Expressing myself with dollar bills.

A company that wants to open an exotic dance club in Homestead filed a lawsuit against the borough yesterday in federal court.

Among the claims in the lawsuit are prior restraint from freedom of expression; and that the regulations cause a “chilling effect on constitutionally protected speech.”

My thoughts:

1.  I’m sure what our forefathers were fighting for was definitely our freedom to express ourselves by placing a dollar bill in a stripper’s G-string.

2.  How is nude dancing considered “constitutionally protected speech?”  Sometimes, I feel so stupid for not understanding this stuff.

3.  “Chilling effect”?  That’s not hyperbolic at all is it?

Dude #1:  Did you hear that they stifled the strip club’s freedom of speech?

Dude #2:  That?  Is chilling.


  1. PittGirl fan
    March 20, 2007 2:10 pm

    “2. How is nude dancing considered “constitutionally protected speech?” Sometimes, I feel so stupid for not understanding this stuff.”

    That’s OK, PittGirl, not many others understand this either. I guess that shakin’ your moneymaker is considered an “artistic expression”
    More info here, from a rather sleazy law firm that specializes in defending clients from the adult industry…laywers…sheesh…

    To each his (or her) own.

  2. spoon
    March 20, 2007 4:42 pm

    hey Kandyland! I remember that place when it used to be behind the job center off State Street before they moved. It was no Jiggles though!

  3. Odd man out
    March 21, 2007 12:21 am

    Bottoms up? Ewwwwwwwwwww…..

  4. blee
    March 22, 2007 10:21 am

    #2: Since Many dance companies do shows with grants from public money it could be considered a public display of artistic expression.

    Because of this you could group all forms of dancing as artistic expression and therefor covered under the general definition of art.

    Being that many art exibits have sexual overtones (some even showing actual sex) you could make a decent argument.

    Also, there is a right to open a business that could be constitutional based on ‘The pursuit of happiness’ and its tie to monitary gains.

    Besides, what does morality have to do with this? How many moral politicians have you met?