancers may feel less appreciated. However, even though. Ben's Bar'S prOfits may decline, the village could legally place such a restriction on .the bar's. activities. Citation: Ben's Bar Inc. v. V~llage. of SornerSet, 7th U.S. CirCuit 'COurt of Appeals, No. 01-435'I (2003). The 7th Circuit has jurisdiction over Illinois, Indiana, and W~scOnSin. see also: California v. LaRue, 409 U.S. 109 (1972). see also: 44 Liquormart [nc. v. Rhode I~tand, 517'U.S. 484 (I996). 137