A federal judge struck down Daytona Beach’s anti-nudity laws, saying they’re unconstitutional."
Making the world safe for girls to go wild.
Many states have used alcoholic beverage control laws to prevent the mixing of pussy and alcohol (apparently deemed a flagrantly combustible combination…) I have always considered this a sub rosa attack on the sex positive frolics that have come to symbolize the exhuberence of college youth on vacation in the spring…
I have not read the opinion referenced in this article, but if appealed it will change the law in my state, and probably a bunch of other ones.
From the article I’m not too sure what’s going on.
I don’t think people should be allowed to frolic naked on the streets, and I see no real mention of anything about combining alcohol with nudity so I’m guessing that’s just a tangent you were on.
But, the article doesn’t really specify in what manner anti-nudity laws were struck down. Can you now be naked anywhere in Florida at any time? Or did this just strike down laws that were highly specific in nature and only applied to limited areas?
I’ve been trying my best to run down the damned decision with no luck. It might not get on the court website till later today.
but there was an alcohol related issue:
Regulations prohibiting public nudity and nudity in places that sell alcohol violate the First and 14th amendments’ protections of free speech and equal protection, the judge decided.
“Full nudity with alcohol is what the city can expect if they do not resolve this now,” said Ron Krenn, owner of Molly Brown’s."
still searching for the actual decision–I guess the ruling came in open court on Friday–but there seems no doubt from this quote that at least one issue implicates the danger of permitting intoxicated young men to catch a glimpse of uncovered pussy.
People who support a ban on alcohol sales at strip clubs argue that combining the two increases the risk of rape and sexual assault…that the alcohol reduces inhibitions and judgement, so, instead of just having a bunch of horny guys looking at strippers, you now have a bunch of horny guys with poor impulse control and judgement looking at strippers, and that might be more dangerous to the strippers.
I haven’t done a study or review of this, so I don’t know to what extent the argument is backed by evidence, but that’s the argument.
I think the danger is to the wallet, not the stripper. I am given to understand that in one of the clubs over which I have the good fortune to reside, an inebriated patron, in an excess of enthusiasm, was sporting drinks and lap dances to the tune of two K before a merciful bartender took away his credit card.
And this is just a topless joint, pursuant to the stricture we are deconstructing.
I guess if it had been fully nude, the guy would have craced 5k
yes, I myself thought that after the list was posted, but que sera…
the debate, if I can ever get the damned decision, is intended to touch on the first and 14th amendment implications of the ruling. I deduce thus far that it arises from an idiosynccratic daytona beach ordinance, because I know for a fact that in Fort Lauderdale, it is requred that at every four way corner, one corner be occupied by a bar offering full nude entertainment along with alcohol. (unless things have gone terribly bad in recent years–I have to confess it’s been a while since I visited Lauderdale at spring break, but it is an exercise that I can recommend with unalloyed enthusiasm)