Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Stormy Daniels Was Arrested Because of a Terrible Law That Threatens Free Expression

When you give law enforcement a tool that can be used to target someone who has unpopular views, they will use it.

Kobby Dagan/Dreamstime.comKobby Dagan/Dreamstime.comEarlier this week, Stormy Daniels, the adult film star who says she took hush money to stay quiet about an alleged 2006 affair with Donald Trump, was arrested for violating an Ohio statute that prohibits a stripper from allowing patrons to touch her if she is nude or semi-nude. The statute used against her is an example of how free expression can fall victim to zealous moralizers—and how almost any law aimed at free expression can be used to punish a political opponent.

These regulations—typically known as "no touch" or "proximity" rules—are common, and throughout their history they have been used to make end-runs around the First Amendment.

There's no escaping the conclusion that erotic dancing is a form of expression protected by the Bill of Rights. As Judge Richard Posner wrote in the 1990 case, Miller v. City of South Bend, any notion that nude dancing is not expression is "indefensible and a threat to artistic freedom."

He articulated his reasoning as follows:

The goal of the striptease—a goal to which the dancing is indispensable—is to enforce the association: to make plain that the performer is not removing her clothes because she is about to take a bath or change into another set of clothes or undergo a medical examination; to insinuate that she is removing them because she is preparing for, thinking about, and desiring sex. The dance ends when the preparations are complete. The sequel is left to the viewer's imagination. This is the 'tease' in 'striptease.'

In Schad v. Borough of Mount Ephraim (1981), the Supreme Court made it clear that totally banning nude entertainment violates the First Amendment.

As the law became more permissive, those who wanted to restrict strip shows were forced to get more creative. After all, if a would-be censor doesn't want a strip club in his town, and the First Amendment protects it, what is he to do?

Enter the "adverse secondary effects" doctrine from Renton v. Playtime Theatres (1986), in which the Supreme Court said that the government can't restrict adult businesses because the government doesn't like the expression therein—but it can restrict them, using zoning regulations, because of harmful effects the businesses may cause.

These "secondary effects" are usually claims of increased crime or lower property values. Although, in reality, these secondary effects rarely actually exist outside of the imaginations of those who want to regulate the businesses.

The jurisprudence surrounding nude dancing and other adult businesses gets more and more convoluted as municipalities and courts have done whatever they could to avoid the conclusion that they want to stifle expressive activity because they don't like sexual expression.

By the early 2000's, adult entertainment businesses that survived the zoning wars got hit with the "proximity" rules. The expressed reason for these regulations was to discourage prostitution. However, anyone who has spent time in a strip club knows that you must get somewhat close to the dancer in order to tip them. Try putting a dollar in a g-string without some incidental contact. Further, some regulations went so far as to prohibit patrons from even getting near a stripper.

If nude dancing is expressive activity, then proximity or even contact is as well—and these regulations stifle First Amendment-protected expression.

If you're skeptical, think of how we communicate. Words are clearly expressive, but think of how imperfect of a medium the written word is. Imagine wrapping your arms around someone, burying your nose into their hair and pulling your breath all the way in. Words can't summarize the communication in that small act, yet it expresses more thoughts and feelings and emotions than a shelf of encyclopedias.

There are a number of dances that require proximity—and not just lap dances: Think of a hula dance in which the dancer places a lei around the spectator's neck. Unfortunately, courts have been hostile to this notion, and almost universally uphold proximity and no-touch rules.

The one exception is the 2005 case of City of Nyssa v. Dufloth. In that case, the city of Nyssa, Oregon, imposed a "four foot rule," which led to the arrest of a dancer for merely shaking her hair in a patron's face. Clearly, that expresses something that can't be expressed from four feet away. The Oregon Supreme Court held that free expression means even "the kinds of expression that a majority of citizens in many communities would dislike—profanity, blasphemy, pornography—and even to physical acts, such as nude dancing or other explicit sexual conduct, that have an expressive component."

Unfortunately, the vast majority of other courts have not followed this rationale. Most cases wind up as convoluted attempts to escape the logically inescapable notion that proximity and touch are expressive.

Enter the Stormy arrest. Daniels was arrested under one of these laws after an extensive sting operation. Why did the State of Ohio devote a team of police officers and hours of taxpayer-funded overtime to an investigation, raid, and arrest of a woman for the grave crime of touching another person while semi-nude?

Daniels has her fans and her detractors. (I happen to be the latter, as I think that if you take "hush money," you should "hush.") Whatever you think of her, there is no question that she is an outspoken political activist. And, it seems that she was targeted, in particular, due to her political activism. Otherwise, why was there a massive sting operation involving multiple vice detectives on that particular night, a tour Daniels had advertised well in advance? It sure wasn't because the City of Columbus was under siege by a rash of touchy strippers.

And therein lies the deeper evil in any and all laws aimed at free expression. When you give law enforcement a tool that can be used to target someone who has unpopular views, they will use it. So, not only was the expression demonstrated by the nude dancing suppressed, but the tool of suppression may have been used to punish someone for their political activism.

The case against Stormy was immediately dropped—not because enforcement of it would be unconstitutional (although, I think it would be), and not because it was a pretty blatant targeting of someone for her outspoken activism, but because the statute has a strange quirk wherein it does not apply to performers who do not "regularly appear" at the particular strip club.

Nevertheless, the damage is done. The law on the books restricts free expression—and now that there has been a high profile arrest, the chilling effect will be palpable. Further, whether Daniels was targeted for political reasons or not, it certainly appears that way. Thus, any other entertainer who might stick their neck out has been warned: The Ohio vice squad will be watching you.

Photo Credit: Kobby Dagan/Dreamstime.com

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Rejoice! Randazza comes to Reason.

  • Quixote||

    Rejoice, at the presence of an individual who makes such abhorrent claims? Surely the "constitutional" cases he cites are out of date and no longer good law. Everyone knows that certain forms of "expression" are considered harmful to our great nation and may thus be suppressed, banned, and weeded out by the proper authorities. Just as so-called "parody" emails may be punished with jail when they cross the line into criminally deadpan impersonation that conveys inappropriate ideas that are not sufficiently "puerile," so can certain other prurient manifestations be outlawed, when they cross the line into conduct that violates basic standards of decency. See the documentation of America's leading criminal "satire" case at:

    https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

  • Agammamon||

    Not a single F-bomb?

  • MSimon||

    Re: the Stormy arrest.

    How else can abortion be prevented?

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    So exactly who was it that Trump personally asked to be there and mind-controlled Ms.Stormy into touching them?

  • Horny Lizard||

    You're a fucking idiot.

  • Chipper Got Me Banned||

    And you're a horny lizard. Why does that matter?

  • MarioLanza||

    That was an intelligent response.

    And I would also ask, if fondling the guys who are ogling the stripper is "free speech", does oral sex represent free speech as well. "But officer, it was artistic fellatio!"

    What is the name of this website? Unreason?

  • Texasmotiv||

    Please identify the victim in either scenario.

  • MarioLanza||

    The 18 year old girl who will get the $^%+ beat out of her a pimp if she doesn't make enough per day.

    But that is irrelevant. The essay is trying to say that free speech demands that a stripper be allowed to fondle customers. If that is the case, performing oral sex is also.

    Next time I get pulled over with a tail-light out, I am going to tell the officer that I was engaging in free speech.

    Stupid.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Exactly. This article is idiotic in legal theory.

    The First Amendment does not thereby guarantee a right to do anything with an expressive component.

  • buybuydandavis||

    The First Amendment does not guarantee the constitutional right to engage in all victimless "crimes".

    You can be against victimless crimes without playing "the constitution means whatever I need it to mean to get what I want".

  • Mr. Dyslexic||

    Nice read, well done.

  • Number 2||

    "When you give law enforcement a tool that can be used to target someone who has unpopular views, they will use it."

    Why limit this insight to persons with unpopular views? These silly, excessive laws can be used to target anyone that any law-enforcement officer has a grudge against, for any reason.

    New Jersey used to have a law that prohibited someone from transporting more than two cases of beer or a specified amount of wine in a single vehicle in any 24 hour period unless the vehicle was licensed by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission. The purpose of the walls to protect distributors. But that did not stop a police officer who heard that his ex-girlfriend was having a party at her home. He staked out her house, watched her make two trips to the liquor store to pick up beer for the party, and then arrested her for violating this law. The law was repealed shortly thereafter, but the point remains.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    If we can USE the laws, why pass them?

  • LarryA||

    Why limit this insight to persons with unpopular views? These silly, excessive laws can be used to target anyone that any law-enforcement officer has a grudge against, for any reason.

    "Pi**ed off the cop" = "Person with unpopular view" in every way that counts.

  • JesseAz||

    They were there targeting human trafficking. It wasn't the only weekend they had been at the club. Facts and all. You keep doing you though and assuming partisan assumptions.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    It's a law that's designed to protect Ms. Daniels from exploitation and trafficking.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    It a law that assumes that Ms. Daniels is a drooling imbecile incapable of making her own decisions and living with them. A common fault of laws beloved by either the Religious Right OR the Progressive Left.

    Ms. Daniels appears to be a blowsey strumpet. That isn't an excuse for denying her the right to make decisions, even if we are sure the decisions are bad.

  • The_Hoser||

    It's a law that assumes that Ms. Daniels is a drooling imbecile incapable of making her own decisions and living with them.

    So, they nailed it.

  • MarioLanza||

    No. It is a law that doesn't assume that she isn't a prostitute being pimped out by a POS that will beat the tar out of her for not satisfying the customer - something that happens all too frequently.

  • MarioLanza||

    Who decides what crosses the line between strip club and bordellos? Now you might want to live where a bordello can open up next door (and see your property values plummet). Most americans don't.

    Who should decide, then? The local community, not the federal government and definitely not some tyrant in a black robe.

    This community has decided that touching of customers is the line in the sand. Good for them. Stay out of their business.

  • DajjaI||

    I hate when that happens.

  • Echospinner||

    Bottom line. Do not waste your money going to an Ohio strip club. I know this.

  • Flinch||

    Judge Posner is an idiot. The purpose of a strip tease is to not have sex: agitate the onlooker into such a state that they throw money in hopes they might not be a complete sucker, which usually leads to more of the same behavior. Just because the viewer is desiring sex means nothing to a pro performer.

  • Agammamon||

    That's what the good judge said.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I expect to learn that Stormy Daniels was arrested because a bigoted, church-going, half-educated right-winger with a badge got the bright idea to roust her for daring to cause problems for wingnut hero Donald Trump, then talked a couple of his lame-brained, authoritarian buddies into going along for the ride.

    These guys are probably Republicans with associate degrees from lousy schools, so they may have left plenty of tracks -- texts, e-mails, boasts with co-workers -- that an internal affairs division, their superiors, and Stormy Daniels' legal team can use to wreck their deplorable lives.

    Perhaps Mr. Avenatti can make an example of the offenders by arranging their prompt unemployment, terminating their professional certification, filing a private criminal complaint, bankrupting them with a civil judgment, and hitting the employer of the arresting officers with a nine-figure judgment.

    Accountability is a virtue.

  • Longtobefree||

    What I like best about your posts is the clear, fully cited, progression of facts leading to but a single conclusion.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I can't tell if the good Reverend is the dummy on OBL's knee, or the other way around.

  • TGoodchild||

    OBL is the most gracile "troll" on the board, and rather amusing because he is so good at it.

    Rev. Kirk, on the other hand, is merely a misanthrope and plainly has no interest in actually exchanging ideas or information. He logs on, grinds his small axe, and goes back to, in all likelihood, living under a bowling alley.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    My promotion of libertarian positions appears to offend you.

    If by "misanthrope" you mean 'disdains right-wing, authoritarian, retrograde bigots,' I plead guilty, with relish. Faux libertarians deserve every bit of scorn and condescending opprobrium that can be heaped upon them.

  • Sacco||

    Ha! Looks like Tgoodchild struck a nerve!

  • NashTiger||

    You didn't promote a single Libertarian position. Just a bunch of breathless speculative bigotry and misplaced fantasy

  • MarioLanza||

    Pathognomonic Trump derangement syndrome sufferer.

    It is always Trump's fault!!!

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    You're actually nothing more than an incredibly annoying pathetic douche.

  • RoyMo||

    No he is a regrettable side effect of the Volokh Conspiracy's move Reason.

  • Rockabilly||

    Rev Kirkland,

    Are you a snake handler? Can you handle satan or are you a charlatan?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Congregation Of Exalted Reason. All good, no superstition. Emphatically not a snake-juggling yahoo.

  • Sacco||

    Or a libertarian

  • Palatki||

    Congregation United to Nullify Trump

  • Longtobefree||

    Enter the "adverse secondary effects" doctrine from Renton v. Playtime Theatres (1986), in which the Supreme Court said that the government can't restrict adult businesses because the government doesn't like the expression therein—but it can restrict them, using zoning regulations, because of harmful effects the businesses may cause.

    So if I can bribe, I mean contribute to, enough of the city council of DC, I can get the feds declared "an adverse secondary effect"?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    The whole thing was a work to get publicity.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Worked so far.

  • ThomasD||

    This.

    Pure Kabuki.

  • TGoodchild||

    Nice article from an excellent attorney.

  • Homple||

    Charles Koch (Sitting at computer monitor. looks over at David) Tell me again how much we're paying for this shit?

  • Rockabilly||

    Yea man, the free expression to show your bosoms.

  • No Longer Amused||

    I thought she was arrested because she just couldn't stop herself from grabbing cocks for money....

  • Inigo Montoya||

    Remember when it was the conservatives who were seen as a bunch of sexually repressed losers and frigid church ladies all too eager to impose their mores on normal, red-blooded society and it was the liberals (i.e., classical liberals) who stood in opposition? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

    Nowadays it's the stupid progs who make up the Junior Anti-Sex League in most jurisdictions, especially in blue areas like Columbus.

    I wish they all would just get a life and leave other people alone.

  • Longtobefree||

    Your wish will never be fulfilled.
    The sole reason to exist for a progressive is to control the lives of others, preferably using the other's money.

  • kfs||

    Is it me, or are the proglodytes getting more bitter with each passing day ?

  • Iheartskeet||

    Hmm...well, the article fails in one important way: it fails to call things by what they are.

    She would not have had a problem if she just "expressed" herself, but let's be real. Once patrons start touching her, and/or she touches them back, its sex work. It just is. If you can equate stripper touching to a hearty hug while talking, I don't see that there isn't a logical stopping point to a blowjob.

    I am 100% for legalizing prostitution, and think Ms Daniels, indeed anybody, ought to be able to do whatever the hell they want. But for fuck's sake, stop dancing around the topic. Thats what this is about.

  • Don't look at me.||

    What's the difference what it's called?

  • Mark22||

    Libertarians prefer free speech and legalized prostitution.

    The Constitution protects free speech but not legalized prostitution.

    That's the difference.

    It's fine to say that what Daniels did ought to be legal; it's factually incorrect to say that it is protected by the Bill of Rights.

  • ThomasD||

    "What's the difference what it's called?"

    Besides the obvious difference between wrapping a Trump opponent in the Constitution vs. declaring a Trump opponent a prostitute?

    Not much.

    I mean, you don't think any of this is about Ohio strippers' freedom of expression, or freedom to be sex workers, do you?

    Look at the first sentence for the answer to that question.

  • Longtobefree||

    The same difference as "reasonable gun control" and "infringement".
    You can get away with one by ignoring the other.

  • Agammamon||

    Why should expression be limited to only verbal?

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Well, for one thing, by not limiting it to verbal we start sliding down the slippery slope toward everything being expression and the First Amendment protecting dangerous behavior like burning large flags in packed crowds. Someday a protest with flag burning is going to be marred by some poor schmuck getting wrapped in a large sheet of burning plastic fabric.

    Limiting protected expression to verbal and written is wrong, in my opinion. But the consequences need to be more,closely examined than they are.

  • Radioactive||

    that's the slippery "pole", try to stay in the context of the story.

  • Iheartskeet||

    I am fine with it being more than verbal, broadly stated, my issue with the article is he tries to portray the touching as a slight variation of carrying a political sign, versus going full on arguing that this and any kind of sex work ought to be constitutionally protected, my guess is beyond even the 1st amendment. He is not being totally honest.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Yay! Honest person at Reason.

    Shoe horning a boobal facial rub (which was what Stormy was arrested for) as protected speech in the first amendment is ridiculous.

    This is the judicial authoritarianism of the Left. Just make shit up in your interpretation of the law, so that the whims of the people in power are the law.

    Even anarchists should be appalled. If contracts in Anarchotopia mean whatever whoever has the most guns says they mean, you'll be in a hellhole in 10 minutes.

    Undergirding any kind of civilized behavior is the premise that our contracts and agreements will mean something agreed upon.

  • shane_c||

    And these are the kind of laws social conservatives Gorsuch and Kavanaugh would uphold. In the Schad v. Borough of Mount Ephraim case Kavanaugh's hero William Rehnquist argued that striptease can be banned entirely.

  • Sacco||

    there is nothing less interesting and more pathetic than someone who insists they know what judges who have basically no history of ruling on these things will rule

  • JesseAz||

    It's weird seeing liberals attack moral posture in the world of #metoo.

  • ThomasD||

    The left has always been a bunch of moralistic prigs. It's just that they have a different set of morals and they don't like yours.

  • jm15xy||

    What expression is being restricted?

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Lust.

  • jm15xy||

    Whose lust? Miss Daniels is there to turn a buck.

  • Think It Through||

    "the statute has a strange quirk wherein it does not apply to performers who do not "regularly appear" at the particular strip club.". Except, it doesn't. The statute applies to one who regularly appears at A sexually oriented business. On this tour, Ms. Daniels was certainly that. Dropping the charges was as much of a sham as bringing them -- the whole thing was kabuki theater.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Nonsense. Kabuki is art. This was flim-flam.

  • gphx||

    Just because one can do something doesn't mean they should.

    If libertarianism were the law of the land and informed, consenting adults could do whatever they see fit that doesn't mean they should slap each other in the face with their saggy tits in public.

    Since this failed the cops will have to go back to raping strippers then charging them with prostitution.

  • NashTiger||

    I'm pro-stripper, and pro-legalized prostitution, and also pro-zoning and pro-regulating adult businesses.

    Can we stop pretending that nudity = speech? It isn't. Even moreso groping =/= speech.

    I'm against any regulation on political speech, but there have to be some regulations on sex work. For instance, it would be nice to know that the prostitute I patronize is disease free, and that the stripper I see is a legal adult, and they aren't working next to a preschool...

  • Inigo Montoya||

    So having a prostitute or stripper working next to a preschool will do what, exactly? Make those preschoolers grow up wanting to go into that career? Is it okay if they work down the block from the little ones, however? Or does it have to be on the other side of the city and across the railroad tracks (i.e., on the wrong side)? And dare I ask what happens if the sexworker has young children? Should the state take them away?

    What if I told you I'd be more disturbed knowing there's a police station with a bunch of completely unaccountedable violent bullies working next to a preschool? Or a company run by a bunch of sleazy crony capitalists who suck at the government teat and rob the taxpayers? I mean, if we're worried about negative influences for little tykes, let's be more thorough.

  • Radioactive||

    so not in favor of public blow jobs? asking for a friend.

  • Cloudbuster||

    You've never actually lived next door to a strip club, have you?

  • Bretzky||

    Shaking your ass in someone else's face for money is not expression, it's business.

    That doesn't mean that the government should regulate it in the way this Ohio law does, but it certainly doesn't make it protected by the First Amendment. And covering such activity under the First Amendment only diminishes the importance of the real expression that the First Amendment was enacted to codify.

  • Ersatz||

    I am very sympathetic to this idea. Everything is communication in that everything one can observe by any of the senses is the result of transmitting information from one thing to another. Half of that transaction [the transaction of communication, solicited or not] can easily be understood as expression of some kind, some aspect of a thing to another. I think the magic has always been in the act of drawing a line somewhere - and it will be interesting to see if the line is redrawn by the new more originalist court.

  • Mindscape||

    I guess the question is whether entering a strip club automatically means giving permission for a performer to touch your private parts. I can't imagine that's the case, and it certainly doesn't work both ways. Especially in the new #MeToo movement, I would think fondling a woman's breasts without consent would be, as the libs like to say, problematic.

    "The detectives said in affidavits that while dancing topless, Ms. Clifford pressed patrons' faces into her chest and fondled the breasts of some women in the audience.

    She performed similar acts on three officers, and grabbed one by the buttocks, according to the affidavits. Ms. Clifford was arrested and charged with three counts of illegal sexually oriented activity, a misdemeanor, the arrest report says."

  • Longtobefree||

    Implied consent at best; certainly not positive confirming on-going consent. So yeah, pretty much rape. Both ways.

  • Pat001||

    The evidence was implanted.

  • Peacedog||

    Whores gonna whore...

  • The_Hoser||

    Good Lord, I was about to type the exact same thing.

  • Tony||

    One day I'll tell you my lap dance story.

  • JesseAz||

    We'd prefer if one day you stopped telling us anything.

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    It would be much nicer if you'd drink a bottle of lye.

  • The_Hoser||

    Free expression smells like fish.

  • Davy C||

    "Try putting a dollar in a g-string without some incidental contact."

    You know, some places have tip jars. There's no reason why the only way to give tips needs to border on illegal.

    Nude dancing is expression, yes. So is clothed dancing. Banning nude dancing is a "manner" restriction rather than a content restriction. If we say that you can get close to your patrons with clothes on, or not quite so close with them off, that doesn't burden free speech in any meaningful way.

  • Radioactive||

    I personally use my tongue for that particular transaction.

  • Radioactive||

    the term "40 year old stripper" is just so sad. INMO

  • Cloudbuster||

    I am shocked that Ohio doesn't have a motorboater law.

  • Cloudbuster||

    an Ohio statute that prohibits a stripper from allowing patrons to touch her if she is nude or semi-nude.

    We are virtually all semi-nude.

  • Cloudbuster||

    These "secondary effects" are usually claims of increased crime or lower property values. Although, in reality, these secondary effects rarely actually exist outside of the imaginations of those who want to regulate the businesses.

    It is worth nothing that strip clubs almost never exist within "nice" neighborhoods -- wealthy or upper middle-class communities. In the city I live in, the neighborhoods with the strip clubs are almost always full of "negative externalities" -- crime, low property values, prostitution, drug dealing, etc. Which came first, the negative externalities or the strip club? Hard to say, but the innate wisdom of wealthy communities shouldn't be ignored -- these communities are populated, by definition, by the people who are the best at leading successful lives, and their intuitions and preferences are valuable information.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "was arrested for violating an Ohio statute that prohibits a stripper from allowing patrons to touch her if she is nude or semi-nude"

    My spider sense is tingling. And yours should be too. Notice they indicate the law violated, but give no physical description of what actually happened.

    https://goo.gl/S1FR2K
    "she was arrested and accused of illegally rubbing undercover police officers' faces against her bare breasts during a performance at a strip club."

    It's simply absurd to claim that giving facial rubs with your boobs is protected under the First Amendment, as the whole premise of the article that anything expressive is protected speech is absurd.

    Just because sex can be expressive doesn't mean prostitution is protected under the first amendment.

    Just because you want it legal, doesn't mean there is a right to it guaranteed in the constitution.

    The Progressitarian Living Constitution is just as bogus as the Progressive one.

    Reason is such a pit of Leftist bullshit these days.

    And I'm all for legalized prostitution. But rule of law really is a whole lot more important.

  • Mark22||

    There's no escaping the conclusion that erotic dancing is a form of expression protected by the Bill of Rights. As Judge Richard Posner wrote in the 1990 case, Miller v. City of South Bend, any notion that nude dancing is not expression is "indefensible and a threat to artistic freedom."

    The Bill of Rights does not protect all "forms of expressions", it says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.

    In what possible way is a patron touching a dancer erotically a form of "speech"?

  • wnoise||

    Well, she pressed her boobs against them, so freedom of press.

  • Liberty Lover||

    Quote "as I think that if you take "hush money," you should "hush."Pretty much says it all.

    So who is behind Stormy's talking? It is about money and politics. I question who was behind her arrest, moralizers or Trump haters? The arrest is not about the law, but about publicity, as there is no bad publicity. The one thing I agree with, is what a waste or resources and taxpayer money. Get your "Free Stormy:t-shirt now!

  • Longtobefree||

    Nothing about Stormy is 'free'. Absolutely nothing.

  • Liberty Lover||

    Uh, Free Stormy refers to maybe SELLING t-shirts to fools that would "free her from jail or prosecution". It is not a free t-shirt. To bad I have to explain that to some people. That was my point, old Stormy is in it for the money, just like she took the hush money for the money alone and did not hush.

  • macsnafu||

    So the courts have to engage in silly contortions about "expressiveness" and make it a first amendment issue? What about plain, old freedom of association? Nudity or semi-nudity should have nothing to do with it.

  • Salero21||

    Only in the U.S. a Common Prostitute is called a "Porn Star" just 'cause she does her "business" in front of a Camera for the Porn business Movies. That's 'cause Americans love Dogs, Guns, Pot, Porn, Prostitutes, Moonshine and Whiskey.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online