Brothel ad raises constitutional issue

Sito Negron

Monday, Nov. 10, 2003 | 11:23 a.m.

Pahrump's "world-famous" Chicken Ranch Brothel apparently violated state law with an advertisement in a free Las Vegas weekly newspaper. The ad trumpets "legal licensed courtesans."

However, the lawyer representing the Chicken Ranch says the law -- which bans advertising prostitution in a county where such activity is illegal -- is unconstitutional.

"It was a law that was enacted several decades ago," said Allen Lichtenstein. "Since that time the U.S. Supreme Court has made rulings on commercial speech that clearly indicate that even with a privilege license, where the government can completely ban a particular activity, once that activity is allowed the government does not have the right to ban truthful speech about that legal activity."

Lichtenstein said he did not know if the Chicken Ranch planned to continue advertising. Ken Green, president of the Chicken Ranch, declined to comment on his plans.

Geoff Schumacher, editor and publisher of the Las Vegas Mercury, the weekly in which the quarter-page ad appeared, said early Monday that running it was a mistake. He referred further comment to the paper's lawyer, Mark Hinueber, who was not available by deadline.

Violation of the state law banning such ads is punishable by up to six months in county jail and a fine of up to $1,000. It's addressed in both Nevada Revised Statutes 201.430 and 201.440, and the laws appear to hold both the brothel and the venue in which the ad appeared liable for the infraction.

Deputy District Attorney Ronald Bloxham said his office has not received any complaints about the ad.

"We'll just watch for it and see if anything develops," he said. "This would be a misdemeanor we would prosecute locally, and the (attorney general's) office would be notified since an issue of constitutionality exists."

Tom Sargent, spokesman for the Nevada aAttorney general, said his office has not heard about the ad yet.

"Now that it's on our radar screen, we'll be on the lookout for it," he said.

Under 201.430, placing such an ad is unlawful for "any owner, operator, agent or employee of a house of prostitution," or anyone acting on their behalf, and "it is unlawful for any person knowingly to prepare or print" such a notice. Under 201.440, "it is unlawful for any person, company, association or corporation" to knowingly allow any person representing a brothel to advertise.

Bloxham said a prosecution would begin with an investigation, "to find out who we could charge."

"(From) a clear reading of that, it would appear we would prosecute the person placing the ad if we had all the appropriate facts," Bloxham said. "Could we prosecute the newspaper? That's a little tougher."

Lichtenstein said that although prostitution is not legal in Las Vegas, advertising for a legal business is protected speech everywhere, including Las Vegas. He said the business would fight any attempt to prosecute it over the advertising.

"It's a little bit like saying because car dealerships are not allowed in residential areas the newspaper supplements that announce sales can't be in the newspapers that are delivered to homes."