foot rule of Kent, Wash. has been allowed to stand. A divided federal appeals court panel recently upheld the 1996 law which requires a buffer zone of 10 feet between nude dancers and patrons. The court ruled 2-1 that the law does not violate First Amendment free expression rights. \n The law was challenged by three people soon after it was passed. The plaintiffs said the law had the effect of preventing them from opening a non-alcoholic nightclub. \n The suit, Colacurcio v. City of Kent, argued that the law was content-based because it simply picked out a type of free expression that it found offensive and then made it illegal. It also argued that table dancing is not the same as stage dancing and is entitled to its own guarantee of free expression. \n The city said it was not outlawing nude dancing but just regulating the appropriate time, place and manner in which it can be performed. \n Even if that was true, responded the plaintiffs, there were less restrictive ways of making sure no improper sexual conduct occurred. The buffer could be reduced to one foot or the city could pass a no-touch law, they said. \n In the end, the court majority agreed with the city. The court said Kent, Wash. did not have to find the least restrictive way of preventing sexual contact and that it would leave the "fine tuning" of the law to the city council. \n The two-judge majority said the 10-foot buffer doesn't make it impossible for the nude dancers to express themselves or for the audience to receive their message. The majority said the test of the law is whether a business can operate under it, not whether the business will be profitable. \n The dissenting judge, Stephen Reinhardt, said the ruling discriminates among types of free expression because it makes table dancing illegal even though expert witnesses said table dancing conveys different messages than stage dancing.
All models were at least 18 years old at the time of their performance. 18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement.
