By Hilary White HAMBURG, Iowa, August 7, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Nude dancing in strip clubs is “artistic” even when performed by an under age girl, according to an Iowa judge in a ruling issued late last month. Fremont County Judge Timothy O’Grady called the strip club a…
are these judges insane? How would they like it if it was their own young daughter?
This is what happens to a people who have no moral compass. May God help us!
Dear God, Please grant to your people good and holy leaders, lawmakers and judges so that once again we may be one nation under You.
Sick. Just sick.
The judge must have been there watching to call it “artistic” :tsktsk:
Forgive them Father, …
The age of the dancer was never considered in the court of law. It was presented strictly as the legality of Iowa law that prohibits nude dancing anywhere but in theaters and museums (“artistic venues”). We had tried outlawing nude dancing wherever liquor was sold, but all that did was lead to the development of nude dancing in ice cream parlors (complete with $10 cover charges.)
The question was if the place where this took place was a theater or not. If it was not, end of story – the age of the dancer wouldn’t matter. The court said the venue WAS a theater. Problem is, I don’t think they can take the owner back to court over the age of the dancer due to double jeopardy.
Yes, they can do that. Assuming it wasn’t part of the initial charges. Doing something otherwise legal with a person not yet old enough to make it legal, is a different matter than doing something illegal.
Two different charges. Or should be.
“ART” is the new catch phrase. Everything immoral that is upheld as legal and tolerated is labeled as “ART”, which includes religious profanity. It seems it’s the new legal loophole.:rolleyes:
It dates back to at least the 1973 Supreme Court ruling on Miller v California which listed three criteria for defining obscenity, one of which is “the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value”.
However, then you have to prove that the owner/operator KNEW that the participant was underaged, and CONSENTED to having an underaged person perform. Since the girl snuck in with a group of 18-year-olds, the owner/operator can claim a lack of knowledge. If the owner/operator WERE charged, then he/she could sue the girl’s family (being underaged, she couldn’t be party to the suit) for having undertaken an illegal activity that resulted in criminal charges.
All in all, it would be a very big, very expensive legal mess that everyone is probably happy to have it die a quiet death.
It’s art unless a priest does it, and then it’s a heinous crime.
If a priest is going to dance naked on a stage, I don’t want to see it. :o
I know yours was sarcasm but Larowyn has a point. It seems exploitation of women and children is allow (even encourages) by the Relativists and Liberals unless they can use it again those who they see as a threat. The Catholic Church is considered by them to be one of the biggest threats. That is why there is such an effort to target us for destruction.
I didn’t intend my comment as sarcasm. I was simply stating the image which his comment created in my mind. :eek:
FWIW, I think the ruling was wrong. Strip clubs don’t have redeeming social value.