Missouri Supreme Court upholds strip club restrictions

Tuesday, November 15, 2011 | 2:49 p.m. CST; updated 4:54 p.m. CST, Tuesday, November 15, 2011

JEFFERSON CITY — The Missouri Supreme Court has upheld a 2010 state law imposing restrictions on strip clubs and other sexually oriented businesses.

In a unanimous decision Tuesday, the court rejected claims from the adult entertainment industry that the law infringed on free expression rights and was passed in violation of legislative procedures.

The court said there was enough evidence to support the Legislature's belief that the restrictions served a government interest in minimizing negative effects from sexually oriented businesses.

The law requires sexually themed businesses to close by midnight. It also bans full nudity, alcohol, minors and touching between customers and semi-nude employees.

The Supreme Court's ruling affirms a prior decision by a Cole County judge.

Like what you see here? Become a member.

Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Jeremy Calton November 15, 2011 | 3:26 p.m.

"serves a government interest in minimizing negative effects"

Since almost no one had the character to vote against a bad law and government overreach, this law passed virtually unanimously and was then upheld unanimously by the state supreme court. With this ruling, our benevolent, paternalistic, special-interest liaisons (a.k.a. democratic representatives) should now have the power to limit ANYTHING.

There is virtually no activity for which an argument cannot be made that it has negative effects.

On a DAILY BASIS, we all indulge in actions or inactions which have negative effects: TV, diet, and exercise choices. And the scientific evidence that obesity is bad both for the individual and expensive for society is indisputable. Why not make it illegal to buy a hot fudge sundae, a couch, or a TV? What's the difference?

Liberty does not mean having the freedom to do those things which have been approved by the government, it means having the freedom to do things which do not harm another. When the government says that you cannot consent to a thing of your choosing, it follows that all consent flows from the government.

(Report Comment)
daniel smith November 17, 2011 | 10:08 a.m.

These kind of sharia type laws is exactly the reason why religious nut jobs like Matt Bartle shouldn't be allowed to hold political office. The only thing this bill is going to accomplish is to cause an increase in prostitution and instead of it remaining in the red light districts it will now push it into our communities bringing with it all the other crime associated with prostitution. Mr. Bartle, and I use the term Mr.very loosely, has done us no favors with this bill, he has in fact set in motion an increase in negative human social behavior that will be detrimental to our communities.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.