Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; May 29, 2001; Federal Appellate Court
The case of Blue Canary Corporation v. City of Milwaukee revolves around the plaintiff's appeal against the City for denying the renewal of its liquor license, which the plaintiff claims violates the First Amendment's free speech clause. The plaintiff, which operates a tavern that initially featured polka music, changed its name and entertainment style, applying for a cabaret license for "Las Vegas style" acts. However, the actual performances included dancers in minimal attire, which the City deemed "exotic dancing." The tavern continued these performances despite being denied a supplementary license for exotic dancing.
When the liquor license came up for renewal, local residents opposed it due to concerns about noise, traffic, litter, and moral objections to the entertainment, with specific complaints about inappropriate behavior. The City ultimately decided not to renew the license. The plaintiff challenges the vagueness of the ordinance governing liquor license renewals, which requires assessing whether the proposed operations are compatible with neighborhood activities. This vagueness only matters if the City violated the plaintiff's rights by refusing to renew the license. The court suggests that if the City justified its decision based on the entertainment's inappropriateness for the neighborhood, it doesn't matter how the entertainment is classified. The plaintiff also raises concerns about "prior restraint," which involves government permission for expressive activities, rather than punitive measures after the fact.
A theater in England during Shakespeare's time required a license from the Lord Chamberlain for performances, highlighting a form of prior restraint. Blackstone defined freedom of speech and press as freedom from such censorship, a principle upheld in various court cases. Although the First Amendment does not limit itself to prior restraints, concerns about their impact on expressive freedoms persist. Prior restraints are characterized by censorship aimed at preventing the dissemination of potentially dangerous or offensive ideas, lacking the usual judicial safeguards. In contrast, restrictions on the time, place, or manner of expression, such as permit requirements for public demonstrations or the licensing of liquor establishments with entertainment, are subject to a more lenient standard.
The plaintiff's claim regarding prior restraint is dismissed as irrelevant. The City’s requirement for annual renewal of the plaintiff's liquor license was lawful, and the character of entertainment served could be considered in renewal decisions. The entertainment in question, involving scantily clad dancers, was not deemed obscene or in violation of local nudity laws. The City’s actions do not constitute a ban; rather, it seeks to zone such establishments away from neighborhoods opposed to them. The plaintiff argues that Runway 94 is not a strip joint due to the dancers' attire, but the distinction is deemed negligible. Courts allow municipalities to regulate the location of adult entertainment venues like strip joints and adult bookstores to maintain community standards.
In *City of Renton v. Playtime Theaters, Inc.*, the Supreme Court affirmed that the regulation of establishments offering erotic entertainment, particularly those serving alcohol, is permissible to maintain neighborhood compatibility. The Court noted that such venues often attract undesirable clientele and can be disruptive to family-friendly environments. The ordinance in question does not outright ban erotic expression but rather segregates these establishments from residential areas, allowing them to operate in designated zones within the city. It emphasized that the regulation is based on the normal activities of neighborhoods, which are determined through community input, and that the ordinance applies specifically to bars and liquor-serving restaurants, not theaters or concert halls. The plaintiff had an opportunity to present evidence during a hearing regarding the incompatibility of the strip joint with local community values, which further supported the city's decision. The ruling highlights that the First Amendment is not significantly impaired by the relocation of such establishments, as they remain accessible in other parts of the city.
