Opinion ID: 1378013
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Is the governmental interest unrelated to the suppression of free expression?

Text: In Barnes, the Court found the ban on public nudity was unrelated to the suppression of nude barroom dancing. [W]e do not think that when Indiana applies its statute to the nude dancing in these nightclubs it is proscribing nudity because of the erotic message conveyed by the dancer.... The perceived evil that Indiana seeks to address is not erotic dancing, but public nudity. 501 U.S. at ___, 111 S.Ct. at 2463. To the contrary, Town's ban on nudity is directly related to the suppression of nude dancing which it specifically targets. The First Amendment generally prevents government from proscribing expressive conduct because of disapproval of the ideas expressed. R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 2538, 120 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992). Content-based regulations are presumptively invalid. Id. Town's ordinance specifically targets the sexual or erotic message of nude dancing which is constitutionally protected expressive conduct. Unlike the statute in Barnes, the ordinance here is not a valid restriction on nude dancing because it is not content-neutral. Accord Knudtson v. City of Coates, 506 N.W.2d 29 (Minn.App.1993). [2]