Christie's Cabaret on Wendover Ave. in G'boro...
Remember this post?
It's about Christie's Cabaret & how they won their case against the anal-retentive (read: tight-ass) establishment in NC back in 11/05.
Here's the whole article in it's entirety, courtesy of Adultfyi.com (http://www.adultfyi.com/):
11/12/2005 06:32 AM PST
Judge strikes law on erotic dancing
Christie's Cabaret challenged law that forbade even booty shaking
North Carolina - Bumping. Grinding. Even just shaking your booty.
Under a state law regulating erotic dancing, a bar or club that allowed patrons to perform sexually suggestive moves such as these could be sanctioned, a federal judge sitting in Greensboro contends.
Some provisions of the law are so broad they could restrict everything from dancing to cheerleading to a Britney Spears concert. Therefore, they are unconstitutional, U.S. District Judge N. Carlton Tilley ruled late last month.
"... The General Assembly could easily have drafted a statute that is less invasive of free speech interests," he wrote in an Oct. 26 opinion.
It was the latest in a five-year legal battle over the enforcement of the state's Alcoholic Beverage Control law regarding sexually explicit conduct.
A Greensboro strip club, Christie's Cabaret, challenged the law after authorities said employees violated the regulations. That included simulating sex acts and an employee touching her own breasts.
The law only applies to those with an ABC permit. Strip clubs that sell alcohol or allow patrons to bring liquor inside with them must obtain such permits.
Christie's would have faced a 30-day suspension of its permit had it admitted to the violations. Instead, the business filed a lawsuit in January 2001.
Tilley found the law unconstitutional and prohibited its enforcement. The Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals -- which is based in Richmond, Va., and covers North Carolina -- upheld the order in 2002 preventing enforcement.
In 2003, the General Assembly enacted a revised law, but legislators left in provisions preventing conduct that simulates sex acts or the fondling of one's private parts, including the posterior.
Christie's renewed its complaint in federal court, and both sides faced off October 2004 at trial in Greensboro. Tilley released his opinion a year after the trial.
According to that opinion, the trial included testimony from a Columbia University professor, Judith Hanna, who studies dance.
Hanna said movements that involve the hips, thighs, chest, hair and hands traditionally are associated with simulating sex. And, she testified, every form of dance -- from ballet to belly dancing -- incorporates movements that can be seen as suggesting sex.
The touching of one's posterior and chest, Hanna added, also is common in those dances.
Tilley found this persuasive in deciding the regulations went too far in prohibiting protected expression. Any owner of an ABC-licensed business would be in violation even if a fully clothed person gave the appearance of having sex while dancing, he wrote in his opinion.
"The breadth of this statute would even reach the owners of Bank of America Stadium who permit the Carolina Panther (sic) cheerleaders, the Topcats (sic), to perform dances incorporating movements that, even momentarily, could be interpreted as 'simulat[ing] sexual intercourse,'" the judge wrote. "When their cheers involved 'handling or touching in a loving way' their own buttocks, they would be in violation of the statute."
Tilley added that coliseums or arenas that book acts such as Britney Spears or Madonna could also be in violation based on the dance movements of the performers or their dancers. The same would apply to clubs or bars, he wrote.
"The prohibitions would likewise apply to fully clothed customers wishing to do the shag or other popular dances such as those seen on the TV show Soul Train or the movies Dirty Dancing or Saturday Night Fever," Tilley wrote.
A lawyer for Christie's said the ruling was well-reasoned. "It's a resounding victory for freedom of expression," said J. Michael Murray, based in Cleveland. Christie's employees declined to comment when reached by telephone this week.
The state plans to appeal Tilley's ruling, said Fred Gregory, the state ABC commission's chief counsel.
However, the ruling was not a complete victory for Christie's.
Tilley did not strike down an anti-nudity provision. It says people who expose their genitals, even by wearing transparent clothing, violate the law.
Gregory said ABC agents soon will begin enforcing the anti-nudity provision at adult entertainment clubs with alcohol permits across North Carolina.
Locally, authorities don't believe it will have much of an impact.
Rodney Johnson, a state Alcohol Law Enforcement supervisor for Guilford and surrounding counties, said he is not aware of any all-nude clubs in the Piedmont Triad.
Many are like Christie's, where dancers are topless but wear G-strings to cover their genitals.
The bigger problem involves sexual contact between customers and dancers in private, Johnson said. That activity remained illegal regardless of the court battle, and his officers have continued to crack down on it, he said. "That's primarily the stuff we have investigated," he said. "The stuff going on in back rooms."
Notice some of the highlights, like 5 YEAR LEGAL BATTLE?
This thing ain't over by a loooooong shot.
T & A is here 2 STAY!!!