Gov. Jay Nixon signs bill that will regulate strip clubs

avatar for samsung1
samsung1
Ohio
JEFFERSON CITY -- Gov. Jay Nixon signed today a controversial porn bill that will regulate strip clubs and other adult businesses.
The bill, sponsored by Sen. Matt Bartle, R-Independence, is very similar to one that passed in 2005 but was overturned by state courts. That bill was also the subject of an FBI investigation into pay-to-play accusations involving former Missouri Speaker of the House Rod Jetton.
Nixon signed the bill with no comment on the same day he signed a bill that would allow pregnant women to use deadly force to protect their unborn fetuses. Nixon didn't issue any statements on that bill, either.
The porn bill restricts placement of adult businesses, including strip clubs and certain bookstores, keeping them away from churches, libraries, schools and public parks. It also limits the amount of nudity at strip clubs, bans alcohol sales at such establishments, and limits the hours of operation to before Midnight.
Adult business owners have said the bill will be devastating to their industry and cost Missouri jobs at a time when the state is trying to recover from an economic crisis.
Mike Ocello, president of VCG Holding Corp., which owns adult businesses, said he will likely be the plaintiff in a lawsuit seeking to declare the law unconstitutional.
Ocello is a school board member in Mehlville.
"I'm very disappointed by the governor's decision," Ocello said.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-…

June 25, 2010

10 comments

Jump to latest
avatar for inno123
inno123
14 years ago
Another 'small government' Republican trying to keep a lid on Government intrusion into our lives.
avatar for arbeeguy
arbeeguy
14 years ago
If this stands up in court, it will certainly hurt the missouri strip club industry, but it will help the filling station industry in Saint Louis and Kansas City. Cuz there are numerous interesting SCs east of the Mississippi in Illinois, and west of the State Line in Kansas. Ya jes hafta drive a little further than ya otta hafta

avatar for how
how
14 years ago
Many states have similar laws; nothing new in this one.
avatar for Dudester
Dudester
14 years ago
A year from now, when that stupid ass guv is asking Obama for a bailout because there's a spike of unwed mothers on the dole, send the local paper a letter about how some misguided feel good morals legislation put a number of strip joints out of business and single mothers out on the street. It's okay though, because STD's have spiked, but no one is stripping.
avatar for mmdv26
mmdv26
14 years ago
HOW's right that many states do have these rules already. But that's why clubs in those states aren't a destination. Nixon has no clue that a club being on the TUSCL Top 10 equals a 2% economic benefit to the State!!

We are always disappointed when we lose freedoms. These days we should be really pissed-off, because we are losing them on a lot of fronts.
avatar for DandyDan
DandyDan
14 years ago
arbeeguy-
I'd also add Shotgun Geniez in Hamburg, Iowa to the list of clubs just over the Missouri border, although it's not close to anywhere in Missouri in particular.

I personally see this as something that will get ruled unconstitutional in the courts, although I always thought Missouri was a religious nut type of place and you can't trust those people.
avatar for vincemichaels
vincemichaels
14 years ago
I can't wait until the governor gets caught with his pants down with some fleabag chick that isn't his wife. These politicians are all the same, preaching about how righteous they are until . . . . .
avatar for Clubber
Clubber
14 years ago
vm,

Those do seem to be a recurring events!
avatar for Digitech
Digitech
14 years ago
I live in Missouri -- I was surprised when it passed through the state government. I'm surprised now that the governor signed it.

I will be surprised if it doesn't get repealed.
avatar for DoctorDarby
DoctorDarby
14 years ago
How can a governor, regardless of party, NOT sign a law passed by his legislature that deals with a controversial issue like SEX? How does a legislator oppose such an oppressive law at the time it is being debated without becoming known as a defender of SEX (which in the public eye, trumps both the clear constitutional and economic factors in play)? This is the trap that lawmakers are caught in when it comes to regulating adult entertainment. Some do-gooders push for the introduction of a bill, which either dies in committee (as many mercifully do) or, if it has some support, ends up on the floor for debate and a vote. At that point, the legislators start thinking about the do-gooders in their district versus the adult businees owners and employees and must weigh the consequences of supporting one over the other. The adult industry usually loses, since it has no lobbiests and does not represent enough voters. When Ohio's bill hit his desk, Democratic Gov. Strickland noted that there seemed to be no reason for such restrictions, but he nonetheless let it become law without his signature. Really, as a new guy in office less than a year, what other choice did he have?
You must be a member to leave a comment.Join Now