State high court will review legality of 'pole tax'
samsung1
Ohio
The Texas Supreme Court has decided to review the legality of charging a $5-per-person “pole tax†to patrons of strip clubs and other adult entertainment venues, a case that has hinged on whether the government can tax content protected by the First Amendment.
The law, passed in the 2007 legislative session, originally directed revenues collected from the fee toward sexual abuse and violence treatment and prevention programs, but it has been mired in legal wrangling almost since it took effect in 2008.
“I'm extremely happy that they agreed to hear the case,†said State Rep. Ellen Cohen, who sponsored the legislation and filed an amicus brief urging the court to review the matter. “If you're going to do this, you need to raise a substantial enough amount of money to make a dramatic effect on issues surrounding sexual violence. The way we fashioned it was absolutely the correct way and the most reasoned way.â€
The law was struck down in March 2008, by a Travis County District Court judge, a ruling that was upheld in June by the Austin-based 3rd Court of Appeals. The state has collected more than $12 million in fees that have been held in escrow pending the final outcome of the case.
Attorney General Greg Abbott, whose office is scheduled to defend the law in oral arguments March 25, declined comment Friday, as did Stewart Whitehead, an attorney representing an adult business association that brought the original suit.
David A. Furlow, a former Harris County prosecutor who has represented businesses in numerous cases involving First Amendment protections, said the central issue is whether the government can levy a tax on speech, such as a newspaper or TV show or dancing in a strip club, that has the effect of singling it out.
“When you say certain types of messages and certain types of entertainment can be taxed, you begin down a slippery slope that can allow the government to destroy a form of business by taxing it out of existence,†he said. “You start down a pathway that could lead to censorship-based government like that which exists in Iran.â€
To defend the law, the government has been forced to argue that strip clubs lead to greater violence against women, a claim for which there is no evidence, Furlow said. Under such logic, he added, R-rated movies could be taxed because of the violence sometimes depicted in them.
Robert Jensen, a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin who teaches media law and ethics, acknowledged that it is difficult to prove a link between strip clubs and violence against women.
“But the fact that research doesn't allow for those causal links doesn't mean that the sexual exploitation industry is not part of an environment that supports and undergirds sexual violence,†he said.
The Utah Supreme Court upheld a similar law last November, arguing that it did not have the effect of restricting expression and served “an important state interest.â€
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metr…
The law, passed in the 2007 legislative session, originally directed revenues collected from the fee toward sexual abuse and violence treatment and prevention programs, but it has been mired in legal wrangling almost since it took effect in 2008.
“I'm extremely happy that they agreed to hear the case,†said State Rep. Ellen Cohen, who sponsored the legislation and filed an amicus brief urging the court to review the matter. “If you're going to do this, you need to raise a substantial enough amount of money to make a dramatic effect on issues surrounding sexual violence. The way we fashioned it was absolutely the correct way and the most reasoned way.â€
The law was struck down in March 2008, by a Travis County District Court judge, a ruling that was upheld in June by the Austin-based 3rd Court of Appeals. The state has collected more than $12 million in fees that have been held in escrow pending the final outcome of the case.
Attorney General Greg Abbott, whose office is scheduled to defend the law in oral arguments March 25, declined comment Friday, as did Stewart Whitehead, an attorney representing an adult business association that brought the original suit.
David A. Furlow, a former Harris County prosecutor who has represented businesses in numerous cases involving First Amendment protections, said the central issue is whether the government can levy a tax on speech, such as a newspaper or TV show or dancing in a strip club, that has the effect of singling it out.
“When you say certain types of messages and certain types of entertainment can be taxed, you begin down a slippery slope that can allow the government to destroy a form of business by taxing it out of existence,†he said. “You start down a pathway that could lead to censorship-based government like that which exists in Iran.â€
To defend the law, the government has been forced to argue that strip clubs lead to greater violence against women, a claim for which there is no evidence, Furlow said. Under such logic, he added, R-rated movies could be taxed because of the violence sometimes depicted in them.
Robert Jensen, a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin who teaches media law and ethics, acknowledged that it is difficult to prove a link between strip clubs and violence against women.
“But the fact that research doesn't allow for those causal links doesn't mean that the sexual exploitation industry is not part of an environment that supports and undergirds sexual violence,†he said.
The Utah Supreme Court upheld a similar law last November, arguing that it did not have the effect of restricting expression and served “an important state interest.â€
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metr…
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
10 comments
But in reality it's just a tax/protection racket.
Sorry, my libertarian bias is showing.
If we let government tax entry into strip clubs, what's next, hidden cameras to catch us speeding--oops, they're already doing that. Man the barricades, we've lost control.
How about tracking cell phones? No, that could never happen. WHAT??? obama want's to do that??
ain't technology grand everyone?
as for the tax, sounds like something the Religious Right will be filing to support. they want us to be free in everything BUT our sex lives and religious beliefs. thank the gods they're out there protecting their freedoms (yeah, like hell!).
Of course they CAN, but making it legal is the key. 911 uses cell phone tracking all the time. BTW, not all on the "Religious Right" are as you state.
It's really quite interesting. I believe it was in Dallas where they caught to bank robbers from cell records. There saw a series of robberies and the police sorted data and found two cells that had called each other just prior to all the robberies and where in the immediate vicinity.
I have a hard time believing a judge wouldn't issue a warrant for such a case. I have a lot more belief that cops will use an unwarranted cell history for dubious reasons.
I just beat a DUI test the other day. What would happen if that cop got a red ass and started following my cell movement just to try and catch me leaving a bar?
Don't think it would happen? Erroll Southers would probably be head of TSA if he hadn't got caught pulling background checks on his ex-wife's boyfriends.
"they can track your cellphone now, and have been able to since about 2002/2003. some genius decided that all new cells would have to carry a GPS chip in case of another 9/11, so first responders could find you. of course, everybody and their dog quickly figured out you could do the same to just about anyone for just about any reason, so we end up with yet-another example of the Law Of Unintended Consequences. we go from protecting peoples lives to allowing the tracking of their every move."
Well said sanitago.
"as for the tax, sounds like something the Religious Right will be filing to support. they want us to be free in everything BUT our sex lives and religious beliefs."
Again, well said!
"not all on the 'Religious Right' are as you state."
Of course there are, moron.
The only reason that this is even an issue is because our telecommunication laws are woefully outdated. I don't have a problem with requiring the govt. to obtain a warrant based on probable cause of criminal activity before directing a wireless provider to turn over their records that show where customers used their cellphones. That's a ruling from back under GWB BTW:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con…
I personally don't own a cell phone with GPS qualities or the ability to surf the Internet, and I don't even turn the phone on while I'm traveling usually. Even with that, one should be careful what one says near their cell phone (another GWB ruling BTW):
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-15046…
I also don't have a car with OnStar or an E-ZPass.
Remember the casein the 90's when some "tourists" just happened to illegally tape a call and turn it over to their Congressman, who did as any decent law-abiding person would do, especially one that swore to uphold the Constitution, and use it for personal gain and be-damned with the law!
Oh, but wait, the victim was a conservative, so all is OK!
...which is why your Obama rants to the contrary are just plain stupid, moron. Thanks for proving our points! LOL...
once upon a time I actually respected conservative. I didn't agree with them a lot, but I could respect them and their ideals. nowadays, since they crawled into bed with the religion nuts, I have nothing but contempt for them.
Of course these worms will spin the religious right as evil zealots, and play up leaders who fit the stereotype.