The boobs of Sullivan County (editorial)

The River Reporter
Thursday, April 3, 1997
EDITORIAL

You can tell it's an election year in Thompson. Officials are talking about nude dancers again. The town board passed a law in December banning adult-oriented businesses from opening here while a committee of volunteers scrutinizes the issue.

Why is this issue brought up every two years, coinciding with the town supervisor's re-election campaigns? And what is the cost to taxpayers and citizens?

The best answer to patently offensive speech, it has wisely been written, is more speech, not censorship, which is what Thompson's local law No. 9 of 1996 amounts to.

The recent measure, which restrains new businesses from selling media, literature or artistic performances featuring nude or seminude humans, intrudes into realms protected by the First Amendment. Certainly adult establishments can (and should) be subject to fair, prudent zoning and master planning, like all other businesses applying to enter the county. Like Wal-Mart, for example.

If drunkenness or violence are associated with some such locations, police should respond to the unlawful behavior. But moral conclusions about adult nudity should be left to individuals, not politicians.

Society would be healthier if there were more openness in our culture, in the flow of information concerning everything from government and political operations to sexuality. What "compelling state interest" justifies forbidding new adult businesses from opening -- regardless how long such a ban remains in effect?

Thompson's ban is overly broad and arbitrary. Local video outlets which carry R-rated movies (and most also rent X-rated) could be found in violation of the existing ordinance. If a "substantial portion" of any new business consists of an "adult bookstore, adult eating or drinking establishment, [or] adult theater," it is currently forbidden to open in Thompson. But what is substantial? Five percent? Twenty percent? Fifty percent?

The Town of Rye, Westchester County, in 1994 adopted an ordinance regulating the location and external appearance of adult businesses -- and went no further. This is reasonable. Thompson could have done the same, last time this issue arose. But no. Instead, they piddled around and did nothing of any consequence for over two years, aside from making "politically correct" noises about cleaning up the town, until December -- when they imposed a heavy-handed ban.

Not all local lawmakers seem to favor censorship in Thompson. Council member Bill Rieber, for example, who said he lives near a topless bar on Route 17B, commented that in his opinion, "a bar's a bar" -- suggesting perhaps that the one near his home is no more troublesome than, let's say, the Monticello bar which town supervisor Tony Cellini himself used to own.

So what's the bare bottom line? Civil liberty? Better government? Guess again. The Thompson "moratorium" is more than a tempest in a D-cup. It's a buxom opportunity for grandstanding politicians to pander to the fears and prejudices of citizens who ought to know better.

Leadership is what this community needs.

- Tom Rue, Contributing Editor