HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FL -- County Commissioners have postponed until September a decision on tough new regulations for sexually oriented businesses after a meeting that featured a capacity crowd -- many perhaps drawn by a large mailing sent by one of the commissioners -- strong opinions expressed and dueling attorneys, with the adult industry represented by First Amendment attorney Luke Lirot. On the other side of the issue was Scott Bergthold, whose law firm in Chattanooga, Tennessee, specializes in helping local governments regulate adult entertainment.

Lirot emphasized the weakness of studies which purport to show that adult businesses cause harmful secondary effects, and in particular the research Hillsborough County is relying upon to justify the new regulations.

"What I have found in reviewing the studies ... is that the vast majority of these are simply junk science," said Lirot, adding that the analysis was shallow and the assumptions wrong. He also left the Commissioners with a huge stack of scientific studies debunking the harmful secondary effects arguments.

"The county can rely on any information reasonably believed to be relevant," said Bergthold, who came armed with secondary effects studies from around the country purportedly showing increased crime and lowered property values. He also brought expert witnesses to testify, validating the studies.

Lirot also had expert witnesses present, who said the studies don't follow sound scientific methods and can be refuted by better analysis that suggests the opposite is true. The county's studies largely fail to show a cause and effect between the presence of an exotic dance club and increased crime, for instance.

The Commissioners have perhaps little to lose politically, and reportedly have hoped to pass the new regulations before the November elections. However, the county does stand to lose financially if regulations are challenged in court and fail to hold up, a point that was hammered home by Tampa area dance club owner Joe Redner, who accused board members at the hearing of being hypocrites. Redner said the new law will cost the county millions in legal challenges when the county should be dealing with more pressing issues.

"Overcrowded schools, gridlocked traffic and environmental rape," said Redner. "That's what you should be dealing with."

Some information is from Bill Varian, St. Petersburg Times, 8/17/06
See also, Jason Lanning, Bay News Channel 9, 8/16/06
For extensive background and details of the proposed regulations, see Mark Holan, The Tampa Tribune, 7/11/06

ADULT COMPANY AND CITY REACH SETTLEMENT

SPOKANE, WA -- Adult store chain World Wide Video and the Spokane City Council have agreed to enter a consent decree (which has the force of a permanent injunction) in federal court, settling a five year dispute, and requiring the stores to reduce the floor area devoted to adult material to no more than 20 percent and inventories of explicit material to no more than 25 percent. In addition, adult material must be partitioned from the rest of the business and access limited to adults. Advertisements cannot specify “triple-x” but must use the words "mature products sold here" and describe their merchandise as being for "mature audiences.”

The idea is to convert the stores, outwardly, to boutiques that emphasize non-explicit items such as clothing, gifts, lingerie and furnishings. However, a key provision of the consent decree -- and one which is no doubt seen as favorable to World Wide Video -- is that… "nothing stated herein shall be construed as a limitation on the percentage of profits of the business derived from the sale of adult oriented merchandise." Percentage of inventory laws for regulating adult stores have been seen in some communities as controversial because the stores allegedly stock inventory that may not sell, while relying on “mature product,” for primary profit lines.

In Tennessee, for example, a 2005 bill (we are not certain if it became law) would have substituted percentage of revenue for percentage of inventory to determine if a retailer meets the criteria of an adult business. Bill sponsor Senator Tim Burchett (R-Knoxville) said Tennessee adult businesses were “finding ways to evade the law” by listing adult items as less than half of their inventory.

Information is from Mike Prager, The Spokesman Review, 8/13/06
And from Mike Prager, The Spokesman Review, 8/15/06
For information on the 2005 Tennessee bill, see Nikole Dugger, The Daily Beacon, 2/22/05

ACLU WINS FIRST ROUND IN SURVEILLANCE CHALLENGE

DDETROIT, MI -- In a challenge brought by the ACLU ( ACLU v. NSA), U.S. District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor has ruled that the controversial federal government’s National Security Agency surveillance program, secretly authorized by President Bush in 2001 to conduct electronic surveillance of people within the United States, including U.S. citizens, without a warrant, violates Americans’ rights to free speech and privacy under the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, and runs counter to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act passed by Congress.

The national ACLU and the ACLU of Michigan brought the lawsuit on behalf of prominent journalists, scholars, attorneys and national nonprofit organizations who said that the NSA program is disrupting their ability to communicate effectively with sources and clients.

An analysis of the issue of “state secrets privilege” formed much of Judge Taylor’s opinion. Prior cases have often hinged on the state secrets privilege being raised by the government in the defense of a claim of illegal wiretapping. In the well-known “Pentagon Papers” case involving Daniel Ellsberg, for example, the district court denied motions to compel information from the government based on states secrets privilege. Judge Taylor did dismiss data-mining claims brought by the ACLU, stating that those could not be proven without revealing state secrets. However, she said the government did not persuasively argue that it could not defend itself against other claims of unauthorized surveillance without revealing state secrets or jeopardizing national security.

Judge Taylor permanently enjoined the surveillance program. However, the government immediately filed a notice of appeal and both parties agreed to a temporary block of Judge Taylor’s order pending a September 7 appeals court hearing in the 6th Circuit.

Carl Tobias, a constitutional scholar at the University of Richmond’s law school, said the 6th Circuit usually is sympathetic to national-security concerns.

"There are more judges on that court who come down on the national security end of the spectrum than the civil-liberties end," he said. "The majority probably would reverse this decision."

Some information is from Ron Hutchinson, Margaret Talev, McClatchy News, 8/18/06
Other information is from an ACLU press release, 8/17/06
And from Judge Taylor’s decision, ACLU v. NSA, 8/17/06
See also, K.C. Jones, TechWeb, 8/17/06