Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
AP Photo/Isaac Brekken
The Shady Lady Ranch brothel is pictured Monday, Jan. 18, 2010, in Beatty.
Thursday, March 11, 2010 | 12:01 p.m.
Reader poll
Sun Archives
CARSON CITY – A federal appeals court has ruled that Nevada has the right to ban certain advertisements of legal brothels, saying it doesn't violate the First Amendment of free speech.
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 27-page opinion, said “Nevada has tailored its restrictions on advertising to attain a reasonable fit between ends and means.”
The decision overturns the ruling of Federal District Judge James Mahan of Las Vegas who held the state did not have the right to impose the restrictions on advertisements.
The suit challenging the limits on advertisements was brought by the Las Vegas CityLife newspaper in Las Vegas, the High Desert Advocate in Wendover and by Bobbi Davis, who operates the Shady Lady Ranch brothel in Nye County.
George Flint, a spokesman for the Nevada Brothel Owners Association, said he doubted the ruling by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals would have much effect.
Flint said the brothels, since winning a ruling in the district court in Las Vegas, haven't aggressively promoted an advertising campaign. He said the depressed economy has hurt the brothels and they don’t have as much money to advertise.
Brothels have been permitted in some of Nevada’s rural counties, but the state law prohibits these licenses from being issued in Clark and Washoe counties.
The state law prohibits brothels from advertising in any county where the sale of sexual services is prohibited by state law or local ordinance. And in counties that permit houses of prostitution, advertisements can't be shown in any public theater, on the public streets of any city or town or on any public highway.
C. Wayne Howle, solicitor general in the state Attorney General’s Office, said the opinion is “well studied.” He argued the case before the appeals court in February 2009.
Judge Mahan, in his decision, held the advertising restrictions unconstitutional.
Judge Marsha Berzon, in the appeal court’s unanimous decision, said Nevada’s advertising restrictions target pure commercial speech. The state maintained that it has the power to ban houses of prostitution.
The court said Nevada is the only state to permit houses of prostitution and it’s up to the counties to license them.
The court, citing decisions in other courts, said the First Amendment doesn't come into play in giving states the right to oversee commercial products and services the government regulates.
Judge Berzon said Nevada has taken “significant steps to limit prostitution,” including banning it in Clark County.
She said Nevada has chosen not to ban houses of prostitution but imposing regulations to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted disease and protect sex workers from abuse.
Berzon wrote, “By keeping brothel advertising out of public places where it would reach residents who do not seek it out, but permitting other forms of advertising likely to reach those already interested in patronizing the brothels, Nevada strikes a balance between its interest in maintaining economically viable, legal regulated brothels and its interest in severely limiting the commoditization of sex.”
But, according to the US Supreme Court, it is ok for corproations to spend as much as they want on political campaign advertisements in the name of the same Fist Amendment. Can you say "Double Standard"?
She (Berzon) said "Nevada has chosen not to ban houses of prostitution but imposing regulations to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted disease and protect sex workers from abuse."
That is irrelevant to the issue of advertising.
This wass purely just a political, anti-sex, ruling by a conservative panel of justices who thinks individaulas ate not entitled to Constituionals ritght, but conversely only corporations are
entitled to those rights.
Sorry for my mispellings, but these contradictory court rulings, based in the circumstance instead of Constitutional law, really annoy me.
I wouldn't be caught dead in one of these sleazy modular trailer trash looking establishments. They look like rat holes. You would think that if they wanted to draw a higher roller client, they could at least build a fancy hotel with high quality amenedies , etc. They should consider themselves luck that they can't advertise these dumps.I'm sure the women are all tramp stamped middle aged trailer trash as well..
culturechange -- what you said!
environprotector -- ignorance is one thing, fascist ignorance is quite another. Again you show if you don't like it no one else has the choice, either. Good thing you're wrong.
KillerB :
Be careful not to step on any roaches or rat turds on your way in or out..
Counterculture, while I agree with you that the US Supreme Court misinterpret the law and allowed corporations to spend all they please on a campaign, your argument in this matter is.. to use your own words " irrelevant to the issue of advertising." The corporations may spend all they like, but they are still limited on how and where those campaign activities may be advertised. You can't campaign on federal property, if you work for a federal agency you can not "Host" a campaign activity, and of course you can't campaign with in a set distance of a polling place, you are also limited to having to get premission to even place a lawn sign, the owner must agree to the placement. While I like environprotector would never be caught dead in one of these establishments, they are legal in NV and have the right to advertise, but they like all businesses are limited to WHERE they can advertise.
Environprotector: Were you attempting to communicate in the English Language?? If so, you have failed miserably. What exactly is wrong with "tramp stamped middle aged trailer trash" (whom, by the way, probably earn over 10x what you earn) anyway? I agree with KillerB regarding your ignorance etc.. You just sound like a very miserable person. The Honest Working people that are in brothels are very nice too, My car broke down outside of Beatty once and Thank Goodness they were there and Open for Business. They pretty much saved my life considering it was in the middle of Summer and I didn't have a cell phone at that time. So terribly judgemental when you really have no right to be.
They could make t-shirts that say
"My Daddy went to Beatty and all Mommy got was this lousy
cold sore?"
This ruling wont stand if it's appealed. Free speech is just that. Allowing speech (ads) you don't like must be allowed or you lose your rights as soon as someone doesn't Allow your ad. Kinda scary.
I wonder if all the brothel girls have derringers like in Deadwood. :tard:
Vegas, my comment of " irrelevant to the issue of advertising" pertained to the judge's (Berzon) comment about "prevent the spread of sexually transmitted disease and protect sex workers from abuse."
That is not relevant to the advertising decision because the state law already allows legalized prostitution. From that statement, it appears she made a ruling based on her personal problem with prostitution in general....not free speech or freedom of advertising decision.
This is the inconsistency of rulings I speak of. She basically said: I disagree with the entire purpose of this business, therefore I run against it regardless of precedent or law.
She would probably also rule in consistency with the Supreme Court's decision on political campaigns when the purpose is different. This conditional-based precedent (and ruling) is a real principle problem in the Justice system today. You have rights as long as they are politically aligned with my views.
Vegas, you said "they are legal in NV and have the right to advertise, but they like all businesses are limited to WHERE they can advertise."
Who else is limited? Tobacco and alcohol companies got banned from magazines in early 90s, but for everyone else, its a free-for-all. I see Viagra advertisements on prime time TV. How much more sexually-suggestive can it get?
By the way, this was an appeal decision. And I imagine this is as far as it will go. You know the Supreme Court is not going to rule in favor of these businesses because of what they are....not the law or the First Amendment.
There seems to be some confusion about what the First Amendment protects: Political free speech. That's it. Not slander. Not libel. There's no right to yell Fire in a theater. But, you do have the right to publicly disagree with the government or its leaders.
As for, "Flint said the brothels, since winning a ruling in the district court in Las Vegas, haven't aggressively promoted an advertising campaign." He's full of it. Every cab in Reno advertises one of the brothels in Storey County. Flint: Prostitution in Washoe County is illegal. Why then are your employers advertising in Reno?
Mgkrebsii:
"Prostitution in Washoe County is illegal. Why then are your employers advertising in Reno?"
For the same reason that a Beer company would advertise in a dry county.
Customers.
This is something that I would be fighting to the end, if I owned a brothel!
Commercial speech is protected, as long as it is not obscene, or illegal, etc.
Neither of these apply, as I have never seen any brothel ads that say "Come pay us money, to get your *Richard* wet"!!!! With a picture of said act, as the background.
Go get 'em girls- don't let it stop here!