Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Steve Marcus / FILE
A man checks out a newsrack on the Strip near Spring Mountain Road containing magazines advertising female entertainers who will travel to homes and hotel rooms.
Published Tuesday, Sept. 18, 2012 | 1:07 p.m.
Updated Tuesday, Sept. 18, 2012 | 4:47 p.m.
Sun archives
- County considers covering up girlie newsracks (9-9-2012)
- Smut dealers play games with newsrack rules (7-20-2006)
Clark County lawyers and Strip casino operators may have inadvertently been given a remedy to an issue that has vexed them for years: What to do about handbillers, many of whom hand out girlie/adult pamphlets, to tourists on the Strip.
Last month, the County Commission approved a new littering ordinance requiring handbillers to clean the sidewalk within a 25-foot diameter because so many tourists grab the handbills then drop them on the ground.
At Tuesday’s meeting, commissioners were discussing a plan to create one model of newsrack all vendors would be required to use. The idea grew out a committee established in 2011 to look at ways to clean up the Strip, which falls under the legal purview of county commissioners.
Attorney Jeff Silver, representing newsrack companies, said two forms of publication distribution take place on the Strip — via newsracks and by people who pass out “girls-to-your-room” pamphlets.
Silver said it was unfair that newsracks were bolted and confined to specific areas next to the curb while so-called card slappers “are nothing more than mobile newsracks standing in front of persons traversing the sidewalk.”
“If the newsracks are on the sidewalk parallel to the curb, then the pamphleteers should be in the same general area and not in the middle of the sidewalk with their hands out blocking tourists,” Silver said. “It’s a safety issue and an issue of equal protection.”
He also uttered the key words, “time, place and manner,” which are categories of restrictions that government is allowed to place on content-neutral speech protected by the First Amendment. For instance, if the free speech causes potential safety problems, government is allowed to restrict the time, place and manner of that speech.
Silver also said the handbillers were impacting the business of those who owned newsracks because they blocked them and used newsracks as mini-storage areas for stacks of handbills.
Silver’s request to have the county consider newsracks and pamphleteers as the same, county observers said, appeared to open the door to place more restrictions on pamphleteers.
Agreeing with Silver, Commissioner Steve Sisolak, who established the Strip cleanup committee, said “our intention is that everyone be afforded the same protection.”
County Manager Don Burnette, who was part of the committee, said, “There’s a good reason to step back and look at what’s suggested and consider time, place and manner restrictions that treat newsracks and handbillers the same.”
Another reason to step back, said Commissioner Chris Giunchigliani, is the fact that a Strip pedestrian study will be finished in a few weeks. That study will show where, if any, bottlenecks appear on the Strip, giving the county a better idea of how newsracks or pamphleteers are blocking pedestrian traffic.
“The Americans with Disablities Act is an issue, too — that we’re not further restricting people in a wheelchair or some kind of disability to get through,” Giunchigliani said.
The commission voted unanimously to postpone the matter for 60 days while county staff gathered more information.
Commissioners also asked staff for information on who was getting newsrack permits after one man said those permitted were subcontracting their spaces for thousands of dollars to publications not originally permitted.
this is not newspapers at all--this is prostitution advertising---tell it like it is!!!!!!
This will end up as a running court battle if it is passed.
The County Commission can regulate to some extent on this, but uniform newsracks will quickly fall in to freedom of speech via freedom of press. If it is a uniform newsrack, then Review Journal, CityLife, Weekly, Entertainment Guides, Property Guides all have to follow that too. You can't make one area of 'press' comply and not the others.
This will end up costing the County Commission more in legal fee's than it is worth.
And before anybody asks, no I don't like the newsracks.
exactly Mr. Lucky why should taxpayers have to provide FREE space on OUR sidewalks so a few can advertise illegal activity? We shouldn't, and these racks should be banned.
Clean-up the Strip? Sisolak must be blind. This is not free speech it is called Pandering. They ought get rid of the slappers as well.
@mrlucky,
Well it isn't so black and white as that. The newspapers you refer to are classed as media and are deemed not to promoting prostitution directly. Oh yes, I know they are doing it indirectly, but legally speaking it is a newspaper like the LVRJ or Sun. Therefore they are protected under the constitution.
"The amendment prohibits the making of any law abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press."
The Constitution seems pretty clear to me and I will wager the ACLU thinks so.
Glad to see the commissioners are working on the important issues. This is non-sense.
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-201.h...
Legal definition of pandering in Nevada
Pandering means to encourage, force or otherwise arrange for someone else to engage in prostitution. It doesn't matter whether the alleged pandering involved violence, whether the supposed victim ended up having sexual relations, or whether any money exchanged hands . . . merely facilitating the solicitation of prostitution qualifies as pandering in Nevada.
NRS 201.430 Unlawful advertising of prostitution; penalties.
1. It is unlawful for any person engaged in conduct which is unlawful pursuant to paragraph (b) of subsection 1 of NRS 207.030, or any owner, operator, agent or employee of a house of prostitution, or anyone acting on behalf of any such person, to advertise the unlawful conduct or any house of prostitution:
(a) In any public theater, on the public streets of any city or town, or on any public highway; or
(b) In any county, city or town where prostitution is prohibited by local ordinance or where the licensing of a house of prostitution is prohibited by state statute.
2. It is unlawful for any person knowingly to prepare or print an advertisement concerning a house of prostitution not licensed for that purpose pursuant to NRS 244.345, or conduct which is unlawful pursuant to paragraph (b) of subsection 1 of NRS 207.030, in any county, city or town where prostitution is prohibited by local ordinance or where the licensing of a house of prostitution is prohibited by state statute.
3. Inclusion in any display, handbill or publication of the address, location or telephone number of a house of prostitution or of identification of a means of transportation to such a house, or of directions telling how to obtain any such information, constitutes prima facie evidence of advertising for the purposes of this section.
4. Any person, company, association or corporation violating the provisions of this section shall be punished:
(a) For the first violation within a 3-year period, by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 6 months, or by a fine of not more than $1,000, or by both fine and imprisonment.
(b) For a second violation within a 3-year period, by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than 30 days nor more than 6 months, and by a fine of not less than $250 nor more than $1,000.
(c) For a third or subsequent violation within a 3-year period, by imprisonment in the county jail for 6 months and by a fine of not less than $250 nor more than $1,000.
[1:109:1913; 1919 RL p. 3379; NCL 10535]--(NRS A 1967, 481; 1979, 305, 604; 1995, 2299)
@stephenrblv,
So why can't the police or county start prosecuting these publishers? Because there isn't enough proof to procure an indictment.
The publishers are very careful in how they word things and I will bet they have a disclosure in each publication that states 'This isn't an offer for prostitution'.
@mrlucky and stephenrblv...All those publications and cards advertise are private, nude dances and that is perfectly legal. While many assume that these girls will also offer illegal prostitution, I bet the majority operate more on the clip joint mode business than that of a brothel. Lots of unfulfilled promises designed to separate tourist from cash with as little sexual contact as possible.
However, I could be wrong, so please, mrlucky and stephenrblv, tell me about all the prostitutes you hired from those cards and news racks.
What really amazes me is that these are not new issues, and both the city and the county have spent a lot of money defending ordinances that seem to ignore well established case law and they lose every time.
It's like they were all born yesterday and think that if they just keep drafting the same old ordinances that thy'll get lucky and catch the 9th circuit and SCOTUS asleep at the wheel.
Why won't these elected officials treat the Constitution like the law of the land and not like some annoying thing they must find a way to circumvent?
Vice could verify what these "businesses" are but rarely do. We all know what they are for crying out loud. Not even the issue really Pandering is, Littering is, the right to be left the hell alone is.
The CC is not fighting this issue they are helping it become MORE entrenched in our community.
Every survey that is done shows tourists cite this issue as their number one complaint when visiting Las Vegas. They are sick of being harassed basically. I mean come-on ever gamble by yourself in a Strip casino? five minutes in and they appear, the "dates". Walk outside and the slappers nail you. Take a taxi and JimBob is handing you his secret connections card. Sitting at a bar? good luck with that one.
It is a mess out there and this is Las Vegas. We all know why it is allowed and frankly I am sick of hearing all the excuses and wrapping the mess into the First Amendment like that really applies to this pollution.
To claim these are newspapers indicates one might be one of these "publishers".
It is horrible business. Simple as that. We are not listening to our feedback loop, Tourists.
I personally believe Prostitution ought to be 100% legal but it isn't. So we play by the rules we have.
my point was: these were intended to be "newspaper" racks---for news, such as usa today, rv, sun etc. what they became was is a distribution of semi-porn, and advertising for "adult entertainers". these are clearly not "newspapers"---clearly this is advertising for adult entertainment and not a source of news. since they are not being used for their intended purpose--they are no longer allowed to operate at all....end of story!
Excuse me...but I'm confused by the use of the term "newsrack."
I thought they were selling female commerce.
Selling commerce can be regulated in public places.
This isn't news they are selling.
They aren't selling news! Seriously!
Get rid of all of that horrible stuff that give's our entire community a bad image and name
The content of the the cards and papers doesn't bother me. It doesn't really bother the tourists either. What bothers everyone is the rude, in your face attitude of the canvassers who slap cards and shove them in your face. Leave the ads in the newsracks and everything will be fine, because people who are really interested WILL go and obtain the papers out of them. I know this for a fact, because I've seen it personally while looking out of room windows. Littering here truly is the big, massive issue as well that everyone wants to deal with. You get a massive rainstorm, and you've got to get the water out of the street. The problem is that all this extra litter keeps clogging up the drains on the strip and elsewhere, and it causes flooding. Free speech is fine, and I fully support it. As long as whatever is in these ads is legal, remains legal, and remains between consenting adults, I fully support it too. But when this stuff starts becoming a hazard and creates a public safety issue, we need to get rid of it.
stephenrblv - "We all know what they are for crying out loud."
So glad that you now want to replace due process of law and actual evidence with opinion.
So if we get enough people to all say that "We all know that stephenrblv is a criminal for crying out loud" then you'll just meekly report to jail with no complaint?
Or are you going to insist that YOU are innocent until proven guilty...even though you expect others to be punished just because you "know" that they are guilty (but can't prove anything)?
"So glad that you now want to replace due process of law and actual evidence with opinion."
When did I say that? replace Due Process? I didn't you are projecting.
lets create an area that is ok to hand out smut and have newsracks etc----lets make that area between sahara and charleston on lv blvd---pass out all the smut u want!
This I gotta see. The counties newest future failed idea is to "have the county consider newsracks and pamphleteers as the same." How's that work exactly? Somebody takes a magazine out of the news rack and then tosses it on the ground, and the police are supposed to issue a citation to the newsrack? If the county wants to treat them both the same then their shinny new (Supreme Court Rejected) litter ordinance is useless.
And to all those who keep prattling on and on about the1st Amendment not protecting commercial speech or advertising, please do a little research. SCOTUS as ruled commercial speech is protected since the early '70s.
@mrlucky...What an amazing idea. So simple and yet so UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
TINKER v. DES MOINES SCHOOL DIST.,"Freedom of expression would not truly exist if the right could be exercised only in an area that a benevolent government has provided as a safe haven for crackpots. The Constitution says that Congress (and the States) may not abridge the right to free speech. This provision means what it says. We properly read it to permit reasonable regulation of speech-connected activities in carefully restricted circumstances. But we do not confine the permissible exercise of First Amendment rights to a telephone booth "
TERMINIELLO V. CITY OF CHICAGO "free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute...even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects...That is why freedom of speech ..is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment..."
The only time the specific free speech zones have be upheld by the court are when the areas are CONTENT NEUTRAL, not in areas of minimal pedestrian traffic and encompass a significant portion of the public area.
You idea is not content neutral, located in a area with significantly less pedestrian traffic, and less than 1% of Las Vegas Blvds resort corridor.