Missouri Supreme Court Hears Exotic Dancer's Pleas for Free Speech

Earlier this month, and as reported by CBS and KMOX, the Missouri Supreme Court heard a challenge from "a group of exotic dancers (that were) challenging a state law restricting their 'special' talents."

The law, which was heavily opposed by former Mehlville School Board Director and President of VCG Holdings, , was passed in 2010.  Ocello spent quite a bit of time on the air with Charlie Brennan as well as other media outlets throughout the state to make his case.

Ocello's company does not own any strip clubs in Missouri, but was lobbying as an advocate for the industry. According to CBS, the law has "devastating" effects on the industry by "(barring) full nudity at strip clubs, sets a 6-foot buffer between customers and dancers, prohibits alcohol and requires strip clubs to close between midnight and 6 a.m."

According to a Nightline investigation on the issue, one of the exotic dancers said the following:

"To me, it isn't demeaning," Megan said. "To me, it is an opportunity to express myself. It's an opportunity for these girls to express themselves. It's an opportunity to make a choice for themselves. I don't think it's Sen. Bartle's position or place to make decisions for these women. I don't think it's his place to try to impose his morals and his beliefs on people in the state. The next thing you know, we'll be burning copies of Catcher in the Rye."

All-in-all, the jury is still out.  As far as I have been able to find, the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the case.  

Regardless, I'm already on the record as saying that it is a legal and heavily-regulated industry. On one hand, I can see the tragedy in those dancers who do what they do as a last resort, but on the other hand, I can see the point that it is an empowering form of expression for others.  

Ultimately, at least in Ocello's case, VCG Holdings is (or was, the last time I checked) a publicly traded company on NASDAQ that is heavily regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The bottom line is that where it is legal it is legal and where it is not, it is not. Either way, the United States Supreme Court has already ruled in favor of the dancers on a similar case:

"The United States Supreme Court has said in the case of Renton v. (Playtime theaters) that nudity can be free expression," First Amendment attorney Jon Katz said. "When you require a person to cover themselves from the waist down, when you require them to cover themselves from the breasts down, except for the cleavage, you're censoring their body. You're censoring their breasts."