Justices OK L.A. Limits on Adult Businesses
 

A divided Supreme Court upheld today a Los Angeles zoning ordinance that bars operation of more than one adult entertainment business at a single location.

The 5-4 ruling was a victory for Los Angeles, which defended its ordinance prohibiting the operation of adult businesses that both sell adult products and contain facilities to view adult movies or videos.

A federal judge in California and a U.S. appeals court said the ordinance violated free-speech rights because the city had failed to study and provide adequate evidence of negative effects from the combinations, such as an adult bookstore with an adult arcade, in the same location.

The justices reversed the appeals court's ruling.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said for the majority that Los Angeles may rely on its 1977 study, conducted six years before the adoption of the ordinance at issue, to show the ban on multiple-use adult businesses served the city's interest in reducing crime.

The case involved Alameda Books Inc. and Highland Books Inc., two adult businesses that rent and sell sexually oriented products, including videotapes. They both provide booths where customers can view videotapes for a fee.

In 1995, a city building inspector found that Alameda was operating both as an adult bookstore and arcade in the same building in violation of the 1983 zoning ordinance.

The city in 1978 adopted an ordinance that prohibits the establishment of an adult business within 1,000 feet of another such business or within 500 feet of a religious institution, school or public park.

The regulations followed the study that found a connection between concentrations of adult businesses and increases in crimes, such as prostitution, robberies and assaults.

The city amended the ordinance in 1983 to prohibit so-called "multiple use" adult businesses, but did not document the harm from such combinations, relying instead on laws from other jurisdictions and the 1977 study.

Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer dissented. Souter said the 1977 study provides no support to justify the 1983 ordinance.

Copyright 2002 Los Angeles Times

what???! :eek7

what kinda fucked up shit is that?
that can't possibly apply to online adult..... there's no freakin' store involved.... there's nothing in the public eye......

not that I give a shit.... but still.....

This is another bullshit anti-free speech ruling. They basically say that the state can just claim, without any proof, that porn is bad, and they can make laws to limit what adult businesses can do.

How can they possibly let the states make decision based on claims without any proof? I thought it was innocent until PROVEN guilty. I guess not if you're in porn.

Totally fucked decision.

yes i agree thats a totally fucked decision however i still see a lot of adult stores with their peepshows in the same establishments. Perosnally i think its another attempt for the city to make more money off of taxes and buisness licenses and also try to put a curb on porn here in Los Angeles especially seeing that this is one of the porn capitols of the world. Keep in mind this only applies to the city of LA itself and not surrounding cities where most of the real porn is made(SFV,Encino,Sherman Oaks,SGV). Just even more of an excuse for Hollywood to try to seperate itself from LA..i cant wait to see how this pans out

They need to stop masturbating.

if that happens there will be a lot more mad people in the world and crime would go up!..its a great stress reliever..:thumbsup

I feel lucky i live in old good old Sweden.. PORN to the people!!
no fucking strange laws here

think about it bro...your mad at the misses..u need some time to cool off so u go to a porn store. you pay 5 bucks in quarters to watch Molly do her thing u wack off and after cumming you feel much better.YOu and wifey make up and kiss and fuck all night the next night and its back to happy home..KAPECH?

I prefer Missy. But, you da man! :thumbsup