The art of dance has been an avenue of free expression in cultures worldwide since human kind first set foot upon the earth, and the culture of the United States is no exception. However, when the clothes come off and the dancing takes on an exotic nature, the constitutional protection of the art form is often called into question. In Santa Barbara, a two-part ordinance involving the location and character of such establishments has brought to the forefront a fierce new first amendment debate. John Meinzer, owner of "The Pink Flamingo" nude dancing parlor, has brought before this court an objection to this ordinance, claiming that it discriminates against the content of the message he and his dancers are trying to convey. After reviewing the facts, precedent, and all other evidence, I argue that both parts of this ordinance fall under the rights of the city under first amendment review to perform its duty in protecting the welfare of its community.

Under this new ordinance, adult entertainment would be permitted, but only in areas zoned for commercial and industrial uses. No adult entertainment businesses could be allowed w

It is not always easy to prove that a zoning ordinance of this type constitutes this kind of government interest. The Supreme Court struck down a zoning ordinance regarding live entertainment in Schad v. Mount Ephraim (1981), asserting that its governmental purpose was not proved. While this restriction was not only on nude dancing, but on any type of live entertainment, it still illustrates the importance of valid evidence in proving that a valid governmental purpose has been served. In this case, The Supreme Court mandated that the ordinance, which restricted any form of live presentation in any establishment in the borough, prohibited a wide range of expression that has long been held to be within the protection of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. More importantly, as we have seen in most or all of these cases, the "appellee has presented no evidence that live entertainment poses problems of this nature (parking, trash, police protection) more significant than those associated with various permitted uses (Schad v. Mount Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61, 1981)."

What dictates whether or not this kind of zoning ordinance does indeed serve a valid governmental purpose? In a more recent case, The Supreme Court elaborated on the issue of adult entertainment zoning. The defendant, The City of Los Angeles, was defending a similar ordinance to that in Renton, which prohibited such enterprises within 1,000 feet of each other or within 500 feet of a religious institution, school, or public park (Later, the ordinance was extended to more than one establishment in the same building). In this case, City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc. (2002), The Court furthered the decision made in Renton in that if a city can decrease the crime and blight associated with adult businesses by exercising their zoning power, and at the same time leave the quantity and accessibility of speech substantially undiminished, there is no first amendment objection, EVEN if the measure is content based.

Relying on Barnes, The city of Erie fought an almost identical ordinance restricting content in 2000. Requiring the dancers to wear G-strings and pasties, t h e ordinance was once again ruled to be under the city's governmental duties. In doing so, the court cited the four-part test for content-based speech dictated in United States v. O'Brien (1968). First, the ordinance is within Erie's

Some common words found in the essay are:
Books Inc, Supreme Court, United O'Brien, Law Justice, Pink Flamingo, Los Angeles, Mount Ephraim, Relying Barnes, Nude Dancing, Santa Barbara, los angeles, adult entertainment, city los angeles, city los, supreme court, angeles alameda books, angeles alameda, nude dancing, books inc, alameda books, alameda books inc, los angeles alameda, inc 2002, books inc 2002, governmental purpose,
Approximate Word count = 1606
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)