I'm reading "Charges Against Stormy Daniels Dismissed After Arrest at Strip Club" in the NYT. I'm surprised to read this because yesterday, when we were talking about the arrest, kimlynnmarty said...
I would argue she is not an "employee"... and I responded:
About the idea of arguing that she’s not an employee, read the whole statute:But now I see that the key word isn't "employee." As the NYT article says, linking to the statutory text:
“(5) "Employee" means any individual who performs any service on the premises of a sexually oriented business on a full-time, part-time, or contract basis, regardless of whether the individual is denominated an employee, independent contractor, agent, or otherwise, but does not include an individual exclusively on the premises for repair or maintenance of the premises or for the delivery of goods to the premises.”
The law under which Ms. Clifford was arrested applies to people who “regularly” appear nude or seminude at a particular establishment. But Ms. Clifford had not appeared at the club consistently, prosecutors said in a motion dismissing the charges.The definition of "employee" covers Clifford, but the word "regularly" — defined to mean "consistently or repeatedly" — appears in the definition of the crime:
No employee who regularly appears nude or seminude on the premises of a sexually oriented business, while on the premises of that sexually oriented business and while nude or seminude, shall knowingly touch a patron who is not a member of the employee's immediate family or another employee who is not a member of the employee's immediate family or the clothing of a patron who is not a member of the employee's immediate family or another employee who is not a member of the employee's immediate family or allow a patron who is not a member of the employee's immediate family or another employee who is not a member of the employee's immediate family to touch the employee or the clothing of the employee.So a sexually oriented business can have performers who touch customers and allow customers to touch them as long as they keep bringing in a new person — a traveling guest artist? Will that work everywhere in Ohio now?
पोस्ट्स
३३ टिप्पण्या:
It's a job opportunity for gypsies.
Cher I was born in the wagon of a travelling show My momma used to dance for the money they'd throw
Motorboat hit and run.
I imagine the girls & boys already travel to different venues.
Every man likes fresh meat.
Have Nice Warm Hand
Will Travel
Wire Stormy
Dum-Dum...Dum-Dum...Dum-Dum...Dum-Dum
Basically the police got too much heat, and found a way out.
My guess this has a lot to do with Columbus politics, the Mayor is a Democrat.
Why's everbody being so mean to little stormy? It's not her fault that her huge breasts touch customers when she walks around shaking them in their faces. They are hard to handle. And men cannot understand how much trouble huge breasts are to control.
Road trip to Ohio!
"No employee who regularly appears nude or seminude on the premises"
The bouncer can blow whoever he wants.
Ohio has interesting laws:
You can regularly have girl-on-girl sex, as long as they are sisters (or mom&daughter)
Your waitress can hop up on stage, take off all her clothes; and be fondled by all the customers; as long as she doesn't REGULARLY do that.
Once a month? Once a year? Random times?
20 posts now under the Stormy tag, but who's counting!
Hand job will travel reads the card of a slut,
A slut without honor in a lounge for nuts.
Her fast jerk for hire heeds a hundred bucks.
Stormy chick, stormy chick, where do you roam?
This is a major reason why nobody likes lawyers.
I suspect sex trafficking will increase in Ohio.
Grammar issue. She regularly appears nude. It is not a one off, spring break flashing.
Another weird set of Ohio laws are those regulating what brands/types of liquor can be sold. If you like a certain type of flavored vodka, the state liquor board may not allow its sale, just because it doesn't want to. Ohio outlawed booze 6 months before enactment of prohibition, and still has maybe the strangest liquor laws in the country.
"Virgil Hilts said...
20 posts now under the Stormy tag, but who's counting!"
This...is CNN.
I found some imagery of Ms Daniels online. She's got a nice rack, and has made some porn. I'm thinking of ordering some, because I think she's got the MILF genre covered. Overall, however, I think she's had her 15 minutes.
What about the two female cops that were assaulted by Stormy? Would Althouse want to involuntarily motorboat her? Where's their "metoo" justice?
Hence the "Gypsy" in Gypsy Rose Lee.
If I ran a "Gentleman's Club" in Ohio I would cycle through dancers routinely. Then I would advertise that the dancers are not considered regular employees and not subject to the "no touching laws".
Money in the (honey) bank.
"So a sexually oriented business can have performers who touch customers and allow customers to touch them as long as they keep bringing in a new person — a traveling guest artist? Will that work everywhere in Ohio now?"
Evidently Columbus has never prosecuted anyone under this statute. As an Ohioan, let's just say that I have reason to know that it is seldom / never enforced as written anywhere in the state, so I don't think it's going to represent a big change in practice.
There was an article yesterday saying that the law HAS been used in Ohio before--at least once and perhaps more. Just not in Columbus--as far as they checked. If they checked.
Whether the touching use of your breasts can be seen as permissible turns on whether you get a W-2 or a 1099?
What is the meaning of "regularly"? Is it more than once, more than five, more than two? Also isn't haven't discrete performers come in at regular intervals another form of "regularly"? Thank God we have lawyers to help us arrive at just and humane answers to these knotty problems.......There can't be too many Stormy Daniels posts. I'd so much rather read about Stormy Daniels than about our soybean exports to China. This is an issue worthy for further study and discussion.......I think Charley Sheen had the best taste in porn stars. I'm not a blind or uncritical admirer of Trump's policies toward pornstars.
I've spent a few hours (and dollars) in gentlemen's clubs and I can tell you that no matter which State they are located in, the rules are on paper but not enforced. She was targeted because of who she was, and the police probably helped the lawyers find the loophole because it was a bit of an embarrassment all around.
To be fair, "targeted enforcement" of the law is an Eric Holder specialty.
I knew a "feature dancer" who was arrested in a Pennsylvania for touching herself while dancing nude in a "bottle club".
The first dancer (X) took stage at 9:15 p.m. She removed all of her clothing save for footwear. While dancing, she touched her vagina [Vulva?] and waited for patrons to “tip” her. She then removed dollars of various denominations from patrons' hands by squeezing her breasts together. Her act was completed by 9:35 p.m. The second dancer (Y) took the floor 5 minutes later and completed the same type of performance by 10:00 p.m. The final performer (Z) engaged in identical acts as her predecessors...
In assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, a review of Section 7329(a) is necessary and provides: “[n]o bottle club operator or servants, agents or employees of the same shall knowingly permit on premises used as a bottle club or in any place operated in connection therewith any lewd, immoral or improper entertainment.”
...Giving the statute a common sense reading, knowledgeable that the Legislature intended a result that is not absurd or makes a portion of a statute ineffectual ... the thrust of the “bottle club” law is to prohibit “lewd, immoral or improper entertainment” in any place operated for pecuniary gain having a capacity to house 20 or more people consuming alcohol.
Additionally, we hold that dancing before an audience at such a distance as to allow the performers to remove money from a patron's hand while nude and touching their vaginas is “erotic”. ... Even so, erotic performances are presented at these establishments and similar clubs without any interference from the Commonwealth, so long as the performers wear a scant amount of clothing. ... When the dancers do not don “pasties” and “G-strings”, the erotic message is more graphic. Nonetheless, one of the perceived evils that Pennsylvania seeks to address with the “bottle club” statute is not erotic dancing, but public nudity. See Section 7329(c)(3), which describes as “lewd, immoral or improper entertainment”: “Scenes wherein a person displays or exposes to view any portion of the pubic area, anus, cleft of the buttocks, vulva, genitals or any portion of the female breast directly or laterally below the top of the areola.”
The governmental interest served is societal disapproval of nudity in public places and among strangers. The statutory prohibition is tailored to such offensive behavior. As a result, Pennsylvania's requirement that dancers refrain from “lewd, immoral or improper” performances is a modest request; and the bare minimum necessary to achieve the Commonwealth's purpose of preventing nude dancing in public is being accomplished without offending the First Amendment's freedom of expression or assembly. Barnes, supra ; see also note 2, infra.
Neither do we find that the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution is compromised by the “bottle club” law's prohibition against “lewd, immoral or improper entertainment”, which the appellants argue is permitted in the case of liquor code licensees and organizations soliciting funds for charitable purposes. This is just not the case.
Legislation enacted by the General Assembly carries a strong presumption of constitutionality, and the party challenging the constitutionality of any statute bears the heavy burden of demonstrating that the statute is clearly, palpably and plainly unconstitutional. ... The essence of the constitutional principle of equal protection under the law is that like persons in like circumstances will be treated similarly. ... Under equal protection scrutiny, a classification which does not impermissibly interfere with a fundamental right or disadvantageously offset a suspect class will be upheld as long as it passes a rational relationship test.
"Blogger roadgeek said...
I found some imagery of Ms Daniels online. She's got a nice rack, and has made some porn."
And Uncle Ben has made "some rice."
Of course they had the goods on her! But after finding out who she was, they dropped the charges - why go through this crappy process and be demeaned by the Left? The cops have better things to do then fighting the "Culture Wars".
So a sexually oriented business can have performers who touch customers and allow customers to touch them as long as they keep bringing in a new person — a traveling guest artist?
Amateur Night!
Let me qualify my comment by stating that I have no problem with the adult sex industry, nor those who consume their products; it's their bodies and lives to do with as they wish.
...but I can recognize a slag when I see one.
This makes sense if the intent intent of the law is to prevent the eatablishment of regular venues for prostitution without impacting touring performances.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा