Court Opinion

ID: 9671063
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:30:27.967782+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:07.981158
License: Public Domain

DONALD W. STEINMETZ, J.
¶ 36. (dissenting). The majority strikes down as facially unconstitutional the Town of Trenton's Ordinance 10, which proscribes *32"public nudity at a public licensed establishment." In so doing, the majority misapplies well-established principles of constitutional adjudication. Because I disagree with the majority's analysis and conclusion, I dissent.
¶ 37. As the majority has shown, Ordinance 10 is, at first glance, overbroad. Unfortunately, this is where the majority's analysis effectively ends, and where its error begins. The majority concludes that Ordinance 10 is unconstitutionally overbroad because it "encompasses expressive activities that do not implicate the 'secondary effects' that the town may legitimately seek to regulate." Majority op. at 23-24. Arriving at this legal conclusion, the majority makes two fundamental errors. First, the majority refuses to accept an available, limiting construction of Ordinance 10 which would cure any substantial overbreadth. See State v. Thiel, 183 Wis. 2d 505, 522, 515 N.W.2d 847 (1994); see also Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 613 (1973). Second, despite controlling case law to the contrary, the majority concludes that the Ordinance's overbreadth is both real and substantial after conceiving of a single impermissible application of that ordinance. See City of Milwaukee v. K.F., 145 Wis. 2d 24, 40-41, 426 N.W.2d 329 (1988); see also Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 615-16; City of Milwaukee v. Wroten, 160 Wis. 2d 207, 226-27, 466 N.W.2d 861 (1991).
¶ 38. The First Amendment doctrine of substantial overbreadth is a judicially-created, largely prophylactic doctrine designed to prevent the chilling of constitutionally protected expression. See Richard H. Fallon, Jr., Making Sense of Overbreadth, 100 Yale L. J. 853, 855 (1991). As the majority notes, the over-breadth doctrine is a limited exception to the traditional rule of third-party standing that "a person to whom a statute may be constitutionally applied will *33not be heard to challenge the statute on the ground that it may conceivably be applied unconstitutionally to others, in other situations not before the court." Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 610-11; see also Board of Airport Comm'rs of Los Angeles v. Jews for Jesus, 482 U.S. 569, 574 (1987); Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.S. 491, 503-04 (1985); Thiel, 183 Wis. 2d at 520. This traditional rule of third-party standing reflects the conviction that "under our constitutional system courts are not roving commissions assigned to pass judgment on the validity of the Nation's laws." Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 610-11 (citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 52 (1971)). Courts therefore recognize exceptions to this rule only when there exists "weighty countervailing policies." Id. at 611 (quoting United States v. Raines, 362 U.S. 17, 22-23 (1960)).
¶ 39. Because of the wide-ranging effects of the overbreadth doctrine,1 a reviewing court must view the doctrine as "manifestly strong medicine" that should be employed only "sparingly, and only as a last resort." Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 613; see New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 769 (1982); Thiel, 183 Wis. 2d at 521; City of Milwaukee v. Nelson, 149 Wis. 2d 434, 452, 439 N.W.2d 562 (1989). Courts, in consequence, have established two specific limitations to applying the overbreadth doctrine. First, a facial challenge to an ordinance will *34not succeed when a limiting construction is available to maintain the legislation's constitutional integrity. See Thiel, 183 Wis. 2d at 521 (citing Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 613); see also Fallon, 100 Yale L. J. at 863. Second, where conduct and not merely speech is involved, courts including this one have uniformly stated that "the overbreadth of a statute or ordinance must not only be real, but substantial as well, judged in relation to the statute's plainly legitimate sweep." Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 615 (emphasis added); see also Thiel, 183 Wis. 2d at 521; Wroten, 160 Wis. 2d at 226; K.F., 145 Wis. 2d at 40-41; Fallon, 100 Yale L. J. at 863. The majority here briefly lists, but essentially jettisons, these well-established limitations on the overbreadth doctrine.
¶ 40. First, not only does the majority refuse to provide a narrowing construction of the Ordinance, it accepts the broadest possible construction of that ordinance. This court has a duty to interpret an ordinance, as it would a statute, by applying a limiting construction to that ordinance, if one is available, to preserve its constitutionality. See K.F., 145 Wis. 2d at 47. "A statute challenged as unconstitutionally overbroad can be 'cured' by means of judicial interpretation, which provides for a narrowing and validating construction of the law." Thiel, 183 Wis. 2d at 522. While the majority states that it is "cognizant" of its obligations, it concludes that no narrowing construction is available because to provide one it "would essentially be required to rewrite the Ordinance in its entirety." Majority op. at 31.
¶ 41. Contrary to the majority's suggestion, the language of Ordinance 10 can easily be construed to preserve its constitutionality, without having to rewrite the ordinance in its entirety. The effective lan*35guage of Ordinance 10 provides that "[t]here shall be no public nudity at a public licensed establishment." The majority construes this language to encompass both public and private nudity and to proscribe both animate nudity and the displaying or exhibiting of inanimate nudes, either in pictures or sculptures. The majority's broad construction of Ordinance 10 contravenes the common sense understanding of "public nudity."
¶ 42. A closer "examination of the verbiage" of Ordinance 10 shows that such a broad construction is neither necessary nor warranted. Wroten, 160 Wis. 2d at 227. Based on "the common sense meaning and purpose of the words employed" in the Ordinance, Ann M.M. v. Rob S., 176 Wis. 2d 673, 679, 500 N.W.2d 649 (1993),2 the court could reasonably construe the Ordinance to prohibit only animate public nudity at establishments licensed by the Town of Trenton to sell alcohol.
¶ 43. First, Ordinance 10 can be read to prohibit only animate nudity. The Ordinance defines the word "nudity" as "the showing or exposing" of certain parts or areas of the human anatomy "with less than a full opaque covering." Not expressly included in this definition are the acts of displaying, exhibiting, televising, sculpting, or drawing inanimate nudes. Had the Town of Trenton wished to proscribe such conduct it could have added the appropriate language to the definition of "nudity." It did not do so, and neither should we.
*36¶ 44. Although the words "showing" and "exposing" may be general and somewhat imprecise, they need not be construed to include the displaying or exhibiting of pictures or sculptures. As used in the context of Ordinance 10, the word "show" is commonly defined as "to reveal (oneself) as in one's behavior or condition," The American Heritage Dictionary 1671 (3d ed. 1992), and the word "expose" as "to make visible" or "to make known." Id. at 646.3 Applying the ordinary and accepted definitions of the words "show" and "expose," the court could reasonably construe the word "nudity," as defined by the Ordinance, as including only those live acts performed by a person to reveal or make visible certain parts of his or her anatomy. Under this definition, "nudity" does not include inanimate displays, exhibits, or programs including nude persons.
¶45. Second, Ordinance 10 does not prohibit nudity in all forms; it prohibits only "public nudity." The majority construes the Ordinance as prohibiting both public and private nudity, including the situation where consenting adults are nude in a private hotel room. This broad construction is inconsistent with a reasonable reading of the express language in Ordinance 10.
¶ 46. Although the word "public," as used in the context of "public nudity", is not defined by the Ordinance,4 the word is commonly understood to mean "to *37reveal to the public a previously unknown or secret piece of information" or "participated in or attended by the people or community." Id. at 1464 (emphasis added). Applying either definition of "public" to the other defined language of the Ordinance, the phrase "public nudity" can reasonably be construed to include only a person's act or acts which reveal to the members of the general public his or her nude body, or specified parts or areas thereof. Under this available construction, "public nudity" does not include the private conduct of consenting adults in private rooms where the general public is not invited or allowed to attend or participate in such conduct.
¶ 47. This construction of "public nudity" is supported by the language found in both Exceptions A and B of the Ordinance. Under the direction of Exception A, a court is precluded from construing Ordinance 10 to restrict the proper use of a public bathroom unless that room is used for "any sexual or exhibitionist purpose to or in front of or adjacent to other persons." (Emphasis added.) Similarly, Exception B specifically directs that the Ordinance is not to be interpreted to prevent activities in a privately owned or rented room if the person owning or renting that room "has not invited or allowed members of the public, who are not immediate family members, to be at such location." Although not per*38fectly drafted,5 the language of Exceptions A and B of the Ordinance evince the Town's intent not to prohibit private conduct by consenting adults in private rooms unless members of the public are invited or allowed to attend or participate in such conduct.
¶ 48. Third, Ordinance 10 does not reach all animate public nudity; it prohibits such nudity only at "public licensed establishments." The majority is correct in stating that the Ordinance does not specifically limit such establishments to places of accommodation or amusement licensed to sell alcohol. To be consistent with the language and purpose of Ordinance 10, however, the court should construe Ordinance 10 to reach only establishments licensed to sell alcohol.
¶ 49. Ordinance 10 applies only to a "licensed establishment." The only license to which the Ordinance specifically refers is the license to sell alcohol, which the Town is authorized to issue and regulate under Wis. Stat. § 125.10. The record does not describe any other type of establishment licensed by the Town of Trenton. In addition, the Town concedes that the purpose of enacting Ordinance 10 was not to protect its *39community from the secondary effects usually associated with adult entertainment establishments; the purpose was to protect against such secondary effects only as they are enhanced by the sale and consumption of alcohol. That this is the limited purpose of Ordinance 10 is supported by the facts in this case. During this litigation, the Town has continued to allow the Petitioner to offer at its public establishment nude and semi-nude dancing, as long as the Petitioner does not also serve or sell alcoholic beverages at that establishment. In light of the language, purpose, and the Town's enforcement of Ordinance 10, the court could reasonably construe the Ordinance to reach only establishments licensed to sell alcohol.
¶ 50. In short, the court can and should construe Ordinance 10 as prohibiting only animate public nudity at establishments licensed by the Town to sell alcohol. Adopting this narrow construction would eliminate most of the concerns raised in the hypothetical situations posed by the majority and by individual justices during oral arguments. Under this construction, Ordinance 10 would not prohibit two non-related adults from being nude in the privacy of an art studio, a hotel room, or any other private room; nor would it prevent "Joe's Tap" from hanging a picture of a playmate on its wall; nor would it prohibit the "public exhibition of artwork or artifacts depicting nudity" or the "public display of a television program including brief nudity." Majority op. at 24-25.
¶ 51. I recognize that the construction offered in this dissent is not the only possible construction of the language in Ordinance 10. It is, however, an available common sense reading of that language. It is not the duty of this court to point out technical flaws in an ordinance or to strike an ordinance due to its imprecise *40language. Rather, this court has a duty to provide a narrowing construction of an ordinance if one is available. See Thiel, 183 Wis. 2d at 521. In this case one is available.
¶ 52. To bolster its broad reading of Ordinance 10, and to attack a more narrow reading, the majority, rather than analyzing the specific language of Ordinance 10, lobs empty assertions of "futility," "semantic convolutions," and "tortured conclusions." Majority op. at 26-27. In so doing the majority misconstrues the language of the Ordinance and mischaracterizes the arguments in this dissent. To clarify this dissent, it is necessary to address three such assertions cast by the majority.
¶ 53. The majority asserts that the Ordinance is overbroad largely because of its generalized terminology6 and "its specific command that portions of the Ordinance be 'interpreted broadly.' " Majority op. at 25. The majority's use of the Ordinance's "specific command" is inaccurate and misleading. The clear import of the majority's reference to this specific command is *41to establish the Town's legislative intent that the Ordinance be interpreted broadly.7 The Ordinance, however, does not direct courts to interpret all its language and provisions broadly. The Ordinance directs courts to interpret broadly only those establishments considered "placets] of accommodation or amusement." The Ordinance does not direct courts to interpret broadly the definition of "public nudity" or "licensed establishment." Despite the majority's assertion, the Ordinance does not contain a legislative "command" that its language be construed to prohibit nudity in all forms and in all public establishments.
¶ 54. The majority next states that this dissent "negates the plain language of the Ordinance and attempts to explain that the word 'showing' does not mean 'displaying' or 'exhibiting.'" Majority op. at 26-27. Again, the majority's statement is inaccurate and misleading. This dissent nowhere states or implies that the word "showing" cannot be construed broadly to include "displaying" or "exhibiting." On the contrary, it recognizes that a number of possible constructions of Ordinance 10 exist. One available dictionary definition of "showing," however, is provided which limits the definition of "nudity" to include only animate nudity. The apparent "futility" of this argument is at least matched by the majority avoidance of the issue. The *42majority fails to show, as it must to support its reading of Ordinance 10, that the word "showing" can only be construed to include "displaying" and "exhibiting."
¶ 55. The majority then asserts that to limit the Ordinance's scope to establishments licensed to sell alcohol, the dissent must "strike and construe so much of the definition that little of the original definition of 'public' as used in 'public licensed establishment,' remains." Majority op. at 27. The majority then proceeds through an exercise of striking and inserting language into the Ordinance's definition of the term "public." The majority's creation and immediate destruction of this straw man argument is inaccurate and misleading. Despite the majority's assertion, this dissent does not suggest that Ordinance 10 does not apply to all "public licensed establishments." Rather, it argues only that the term "licensed establishments" can be construed to include all "public establishments," as defined by the Ordinance, that are licensed to sell alcohol. This dissent does not attempt to limit "public" establishments to "hotels, motels, resorts, restaurants, taverns, [licensed to serve alcohol]." Majority op. at 27-28.
¶ 56. Given this court's duty to find an ordinance constitutional if at all possible, it is unfortunate that the majority rests on an analysis as superficial as its reading of the Ordinance. Before admonishing the Town of Trenton to enact an ordinance that "means what it says," the majority should first read what it said.
¶ 57. Second, the majority, after conceiving a single impermissible application of the Ordinance, concludes that the overbreadth of the Ordinance is both real and substantial. This court has traditionally held that only a statute that is substantially overbroad *43may be invalidated on its face. See Thiel, 183 Wis. 2d at 521; Wroten, 160 Wis. 2d at 226; Nelson, 149 Wis. 2d at 451; K.F., 145 Wis. 2d at 40-41; State v. Princess Cinema of Milwaukee, 96 Wis. 2d 646, 656, 292 N.W.2d 807 (1980). Although this court has not defined the term "substantially overbroad," it has instructed that in a facial challenge to a law, the court's first task is "to determine whether the enactment reaches a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct." K.F., 145 Wis. 2d at 41 (quoting Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987)) (emphasis added). Similarly, the court has explained that although a court may consider hypothetical applications of a challenged ordinance, the court "will not deem a[n]. . .ordinance invalid because in some conceivable, but limited, circumstances the regulation might be improperly applied." Id. at 40; see also Nelson, 149 Wis. 2d at 452; Brandmiller v. Arreola, 199 Wis. 2d 528, 546-47, 544 N.W.2d 894 (1996).
¶ 58. This requirement of substantial over-breadth is derived directly from the purpose and nature of the doctrine. See Ferber, 458 U.S. at 772. "[W]ithout a substantial overbreadth limitation, review for overbreadth would be draconian indeed. It is difficult to think of a law that is utterly devoid of potential for unconstitutionality in some conceivable application." Id. at 772 n.27 (quoting Note, The First Amendment Overbreadth Doctrine, 83 Harv. L. Rev. 844, 859 and n.61 (1970)).
¶ 59. In Ferber, the United States Supreme Court upheld one section of New York's criminal statutes prohibiting persons from "knowingly promoting sexual performances by children under the age of 16 by distributing material which depicts such performances." Ferber, 458 U.S. at 749. The Court upheld the *44regulation even though some protected expression, ranging from medical textbooks to pictorials in The National Geographic, "would fall prey to the statute." Id. at 773. The Court concluded that the impermissible applications of the statute would not amount to "more than a tiny fraction of the materials within the statute's reach." Id. Under these circumstances, the Court held that the regulation was "not substantially over-broad and.. .whatever overbreadth may exist should be cured through case-by-case analysis of the fact situations to which its sanctions, assertedly, may not be applied." Id. at 773-74 (quoting Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 615-16).
¶ 60. Similarly, in Broadrick, the Court upheld a section of an Oklahoma law restricting the political activities of the state's civil servants. The Court recognized that the challenged law would prohibit covered employees from wearing political buttons and from displaying political bumper stickers on their vehicles. See Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 618. Although it acknowledged that such restrictions were impermissible, the Court concluded that the law need not be "discarded in toto because some person's arguably protected conduct may or may not be caught or chilled by the statute." Id.
¶ 61. A regulation, therefore, should not be invalidated in toto for overbreadth unless it reaches " a substantial number of impermissible applications. ..." Ferber, 458 U.S. at 771 (emphasis added). Simply conceiving of a single impermissible application of an ordinance is not sufficient to succeed on an overbreadth claim. See K.F., 145 Wis. 2d at 41 (quoting Hill, 482 U.S. 451); see also City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 800 (1984).
¶ 62. For the purposes of this analysis, this dissent assumes, as does the majority, that the Town of *45Trenton has a legitimate, substantial interest in protecting its community from the harmful secondary effects associated with adult entertainment establishments. See Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560, 581-84 (1991) (Souter, J., concurring); see also City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41 (1986). In its overhreadth analysis, the court must therefore accept that the Town of Trenton can legitimately proscribe public nudity at adult entertainment establishments. See Barnes, 501 U.S. at 572 (1990); Id. at 580-81 (Scalia, J., concurring); Id. at 587 (Souter, J., concurring). Accordingly, whether the overbreadth of Ordinance 10 is substantial as well as real must be judged in relation to the "plainly legitimate sweep" upheld in Barnes. Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 615; see also Wroten, 160 Wis. 2d at 226; K.F., 145 Wis. 2d at 40-41.
¶ 63. As explained above, a narrow construction of Ordinance 10 would eliminate a number of hypothetical examples listed by the majority. If Ordinance 10 is construed to prohibit only animate public nudity, it would not chill the public exhibition of artwork or artifacts depicting nudity, or the public display of a television program including brief nudity. See majority op. at 24-25. Stripped of these arguably illegitimate applications, the majority is left with just one hypothetical situation upon which to conclude that Ordinance 10 is substantially overbroad. The majority argues that even under a narrow construction the Ordinance could be used to prohibit live artistic performances that do not implicate the secondary effects associated with barroom erotic nude dancing. Majority op. at 28-29. As this dissent has shown, simply conceiving of this single impermissible application of Ordinance 10 is not a sufficient basis upon which to invalidate the Ordinance. See K.F., 145 Wis. 2d at 41; *46see also Brandmiller, 199 Wis. 2d at 546-47; Nelson, 149 Wis. 2d at 452.8
¶ 64. Even if the court decides here for the first time that one hypothetical application of an ordinance can result in substantial overbreadth, the majority's analysis fails. The last hypothetical situation posed by the majority is far from substantial. In effect, the majority invalidates Ordinance 10 in toto because a ballet troupe or other group someday may offer in the Town of Trenton Diaghilev's L'apres midi d’un faune *47(1912) or a similar performance including nudity. See majority op. at 29. In concluding that this single hypothetical is both real and substantial, the majority ignores the very limited reach of the Ordinance.
¶ 65. The deterrent effect and any overbreadth of Ordinance 10 is necessarily limited to its reach. "While a sweeping statute, or one incapable of limitation, has the potential to repeatedly chill the exercise of expressive activity by many individuals, the extent of deterrence of protected speech can be expected to decrease with the declining reach of the regulation." Ferber, 458 U.S. at 772. Ordinance 10 does not deny absolutely the right of Trenton residents to attend, or the right of artists to offer, artistic performances involving live nudity. Ordinance 10 only prohibits a performer from appearing in a state of "nudity," as defined in the Ordinance, during an artistic performance at an establishment licensed by the Town of Trenton to sell alcohol. The Ordinance, therefore, does not bar performances involving nudity at theaters, performing arts centers, auditoriums, or other establishments as long as those establishments do not serve or sell alcohol. Perhaps I am wrong in my estimation of how often a ballet troupe or other group will perform in the nude at a tavern in the Town of Trenton, but I think it is fair to say that the legitimate scope of Ordinance 10 vastly exceeds the illegitimate.
¶ 66. Contrary to the conclusion of the majority, any real and substantial overbreadth in Ordinance 10 can be cured by means of a narrowing judicial construction of its language. See Thiel, 183 Wis. 2d at 522. Whatever overbreadth remains after this narrowing construction "should be addressed through case-by-case analysis of the fact situations to which its sanctions, assertedly, may be applied." Broadrick, 413 U.S. *48at 615-16. The majority has here employed the doctrine of substantial overbreadth superficially rather than sparingly and has swallowed it as an easy fix rather than as manifestly strong medicine. I therefore dissent.
¶ 67. As to the issue of overbreadth, I would affirm the judgment of the circuit court for Pierce County.9
¶ 68. I am authorized to state that Justice Jon P. Wilcox joins this dissenting opinion.

 As the United States Supreme Court has explained, the consequence of our departing from traditional rules of standing in the First Amendment area is that any enforcement of.a challenged statute may be totally forbidden, "not because [the litigants'] own rights of free expression are violated, but because of a judicial prediction or assumption that the statute's very existence may cause others not before the court to refrain from constitutionally protected speech or expression." Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 612 (1973).

 The court's task in this case is no different than in construing any statute; the court must apply the ordinary and approved definitions of the language used by the Town "to find the common sense meaning and purpose of the words employed" in Ordinance 10. Ann M.M. v. Rob S., 176 Wis. 2d 673, 679, 500 N.W.2d 649 (1993).

 In the absence of statutory definitions, this court construes all words "according to their common and approved usage[,]" which may be established by dictionary definitions. See Swatek v. County of Dane, 192 Wis. 2d 47, 61, 531 N.W.2d 45 (1995) (quoting State v. Gilbert, 115 Wis. 2d 371, 377-78, 340 N.W.2d 511 (1983)).

 The Ordinance does define the word "public" in the context of a "public licensed establishment." The definition offered, *37however, could not reasonably apply to the phrase "public nudity." Since it is a basic rule of statutory construction that courts give effect to every word of a statute so that no portion of the statute is rendered superfluous, see Lake City v. City of Mequon, 207 Wis. 2d 155, 162, 558 N.W.2d 100 (1997), this court must give effect to the word "public" as used in the context of "public nudity."

 As counsel for the Respondent conceded at oral argument before this court, the language "who are not immediate family members" in Exception B adds some ambiguity to the scope of the Ordinance. Read in the specific context of Exception B, however, the purpose of this language is clear. The language qualifies only the field of persons considered "members of the public." Simply because immediate family members are not considered members of the public under the Ordinance, the court should not construe this language to also mean that all persons who are not immediate family members are necessarily members of the public. Under the language of Exception B, a person's fiancee, for example, need not be considered a "member of the public" simply because he or she is not an immediate family member.

 The majority avoids any mention or analysis of the specific terms in the Ordinance that it considers so general as to cause the Ordinance to be overbroad. By refusing to focus on the specific language of the Ordinance, the majority evades the analysis that would uncover the flaw in its conclusion. The analysis the majority goes out of its way to avoid is really quite simple. Ordinance 10 prohibits "public nudity at a public licensed establishment." In finding the language of Ordinance 10 overbroad, the majority construes "nudity" to include the display and exhibit of artwork and artifacts; it construes "public nudity" to include private nudity; and it construes "licensed establishments" to include establishments other than those licensed to sell alcohol. Although I agree that the Ordinance could be construed this way, I do not accept the majority's position that a more narrow construction is somehow "tortured."

 See majority op. at 26 (stating "[w]e cannot apply a limiting construction of which contravenes the expressed intent of the Ordinance."); Id. at 27-28 (stating "the plain language of the Ordinance indicates an intent by the Town Board to apply the Ordinance in a far broader manner than acknowledged by the construed and severed interpretation of the dissent."); Id. at 28 (stating "the proffered constructions of the Ordinance are inconsistent with the broadly drafted terms and the purpose of the Ordinance.").

 To avoid the controlling authority of City of Milwaukee v. K.F., 145 Wis. 2d 24, 40-41, 426 N.W.2d 329 (1988); City of Milwaukee v. Nelson, 149 Wis. 2d 434, 452, 439 N.W.2d 562 (1989); and Brandmiller v. Arreola, 199 Wis. 2d 528, 546-47, 544 N.W.2d 894 (1996), the majority counts each play, musical, and ballet to which the Ordinance someday may be applied as a separate impermissible application of that Ordinance. If this is the proper test under the substantial overbreadth doctrine, the United States Supreme Court clearly erred in Broadrick, 413 U.S. 601, by upholding the Oklahoma statute without first counting each political button, bumper sticker, and souvenir potentially affected by that statute. Similarly, it must have been an oversight that the Court in New York v. Berber, 458 U.S. 747, 769 (1982), upheld the New York statute without first counting each magazine, pictorial, and textbook that could fall prey to that statute. The majority would have us believe that a town like Trenton cannot proscribe live nude dancing in its taverns if the performers also recite Shakespeare, play the trombone, or pirouette as they show their breasts, genitals, and buttocks to the audience. Such performances would certainly fall within the majority's "artistic gamut." Rather than strike the Ordinance in its entirety, the court should consider the application of the Ordinance to such performances on a case-by-case basis. No matter how creatively the majority counts, the application of the Ordinance to live nude performances at establishments licensed to sell alcohol yields but a single hypothetical application of that Ordinance.

 By striking as facially overbroad the Town of Trenton's Ordinance 10, the majority has avoided, either by design or convenience, the tougher question presented by the case at bar: whether and to what extent the First Amendment protects nude and semi-nude, non-obscene dancing. I believe the court should have reached this issue.