Constitutionudity

The residents of the Laurelhurst neighborhood recently fought hard to try and keep a strip club out of their backyard. Thankfully, the city did not see fit to legislate based on the moral preferences of the neighborhood association.

The Laurelhurst Neighborhood Association initially opposed the club. Association members appealed to the Oregon Liquor Control Commission to try and block the club’s liquor license in an attempt to keep the club from opening on Northeast Sandy Boulevard. They originally opposed the club on the grounds that it would be a breeding ground for fights and other untoward behavior, due mostly to the reputation of the location’s previous business having similar problems.

This seems to be more of a moral distinction, as the good members of the Laurelhurst neighborhood wanted to keep a club of ill repute out of their area. Many residents argued that the strip club would not be “appropriate” for the area. The club, however, does not violate any kind of zoning restrictions, as the property falls well within a commercial district and is not near any schools or churches.

Because the Oregon Supreme Court has often ruled that nude dancing and other such behaviors are protected speech, those who oppose strip clubs don’t have much legal precedent to rely on.

A similar situation arose in Tualatin a few years ago. Many opposed a potential strip club there on similar grounds, i.e., that it was not appropriate. Residents claimed that the club would “affect the community and its families,” according to an article by ABC News. There have been similar claims made in the Laurelhurst case. The argument that a child feasibly walking by a strip club during the day when it’s not even open would somehow be adversely affected is a rather weak one.

It would seem that the “appropriate” place for a strip club to many of the anti-club crowd is simply somewhere else. The “not in my backyard” defense cannot stand up against constitutional rights.

If the Laurelhurst community really wants to keep the strip club out of their neighborhood, they should hit it where it hurts—its wallet. Residents should be using free speech to their own advantage and not just bemoaning the free speech possessed by strip clubs and nude dancers.

Voting with one’s dollars is a great way to keep businesses in or out of one’s community. If the residents of Laurelhurst don’t want a strip club in their neighborhood, they simply need not patronize the establishment. If the neighborhood association really is representative of overall community values, those values will be reflected in the lack of patronage to the club.

They could even go all out and stage legal protests to keep business away from the club. But I imagine that complaining to the OLCC and crying “but what about the children” is a far easier approach.

The plain and simple fact is that strip clubs and pornography vendors have every right to set up shop in a commercial district. Trying to keep them out on rather weak moral or child protection grounds is simply an attempt to stifle the free speech of others and legislate one’s own personal preferences upon the community as a whole.

If Sandy Boulevard really isn’t the right place for the Mynt Gentlemen’s Club, it will be shown by a lack business, not by the moral compass of the Laurelhurst Neighborhood Association.