Nevada Can Ban Brothel Ads, 9th Circuit Rules

[pornlaw]

Not a good decision for our industry...

http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/11/25500.htm

Legal brothels in Nevada cannot publicly advertise under the protection of the First Amendment because prostitution is a "vice" with unique social and legal characteristics that must be regulated by the state, the 9th Circuit ruled.

The publishers of two Nevada newspapers that circulate in areas where prostitution is illegal, and the owner of a legal brothel sued Nevada for being too strict in regulating the advertising of prostitution.

The district court ruled that the state's advertising restrictions were unconstitutional because they reach beyond pure commercial speech. The court concluded that the state failed to offer any compelling interest in support of its policy.

Nevada appealed, and the 9th Circuit reversed the district court's ruling based on the state's position that it is largely interested in regulating "the commodification of sex," according the ruling.

"Taking into account the quite unique characteristics, legal and social, of prostitution, we conclude that Nevada's regulatory scheme is consistent with the First Amendment," the three-judge panel ruled.

The newspaper publishers claimed that what they proposed was the advertising of nothing more than information regarding a "commercial transaction," which is protected by free speech, and that the state's restrictions single out the advertising of prostitution and place it wrongfully under "strict scrutiny."

The San Francisco-based appeals panel disagreed and ruled that the state's regulations might target commercial speech, but that in the case of sex-related activities, legislators have the authority to place greater restrictions because they are generally disfavorable and so should be treated differently.

"Whether the law ought to treat sex as something, like babies and organs, that is 'market-inalienable,' or instead should treat it as equivalent to the sale of physical labor, is a question much contested among legal academics and philosophers," the panel acknowledged.

Circuit Judge Marsha Berzon wrote that a strong reason for agreeing with the state's position "derives from the degree of disfavor in which prostitution is held in our society.

"Forty-nine of all fifty states today prohibit all sales of sexual services," she wrote. "The federal government recognizes the link between prostitution and trafficking in women and children, a form of modern day slavery."

Circuit Judge John Noonan [pictured] concurred, stating that "the United States may constitutionally suppress speech that offers sexual intercourse for sale."

[seeric]

i'd rather have people in vegas hotels googling for paysites that calling hookers. keep the money on the web.

lol.

[Klen]

Originally Posted by seeric

i'd rather have people in vegas hotels googling for paysites that calling hookers. keep the money on the web.

lol.

Cost of paysite -30$ monthly
Cost of hooker one hour -500$ and more for extras
I think we have a winner here

[seeric]

i see michael's point. i'm just making a funny.

[MaDalton]

they should ban the annoying mexicans with their handouts instead

[Nikki_Licks]

Thats crazy! Have you seen the yellow pages for escorts in Vegas. I think they have more escorts than doctors......

[DateDoc]

While they should be allowed to advertise it is kind of odd to see a school bus sitting at a traffic light next to a yellow cab that has a huge ad for a whorehouse strapped to its roof.

[amacontent]

Maybe everyone in the entire US should just stay in thier house, lock the doors, use no electricity. Talk to no one Sit with their hands folded fully dressed. But im sure law would be made to fuck that up

[BestXXXPorn]

The main reason all this stuff is going down right now is that man has now been conditioned to place emotions and feelings over logic and reason...

[Va2k]

Originally Posted by amacontent

Maybe everyone in the entire US should just stay in thier house, lock the doors, use no electricity. Talk to no one Sit with their hands folded fully dressed. But im sure law would be made to fuck that up

Shit with the way things are heading it's only a matter of time before this becomes law!

[pornlaw]

Any decision abridging the First Amendment based upon the commercial nature of sexual speech is not a good situation for this industry. Especially coming from the Ninth Circuit which includes California.

This case might be limited to just brothels, but since I havent read the decision, it concerns me that it might be applied to any advertising even for web based sites.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

Any decision abridging the First Amendment based upon the commercial nature of sexual speech is not a good situation for this industry. Especially coming from the Ninth Circuit which includes California.

This case might be limited to just brothels, but since I havent read the decision, it concerns me that it might be applied to any advertising even for web based sites.

Prostitution is illegal and state controlled in the few places it is not. Porn is none of the above. Besides, advertising porn sites in newspapers is probably not a very good ROI.

[pornlaw]

Originally Posted by baddog

Prostitution is illegal and state controlled in the few places it is not. Porn is none of the above. Besides, advertising porn sites in newspapers is probably not a very good ROI.

You're right BUT it depends on how the opinion is written. Anytime a federal court decides to limit free speech and it involves sex - it could be used in any manner of ways against this industry.

And here's some quotes from the decision that bother me...prostitution is bad for marriage... lets curtail free speech to protect the institution of marriage...

The network of laws setting off married couples
from unmarried individuals testifies to the central role of sexual
intercourse in civil society in Nevada as elsewhere in the
United States. Nevada?s interest in preventing advertisements
for the sale of an activity central to the domestic life of its
inhabitants does not need to be spoken by its attorney general.
Its interest is stated in its statutes.

And here is the slippery slope ... why stop at sex for sale....

The answer, implicit in Judge
Berzon?s opinion, is that California, Arizona, or the United
States may constitutionally suppress speech that offers sexual
intercourse for sale.

Apparently the selling of sex services ... which this industry is founded on does not sit well with these judges...

Though attitudes towards the sale of sexual services
have continued to change and evolve since the early twentieth
century, this history reinforces the conclusion that Nevada?s
objection is genuinely to the buying and selling of sex. Banning
commodification of sex entirely is a substantial policy
goal that all states but Nevada have chosen to adopt.

Well here's a link to the entire decision if anyone wants to read it...

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...1/07-16633.pdf

[Iron Fist]

Interesting....