Associated Press
Strip clubs in one Florida city are suing over a new law that raised the minimum age for strippers from 18 to 21.
The law in Jacksonville was enacted March 5 in a bid to reduce human trafficking. But lawyers for the clubs, including the lead plaintiff Wacko’s, contend in a federal lawsuit that it violates the First Amendment by restricting the ability of performers to dance.
“The Constitution does not permit the deprivation of First Amendment rights based on the age of … citizens who have attained the age of 18,” attorneys Gary Edinger and James Benjamin argue in a complaint filed in the names of 13 businesses and four dancers, two of them under age 21.
The 140-page suit notes that people under 21 can hold any other job at those businesses, even own the clubs.
City attorneys have not yet responded to the lawsuit.
Jacksonville City Councilmember LeAnna Cumber notes that while estimates vary as to how young the average age is of introduction to sex trafficking, there is general agreement that women are most vulnerable between the ages of 14 and 20. Cumber notes that while estimates vary as to how young the average age is of introduction to sex trafficking, there is general agreement that women are most vulnerable between the ages of 14 and 20.
Clubs are now required to keep rosters of registered performers and to keep copies of identification cards on file to be produced on demand.
Club license fees defray the cost of maintaining licenses, Cumber noted. Right now, the city is losing money, spending more on enforcement than is brought in from club licensure fees.
A “Survivors’ Council” was established to ensure that those who lived through some of the worst the industry and humanity have to offer will be able to help ensure that what they endured is not perpetuated.
One comment
David McCallister
April 5, 2020 at 10:42 am
As a lawyer who has represented dancers and clubs, I see this ordinance as part of a general attack on well-established Constitutional rights. It is akin to the Florida legislatures’s attempt at unconstitutional deprivation of 2nd Amendment rights of those over 18 and under 21 to own firearms. While it is an estimable goal to reduce human trafficking, it can not be done by unconstitutional means.
Furthermore, in this time of economic crisis, to cut off a legitimate means of employment is unconscionable. Eighteen to twenty-one young women is a prime cohort for such employment, especially for those who need to supplement their family income or support a college education
This sort of action is a prime example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater overreach, and suggests that there are ulterior motives in passing such a restriction.
Comments are closed.