Opinion ID: 2273939
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: direct tipping provision

Text: Appellants also take issue with the following provision in the ordinance which prohibits directly tipping the entertainers: It shall be a violation of this chapter for any employee, while semi-nude in an adult business, to knowingly or intentionally receive any pay or gratuity directly from any patron or customer or for any patron or customer to knowingly or intentionally pay or give any gratuity directly to any employee, while said employee is semi nude in an adult entertainment establishment. The no-direct-tipping provision is intended to work in conjunction with the staging requirement and proximity limit to reduce the secondary effects associated with the adult entertainmentprostitution, sexually transmitted diseases, and drug transactions. Indeed, it would defeat the purpose of the buffer zone or a valid no touch provision if patrons were allowed to directly tip performers during their performances. Thus, the provision clearly meets the first three parts of the O'Brien test. Appellants argue that tips are such an important part of the adult performance, that the ban on direct tipping imposes a financial disincentive which discourages participation in the protected speech. Thus, Appellants contend that the provision is unduly burdensome. While we recognize that money is a necessary and integral part of many, perhaps most, forms of communication[,] Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 65, 96 S.Ct. 612, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976), the restriction here does not deprive the performer of the ability to earn tips. The restriction merely disallows direct tips when the performer is in a state of semi-nudity. Tips could still be earned via a tip jar placed at the edge of the six-foot buffer zone. Further, in light of our ruling above on the no touch provision, tips could be given to the performer after the performance if the performer is no longer in a state of semi-nudity. Hence, the restriction allows for reasonable alternative avenues of receiving compensation for the performance, while furthering Metro's interest in reducing negative secondary effects. See City of Renton, 475 U.S. at 53, 106 S.Ct. 925.