Opinion ID: 2994638
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Operating Regulations

Text: for Sexually Oriented Businesses The plaintiffs challenge the Section X hours-of- operation restriction and the Section VIII(A) ban on live nudity and sexually explicit gestures as content-based regulations of protected expression. They argue that these provisions of the Ordinance are content-based on their face because they explicitly target adult entertainment. The Ordinance applies only to sexually oriented businesses, which are defined by the Ordinance with reference to the expressive activity performed inside. In response, Cumberland admits that the Ordinance applies only to adult-entertainment establishments. Nonetheless, Cumberland insists that the Ordinance is a content-neutral regulation of nudity viable under the secondary-effects theory of Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560, and City of Erie v. Pap’s A.M., 120 S.Ct. 1382. The Supreme Court has long held that regulations designed to restrain speech on the basis of its content are subject to strict scrutiny and are presumptively invalid under the First Amendment. See R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 382 (1992); City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41, 47 (1986); Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359, 368-69 (1931). Content-based regulations by their terms distinguish favored speech from disfavored speech on the basis of the ideas or views expressed. Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 643 (1994). Since it is the content of the speech that determines whether it is within or without the [regulation], they single out certain viewpoints or subject matter for differential treatment. Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455, 462 (1980); see also City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc., 507 U.S. 410, 429 (1993). These regulations draw strict scrutiny because their purpose is typically related to the suppression of free expression and thus contrary to the First Amendment imperative against government discrimination based on viewpoint or subject matter. See Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 403 (1989). Owing to the profound national commitment to robust, open debate, [t]he First Amendment generally prevents government from proscribing speech, or even expressive conduct, because of disapproval of the ideas expressed. R.A.V., 505 U.S. at 382 (internal citations omitted). The government cannot favor one viewpoint over another, see City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 804 (1984), nor can the government suppress an entire category of speech, even if the regulation is viewpoint-neutral within that category of speech, because the First Amendment bars prohibition of public discussion of an entire topic. See Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Serv. Comm’n, 447 U.S. 530, 537 (1980). In contrast, content-neutral regulations are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech and do not raise the specter of government discrimination. See Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 771 (1976). These regulations do not refer to expressive content and do not single out a particular viewpoint or category of speech for different treatment. Instead, all speech is treated similarly in an effort to advance significant government interests unrelated to content. A general ban on speech in the vicinity of a school is content- neutral, see Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 119-20 (1972), whereas an analogous ban on speech containing an exemption for speech relating to labor disputes is content-based. See Police Dep’t of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 95 (1972). The former regulation requires no consideration of content before applying the ban, while the latter regulation requires consideration whether the speech in question refers to a labor dispute before it is possible to determine if the regulation applies. When the government treats all expression equally without regard to the ideas or messages conveyed, courts can be more certain that the government intends to serve important interests unrelated to suppression of speech and is not acting with censorial purpose. In that vein, the government may institute reasonable time, place or manner regulations that apply to all speech alike, such as restrictions on sound amplification at an outdoor bandshell, see Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989), or a prohibition on targeted residential picketing. See Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474, 488 (1988). Such regulations control the surrounding circumstances of speech without obstructing discussion of a particular viewpoint or subject matter. However, the First Amendment tolerates greater interference with expressive conduct, provided that this interference results as an unintended byproduct from content-neutral regulation of a general class of conduct. In most cases, the government may regulate conduct without regard to the First Amendment because most conduct carries no expressive meaning of First Amendment significance. See Graff v. City of Chicago, 9 F.3d 1309, 1315-16 (7th Cir. 1993). However, broad regulations of conduct implicate First Amendment concerns when they apply to specific instances of expressive conduct. For example, in United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 382 (1968), the Court considered whether a ban on destroying draft cards violated the First Amendment, given that draft-card burning represented a powerful symbol of political protest at the time. The government argued that the ban was necessary for the administration of the Selective Service program, and as the Court explained, the statute plainly does not abridge free speech on its face . . . . [It] on its face deals with conduct having no connection with speech. Id. at 375. The effect on expression was merely incidental to the content-neutral ban on the general class of conduct because the ban applied to draft-card destruction of all forms, not only to draft-card burning intended as expression. Although it recognized the symbolic conduct of draft-card burning as First Amendment expression, the Court applied intermediate scrutiny because the restraint on expression was only an incidental burden generated by the government’s content-neutral attempt at furthering significant governmental interests unrelated to the suppression of speech. See O’Brien, 391 U.S. at 382; see also Erie, 120 S.Ct. at 1391; Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 293 (1984). As a result, the government generally has a freer hand with respect to expressive conduct than with respect to verbal expression. Johnson, 491 U.S. at 406. When the government enacts a content-neutral regulation on a class of conduct, citing the harmful secondary effects related to that conduct, i.e., the subsidiary effects or noncommunicative impact of the speech, courts presume that the government did not intend to censor speech, even if the regulation incidentally burdens particular instances of expressive conduct. See Erie, 120 S.Ct. at 1392. As such, a general prohibition on all public nudity receives intermediate scrutiny, rather than strict scrutiny, when the government offers as its legislative justification the suppression of public nudity’s negative secondary effects. See id. In Barnes, the Court upheld as content- neutral an Indiana public-indecency statute prohibiting nudity in public places because the statute was directed at preventing prostitution, sexual assaults and other criminal activity associated with adult entertainment--government interests not at all inherently related to expression. Barnes, 501 U.S. at 585 (Souter, J., concurring)./2 In Erie, the Court sustained an ordinance nearly identical to the Barnes statute banning all public nudity because the government’s predominant purpose again was to combat the harmful secondary effects of public nudity. See Erie, 120 S.Ct. at 1392. In both cases, plaintiffs challenged these facially content-neutral proscriptions on conduct because the broad prohibitions incidentally illegalized some expression as well, namely nude dancing. The Court upheld both regulations because each was nondiscriminatory on its face with respect to content and each cited as its legislative justification the abatement of public nudity’s noxious secondary effects. See id. at 1391-93; Barnes, 501 U.S. at 585 (Souter, J., concurring). As the Court explained, there is nothing objectionable about a city passing a general ordinance to ban public nudity (even though such a ban may place incidental burdens on some protected speech). Erie, 120 S.Ct. at 1394. In neither case did the regulation outlaw nude dancing specifically or refer to expressive content; the restriction on nude dancing resulted incidentally from the general, content-neutral prohibition on all public nudity. Cumberland argues that the Ordinance is constitutional under Barnes and Erie because the Ordinance is justified without reference to communicative content and supported by a legislative record of pernicious secondary effects. The nominal purpose of the Cumberland Ordinance was addressing secondary effects allegedly affiliated with nude dancing, including prostitution and sexual liaisons of a casual nature, sexually transmitted diseases and urban blight and downgrading the qualify of life in the adjacent area. Cumberland mustered extensive efforts to construct a legislative record substantiating their concerns, and the Ordinance offers the city council’s research as legislative findings and articulates the abatement of secondary effects as its purpose. Moreover, as the Court commended in Erie, Cumberland referenced the evidentiary foundation set forth in previous Supreme Court decisions regarding the baneful secondary effects of adult entertainment. Erie, 120 S.Ct. at 1395; cf. Renton, 475 U.S. at 50-52. But see Erie, 120 S.Ct. at 1403-05 (Souter, J., dissenting in part) (arguing that the government must demonstrate a particularized factual basis for finding evidence from previous cases to be relevant). Cumberland argues that its significant government interest in stemming harmful secondary effects justifies all the Ordinance regulations of adult entertainment, including the ban on nudity and certain sexually explicit movements. However, in patent contrast to the regulations in Barnes and Erie, the Ordinance is not a content-neutral prohibition on a general class of conduct. Like the Barnes and Erie regulation, the Cumberland Ordinance bans nudity. But unlike the Barnes and Erie regulation, the Ordinance bans it with reference to certain expressive content. We can see this by examining the Ordinance definitions for various types of sexually oriented businesses to which the Ordinance arrogates within its Section VIII(A) ban on live nudity and sexually explicit movements, Section X operating restrictions and Section XI and XIII licensing provisions. Specifically, the plaintiffs challenge Section II(3) and II(7), which define adult cabaret and adult theater respectively and apply to the Island Bar. Both these sections cover a commercial establishment that regularly features . . . live performances which are characterized by the exposure of ’specified anatomical areas’ or ’specified sexual activities.’ This definition is the predominant one in the Ordinance for defining sexually oriented businesses, appearing within the definitions for adult arcade, adult motel, adult motion picture theater, adult mini-motion picture theater and adult bookstore, novelty store or video store, in addition to those for adult theater and adult cabaret./3 This definition on its face targets erotic expression. According to Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, the word performance in this context means a public presentation or exhibition . . . [performances]> [performance]> or something resembling a dramatic representation. Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary 1678 (1986). This term undeniably denotes communicative content and applies explicitly to expression, not mere conduct. The qualifier characterized by the exposure of ’specified anatomical areas’ or ’specified sexual activities’ then indicates the type of content that expression must convey to fall inside the Ordinance’s reach. Characterize means to describe the essential character or quality of or to be a distinguishing characteristic. Id. at 376. The Ordinance therefore discriminates against establishments that regularly feature certain expressive conduct distinguished by sexual content. Cumberland modeled its definition on the discriminatory ordinances in Renton and Young v. American Mini Theatres, 427 U.S. 50 (1976), which defined the regulated adult material in those cases as distinguished or characterized by their emphasis on matter depicting, describing or relating to ’Specified Sexual Activities’ or ’Specified Anatomical Areas.’ Indeed, following the Supreme Court’s lead, we already have held that a substantially similar definition specifically singled out adult entertainment for different treatment. See Entertainment Concepts, Inc. v. Maciejewski, 631 F.2d 497, 504 (7th Cir. 1980); see also Richland Bookmart, Inc. v. Nichols, 137 F.3d 435, 438-39 (6th Cir. 1998); International Eateries of America, Inc. v. Broward County, 941 F.2d 1157, 1160-61 (11th Cir. 1991). As a result, we regard the Ordinance as content-based. The Ordinance applies only to certain establishments characterized by their presentation of live performances with particular erotic content, and it is the presentation of expressive content that determines whether particular establishments are within or without the regulation. In City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc., 507 U.S. at 429, the Court explained that a ban on newsracks containing commercial handbills was content-based because whether any particular newsrack falls within the ban is determined by the content of the publication resting inside that newsrack. Thus, by any commonsense understanding of the term, the ban in this case is ’content based.’ By the same token, the Cumberland Ordinance is content-based on its face because whether an establishment falls within the Ordinance’s sweep is determined by the content of expression inside it. Cf. Berg v. Health & Hosp. Corp., 865 F.2d 797, 802 (7th Cir. 1989) (finding an ordinance content-neutral because it makes no distinction between types of films or entertainment.). As we explained in DiMa Corp. v. Town of Hallie, 185 F.3d 823, 828 (7th Cir. 1999), an ordinance that regulates only adult-entertainment businesses singles out adult-oriented establishments for different treatment based on the content of the materials they sell or display. See also National Amusements, Inc. v. Town of Dedham, 43 F.3d 731, 738 (1st Cir. 1995) (stating that facial discrimination is a telltale harbinger of content-based regulation). The Ordinance restrictions on nude dancing are not incidental byproducts from the content-neutral regulation of a larger, inclusive class of nonexpressive conduct. Unlike the statute in O’Brien, for example, which plainly does not abridge free speech on its face, 391 U.S. at 374, the Ordinance by its plain terms specifically targets erotic expression. This quality sharply distinguishes the Ordinance from the regulations examined in Erie, Barnes and other cases elaborating the permissibility of incidental burdens from the regulation of general conduct. Those cases analyzed content-neutral regulations of conduct and depended on the consequent presumption of government nondiscrimination. The government could lawfully prohibit an entire class of conduct, so long as it did not define the regulated conduct with reference to expressive content. See Clark, 468 U.S. at 293; O’Brien, 391 U.S. at 382; see also Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc., 478 U.S. 697, 707 (1986) (distinguishing regulations of general applicability from regulations that inevitably single out those engaged in First Amendment protected activities for the imposition of its burden). Thus, for example, an ordinance forbidding all camping and sleeping in downtown Washington, D.C., withstood a constitutional challenge because it was content-neutral on its face, even though its application to certain demonstrators who intended to stay overnight in Lafayette Park effectively squelched their protest. See Clark, 468 U.S. at 293. Similarly, the public-indecency regulation in Barnes and Erie does not articulate its prohibitions with any reference to expressive content. It prohibits public nudity across the board in a facially content-neutral manner, Barnes, 501 U.S. at 566, and does not target nudity that contains an erotic message; rather, it bans all public nudity, regardless of whether that nudity is accompanied by expressive activity. Erie, 120 S.Ct. at 1391. The regulation applied to nude dancing only because it was a form of public nudity, even though the unintended effect of this application was the restriction of adult entertainment. However, neither Erie nor Barnes applied a secondary- effects rationale to a discriminatory regulation that expressly targets nude dancing or adult entertainment for prohibition. See International Eateries, 941 F.2d at 1161 (refusing to apply Barnes to an ordinance that singles out nude dancing for regulation); see also R.A.V., 505 U.S. at 394 (questioning whether an ordinance that completely proscribes, rather than merely regulates, a specified category of speech can ever be considered to be directed only to the secondary effects of such speech.). As the Supreme Court has explained, the mere assertion of a content-neutral purpose does not save a law which, on its face, discriminates based on content. Turner Broadcasting, 512 U.S. at 642- 43. A secondary-effects rationale by itself does not bestow upon the government free license to suppress specific content or a specific message because such a regime would permit the government to single out a message expressly, formulate a regulation that prohibits it, then draw content- neutral treatment nonetheless simply by producing a secondary-effects rationale as pretextual justification. See Madsen v. Women’s Health Ctr., Inc., 512 U.S. 753, 794 (1994) (Scalia, J., dissenting in part) (The vice of content-based legislation--what renders it deserving of the high standard of strict scrutiny--is not that it is always used for invidious, thought-control purposes, but that it lends itself to use for those purposes.). As a result, we have never applied Barnes or Erie to cases in which the government regulation by its plain language targets adult entertainment, even when justified by secondary-effects theories. See DiMa, 185 F.3d 823; North Ave. Novelties, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 88 F.3d 441 (7th Cir. 1996); Matney, 86 F.3d 692. Nevertheless, the fact that the Ordinance definition is content-based on its face does not necessarily dictate that the Ordinance is analyzed as content-based and subjected to strict scrutiny. See DiMa, 185 F.3d at 828; Richland Bookmart, 137 F.3d at 439. Some time, place or manner regulations are treated as content- neutral, even though they are content-based on their faces. Courts at times have referred to these regulations as content-neutral, since they are treated as such in certain contexts. See, e.g., 11126 Baltimore Blvd., Inc. v. Prince George’s County, Md., 58 F.3d 988, 995 (4th Cir. 1995). But these courts often called them content-neutral without explaining that the regulations are in fact content-based and only analyzed as content-neutral when certain preconditions are met. See DiMa, 185 F.3d at 828 (explaining that the Supreme Court held this type of content-based regulation is to be treated like content-neutral time, place, and manner regulations, not that it was content-neutral.); Richland Bookmart, 137 F.3d at 439. At least in the domain of adult entertainment, discriminatory time, place or manner restrictions can be upheld as content-neutral restrictions on adult entertainment if they (1) are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech; (2) are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest in curbing adverse secondary effects; and (3) still leave open ample alternative channels for communication. See Renton, 475 U.S. at 47; Young, 427 U.S. at 61; DiMa, 185 F.3d at 828. This standard strikes a healthy balance between the citizenry’s First Amendment interests and the government’s legitimate interests unrelated to suppression of speech. The government may further substantial state interests by directing speech through certain avenues rather than others, but only if the government’s means preserve legitimate opportunity for continued speech. Even when actuated by a secondary-effects motive, the government may not deprive the public of its ability to ’satisfy its appetite for sexually explicit fare.’ Matney, 86 F.3d at 697-98 (quoting Berg, 865 F.2d at 803). Content-discriminatory time, place or manner regulations received intermediate scrutiny in Renton and Young because the government did not censor expression and instead advanced zoning schemes supported by secondary-effects rationales. Renton, 475 U.S. at 54; Young, 427 U.S. at 72-73. Although neither addressed nude dancing, both ordinances targeted adult-film entertainment on the basis of content. With language similar to the Cumberland Ordinance, those ordinances defined the regulated adult material as that distinguished or characterized by their emphasis on matter depicting, describing or relating to ’Specified Sexual Activities’ or ’Specified Anatomical Areas.’ Discriminatory on their faces, the ordinances did not ban adult entertainment; instead, the ordinances imposed on adult bookstores and theaters geographic-zoning restrictions that fell comfortably within the rubric of a time, place or manner regulation. Inside the appropriate zones, sexually oriented establishments were permitted to purvey adult entertainment essentially unrestrained. Young, 427 U.S. at 62; see also North Ave. Novelties, 88 F.3d at 444. The Renton ordinance isolated adult entertainment in concentrated regions to protect residential and commercial centers, and the Young ordinance dispersed adult establishments to diffuse their secondary effects. Neither ordinance stifled or significantly burdened the availability of adult entertainment. The Court noted in Young, The situation would be quite different if the ordinance had the effect of suppressing, or greatly restricting access to, lawful speech. Here, however, . . . ’[the] burden on First Amendment rights is slight.’ Young, 427 U.S. at 71 n.35 (citation omitted). Applying Renton and Young to a Chicago zoning ordinance that limited the location of adult uses, we explained that a content-discriminatory regulation of time, place or manner is constitutional only if it preserves ’reasonable opportunity’ to disseminate the speech at issue. North Avenue Novelties, 88 F.3d at 445. The key inquiry focuses upon the ability of producers as a group to provide sexually explicit expression, as well as on the ability of the public as a whole to receive it. Id. at 444. We upheld the Chicago ordinance because it does not prohibit sexually explicit expression, but merely requires that such expression take place only in specified areas, and only in a non-concentrated manner. Id.; see also Matney, 86 F.3d at 698 (upholding an open-booth requirement for adult-entertainment viewing booths because it in no sense purported to ban or even limit adult entertainment); Berg, 865 F.2d at 802 (same). Thus, only the provisions of the Ordinance that regulate the time, place or manner of adult entertainment without removing alternative channels of communication are reasonable under the First Amendment. Under this standard, we uphold the Section X limitations on the hours of operation for sexually oriented businesses. Section X is a classic time, place or manner restriction, limiting the business hours for sexually oriented businesses to between 10 a.m. and midnight, Monday through Saturday. In DiMa, we found an ordinance that restricted the operating hours of adult-oriented establishments to be content- based, but analyzed and upheld it under content- neutral analysis consistent with Renton and Young. DiMa, 185 F.3d at 831; see also Lady J. Lingerie, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville, 176 F.3d 1358, 1365 (11th Cir. 1999); Richland Bookmart, 137 F.3d at 439-41; Mitchell v. Commission on Adult Entertainment Establishments, 10 F.3d 123 (3d Cir. 1993). Combating harmful secondary effects of adult entertainment is a significant government interest unrelated to speech content, and Cumberland satisfactorily established a secondary-effects justification for its time, place or manner regulation. See DiMa, 185 F.3d at 830. Whereas the municipality in DiMa did nothing more than cite the experiences of another Wisconsin town, Cumberland collected and reviewed a host of studies on secondary effects and the need for constrained operating hours. Cumberland’s legislative research indicated that the hours-of-operation constraint enabled local law enforcement to concentrate its limited resources for those business hours. Although Section X provides fewer hours of operation than the ordinance in DiMa, we find that the restriction is not substantially broader than necessary, even if more restrictive than absolutely necessary or justified. Ward, 491 U.S. at 800. Section VIII(A) presents a more difficult question. Section VIII(A) proscribes appear[ing] in a state of nudity or depict[ing] specified sexual activities in a sexually oriented business. Cumberland bases Section VIII(A) on the significant government interest in fighting injurious secondary effects and justifies it by citing the history of crime at the Island Bar and research on secondary effects from studies and other cases. Section VIII(A) is cleverly styled as a mere time, place or manner restriction because it forbids certain expressive activity only within sexually oriented businesses but not elsewhere. Yet the operation of Section VIII(A) is clear. In practice, it effectively bans commercial nude dancing. Section II of the Ordinance defines a sexually oriented business as one that regularly features live performances characterized by the exposure of specified anatomical areas or specified sexual activities. But such performances by Ordinance definition always contain nudity (by virtue of exposed specified anatomical areas) or depictions of specified sexual activities, both of which Section VIII(A) bans within those sexually oriented establishments. Thus, Section II defines sexually oriented businesses with reference to the presentation of live adult entertainment, then Section VIII(A) stifles that presentation by forbidding nudity and sexual depictions within those sexually oriented businesses. To wit, the Island Bar is a sexually oriented business because it presents nudity, and as a result, the Ordinance bans nudity within the Island Bar, the sole supplier of nude dancing in Cumberland. Paradoxically, only by refraining from protected speech can a venue, its operator and its performers avoid the Section VIII(A) restrictions. For this reason, Section VIII(A) is not a mere time, place or manner restriction. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court held in Erie and Barnes that limiting erotic dancing to semi- nudity represents a de minimis restriction that does not unconstitutionally abridge expression. Erie, 120 S.Ct. at 1397; Barnes, 501 U.S. at 571. As the Court explained in Barnes, the requirement that the dancers don pasties and G-strings does not deprive the dance of whatever erotic message it conveys; it simply makes the message slightly less graphic. Barnes, 501 U.S. at 571. Similarly in Erie, the Court reiterated that [t]he requirement that dancers wear pasties and G-strings is a minimal restriction in furtherance of the asserted government interests, and the restriction leaves ample capacity to convey the dancer’s erotic message. Erie, 120 S.Ct. at 1397. Insofar as it prohibits full nudity and requires dancers to wear pasties and G-strings while performing, Section VIII(A) does not offend the First Amendment. Cf. Dodger’s Bar & Grill, Inc. v. Johnson County Bd. of County Comm’rs, 52 F.3d 1436, 1443 (10th Cir. 1994) (upholding similar nudity restrictions under the Twenty-First Amendment). The Ordinance, however, goes several steps further. Section VIII(A) outlaws the performance of a strikingly wide array of sexually explicit dance movements, or what the Ordinance misdenominates as specified sexual activities, including the fondling or erotic touching of human genitals, pubic region, buttocks, anus, or female breasts. By restricting the particular movements and gestures of the erotic dancer, in addition to prohibiting full nudity, Section VIII(A) of the Ordinance unconstitutionally burdens protected expression. The dominant theme of nude dance is an emotional one; it is one of eroticism and sensuality. Miller, 904 F.2d at 1086-87. Section VIII(A) deprives the performer of a repertoire of expressive elements with which to craft an erotic, sensual performance and thereby interferes substantially with the dancer’s ability to communicate her erotic message. It interdicts the two key tools of expression in this context that imbue erotic dance with its sexual and erotic character--sexually explicit dance movements and nudity. Unlike a simple prohibition on full nudity, Section VIII(A) does much more than inhibit that portion of the expression that occurs when the last stitch is dropped. Erie, 120 S.Ct. at 1393. Section VIII(A) constrains the precise movements that the dancer can express while performing. The dancer may use non-sexually explicit elements and semi- nudity to convey a certain degree of sensuality, but putting taste aside, more explicit and erotic content is commonly available on primetime television without being fairly regarded as adult entertainment. The Court has declared that the government cannot ban all adult theaters--much less all live entertainment or all nude dancing. Schad, 452 U.S. at 71. We ourselves explained in DiMa, Because this speech is not obscene, government may not simply proscribe it. DiMa, 185 F.3d at 827. Cumberland cannot avoid this dictate by regulating nude dancing with such stringent restrictions that the dance no longer conveys eroticism nor resembles adult entertainment. The portion of Section VIII(A) that bars the depiction of specified sexual activities is unconstitutional because it prevents erotic dancers from practicing their protected form of expression. None of the Supreme Court’s precedent permits a government regulation expressly directed at adult entertainment and imposing such a restriction on non-obscene adult entertainment. Analyzed under strict scrutiny, as befits a content-based regulation, this portion of Section VIII(A) violates the First Amendment. To survive strict scrutiny, the provision must be necessary to serve a compelling state interest and be narrowly drawn to achieve that end. See Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of the N.Y. State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U.S. 105, 118 (1991). This provision fails because it is not necessary to serve Cumberland’s significant interest in arresting secondary effects. Cumberland can employ a variety of less speech-restrictive and more direct means to fight prostitution, illicit sex, sexually transmitted disease and urban blight. See Leverett v. City of Pinellas Park, 775 F.2d 1536, 1540 (11th Cir. 1985). We uphold the portion of Section VIII(A) that bans full nudity within sexually oriented businesses but strike the portion of Section VIII(A) that bans the performance of specified sexually explicit movements within sexually oriented businesses.