Strippers v. the Supreme Court: Live Nude Theater!
Is it constitutional to require strippers to wear pasties and G-strings?
In 1991's Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc, the Supreme Court ruled that go-go dancers in Indiana could indeed be compelled to cover up their naughty bits. The decision upholding such bans is the subject of the provocative—and nudity-filled!—play Arguendo.
"Justices start off in swivel chairs just like the real justices," explains Arguendo's director John Collins. "Then those chairs are rolling all around the stage, the podium rolls around the stage, and eventually some actual, total, nudity gets involved in the argument as well." The play's text is faithful to Barnes' oral arguments. "What you hear in Arguendo is exactly what you would have heard in the courtroom," says Collins.
The lobby of Washington D.C.'s Woolly Mammoth Theatre hosts an interactive exhibit that allows the audience to engage the facts of the case and arrive at its own conclusion.
"I hope what you're left with is that it's not the easiest case in the world," says Collins. "There are interesting questions on both sides of it."
Collins spoke with Reason TV about the unique power of live performance, Arguendo's experimental staging, and the irony that theaters, unlike strip clubs, are generally exempted from bans on public nudity.
About 2 minutes.
Produced by Joshua Swain and narrated by Nick Gillespie.
Scroll below for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel for notifications when new material goes live.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
So Sugarfree's take over of Reason is complete.
We are just pawns in SugarFree's game of (nude) chess.
I can't define nudity but I know it when I see it.
I just love the brilliance of capitalism shining through when a strip club gets around puritanical zoning laws by having their girls read Shakespeare while stripping.
What compelling interest would a city have in banning free speech in a private building?
"What compelling interest would a city have in banning free speech in a private building?"
I remember from back in the nineties an alabamy state supreme court case where a sex shop was trying to kill the law banning sex toys in alabamy. The shop produced experts to testify that sex toys cause no physical harm, are used by docs for treating various sexual disfunctions both physical and psychological and cause no psychological harm.
The state argued back that sure, they cause no physical harm and no psychological harm, but what about the moral harm? Huh? What about that?
The state won and the ban was upheld if I remember correctly. The compelling interest is in control, that is all they need.
They have an interest in stopping people from enjoying themselves. Their interest compels them to make laws stopping people from enjoying themselves. There you go. They have a compelling interest.
I support the rights of the wimminz to dance nude. I have no prurient interest in this subject whatsoever. Nope. None.
There were strip clubs in Santa Monica, CA in '70s. Then they were gone. I asked a local attorney with whom I'd made friends about this. He said that the City Council had made it unlawful for a business there to host a "Bacchanalian revelry".
And yet the bum orgies in Santa Monica parks are A-OK.
Wait - is that orgies of homeless people or orgies with lots of butt sex? Or both? If both wouldn't that be bum bum orgies?
The former. Nothing you'd want any part of.
The city council was looking for a way to deal with the problem. Of course, they chose free condoms as the solution.
What problem were they trying to deal with?
Not enough used condoms lying around in the park.
Key-rist. I wrote this? That's almost a joke. Was I high?
Santa Monica would be better off abolishing the city council and bringing back the strip clubs.
-jcr
But what if it was Dionysian? Or Satyrical (no dictionary, not *satirical*)?
Couldn't they skirt the law by not serving wine?
My eyes! the goggles do nothing!
Like this?
On a related note, I think the printed version of Reason would sell a whole lot better if it had page-3 girls.
-jcr
Or page 0.
We used to have lobster girl. But I think she was just here to aid in recovery from Balko's articles.
Only the chattering class goes to the theatre. The chattering makes the laws and sits on the courts.
Strip clubs are plebean and uncouth. The sexual titillation of the plebes offends the chattering class.
Hence the incongruity of full nude being illegal for strippers in many jurisdictions, but a play can feature full nude as long as under 18s are not allowed to view it.
what the mean of theater? im concerned about that
So add another "choice" that the progressive overlords want to take away from us.
You don't want to see strippers in Indiana
"I want my son to be Chief Justice, not some sleazy stripper!"
"Why not both, like the late Earl Warren?"
Well I'll be, more reruns!
Well I'll be, more reruns!
To some extent even the new articles are reruns. Just different names.
Actually, there is really only one true Rerun.
No...there is...another.
http://peanuts.wikia.com/wiki/Rerun_van_Pelt
Yeah, its like magazines devoted to any special interest. There are just so many things to write about and you run out of them, so you keep re-writing.
Statists, collectivists and authoritarians have a limited bag of tricks so.....same stuff over and over.
"Also, in a rare double-whammy decision the court finds polygamy constitutional."
Dude that looks like tis gonna be way cool man.
http://www.Way-Anon.tk