E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Spencer Platt / Getty Images, file
Pedestrians pass an adult store in Times Square in New York City. The state's supreme court on Thursday deemed that a set of amendments in 2001 meant to tighten the city's regulation of strip clubs, topless bars and adult video and book stores violated the constitutional protections of free speech and were unnecessary.
NEW YORK -- A New York City zoning law designed to keep adult entertainment businesses away from schools, churches and residential neighborhoods was deemed unconstitutional by a New York state judge on Thursday.
Justice Louis York of the New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan said a set of amendments in 2001 meant to tighten the city's regulation of strip clubs, topless bars and adult video and book stores violated the constitutional protections of free speech and were unnecessary.
York said adult establishments today differ from their predecessors by having less garish signage and by segregating their erotica from more mainstream parts of their business, making them less conspicuous to the public.
"These entities no longer operate in an atmosphere placing more dominance of sexual matters over non-sexual ones," York said, ruling on two lawsuits lodged by a group of adult businesses against the city.
Thursday's ruling will have the biggest effect on the dozens of bars, restaurants, book and video stores that offer adult entertainment alongside non-X-rated services.
According to The New York Times, the original 1995 city law defined an "adult establishment" as any business where more than 40 percent of its material was sexually oriented in nature.
The 1995 law helped break up clusters of sexually themed businesses and scatter them to New York City's industrial areas, the Times said. As a result, many city neighborhoods were remade and gentrified, according to the paper.
But by the end of the decade, city authorities believed that many of these outlets, often referred to as "60-40 establishments," merely kept a few shelves of non-X-rated material on their premises in order to mask the true nature of their business, according to the Times.
The 2001 amendments defined many such establishments as "adult enterprises" and barred them from operating closer than 500 feet from other sexually oriented venues, or from schools, places of worship and homes.
Current city guidelines allow venues where less than 40 percent of space or inventory is devoted to sexually explicit activities to operate anywhere in the city.
Full US news coverage on NBCNews.com
Studies don't link crime rates and strip clubs, judge says
York noted that studies presented to the court concluded that the presence of adult establishments did not increase crime rates or lower property value, as previously believed.
"Accordingly there is no need for the 2001 amendments ... they are a violation of free-speech provisions of the U.S. and state constitutions," he said.
Martin P. Mehler, a lawyer for several topless clubs in the case, told the Times that the city's defense of the 2001 amendments failed because the original rule had worked.
Stay informed with the latest headlines; sign up for our newsletter
"We have adhered to what the law was," Mehler told the Times.
"It has accomplished its goal of doing away with that tawdry atmosphere that used to exist in Times Square, and there was no need to take away a basic First Amendment right," the newspaper quoted him as saying.
The ruling was a loss for city officials who have sought to crack down on what they call "sham compliance" by venues that employ methods such as piling stacks of children's videos on the floor in order to ostensibly devote 60 percent of their inventory to non-adult material.
Tampa strip-club king: RNC not great for business
Robin Binder, deputy chief of the administrative law division of the City Law Department, said her agency would appeal the decision.
"The city's ability to regulate adult establishments is critical to preserving neighborhood quality of life," Binder said in a statement.
'That's just un-American'
Others called the ruling a triumph for freedom.
"It's wrong for a city or a state to say, 'We're banning this type of literature, and we're not going to allow you to read or see it,' " Herald Price Fahringer, an attorney for video stores represented in the lawsuits, told the Times.
"That's just un-American," the newspaper quoted him as saying.
Reuters contributed to this report.
More content from NBCNews.com:
- Ex-Navy SEAL: Book on bin Laden raid about 9/11, not politics
- Tough-minded judge assigned to take over George Zimmerman case
- One of most dangerous cities in US plans to ditch police force
- Ex-Marine Angela Madsen on her journey from homelessness to the Paralympics
- Dam collapse feared due to Isaac; thousands flee
Follow US News from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
Old man Potter must be happy. "Bedford Falls" needs another George Bailey.
Job creators, all of them. Let the clothes fly!
Hummmmmmmmmmmmmm .. You can't "zone out" porn ... but you can regulate large cups of soda pop?~~~~~~ LOL ...
BULL@!$%#! Something is seriously wrong in the "Big Apple" and its not the porn ..... It's the idea that you have to save everybody from something!
Why don't you try and save us from the "Wall Street" crooks that operate with impunity in your city?
It is all Bloomberg. The little Napolean will get his drink law revoked, but it will take time. And little Bloomberg wants a law that says you can't smoke cigarettes, even in your own home. Little Bloomberg ran as a Republican, and then decided to become independent because, likely, the Republican party didn't put his name next to theirs.
He's on a third term because he broke NY law with the help of insiders. Citizens in NY didn't even get a voice, and yet they re-elected him. They have only themselves to blame.
This is to be expected when you have judges who are porn and sexaholics!
Another example of Big Government trying to control the lives of people who want to be left alone.
Instead of devoting so much legal resources to 'fight' adult shops, NYC should investigage the corrupt politicians, WallSt bankers, and NY police who are abusing their power and riping-off the public.
Is there anything more obscene than our eyes being assaulted by advertising everywhere we look?
Do you really, honestly, think these laws are protecting anyone? Your adolescent son will see more weiners, vaginas and titties on his home computer than could possibly be seen by chance at all the adult stores in manhattan put together. Makes me laugh!
I could agree with keeping porn shops away from school areas, although kids these days have access to far more porn with more privacy on the internet than my generation thought existed forty years ago. But I think that restricting these establishments from residential neighborhoods and especially churches is going too far. The freedom of expression protection given by the first amendment was not intended to protect only socially acceptable expression but all expression. Anything standard less than that is opening Pandora's box for this group to ban this kind of expression and that group to ban that kind of expression. If there aren't various interest groups whining that the 1st amendment is protecting stuff they think should be banned, it isn't working properly. Personally, I would love to see an ordinance banning churches from operating within 500 (heck, let's go for 2000) feet from my house. But I'm not going to demand it.
The freedom of expression protection DOES NOT say where you can express yourself. I don't get how the right to free speech trumps our ability to have peaceful, tasteful residential areas without being subjected to smut.
"The freedom of expression protection given by the first amendment was not intended to protect only socially acceptable expression but all expression."
All expression? Our 18th century founders spoke of various freedoms in relation to maintaining good government, social order, and the benefits thereof. The 1st Amendment doesn't protect "socially unacceptable" expression, it protects a diversity of expression which some may find disagreeable. Protected are freedoms of religion, speech, and the press. We have the right to be religious (or not), and the right to support or criticize politicians, political bills, and governments.
You cannot seriously say that our founders intended by the 1st Amendment to protect porn shops, whore houses, strip clubs, etc. These things would have been deemed socially unacceptable in the 18th century, as existing on the margins of society. Such "protection" was interpreted and afforded to them almost 200 years later. I am not opposed to adult entertainment venues, but having districts for them does not deprive anyone of their use.
I don't get how the right to free speech trumps our ability to have peaceful, tasteful residential areas without being subjected to smut
Because its your opinion that it is "smut". I call all organized religions "smut" but I am not trying to ban them because other people think they are great and they like I have freedoms. You should read the old saying first they came for the.....
It could have something to do with the wording of the Constitution. You know, that part that says "no law abridging freedom of speech" instead of "no law abridging freedom of speech, except where I don't like it."
You cannot seriously say that our founders intended by the 1st Amendment to protect porn shops, whore houses, strip clubs, etc.
Back then it was chic to go to Whore houses and one of the biggest attendees was ben Franklin. He was notorious in france for it. They wanted to protect free speech because it is more important to do so than cater to the goody two shoes idiots that think sexually explicit literature and fils etc is only enjoyed by pervs. back long ago in Cincy there was a railer agaist pornography who made a big deal of closing shops like this. later it was found he had one of the largest collections of so called porn ever.
"Because its your opinion that it is "smut". I call all organized religions "smut" but I am not trying to ban them because other people think they are great and they like I have freedoms."
Actually, communities HAVE told people that they can't build churches or places of worship in certain places, and I know of two instances in which communities have made it illegal for churches to ring bells (that bother the neighbors) at certain times, despite the fact that the church buildings were there first, with apartment buildings coming later. This doesn't equate to "banning religion" any more than having adult entertainment venues in certain areas equates to "banning" them. I can't keep goats and chickens in my back yard, per a city ordinance. Are my freedoms abridged thereby?
Nikolaus20:
"I can't keep goats and chickens in my back yard, per a city ordinance. Are my freedoms abridged thereby?"
Yes, your freedoms are being abridged by the city. Instead of addressing the actual concerns of having animals (noise, waste, etc.), the cities ban them completely.
I've never had a problem with women showing someone their boobs. What is a concern are the boobs that come to see the boobs who are into all sort of destructive activity- like illegal intoxicants, violence of various kinds, etc.
Minors are not allowed to purchase or rent porn. So they are a non-factor in these laws.
@nikolaus20:
'You cannot seriously say that our founders intended by the 1st Amendment to protect porn shops, whore houses, strip clubs, etc.'
on the contrary you are way off the mark. obvoiusly they were no porn shops but they definitely had the whorehouses and historically one could expect to see the mayor, sheriff or any other person of import in the local brothel on any given night.
So can bullies rely on the free speech loophole?
Excellent point, Janellect!!
Janellect -
Your right to swing your arm ends at the point of my nose.
@ Janellect: As much as the person who yells fire! in a crowded theatre, which is to say, no.
"Free Speech" and " Business" are two separate issues here... and the police powers of the state are the only reason that government has a right to rule us in this area ... Health, Safety, and General Welfare ... Zoning laws are part of the legitimate police powers ...
( By the way, I believe that "porn" is legitimate free speech) BUT the state has legitimate discretionary powers to control where businesses that sell or distribute it are located as long as it is "fair & impartial" and does not discriminate against it because of content .. ie .. you couldn't deny a porn shop to operate in the same zoning classification as a bookstore; While You could discriminate against it from operating in a residential neighborhood ... (general welfare)
There is historical president for this .. Why would we not take into account the sensitivities of our neighbors in this regard ... while it might be appropriate to put a mosque adjacent to a catholic church, it may not be fitting to put a whore house or bar in between them! ..
Do we as citizens throw fuel on a burning fire?
I think all can agree that a Pig farm adjacent to our homes could present a "health hazard" and that pig farms shouldn't be allowed in high density residential neighborhoods ... (Although with contemporary technology we could do it safely without any health hazards, vertically) should we find that as a excuse to bring pig farms and the @!$%# that accompanies it to Downtown NY?
Some people oppose porn and think of it as "garbage" .. that's their right .. just as you have a right to read it ... But does that give us the right under the "Freedom of Speech" clause to convert that to commercial enterprises in their neighborhood to rub their noses in it?
I think not ... This was a BAD decision!
@Catzenjammer ... if you ever launch that campaign, sign me up!
nickolas20:
You're making a 'straw man' argument. Your including the operation of a whore house, illegal in most jurisdiction, within 1st Amendment is specious.
Denver Bill,
"It could have something to do with the wording of the Constitution. You know, that part that says "no law abridging freedom of speech" instead of "no law abridging freedom of speech, except where I don't like it.""
This was a pathetic and lame post. Not to mention wildly inaccurate. No one was trying to abridge anything. They were simply requiring that the free expression take place in a specific area. You know, like they set aside protest areas during the conventions???? There are many more examples that could be cited, but it's sufficient to say that case law has made clear for many, many years, that this IS NOT unconstitutional. Please, try to understand what you're writing about.
ValidViewpoint: "free expression take place in a specific area"
And what be your definition of such "free expression" that belongs in a specific area, pray tell?
* A public service announcement telling people to move over for emergency vehicles?
* A solicitation to gather money to save Pandas?
* A billboard advertising Dr. Pepper?
* A billboard advertising Hooters?
* Girls in G-strings telling you to come into the Mustang Ranch?
* A catholic church?
Since you're the constitutional expert, could you show me in the first amendment where it says the line is supposed to be drawn?
Hey, I'd be totally cool with it if we DID live in a society where all repugnant speech (starting with the Catholic Church) is relegated to small areas outside of Reno, but I didn't think the first amendment granted me that right?
Borlock Guy,
You took the words right out of my mouth. Nobody with an ounce of sense would make the claim that freedom of speech is absolute and unfettered. The limits on 1st Amendment rights are being adjudicated on a fairly constant basis, and thus rest in part on shifting sand. However, people like ValidViewpoint, whose only criteria seems to be "I want a peaceful, tasteful residential area", never seem to realize that their NIMBY attitude, if applied universally, would mean adult venues, halfway houses, homes for the mentally ill, etc. would not exist.
Denver, halfway houses and homes are a level above, don't you think? Or is having a sex club in your neighborhood just as important?
My contribution to the discussion concerns 1st Amendment rights and restrictions, not the relative merits of halfway houses compared to sex clubs. Since I frequent neither halfway houses nor sex clubs, I don't have a dog in that fight. But thanks for asking.
denver, I missed your point... you did mention halfway houses, but now I'm not sure why. People can spin free speech all they want, but that's what this is about (and most business, too)... a big spin.
This idiot based his judgement on how these establishments look on the outside! He must be a pervert himself if he believes that "less garish" signage means these businesses should be more deeply embedded in our communities. I think he just earned himself a lifetime free admission.
These businesses should be allowed to operate anywhere other businesses are allowed to operate. What they sell should make no difference.
Funny how freedom of speech only applies to our basest levels of society. Don't they get their panties in a bunch when religious speech is promoted. They stamp their feet and pout that someone is offending them by talking abot God and they don't want to be assaulted with anyone else's views. But give them T&A and they don't care about anyone else's personal space. Oh well, that is the shape of society today. Guess our kids will just have to learn that it is okay for porn shops to exist next door to their playground since sex is perfectly normal. We reap what we sow.
I agree with you in part, but will say that sex has ALWAYS been perfectly "normal". I think you meant something else?
Ginger, Porn shops and strip clubs do not come to your door to tell you you should go "worship" there. With the exception of Las Vegas, I have not seen people standing on the corner shouting at passers by that they're going to hell if they don't visit Go-go-rama and tithe to the god of silicone implants. I fully accept and stand behind their rights to stand there, and MY rights to walk away from them. If an Imam should stand at that same corner and preach Alahu Akbar(spit), it is their right in this country. They are allowed to under the same constitution that gives the Christian preacher that right of free speech, as does the porn shops they might be in front of while preaching.
The problem with this law is it being so broad. Making it illegal to be with in 500 feet of another adult business, school, home or church meant it would pretty much require them to be in a remote area outside the city. It's really just an attempt to eliminate them not altogether.
Ginger,
"We reap what we sow."
There is a little porn shop near where I live. It was there when I moved here 31 years ago, and it is still there now. I don't know how long it had been there before I moved here, just that it was already there. In those past 31 years, I have seen numerous other businesses come and go, family oriented video stores, supermarkets, dentists' and doctors' offices etc. I have seen more businesses come into and go out of business than I can recall, but that little porno shop is still there, and I'm begining to think it will be there until the end of time. It seems to be the only stable business establishment in the neighborhood. Apparently, "adults" love that sort of thing, and it is they who keep these places in business. So who are we to complain? They will be will us as long as there are "adults".
Larry ... I agree with you. I also have to ask why churches deserve such special protection? Perhaps the law should be that churches can't open within 500 feet of a porn shop.
OBVIOUSLY the Judge is an equal pervert and must have their time to as equality under the perverts lst amend rights like the US SUpereme Court. EVIL vs One Nation Under GOD
Harbinger warned, direct from G O D...
"Obviously" to you. I'd like to see porn shops restricted to certain areas in communities, but your rant is just plain nuts, laced with words like "pervert" and "evil". And FYI, the "under God" phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance was added in 1954. We have never been "one nation UNDER GOD". We have always been a nation in which citizens could worship and believe AS THEY PLEASE.
Nikowhatevere - Obviously YOU don't understand what pervert, evil, abnormal, immoral, smut, and porn is, and any person or court thats supports any decision or law to maintain the behavior or existence of all the above is just as bad. Contrary to your scewed sense of history, this nation WAS founded under God, and most of the major religions during the founding of this nation believed in a Judeu-Christian GOD. Were the Pilgrims Muslim? Was Jamestown founded by Hindus? Were any signers of the Declaration of Independance and Bill of Rights Buddhist? The fact of the matter is that his country then, and now, is mostly a Judeu-Christian based nation. In the past, those that didn't believe as the majority were allowed to worship "As they pleased" only to the point that their beliefs didn't conflict with the majority population. If they DID, they were forced to assimilate or wiped out. Maybe the old ways were best!
Benjamin Franklin did not take religion seriously for himself. But he did know that he could get the clergy behind him if he threw them some cash once in a while. Franklin was a prominent figure in the early days of the country. There WERE in fact, people of various religions in colonial America. Freemasons' influence was significant. There were people who didn't take religion seriously for themselves, but knew there was power and money to be had by putting on a show of piety- JUST LIKE NOW!!!
JP-345944
What is perverted evil abnormal immoral smut and porn for one is not necessarily for the other. A little over 100 years ago it was scandalous for a woman to show a bare ankle and it was considered perverted, evil abnormal immoral. So it would appear your line applies more to YOU than Nikolaus20. In some cultures it is immoral for a woman to show her face or any part of her body to anyone other than her husband. Get away from your keyboard and get out and see life... it's changed since 1900.
It was only about 30 years ago, or so when you didn't see tampons, etc. advertised on tv, nor did you see women in their panties and bras being advertised by Victoria Secret, etc. This country has lightened up quite a bit I would say. I am a church-goer, and believer but I will readily admit I also read Playboy. Yes, some would perhaps consider me a hypocrite but I don't go around preaching to non-believers that they are going to hell unless they try to tell me I'm wrong.
JP-345944
"Nikowhatevere - Obviously YOU don't understand what pervert, evil, abnormal, immoral, smut, and porn is, and any person or court thats supports any decision or law to maintain the behavior or existence of all the above is just as bad. Contrary to your scewed sense of history, this nation WAS founded under God, and most of the major religions during the founding of this nation believed in a Judeu-Christian GOD. Were the Pilgrims Muslim? Was Jamestown founded by Hindus? Were any signers of the Declaration of Independance and Bill of Rights Buddhist? The fact of the matter is that his country then, and now, is mostly a Judeu-Christian based nation."
Couldn't be bothered to type my whole name, JP, but you could dismissively type: "Nikowhatever"? My sense of history isn't "screwed". Yours most certainly is. Most of the first Americans may have been Christians, but our founders didn't found a Christian nation. Not ONE WORD of our Constitution mentions "Christian" or "Jesus". Nor was our nation founded on Christian principles, and I challenge to to name ONE that is specifically Christian.
The Bible tells people to be obedient to their king, and servants to be obedient to their masters. If anything, it supports the ideals of monarchists. Scripture does NOT speak of "rights" or of the freedoms that we cherish as Americans. Our founders were mainly DEISTS. They believed in a Creator, may have identified as Christian, but not in any sense that prompted them to found a nation based on Christian principles.
Then you say:
"In the past, those that didn't believe as the majority were allowed to worship "As they pleased" only to the point that their beliefs didn't conflict with the majority population. If they DID, they were forced to assimilate or wiped out. Maybe the old ways were best!"
Are you freaking serious? Your mentality is more of a threat to our way of life than porn shops will ever be. People ARE allowed to worship a they please, your approval is not required or demanded. Assimilate or be wiped out my foot. Catholics, Puritans, and other groups spent centuries wiping each other out, forcing people to assimilate. You know nothing, and say that MY sense of history is "screwed".
Another mis-use of the 1st Amendment to justify actions that may be socially and morally reprehensable and disgusting - certainly never the intention of those who wrote it. Amazing ow every time a group is unable to prove or justify to society why their actions/statements arent below the level of pond scum they wrap themselves in the 1st Amendment and claim they are persecuted/denied their rights under it.
Wow! Its nice to meet someone who has to be what about 250 years old right? You seem to know what our founding fathers meant when they created the Bill of Rights so you were there? Wow! Did George wear his best wooden teeth at the convention? Did Tommy bring his baby momma with him? Did your have to pry the mug of ale from Johnny's hand so he could sign it? The reason you can gripe that the extremeists get the breaks under the first Amendment is because the "normal" free speech that we all enjoy is not under assault(contrary to the tin foil hat conspiracy nutbags who blog). Enjoy the fact that you can freely gripe about this without worrying about a late night stop from the secret police, and realize that it is the fringes that help keep the "normal" free speech safe.
Loose cannon - your argument would get you a punkin ball to the head 250 years ago by ANY of the founding fathers whose guidance STILL rules this country today! If you ever took a Civics or Social Studies class you would KNOW what they meant. It is apparant that you did not, and your comments have about as much substance as pork methane. It is NOT the fringe that helps keep free speech and the Bill of Rights strong, it's mainstream Americans that still know the difference between right and wrong, moral and immoral, and normal and abnormal. Go take your view to San Francisco where you will find an audience that I'm sure agrees with you!
And from the vacuous wastes come the haters. The "I know what the founding fathers really meant" dictator wannabee who just throws out troll-like hate and thinks that would change my opinion or someone else's who reads this. Thank you for prooving with your own words how small minded, petty, self-serving, and WRONG your comment is. I would respond to any point you might have, but as usual, no substance. Just the vague statement of: " It is NOT the fringe that helps keep free speech and the Bill of Rights strong, it's mainstream Americans that still know the difference between right and wrong, moral and immoral, and normal and abnormal." So the "normal you speak of..... is that normal from Chicago? Little Rock? Are we talking west coast normal or east coast? Big city normal or small town normal? Is this normal from a multi-generation American family, or a new immigrant family? The only "normal" is as individual as the person who claims it, ala there is NO SET NORMAL in America except WITHIN THE LAW!!! That is why the extreme free speech protects the "normal" views by setting into law what IS the extreme. But to haters like yourself, your way is the only "normal" there is. A pea brained idea from a pea brain.
I've read statements made by the Taliban that were less radical than you. How about you just stone them evil doers.
JP-345944
the "moral majority" is neither.
The First Amendment has no value if it protects only popular viewpoints and speech.
JP you are talking about the churches right? They do tend to whine about being persecuted when they don't get their way.
Most town and cities used to have red-light districts. Everybody knew what they were for. Those who wanted to visit them, did so. But they stayed in that district and kept out of the neighborhoods.
This ruling, and others like it, leaves no choice. And thus it takes away our freedom.
How does it take away your freedoms? You can choose to frequent these places or not. No one is forcing you to enter or spend money and they generally don't spill into the streets. Or is your concern that you can't see your neighbor going into one because you don't know which establishment they are visiting? Or perhaps you are afraid that you will come out of one and a neighbor will see you where as before they would not visit that area of town and catch you there?
In a case in PA recently, a small farmer can't sell her produce on her farm, because it is zoned against it, but we can't POSSIBLY zone against segregating this stuff - 2 faced.
Sometimes, you really have to wonder where these judges come from, and who they are working for?
Anybody that thinks this is a good ruling has no common sense at best or is a moron at worst. To think that there is ANY reason to allow porn, sex entertainment shops, and adult shops near schools, churches, or residential areas is the stuff of abject lunacy, unless of course the culture and society wants to grow a bunch of immoral adults with no values or decency. The argument for red light districts is moot; most red light districts in the past were stuck in the areas where kids didn't walk by every morning on their way to school or across the streets from places where people worshiped. This ruling smacks of bribery and pay-off, for the sex traffickers and underworld folks that are often behind this kind of "entertainment" have more $$$ to buy high-priced lawyers than the local elementary school board. This is sick, and I'd like to see the courts that support this smut get the same kind of treatment they would have gotten about 100 years ago - tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail. Same goes with the folks that support them. Do I sound rigid - you're damn right. It's about time this sort of crap stopped! Want to know why - just take a trip to Detroit and see what happens when morals go out the window and crime, corruption, and cultural rot take over.
Sieg Heil!! Herr JP. Why don't you run for office if this view is so popular? Why don't you become one of these judges you hate so much? Could it be that you would not get elected? Your attitude smacks of the backward thinking of 100 years ago so maybe you should try to build a time machine to travel back to the time you think was so wonderful. You know Jim Crow laws, no woman can vote, industrial monoplies crushing compitition and child labor. Yea, bring back the good ol' days right? Sieg Heil! Seig Heil!
You may want to wipe your mouth, I think some crazy leaked out, you sexually repressed wackjob.
Fortunately the Founding Fathers that you seem to think you know so well knew of, had to deal with and despised your kind too. Your backward, sexually-repressed, puritanical, my way or the highway sense of self entitlement and moral superiority is EXACTLY why the Constitution and Bill of Rights includes the protections that it does. To save our society from the likes of YOU.
You can get instant access to porn online nowadays, so why even worry about buying the printed matter in the first place? Young people know what porn is, and more clergy are getting caught in compromising sexual situations on a daily basis. Separating 'adult establishments' from other 'adult establishments' is sort of stupid, as well, since they offer the same basic product. New York will sink to its own level of depravity, regardless of what stiff-necked laws their government manages to pass, so just back off and let those people live their own lifestyle. No wonder the religious extremists love to live there.
It would be interesting to know where the lawyers came up with documentation that "adult" establishments don't negatively impact property values. If a porn shop or strip club operates in a neighborhood, I would not want to buy a house and move my family there and I think I am in the majority where this is concerned, if that is so, then the property values in the area would have to decrease. How does restricting the location of these establishments deprive anyone of their rights? Those who are inclined to frequent them will seek them out no matter where they are located.
As to protecting our children from exposure to sexy material, I think our society couldn't be more hypocritical where such things are concerned. Just think about the garbage put together and broadcast into your home and then consider the proliferation of sex related material on the Internet.
What really gets me is that our society freaks out over sex but violence is glorified every day. There used to be statistics that spoke to the number of violent acts children were exposed to through, cartoons, (no more Popeye) movies and television shows, now days, it seems no one even thinks about it except in the aftermath of a mass casualty event like the increasingly common mass shootings that mystify everyone!
Zoning ordinances are designed to protect people, property values as well as reduce conflicts within communities. When adult establishments are located near churches, the opportunity for people of differing views to interact increases and consequently the chance of conflict is increased. When adult establishments are located near schools there are increased risks for children attending that school (someone will, no doubt challenge this assertion) as people focused on sex are drawn into the area of the school the chance of a child encountering a sexual predator increases.
Keeping adult oriented establishments out of neighborhoods, away from schools or churches helps keep people safe and in no way violates anyone's first amendment right to view or purchase the products such establishments offer.
The judge got it wrong, in fact calling this individual a judge disparages the meaning of the term! Such statements as the one I just wrote would be considered "contempt" were they uttered in a court of law. The so called "judge" in this case is in contempt of society and ought to be held accountable for disregarding the safety of the community under his jurisdiction. IMHO
Yes, I would love to see this property study. I have a feeling it basically takes impoverished areas and measures the impact on property within that area. You can be certain HE does not want a porn shop NEXT to his house.
Well at least we now know how much NY cares for children. Glad I am not raising mine there....
I object to the notion of letting my child see the edible panties and super 18 inch dongs that come out of those places. I don't want to have to explain that.
And I object having to explain why all those people are coming out of buildings after praying to their mythical sky daddy.
Operating a strip club or porn shop near a school hardly consitiutes freedom of speech. Check your watch. It won't be more than a few minutes before this wrongheaded decision by a state judge will be overturned.
I love smut!
the funny part is kids can look up free porn on the internet.and probubly during school hrs.s..t,i got ripped off as a kid.
WOW, another reason to not live in or do business with NYC. One big depraved Big Apple.
The reasoning behind this court ruling defies human common sense. But where has common sense ever been used in the law?
And the East Coast states think the South has a slanted view of the law.
Gee... I should go back to school.
Also, I notice an upsurge in foreign operated X-rated stores. Many of the operators are East Indian! This is no 7-11.
There should be a law banning churches from being anywhere near a school, they are far more dangerous than x rated book stores.
Yep, those preverted priests who want to fondle little boys, all while their parents give money to the church
Oh yeah, non-religious people who use porn don't fondle little boys, right?
I hope Times Square doesn't go back downhill to where it was in the 1970's. What a pit it was!!
Why should it? The judge's ruling upholds the law (the 60/40 rule) as it has existed for more than 10 years.
outrageous .... let's just lure the predators to our children... Children see that on the way to school?
smh
And to keep them extra safe let's keep the kids out of church since all priests are pedos.
See what I did there?
This is a victory for freedom. Zoning laws are Nazi laws!!
Give me porn. If I have to walk past a church or school yard to make a purchase I will.
So, who got "paid off" to make this stupid decision? Fire him/her now! And let's start over.
Judge is a regular at Scores, lol
The false perception that strip clubs increase crime rates is kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy in some cities where adult entertainment facilities are forcefully zoned into high crime areas. This has always perplexed me as these clubs usually bring in a lot of business which includes tourist dollars.