• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Court Upholds N.Y. Ban on Dancing in Bars

Amused

Elite Member
I guess seeing the first beaver in 200 years was enough excitement for them...

Court Upholds N.Y. Ban on Dancing in Bars
POSTED: 10:32 a.m. EST, February 23, 2007

Story Highlights? New York Supreme Court upholds 80-year-old cabaret law
? Law bans dancing in ordinary bars and restaurants in New York City
? Prohibition-era law was enacted to crack down on speakeasies
? Gotham West Coast Swing Club, others, say ban violates free expression rights

NEW YORK (AP) -- Come and meet those dancing feet, up on 42nd Street -- but only in nightspots with special licenses.

The city's 80-year-old cabaret law banning dancing by patrons in ordinary bars and restaurants is legal, the state Supreme Court's Appellate Division ruled Thursday.

The Gotham West Coast Swing Club and several people had sued, saying the law violated their constitutional right to free expression.

But the appeals court backed the law, which was enacted in the Prohibition era to crack down on speakeasies.

"Recreational dancing is not a form of expression protected by the federal or state constitutions," the court wrote.

City lawyer Norman Corenthal welcomed the court's decision, saying it upheld the city's right to enforce laws that protect residential areas from noise, congestion and safety hazards.

The plaintiffs claimed that in the 1960s, about 1,000 places legally allowed patrons to dance, but fewer than 300 such places exist now. They also had challenged the city's application of zoning laws, arguing it was arbitrary and capricious.

Norman Siegel, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said he was considering an appeal.

 
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Where are the forum conservatives to applaud this decision?

Ummm, conservatives want less government involvement. Libs are the ones that would applaud this. Nanny state is strictly a liberal idea.

Eitherway, WTH is wrong with that city?
 
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Where are the forum conservatives to applaud this decision?

Ummm, conservatives want less government involvement. Libs are the ones that would applaud this.

Eitherway, WTH is wrong with that city?

NYC is awesome :thumbsup:
 
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Where are the forum conservatives to applaud this decision?

Ummm, conservatives want less government involvement. Libs are the ones that would applaud this. Nanny state is strictly a liberal idea.

Eitherway, WTH is wrong with that city?

Both types want some governmental involvement in the private lives of citizens. What type of involvement, what decisions the government makes, is the only thing that differs between the two labels.
 
I wonder how much the license costs and how difficult it is to obtain one... based on the mention of zoning laws, it seems like this is an attempt to keep dance clubs out of certain areas, not to keep people from dancing. I think a lot of people would rather have a pub in their area than a dance club.

The title of the article is pretty misleading. If you didn't read the article (which many people here don't), you might think New York actually banned dancing in bars, which in fact they did not.
 
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Where are the forum conservatives to applaud this decision?

Ummm, conservatives want less government involvement. Libs are the ones that would applaud this. Nanny state is strictly a liberal idea.

Eitherway, WTH is wrong with that city?

Eh..back in the day conservative ment less government...now its pretty much both are big government.....
 
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Where are the forum conservatives to applaud this decision?

Ummm, conservatives want less government involvement. Libs are the ones that would applaud this. Nanny state is strictly a liberal idea.

Eitherway, WTH is wrong with that city?

umm wrong.

both parties are authoritarian, conservatives more than most. Libertarians are what you are looking for...

Whenever any conservative says less government, more freedom, less taxes, etc... those are all libertarian ideas yet you will see them being against abortion and usually pro-religion. Most conservatives are blatant liars there. Some may actually be libertarian but overall if you believe in the government then you are inherently authoritarian.
 
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Where are the forum conservatives to applaud this decision?

Ummm, conservatives want less government involvement. Libs are the ones that would applaud this. Nanny state is strictly a liberal idea.

Eitherway, WTH is wrong with that city?

not anymore.
 
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Where are the forum conservatives to applaud this decision?

Ummm, conservatives want less government involvement. Libs are the ones that would applaud this. Nanny state is strictly a liberal idea.

Eitherway, WTH is wrong with that city?

no, nanny state is an authoritarian idea.
 
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Where are the forum conservatives to applaud this decision?

Ummm, conservatives want less government involvement. Libs are the ones that would applaud this. Nanny state is strictly a liberal idea.

Eitherway, WTH is wrong with that city?

no, nanny state is an authoritarian idea.

True, very true. And the American "liberal" is, in reality, a socialist authoritarian.

Both parties suck. The right wants to save your soul, and the left wants to save you from yourself.
 
Back
Top