This is one of those things that bothers me on several levels. In the past I have advocated that the age to do porn should be raised to twenty one, but my support on that front is not hard. In my mind if you are old enough to take the responsibility to die fighting for oil or to stop drugs or whatever then you are certainly old enough to perform in an adult video or to take your clothes off or to have a beer. Therein lies the problem, the government shouldn’t be able to have it both ways, the feds even pressured states to make sure that all the states raised the legal drinking age to twenty one. If you really know your history you also understand that it was the same reasoning that Roe v. Wade ended the way it did. Murder is a federal crime as well as state but if abortion was murder in one state but not in another then you have an issue with state law overriding federal law, which cant happen. The book “Storm Center” explains it very well and explains why the law is correct as decided in Roe v. Wade. This could be a similar issue but probably not one that will be decided by the Supreme Court anytime soon.
What needs to happen is that the fed needs to determine the absolute age of majority and apply it equally , as required by the Constitution. The impediment to this is that it seriously depletes the US Military, but that isn’t and shouldn’t be a consideration. If the age of majority is determined to be 18 then so be it, 18 year olds should have every right as any other adult, if not then whatever age is determined to be the age of majority should apply, be it for military service, signing contracts, performing in porn, drinking a beer or going to a strip club.
And if you are interested in understand The Supreme Court and some of its most controversial decisions I HIGHLY recommend this book. It was given to me by Kayden Kross and she was 100% correct in her assumption that I would like it.
From Nola.com
Three dancers have filed a federal lawsuit alleging that a law requiring performers in strip clubs be at least age 21 is unconstitutional. The lawsuit comes about a week before state officials have said they’ll begin enforcing the new law in strip clubs statewide.
Identified in the lawsuit as Jane Doe I, II and III, the three dancers say the law will rob them of the ability to express themselves with erotic dance, in violation of the First Amendment guarantee of free speech.
They also claim the law unfairly targets women, citing a prohibition in state law that defines strip club performers as “entertainers whose breasts or buttocks are exposed to view.” That definition, the dancers claim, applies only to women and “does not prohibit the same conduct by men” who are between the ages of 18 and 21.
Much of the lawsuit takes aim at the idea that the law is gender discriminatory, which the dancers say is in violation of the Constitution’s equal protection law. Citing comments by legislators, the law seeks to bolster its gender discrimination argument by saying legislators knew the law was aimed at young women because state Rep. Walt Leger, D-New Orleans, and others said the law was aimed at protecting young women
A consistent argument among supporters of the bill during the legislative session was that it was designed to ensure that people under the age of 21 aren’t exposed to the lure of prostitution through adult nightclubs. The author of the bill, state Sen. Ronnie Johns, is quoted in the lawsuit as saying the bill is “strictly an anti-human trafficking bill.”
In an interview, Johns said much of the debate around the bill concerned its viability as a human trafficking law, and that the question of constitutionality never came up.
“I know in my mind in preparing the bill I got to thinking about things like our alcohol laws, we limit that to 21 years old,” Johns said. “There are other statutes on the books that limit the age of what people can and cannot do.”
Johns filed the legislation along with two other bills aimed at curbing human trafficking, but the law aimed at adult nightclubs was prompted after he learned that “a lot of these young women are lured into the human trafficking market end up in the strip clubs.”
The lawsuit claims one of the three dancers works in a New Orleans strip club, and has witnessed pimps and prostitutes trying to use the new law to “recruit entertainers who are now lawfully employed, but who will lose their jobs as a result of the Act.” It also claims a second dancer, identified as an 18-year-old LSU student, has been told by other dancers under the age of 21 that they plan to work as prostitutes after losing their jobs as erotic dancers.
The lawsuit claims the two dancers believe that adults younger than 21 are “more susceptible to harm from traffickers, pimps, and prostitutes, because it eliminates a legal job with high pay and flexible hours.”
Johns called that argument “ridiculous,” adding that he is confident the courts will uphold the law.
Covenant House executive director James Kelly has been critical of loosely enforced regulations regarding strip clubs in New Orleans. Former dancers at the clubs are often residents of his shelter for young adults, and he advocated for an ordinance in New Orleans setting age limits and the law Gov. John Bel Edwards signed earlier this year.
Kelly said that while he’s not an attorney, he does not believe that “lap dances performed by an 18-year-old woman are protected by the Constitution.”
“You have to be 21 to drink in a strip club,” Kelly said. “You should have to be 21 to take off your clothes in a strip club.”
The lead attorney representing the three dancers is Harry Rosenberg, who was the U.S. Attorney for eastern Louisiana in the early 1990s. Rosenberg, who works with the Phelps Dunbar firm, could not be reached for comment on Monday (Sept. 26).
The lawsuit was filed Thursday (Sept. 22). A hearing has not been scheduled on the suit.
10 Responses
My thoughts on this are pretty simple:
If you are old enough to die for your country, you are old enough for EVERYTHING else. There is nothing else you can do.
18 is the correct age. It’s the age that many leave home to head to school (university) for the first time. It’s the time when the growing up under Mom and Dad is over and it’s time to learn for yourself. If you don’t choose (or can’t) go to school, you choose working, the military, or I guess living in the trailer park or hood or whatever it is you do. It’s a turning point.
The military depends on being a “choice”. Wait until 21, and those children who moved out at 18 are working and don’t need to military as much. They offer a solid alternative to newly minted adults who aren’t really sure what they want from life. Wait 3 more years, and people may have a better idea what they want to be, and the military may not be it anymore.
Old enough to die for your country should mean old enough to drink, old enough to drive, and yes, old enough to make a fuck film.
This is a tough one. There is a part of me that completely buys into the idea that if you’re old enough to kill for your country, then you should be old enough to shake your booty for someone willing to slide a few 1’s in your G-string. I completely understand that argument. And, if I can legally marry and procreate at 18 – or younger – in some states, why can’t I get naked on stage to earn a living.
There is another part of me that says that when it comes to vice, the courts have had no issue setting a higher age limit than for other activities. You have to be 21 to drink; you have to be 21 to gamble; I don’t know the law state by state, but it used to be that you had to be 21 to go into a strip club (not saying I’m right on that). In that sense, I can see where the courts would allow it.
I guess personally, I’m sympathetic to raising the age to 21. When its a workplace issue, I’m not sure I think its not discriminatory.
And therein lis my point. It is currently arbitrary…you are an adult when it is convenient for you to be an adult as far as the government is concerned but not an adult when it comes to vice. I am with Alex here it has to be across the board you either are an adult with the responsibility that entails…all of it, or you are not. I do believe that this is in conflict with the Constitution and if it isn’t then it should be. and I think if you are old enough to risk your life for whatever reason the President wishes you to do so then you are old enough to strip, marry or anything else.
Most people don’t remember it but this is not the first time that this has come up, the drinking age was 21 in the 60s but the age of conscription was 18. It was one of many civil rights issues fought in the 60s and it resulted in an across the board recognition of 18 as the age of majority. That has since been whittled away by congress because it suits them for whatever reason.
I dont much care whether its 18 or 21 but whatever it is has to be absolute and include drinking, stripping, doing porn, signing contracts and serving in the military.
Interesting article from a constitutional law professor on this case in the papers this weekend. He basically says that State of Louisiana doesn’t have a leg to stand on, no matter how well meaning the statute.
BT I am interested to see how this plays out for sure…..It could well have lasting effects potentially far beyond LA
Saw this when I was running around like a one-armed wallpaper hanger.
This age restriction proposal isn’t a situation like preventing 12 year-olds from operating heavy machinery so it comes off as somebody’s pet-peeve and using the law to back their arbitrary preference.
I was able to drink leally at age 18. MADD was something no one had heard of and every argument they put forth led me to believe the driving age not the drinking age ought to be raised. Perhaps being a city girl who didn’t bother getting my license until I was 18 affected my ideas but I couldn’t imagine trying to incorporate drinking to driving when my experience with had already taught me too much drinking made walking difficult.
When the drinking age to 21 restaurants and bars were appeased with a change to allow anyone 18+ to serve booze. The fear was raising the age for serving to 21 would make it too hard to get eligible servers.
IM (not so) HO the State has no business raising the age to 21. It ought to left up to individual establishments who could pressure insurers to lower premiums for workers comp, liability and business coverage if they voluntarily raise their workers ages.
Don’t disagree with whether states have an interest in raising the age to perform to 21 from 18; however, if the legal age is 18 (or 21) an establishment has to abide by the law. In individual establishment cannot decide on its own that it will only employ strippers who are 21 or older because they would be discriminating against those who are qualified for the job but under the age of 21. Just can’t legally do it.
@BT
Legally IF an establishment employs a dancer under age 21 they are liable for the consequences of breaking the law.
A few things not included in Mike’s posted source ….
The law isn’t statewide it was passed by the New Orleans City Council in January and went into effect Oct 1st. Consequences include suspending or even revoking city liquor licenses.
http://www.theadvocate.com/new_orleans/news/politics/article_96f6c5de-3b24-58d0-8ea8-a5aeab6f4754.html
As I said this came off as someone’s pet peeve and looking into this further has only supported that view. The city might run into an issue because they didn’t phase effective dates to limit the impact on existing workers hired when it was legal to do so.
Imagine the legal defenses Larry Flynt’s lawyers would use in the event his city liquor permit were suspended over a dancer who turned 18 on 1/5/16 was hired 1/6/16 which is the day before the council vote. This hypothetical situation shows the city council didn’t realize the law could be overturned the first time they try to enforce consequences for not following rules intended to serve a pet-peeve.
I have to agree. Whatever the age of majority is, it should come with ALL rights and privileges extended to adults. I personally think we should accelerate K-12 education and graduate/emancipate people at 16 (graduation at 15-16 was somewhat common in the one room schoolhouse days where everyone worked at their own pace and many times teachers only had 2-3 students total in their grades 1-8 one room schoolhouse classes, students could easily complete eight years of primary school in 5-6 years, those people came out of school just as well as those in the city schools where accelerated completion wasn’t possible — the last township-run and funded one room schoolhouses were closed in my area in 1967 and 1968) but our government is a hypocrite telling people they can join the military or marry at 17 and not drink alcohol or work in a strip joint until 21.
Michigan didn’t have a drinking age at all until about 1970 (at that point the age was 18 with an increase to 21 in late 1978). Literally a two year old could legally belly up to the bar and order/consume an alcoholic drink. Back then police and bar owners could and would prevent something that asinine from happening extra-judicially but technically there wasn’t a law making a two year old unable to legally order a drink. We didn’t have a general child endangerment law on the books back then either so that wasn’t an option.