EDITORIAL: Brothel ad ban tossed out - Opinion

PRINT THIS Popular

Jul. 15, 2007
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

EDITORIAL: Brothel ad ban tossed out

Federal judge comes down on the side of free speech

When Nevadans legalized prostitution for the smaller counties, decades ago, the consensus was that the ancient trade would be tolerated so long as it kept a low profile -- no one wanted the kids asking what services the nekkid women on the billboards were offering. Such ads in "illegal" jurisdictions were, obviously, judged even more objectionable.

That restriction is codified in Nevada Revised Statutes 201.430 and 201.440, which make it illegal "knowingly to prepare or print an advertisement concerning a house of prostitution ... in any county, city or town where prostitution is prohibited."

Most Popular Stories

EDITORIAL: A pre-9/11 approach to terror

LETTERS: Public-sector workers are still doing well

LETTERS: Harry Reid: Working hard for all Americans

VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: Barefooted, gun-toting hayseeds?

LETTERS: Senator just trying to kiss up to Harry Reid

EDITORIAL: 'That's the ticket!'

LETTERS: A giant octopus threatens rural Nevada

EDITORIAL: The time is right

LETTERS: America should try terrorists in open court

EDITORIAL: Religious freedom

But times have changed. While prostitution remains technically illegal in Clark County, most visitors (and residents) would find it a challenge to navigate 21st century Las Vegas without spotting numerous "unseemly" advertisements for all manner of establishments whose main attraction appears to be women (and occasionally men) in various states of sweaty undress, with a clear implication of more to come. And that's before we even get to the "outcall dancers."

Which leaves the question of whether this hopelessly dated geographic ban violates constitutional protections for commercial speech.

Of course it does. Nevada casinos advertise -- and should remain free to advertise -- in many a jurisdiction where full-fledged casino gambling remains proscribed. Why is this tolerated? Because everyone understands the activity advertised will be legal if and when those prospective customers arrive here to enjoy it.

The federal case on point is the 1996 ruling in 44 Liquormart v. Rhode Island, in which the U.S. Supreme Court properly held a Rhode Island law against advertising liquor prices (apparently intended to prevent Ocean State teetotalers from growing so excited at the prospect of bargain booze that they would race to jump off the wagon) violated the First Amendment right of a nearby Massachusetts liquor store to place advertisements that informed Rhode Island consumers of their competitive prices.

Comes now Bobbi Davis, proprietor of the Shady Lady Ranch, a legal brothel near Scotty's Junction in Nye County, 130 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

Ms. Davis wishes to advertise her business in the pages of the High Desert Advocate, a newspaper based in West Wendover that circulates in parts of Northern Nevada where prostitution is legal, as well as in areas where it is not legal.

She also wishes to advertise in Las Vegas CityLife, a weekly tabloid owned by Stephens Media, parent company of the Review-Journal.

And -- in a lawsuit filed in Nevada federal court in March 2006 -- the publishers and editors of the newspapers assert they wish to accept and publish those ads.

In response, U.S. District Judge James Mahan of Las Vegas struck down the two 1979 laws Thursday, declaring them "overly broad" and thus unconstitutional.

Senior Deputy Attorney General Edward Reed had argued in a Thursday hearing that children still needed to be "protected" from prostitution -- though it's highly unlikely proprietors in this state-regulated industry will be placing "help wanted" ads targeting minor children.

ACLU attorney Allen Lichtenstein, who brought the lawsuit on behalf of Ms. Davis and the newspapers, responded that other Nevada laws still bar the public display of material deemed harmful to children. (Will someone please advise Metro to have a chat with those porn-peddlers on the Strip?)

Mr. Lichtenstein and Judge Mahan both argued that allowing legal brothels to advertise in Clark County -- thus differentiating themselves from businesses here that either intend to break the law or else falsely imply they offer prostitution services -- will help educate visitors who arrive with the misunderstanding that bordellos are legal in Clark County.

Deputy Attorney General Reed argued that the ads may trigger an interest in prostitution among those who have never previously dreamed of such things.

Yes, lawyers are trained to defend any position they're assigned. But please.

"The government certainly is entitled to appeal if they want to," comments Gary Peck, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, "but I would hope that the people in charge would have the good sense not to waste their time and the taxpayers' money trying to defend the indefensible. They ought to instead spend their time and energy trying to craft regulations that are reasonable and constitutional."

Mr. Peck's enthusiasm for state regulation may itself be overbroad. No industry has any incentive to gratuitously offend the public or its own potential customers. Why not wait to see if any excesses surface that truly require "regulating"?

Many forms of advertising once either outlawed or barred by consensus as "tasteless" ended up providing useful information once those barriers were breached. Advertising for feminine hygiene products is one example often cited, as are advertisements for various forms of birth control -- information illegal to mail even to married Connecticut couples as recently as 1962.

Most Nevadans are not children and do not deserve to be treated as children. Judge Mahan has done the right thing not only under the U.S. and Nevada constitutions, but also in the service of adulthood and common sense.

Share & Save

Leave Your Comment	8 Reader Comments
Terms & Conditions The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor. Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Please enter your name Name: Please enter your email Email: Please enter a comment COMMENTS : (word count limit is 300) You have reached the maximum number of words allowed Current Word Count: Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background. FamilyGuy wrote on October 19, 2007 10:05 AM: Brothels are a remnant of a more unruly time when the majority of Nevada was miners and prospectors and old west towns like Virginia City were dominant. The majority of this country and several counties of this state have illegalized prostitution, not only because it victimizes and degrades woman, but also because of the criminal elements that accompany the sex industry. One example is the tax fraud and racketeering charges the owners of the Mustang Ranch faced in 1999. We don’t need prostitution to bring tourism to Las Vegas. Most of the tourists do not like the smut magazines or the brothels. Believe it or not, Clark County has a community of more than 1.6 million residents and Washoe County has a community of more that 400,000. These are areas where families are trying to create a good environment to raise children. Degrading woman and selling sex is not the right environment! Keep in mind that this ruling does not limit brothel advertising to the Strip area or smut magazines. Billboards can be placed anywhere in Vegas or Reno and ads can be placed in any newspaper or magazine with the publisher’s consent. Luckily the RJ is more interested in family and will not be printing these ads. VegasIsVegas wrote on October 18, 2007 01:43 PM: I've lived here for 28 years. I now have a 4 & 5 year old that I'm responsible for. We're moving to Washington State for their benefit. Adding Brothel's to the landscape, quite plainly doesn't make even a little difference to me. I love Vegas and will encourage my children to visit when their grown. If I were you I'd be more worried about how many of the kids your children go to school with are the child of an illegal prostitute (more specifically what their infulance has on your kid) than I would about ads on the Strip and in rag mags they shouldn't be reading anyway. Oh did I forget to mention that I'm the son of a former illegal prostitute from Las Vegas? Clark County wrote on July 18, 2007 01:03 PM: We live in a free country and all legal businesses have a 1st Amend right to free speech (that includes legal licensed brothels). If you don't like brothels, don't visit them. If you don't like brothel ads, don't look at them. Even if brothels can now advertise, they cannot be obsene. And all this gripe from mothers, religious people, and housewives about how this will affect children. Give me a break. Children can't go to a brothel. There are 300 pages in the Sprint yellow pages, billboards and cars all over Las Vegas advertising illegal prostitution and no one gives a hoot. Brothels owners do it safely and by the book and everyone wants to throw a fit. Vegas Resident wrote on July 18, 2007 12:56 PM: F ClarkCountyMom wrote on July 16, 2007 03:34 PM: This is an unfortunate decision. We are trying to raise children here. We are also trying to run a small business. The last thing we need is more of this seedy crap in our faces every day. Legalized prostitution is the worst thing that ever happened to Nevada. Vegas has become a complete cesspool thanks to the "free speech" of illegal pimps and prostitutes in the form of escorts and strip clubs. We don't ALL want to be part of this sad and destructive industry. Please don't equate a pimp's right to advertise women for sale with free speech. What the pimp is advertising is only one step removed from slavery and it's nothing for a respected publication like the Review Journal to be crowing about. So now Nevada pimps can now advertise the services of the desperate women living in prison camp "ranches" in the middle of the desert. This is not a great day for free speech, it is a sad day for the families and businesses of Nevada. GEORGE MOSS wrote on July 16, 2007 04:08 AM: Even if brothel ads become legal, that does not compel any newspaper to carry them. They are private busnesses which can accept or reject any advertisements whether they are legal or not. The newspapers will make that decision not out of any sense of ethics, but on the basis of how much money they can make. Triple Eight wrote on July 15, 2007 02:47 PM: free speech and lack of civility (Mtv- brained and beavis and butthead and the simpson's style)make for a very unpleasant combination. Jessi wrote on July 15, 2007 10:59 AM: Excellent common sense editorial.