Naked women, alcohol, and dollar bills: some see great entertainment while others see a dangerous combination. For the past thirty years, the Supreme Court has agreed with the latter group and allowed the government to pass statutes regulating adult entertainment businesses like strip clubs.

This is not an issue of morality but an issue of legality. Regardless of how the public views strip clubs, it is illegal for the state to regulate them. Nude dancing is a form of expressive speech that is entitled to constitutional protection under the First Amendment, and to regulate these strip clubs is an infringement on the dancers’ right to free speech.

A proposal by the Citizens for Community Values, a grassroots organization in Ohio, does just that. The Community Defense Act would require adult entertainment establishments in Columbus, Ohio to cease operation between 12 and 6 a.m. It would also require a six-foot buffer zone between the patrons and the dancers so as to eliminate lap dances, which the organization deems as prostitution. This statute is a violation of the First Amendment and just outright ridiculous.

Since strip clubs are protected under the First Amendment right to free speech, we cannot tolerate government regulations like the Community Defense Act. If we allow the Supreme Court to hide these illegal regulations behind matters of morality, our Constitutional rights will always be in jeopardy.

First of all, the government should not be able to pick arbitrary hours of operation and expect the establishments to observe them. The statute specifically requires the clubs to close between 12am and 6am. Why not close the clubs between 3pm and 9pm? The proposal does not provide any solid justification for choosing the proposed hours. Besides, it would seem that the Citizens of Community Values would find 12am to 6am ideal business hours. If the clubs have to operate, why not when the kids are safe at home and the club’s activities are less visible to the “moral” public.

Second of all, when did lap dances become acts of prostitution? Prostitution is defined in most dictionaries as the “act of engaging in sex acts for hire.” There is not any sex involved in lap dancing. This form of dance is meant to emulate sex so that the patrons can use their imaginations to fulfill whatever fantasies they so desire. Simply put, the emulation of sex is not sex. Therefore, lap dancing does not satisfy the definition of prostitution.

This statute also alters the creative message that the dancers convey. Lap dances are a unique form of sexual speech that relies heavily on proximity to the patron. Creating a buffer zone would be like ordering an artist to paint over a nude subject because the portrait makes some people uncomfortable. The government cannot control a dancer’s movements any more than it can control a painter’s brush.

Despite the utter absurdity of the statute itself, the Community Defense Act is outright unconstitutional. Yet, the Supreme Court continues to find ways around the First Amendment and consistently rules in favor of regulations on strip clubs similar to this one proposed by the Citizens for Community Values. If there is ever a time our knowledgeable Justices get it wrong, it is when it comes to sex and the First amendment.

The Court decided the burning of selective service registration cards constituted symbolic speech in U.S. v O’Brien in 1968. In this case, the Court found O’Brien’s act to be a “communication of ideas by conduct.” How is it then that the Court continues to use this very case as justification for regulating nude dancers’ speech? As far as the First Amendment is concerned, nude dancing is no different than the burning of draft cards, and both types of symbolic speech require constitutional protection.

No exceptions for symbolic speech can be found anywhere in the plain text of the First Amendment, so why would nude dancing not find shelter under the umbrella of the Constitution? As recently as 1991, all Supreme Court Justices, except Justice Scalia, recognized nude dancing as a form of expression that merits First Amendment protection. Nude dancing, like any other form of speech, allows dancers to freely express their own ideas to others around them. Further, it allows them to do so in an artistic fashion. So what is with all the restrictions on this freedom?

The answer can be found in the “secondary effects” theory. According to Justice O’Connor, strip clubs lead to violence, sexual harassment, STDs, and public intoxication. She believes that state regulations of these establishments would lessen these adverse secondary effects.

However, countless studies (like the one used in R.V.S v Rockford, a strip club regulations case) show no adverse secondary effects associated with nude or semi-nude dancing. Instead, these studies show that it is the combination of poorly organized communities and weak establishments like bars that lead to these “secondary effects,” not naked women. Therefore, the notion of “secondary effects” is nothing more than a legal fiction used to ban an entire category of speech that makes Justice Scalia blush.

Since strip clubs are protected under the First Amendment right to free speech, we cannot tolerate government regulations like the Community Defense Act. If we allow the Supreme Court to hide these illegal regulations behind matters of morality, our Constitutional rights will always be in jeopardy. In order to protect our Constitutional liberties, we must get rid of these illegitimate statutes that endanger our ability to be free American citizens.