H -°, L 7° | Tomorrow: 
H 17°, L 4°Should states regulate the morality of their citizens? In an era marked by the expansion of civil liberties and the right to privacy, most people, including the Supreme Court, would resoundingly answer in the negative.
In a debatable move that deserves reexamination, the Dane County Board has shown that it might have a different answer.
The legislative body passed an ordinance Feb. 17 restricting new adult entertainment clubs from opening in residential areas. Strip clubs are now prohibited from setting up shop within 1,000 feet of any school, public library or park. Hot Rods, a strip club located in Cross Plains, opened early enough to beat the injunction and is located close to residential neighborhoods, thus sparking controversy among area residents, especially those in the club’s immediate vicinity.
While the protection of Dane County’s children and young people is an admirable goal, the zoning regulations now binding Madison-area adult clubs are setting dangerous precedents in terms of free speech and free enterprise. While within its right to do so, the board should seriously reconsider its decision to ban businesses from operating in a certain area by virtue of their own convictions.
The Supreme Court’s 1972 decision in Miller v. California provides valuable insight into the issue of obscenity with regard to the First Amendment. Chief Justice Warren Burger penned the majority opinion of the court, finding three strict criteria for the definition of obscenity, while the historic words of Justice Potter still resonated from when he famously stated that obscenity is indefinable, “but I know it when I see it,” in 1964’s Jacobellis v. Ohio. According to Burger, obscenity is based on the reasonable opinion of the average citizen and the absence of any redeeming social value. Perhaps most importantly, however, was the finding that communities are allowed to set their own standards with regard to obscenity — a corollary currently employed by the 37 members of the Dane County Board.
The board has drawn its proverbial line in the sand, forcing its opinion on the greater Madison area. The fact that adult clubs are offensive to some is indisputable. However, this is not a matter for a select few to decide. Surely a countywide referendum would be a more appropriate gauge of local opinion. Should such find likewise to the board, the move’s legitimacy would only be enhanced.
While personal beliefs play strongly into consideration of this issue, keep in mind the current situation in relation to material that could potentially be deemed obscene. State Street Arcade is in close proximity to the campuses of the University of Wisconsin and Madison Area Technical College — albeit not the type of schools covered by the ordinance — yet the moral standards of students are as stringent (or as lax) of those at other universities. Bennett’s on Park offers their infamous “Smut & Eggs” Saturdays and Sundays, offering both alcohol and pornography to those who are willing to wake themselves from a drunken stupor that early. Nevertheless, the sun continues to rise each day. Red Letter News on East Washington Avenue, the largest adult bookstore in Madison, is located within close proximity of a school and churches. Despite all this, Dane County residents find themselves able to resist the desire to engage in murder, mayhem and sexual depravity.
In the ’60s, a number of cases brought in southern Ohio resulted in the Supreme Court’s finding that the rights of pornography publishers are a form of free speech. In the ’80s, attorneys Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon began a crusade to end the distribution of pornography in America as a violation of 14th Amendment rights, largely with the help of the growing “Moral Majority” and the Meese Commission. While their efforts were largely unsuccessful, their impact has remained.
The social stigma of the lawful choices of consenting adults is entirely a matter of individual taste. Nonetheless, it is not up to a select group of 37 to rule on the matter for roughly half a million. This is not to say that Madison ought to be turned into a de facto Las Vegas — a referendum would most likely reinforce the findings of the board. While strip clubs and other forms of adult entertainment may be repugnant to some, the abrogation of priceless First Amendment rights is a price that merits reflection of the future consequences.
Gabe Cohen ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in journalism.
IP hash: d902eefb
Maybe it’s just me, but I thought the instant case was a land use and zoning issue, not a morality issue. Have governments been making moral judgements against industry and agriculture by zoning them away from residential neighborhoods?
IP hash: e3160ad7
Gabe- Morality was a poor choice of words. Morality is the basis of our criminal justice code. From murder to rape to theft to child support, the major reason behind the law is moraltiy. So the government does and always will regulate morality.
IP hash: 1bd604f9
While there are many people involved because they object to strip clubs in general, this is a zoning issue. You wouldn’t be allowed to build an oil refinery in the middle of a residential neighborhood … that isn’t a morality decision, it’s a zoning one. Strip clubs bring a lot of activity that ordinary bars don’t, and city planners take that into account.
IP hash: aa3e2f57
Poster #2 is spot on. You’ve got to draw the line somewhere other than “morality”.
IP hash: 1797ce17
What an idiotic article! The county board shouldn’t decide what types of buildings get built and where? That’s what boards exists for! Planning development. Look at all the recent apartment developments going on downtown. They all get approved/disapproved from the city, you think that shouldn’t happen because of free speech to build some ugly-ass building or something? Where do you come up with this crap?
IP hash: e3160ad7
I would even go further than some of the previous posters and say that regulating morality is one of the primary functions of government. People want protection from hostile outsiders and some sort of moral code/values based set of rules that they can live with and feel is fair.
Look even outside criminal laws to the way our tax system is set up (higher incomes pay higher percentages) or our social security system, welfare system…. It is nearly impossible to find a reason for these systems and the way they are set up unless you look at the subjective “morality” of people in this country.
IP hash: 7f45c6eb
“Look even outside criminal laws to the way our tax system is set up (higher incomes pay higher percentages) or our social security system, welfare system…. It is nearly impossible to find a reason for these systems and the way they are set up unless you look at the subjective “morality” of people in this country.”
Impossible? No, it is ESSENTIAL that there be reasons for government programs. Progressive taxation isn’t used because it’s the “moral” thing to do. It isn’t used because it’s the “fair” thing to do. It’s used because it’s just a better system. Taxing more from poor people doesn’t work because THEY’RE POOR. Taxing more from the rich works well because they still have money left to be comfortable. It’s simply more productive.
Welfare isn’t around because it’s the right thing to help poor people. As a society and a nation, we just work better when we have less people below the poverty line.
Policies aren’t based on morality. At least, they shouldn’t be. We need policies based on rationality. We need policies that work.
IP hash: e3160ad7
You can always come up with a reason. How about this, the voters want it, that sounds like a good reason in a democracy.
Policies based purely on rationality are not what people want, that is the whole problem.
And you are in a dream world if you think our policies are or should be based purely on rationality, whatever that means.
look at social securtity for example. It is hard to argue that our society works better by giving money and paying health care for old people who don’t produce anymore. It would be more “rational” to just let them go quickly. This is not done because people do not think it would be moral. It is a similar argument for welfare recipients, although they have a slight chance of producing in the future.
higher income people pay a higher percentage of their income as taxes. If you make over 100k/year, you pay a higher tax RATE, that is a higher percentage of your income. The RATE is higher because people think that higher income people should pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. The tax system is tremendously inefficient and if it was reduced to only sales taxes or only a flat rate that would be for a pragmatic/rational reason. The tax system is currently progressive, not because progressive works better, but because it is viewed as more fair.
IP hash: e3160ad7
that was pretty much a joke when one of the above posters said that our current tax system is there because it works better. Our tax code and different tax breaks and rates are a blatant and very inefficient attempt by the legislature to influence behavior. The charity donation write offs, the low income housing tax breaks, the fact that there are no income taxes at all if you make under a certain amount….This complication really doesn’t work better in my opinion.
IP hash: 7f45c6eb
“It is hard to argue that our society works better by giving money and paying health care for old people who don’t produce anymore.”
It is? Really!? I don’t think it’s a very hard argument all at to make, really. Old people on social security can’t work in the coal mines, I guess, so it’s too bad they can’t pay their stay. But when will people see that helping the elderly helps EVERYONE- in a very tangible way, too.
“that was pretty much a joke when one of the above posters said that our current tax system is there because it works better. Our tax code and different tax breaks and rates are a blatant and very inefficient attempt by the legislature to influence behavior. The charity donation write offs, the low income housing tax breaks, the fact that there are no income taxes at all if you make under a certain amount….This complication really doesn’t work better in my opinion.”
Progressive taxation does work better. A healthy middle class is what has been driving this country for a long time. We’ve done the Robber Baron thing long enough.