Court Opinion

ID: 9503355
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 19:42:46.604192+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:24.618159
License: Public Domain

DE MUNIZ, J.,
dissenting.
For many of the reasons expressed in my dissent in State v. Ciancanelli, 339 Or 282, 121 P3d 613 (2005), I also dissent in this case. Specifically, I would conclude, on two grounds, that the ordinance at issue in this case is constitutional under the State v. Robertson, 293 Or 402, 649 P2d 569 (1983) framework. First, the ordinance does not constrain either the subject or the content of nude dancing. Limiting proximity of the dancers is simply not limiting expression.
Second, the four-foot proximity ordinance focuses legitimately on forbidden effects. The Nyssa City Council has legislatively determined that “[t]he regulation of distances at which live performances occur from the patrons [is] directed at the elimination of sexual conduct or other adverse secondary effects, unrelated to the protected expression of the performer.” In my view, the proximity ordinance is tailored to address an effect (sexual conduct or harm to dancers) rather than an expression of opinion.
I therefore respectfully dissent.