An exotic dancer dances exotically, and a Texas court says the state cannot impose a $5 fee on strip club patrons.
Is stripping a First Amendment right?
A $5-per-customer fee on Texas strip club patrons dubbed the ''pole tax'' has been declared unconstitutional. A state district judge ruled that clubs can't collect the fee. The charge went into effect in January. State officials expected to raise about $44 million for sexual assault prevention programs and health care for the uninsured.
Judge Scott Jenkins wrote in the March 28 decision that the fee, ''while furthering laudable goals, violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is therefore invalid.'' Lawyers for the state had said the legislature was within its rights to impose the fee on businesses that serve alcohol and offer nude performances.
Attorneys for the state have argued that the fee does not prohibit nude dancing, does not regulate what entertainers wear and does not regulate the businesses in other ways. The state will likely appeal the decision.
Should Texas fight the decision? Is stripping for money constitutional right on par with protesting a war or writing a newspaper article? Does a tax on a behavior or certain type of business really violate the First Amendment? States impose "sin taxes" on smoking and alcohol -- why not exotic dancing?
Thoughts
You know where that "tax revenue" goes?
Submitted on April 27th, 2008 by AnonymousInto corrupt politicians' pockets. Talk about sin.
Having sin taxes already
Submitted on April 13th, 2008 by AnonymousHaving sin taxes already isn't a good excuse to keep them going. They shouldn't be imposed to begin with.
1st amendment rights
Submitted on April 9th, 2008 by AnonymousWhile I find this ruling to be interesting, there is a loophole. It appears from my cursory reading that the ruling was mostly thrown out because the funds were split between the sexual abuse prevention fund and some sort of health care fund, and that the most aggregious breach of 1st amendment rights was the health care fund.
If this is the case, it is possible for the statute to be rewritten, and include language to the effect that strip clubs contribute to violence against women, and therefore deserve an additional tax.
Not sure I agree with whatever studies they pulled out to justify that linkage, but it looks like it's possible to reinstitute this.
yea
Submitted on April 8th, 2008 by Anonymousi agree completely this is a load of crap it won't stop/help anything
You're Hip When You Strip
Submitted on April 8th, 2008 by AnonymousSo the tax will make men stop objectifying women... how? Will Texas follow in the alcohol industry's footsteps and generate "ogle responsibly" ads that nobody pays attention to? Sounds like the state just wants a bigger piece of the action, to me.
Constitutional Right
Submitted on April 8th, 2008 by AnonymousYou have the right to bare arms, why not more!
Good for the Goose...Good for the Gander..
Submitted on April 8th, 2008 by catsmilerI propose a pew tax to balance the pole tax...
There is a fine line between genius and insanity...I have erased that line.
Maybe it's a safety issue...
Submitted on April 8th, 2008 by Chuck_JohnsonAfter all, everything is bigger in Texas.
Chuck Johnson is a student at Claremont McKenna College. Feel free to contact him.
Stripping = More Sexual Violence?
Submitted on April 7th, 2008 by AnonymousWhere do they get these stats? Countries with less nudity = more sexual violence. Sounds like something Democrats would try to pull, but knowing this is Texas Republicans leading the charge just shows that all political parties will try and get away with as many taxes as possible.
I wish the governemtn would stop wasting our time.
HA!
Submitted on April 7th, 2008 by AnonymousHow about this: more naked girls and less WAR! People losing their homes, economy in the toilet, endless war, and we have folks worried about boobs. Fek.