The Nevada Supreme Court has heard oral arguments in the Las Vegas City Council's appeal of a district judge's order that threw out a city ordinance that bars dancers from "fondling or caressing" to sexually arouse a patron.
A recent Associated Press story said that during arguments, Deputy City Attorney Ed Poleski agreed that dancers have a constitutionally protected right to express themselves artistically, but said the words "fondle or caress" are clear, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has found that the terms are "not unconstitutionally vague."
"You can express yourselves, but you can't touch patrons in a manner intended to be sexually arousing," Poleski told the Associated Press.
"Why is the patron there?" challenged Justice Bill Maupin.
In a similar vein, Justice Nancy Becker commented that the purpose of the clubs and of such things as lap dances is sexual arousal of the customer. "Frankly, I don't know what other purpose there is to a lap dance," she said.
The story concluded by reporting that attorney Jonathan Powell, representing the dancers, said the confusion the Justices feel is exactly why the issue is before the court. He said the law isn't clear enough that dancers and patrons or even police know where the line is.
