As I may have mentioned in my media law classes, I took my honors course (Free Speech, Free Press and the Supreme Court of the United States) to St. Mary's University School of Law in San Antonio on Thursday.
The Texas Supreme Court heard oral arguments about a $5 per customer tax imposed on adult entertainment businesses that serve alcohol. The sexually oriented businesses argue that the tax is a fee on First Amendment expression -- the expression being erotic dancing. The State of Texas argues that they have the authority to impose this tax, which funds a program to help sexual assault victims.
St. Mary's Law School has a beautiful facility -- it's a classroom that can be converted to host the Texas Supreme Court and moot court activities. Much thanks to Professor David Schlueter for his help in making the field trip to San Antonio possible.
In the photo are, front, from left, Tim Lormor, Trista Bishop, Bonnie Brewer, Luis Baez, Christina Korpik and Caroline Sharp. Back, from left, Jon Lindsey, Jillian Vidal, Katelyn Blackburn-Rader, Elissa Fontenot, Bianca Smith-Davis, Chris Covo and me.
There's some good coverage of this issue in mass media.
Check out Chuck Lindell's news article at the Austin American-Statesman website.
Also, Chris Covo, one of the students in the honors class, was interviewed by Joe Conger with KENS 5, the CBS affiliate in San Antonio. You can read the story and watch the news report by clicking here.
If you watch the video closely when Chris is interviewed, you'll see that I'm the big brown blob in the suit behind Chris.
After you check this out, feel free to offer your thoughts about the coverage, about the First Amendment issue and how you think the Texas Supreme Court might rule on this and why.
15 comments:
I think the Texas Supreme Court will strike down the tax saying it's unconstitutional. The tax specifically targets a particualr expression of speech and if the justices agree that nude dancing is a form of protected speech (which they appear to) then they will rule that the content based law violates the First Amendment.
I agree in the belief that the Texas Supreme Court will not pass the tax due to it being unconstitutional. Also, I agree with Craig Enoch that the law seems designed to raise revenue while focusing on the easy target of unpopular speech, in this case: nude dancing. As the person above me stated, the tax is aimed exclusively at the expressive speech of nude dancing, which I feel is a protected form of speech, and this content-based law would violate the First Amendment if it were to successfully pass.
I completely agree that the Supreme Court will go against the tax and say it's unconstitutional. While the idea of the tax is wonderful and it's only $5, it is still the principle of imposing a tax on something that is protected by the 1st Amendment. I actually think it's too bad that there isn't some other way to impose this or make it an option to pay because I think it could make a huge difference.
(MW ITV)
Even though it's an interesting option, I would be very surprised if they passed this. I don't see the SC deciding to rule against something that targets something so specific, when there's no reason why they should be targeted. Sure, people don't all agree with nude dancing and acts such as these, but I feel the majority of people will not think they need their own tax. It's not constitutional, and definitely unfair.
Alysha M. 12:30 TH
It will be pretty funny if they DO rule against the tax, because it kind of reminds me of the new taxation on fake tanning and plastic surgery. Is it wrong that I group these together with stripping? I know it's differentttt because that goes toward the healthcare bill and this goes toward...Texas. But, c'mon, it's kind of hilarious. Perhaps both governments are simply encouraging authenticity. All three taxations are on frivolous things. Much better than taxing our entrance to grocery stores or movie theaters!
Monte Ashqar
MC 4301-M W
Although the state will probably argue that this is a content-neutral law, and therefore, it has the right to exercise prior restraint with intermediate scrutiny in which it could limit some of the expression's elements, nevertheless, the state government's argument to assess a sin tax to these businesses to perform an important governmental duty would probably not have much merit in court. The state assumes, by putting the money collected into a fund to help sexual assault victims, that these businesses are responsible for causing sexual assault culprits' behavior. Such claim is baseless, and the state has failed to provide any scientific evidence to back up this argument. Therefore, I believe the tax is unconstitutional.
Lorena Buendia
TH 12:30
I think that the Supreme Court will rule against the tax stating that it is unconstitutional since the state has been unable to provide enough, if any, scientific evidence to support the argument. And it makes me wonder, just like Chris Covo, if this case is a tax case or an expression case. Are they just interested in money or their rights of expression? Also, I would like to think that the tax money that is being collected is truly helping victims of sexual assault and paying for health insurance.
I agree with the tax. Not everything should be argued freedom of speech.
It does seem like everything I have been introduced to this semester is an argument of free speech. I think the Texas Supreme Court will find the tax unconstitutional because it is specifically targeting live-nude entertainment. If the tax was broad and covered all live entertainment that served alcohol, I think it would be a completely different turnout.
Although, if it does pass, I will be happy to see that money go to a great cause.
I also think that the Texas Supreme Court will find the tax unconstitutional. It does seem that they are targeting businesses with unpopular speech to impose the tax, even if the proceeds are supposed to go to a good cause.
Jessica Peters, T-Th 12:30
I seems to me the tax should be struck down--not that I am a fan of nude dancing or strip clubs. Enoch, the lawyer for the strip club, mentioned that the dancing is a type of free speech- though an unpopular one. The mention of free speech always seems to get peoples’ blood pumping.
This situation reminds me of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell in the sense that not everyone approved of the actions the magazine did (much like not everyone agrees with strip clubs) yet the right to satire, is a form of free speech- thus protected by the First Amendment, which should make the right to express yourself by dancing nude a protected form of speech.
I do think it is a stretch to say free speech is dancing on a pole for money- but I also see the point. The Texas law seems to be in place to prevent a socially unacceptable act. As we talked about in class, in regards to the aftermath of Roe v. Wade, Texas (along with many other states) have made numerous attempts to pass laws decreasing the availability of abortions to women who want then. Same basic principle here- Texas is attempting to reduce the strip club population because they don’t like it.
But for the benefit of the doubt- and my love for Texas- I will assume the state does in fact want to assist sexual assault victims in the process.
Sarah Ashley
MW 2:00
As much as I think this industry is disgusting for preying on females' self-esteem by okaying women being nothing more than the object of people's sexual fantasy's... I still think they make that choice freely. If they tax this what else will they want to tax? Baseball games?
Justin Haynes
m/w
I am wondering now if the issue of this tax will gravitate towards a discussion of performance versus free speech.
I think it says they are taxing businesses that have performing women on stage/tables.
Not the act of dancing nude. It's not like people dancing naked in their own homes are being taxed, it's just the public display that is being taxed. Another way to look at it is that these women are performing a service. It is obvious that these women are dancing around naked in order to get a certain "response" from the viewers. This might come up as a service tax issue as well. These issues might be part of the discussion.
Even though they would be using the tax money for a good cause and their hearts are in the right place...I also agree that the Texas Supreme Court will find the tax unconstituional. It is an expression. I also agree with the people who said if they are going to tax this entertainment that serves alcohol then shouldn't they be taxing all the other forms of entertainment that serve alcohol?
Post a Comment