Georgia Adult clubs sue, calling new Georgia tax unconstitutional

shadowcat
Atlanta suburb
A coalition of adult entertainment venues is suing Georgia’s attorney general and Department of Revenue commissioner over a new tax that aims to curb child trafficking.
The Georgia Association of Club Executives filed a lawsuit in Fulton County Superior Court against Attorney General Chris Carr and Department of Revenue Commissioner Lynn Riley arguing that the tax is unconstitutional because it targets free speech — in this case, the nudity exhibited by adult entertainers.

“The tax is unconstitutional because it places a content-based tax on free speech of which certain members of the Legislature do not approve,” association Executive Director Jill Chambers said.

Carr’s office declined to comment.

The law, approved by Georgia voters in 2016, requires that adult entertainment businesses pay $500 or 1 percent of their gross revenue, whichever is more, to finance the Safe Harbor for Sexually Exploited Children Fund and a commission that oversees the fund, which is designed to provide care and social programs for victims.

The tax went into effect Jan. 1, with businesses scheduled to submit their first payment next April 30.

The bill aims to target bad actors and businesses that contribute to child sex trafficking, something Chambers said is not happening at adult clubs.

Chambers, a former Georgia lawmaker, said the members of her organization are offended that the law “lumps legitimate Georgia businesses” with those who are paying steeper penalties for sex crimes such as prostitution, pimping and masturbation for hire.

State law requires the business and all employees undergo a background check, confirming he or she is at least 18 years old, and be licensed. Attendees must be 21 and older. Chambers says strip clubs are not where those looking to lure children into sex trafficking rings target victims.

“They go to areas where children congregate,” she said. “Children do not congregate at adult clubs. … To be accused of such a heinous crime is unfair, and this is the way that the business owners are fighting back.”

8 comments

  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    7 years ago
    It's bullshit - it's going after low-hanging fruit (SCs) - it's pretty much extortion by those in the know, or paranoia by those not-in-the-know believing/thinking the majority of dancers/providers are nothing but sex-trafficking victims and not doing it b/c it's their own decision.
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    7 years ago
    And w/ the government being involved most-likely:

    1) they are not gonna find enough trafficked victims to justify the amount of $$$ they are gonna collect

    2) the $$$ will be mismanaged and/or re-directed towards something else
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    7 years ago
    The state of TX passed a similar tax on TX SCs a couple of years ago where either $2 or $3 of *every* customer going thru the doors of *every* TX SC goes to a trafficking fund.
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    7 years ago
    The tax is unConstitutional simply because there is no reason for it. All they are doing is just trying to make it hard on a particular category of business.

    SJG
  • Cashman1234
    •
    7 years ago
    It’s as Papi mentioned - going after the low hanging fruit to get tax dollars from strip clubs. They want to draw a bizarre connection between strip clubs and trafficking? It’s bullsh*t!
  • Clubber
    •
    7 years ago
    An old axiom I always use. Follow the money. It will always lead you to the corruption.

    As someone below is about to find out!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M--lNIsz…
  • joewebber
    •
    7 years ago
    the money will probably go to LE, which will go toward raiding the very strip clubs that are paying the new tax.
  • Topspin57
    •
    7 years ago
    The tax is $5,000 a year and was part of 4 constitutional amendments voted on in November of last year. What is interesting to me is that strip clubs were noted as being related to human trafficking. While this might occur, it is probably much less common than what the law makers in GA thought.

    The way that the amendment was was worded gave the YES vote a great boost. Who is not against human trafficking? "Obviously if I can reduce human trafficking by voting YES it gets my vote. Obviously, if strip clubs now have to pay a huge tax, they must be responsible for the majority of human trafficking that takes place. I need to vote "YES".

    It is curious to me that the legislature went with a constitutional amendment instead of just voting for a law within the "Gold Dome".

    Yep good use of our tax dollars..............
You must be a member to leave a comment.Join Now
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion