Massachusetts superior court rules that video booths may have First Amendment protection and that an adult video store’s successful measures to cure prior secondary effects should be taken into account when considering a city’s denial of a license renewal. Additionally, the City argued that the public interest would be harmed by allowing the video booths to remain open, as they contributed to the transmission of HIV (a frequent claim by anti-erotica activists). The court noted that since there was no sexual contact between patrons, and they could only observe one another through glass windows, this argument was unpersuasive. See Capital Video v. City of Springfield [PDF].Guys, guys. This is the problem with abstinence-only education: confusing and misinformation about HIV risks. Guys, look: barring some pretty odd circumstances, people have to touch each other to transmit HIV. You can't just rely on judges' antipathy to adult businesses to buy the same boilerplate arguments every time, regardless of the facts!
Monday, August 25, 2008
City claims jerking off in video booths an HIV risk
The Legal Satyricon reports: