More jokes, from a New York Times article of 30 August, 2012 – Judge Rules Against Zoning Law on Sex-Related Businesses
A Manhattan judge on Thursday ruled that a 2001 city law was unconstitutional in seeking to reduce the number of stores and clubs that offer a mix of sexual content and other material in neighborhoods where X-rated establishments are banned. The founding fathers were clearly very much into their porn.
The law sought to plug what the city considered to be a loophole in the 1995 zoning change. Because plugging holes is never in any way sexual.
The 1995 zoning change banned “adult establishments” from being within 500 feet of a school or a place of worship. Sensibly, they didn’t want to mix consentual sex with the more forced variety.
The 1995 law defined an “adult establishment” as any business where more than 40 percent of its material was sexually oriented. So that would be all Cable TV. And the internet.
By the end of the 1990s, the city came to believe that many of the so-called 60-40 establishments were shams that kept a few shelves of innocuous material to disguise the true nature of their business. I once plastered 60 per cent of a friend’s wall with photographs of a “fun” nature…
In 2001, the city broadened the definition to include criteria that would have required most of the 60-40 establishments to close or move to industrial areas. Because blue collar workers enjoy porn too.
On Thursday, Justice Louis B. York of State Supreme Court ruled that the mixed-use establishments were not shams and did not create a public nuisance in their communities. Sensible, given that if no one was buying, they’d close down anyway.
He also ruled that the city had sufficient tools to close any establishment that skirted the 40 percent rule. Hell, they elected one such tool as mayor.
Justice York’s decision included nine pages of descriptions on how some of the mixed-material establishments segregated their sexually oriented material and included nonsexual material of legitimate interest to consumers. Nine pages? He really studied his sexual material. Now that’s what I call homework.
Justice York’s decision included nine pages of descriptions on how some of the mixed-material establishments segregated their sexually oriented material and included nonsexual material of legitimate interest to consumers. Because of course, sexually oriented material can in no way be legitimate. Unless it’s rape.
For example, an area in Ten’s Cabaret in Manhattan that is separate from the establishment’s topless dancers has held events featuring the pop singers Mariah Carey and Janet Jackson, he wrote. Although he noted that they were both required to perform naked. A show I wish I’d been at if I’m honest.
Martin P. Mehler, a lawyer who represented several topless clubs in the case, said the city’s defense of the 2001 law failed because the original 60-40 rule had worked. “60% of the girl’s bodies are used as school white boards. You have no idea how good they’ve been at getting pupils to focus.”
“We have adhered to what the law was,” Mr. Mehler said. “It has accomplished its goal of doing away with that tawdry atmosphere that used to exist in Times Square, and there was no need to take away a basic First Amendment right. Also, our girls are alive, they are free and, from personal experience, I can tell you they are expert providers of happiness. There can be nothing more constitutional than a nice titty bar.”