Last month Daniel Aaronson was asked by the New Jersey Adult Cabaret Association (NJACA) to go to Trenton, New Jersey to speak before one of the committees of the State.  In New Jersey, the Assembly is the same as in many states as the State Houses of Representatives.  The reason why Daniel Aaronson was asked to speak before this committee was that the committee was in the process of letting out of committee and therefore be on the Assembly’s floor for vote, two bills that would affect sexually oriented businesses within the State of New Jersey.  The first bill would require every municipality to station a security guard at a school, bus stop, or child care facility that was within 3000 feet of a sexually oriented business and then allow the municipality to pass that expenditure on to the sexually oriented business.  The second bill would not allow any sexually oriented business to open up in any zone district whatsoever in the State of New Jersey without first getting a variance from the local government.  The hope was that the committee would hear some logic and decide to table these bills thereby them not becoming law.

Although we were sent to a large committee room, where the Assembly men and women formed a horseshoe and the witness table was at the end of the horseshoe so that all of the Assembly men and women could question the witnesses, the rest of the room with its hundred or so seats was virtually empty.  The first bill was announced and the author of the bill, an Assemblywoman from Camden County spoke on its behalf.  Her testimony simply was that she wants to protect our children.  Virtually nothing more, virtually nothing less.

After she spoke, Daniel Aaronson was allowed to speak on behalf of the NJACA.  He explained that the bill was unconstitutional.  That for a bill of this nature to be constitutional it must further a substantial governmental interest and must be narrowly tailored to do so.  Further, that under New Jersey law, the narrowly tailoring prong had to actually show that the legislation would alleviate the so-called harm that the legislation was deemed to alleviate.  Daniel Aaronson further explained that by the way the bill was written, that the cost would be ultimately borne by the sexually oriented businesses, that the bill would create many lawsuits where the sexually oriented business would argue that it has never caused any problems to children, and therefore the legislation was unconstitutional as applied to them.  Daniel Aaronson also explained how the bill, if passed, could put as many as 10,000 people out of business and therefore affecting 10,000 families.

After Daniel Aaronson finished speaking, the next speaker was the representative from the New Jersey League of Municipalities.  To everyone’s surprise, the representative from the League of Municipalities sided with Daniel Aaronson and also expressed concern about the number of lawsuits that the bill would spawn, that the cities were not in a position to defend the bill or the costs of the legislation.

After the three speakers were done, there were comments and questions from the Assembly men and women.  Through these questions and comments, it became obvious of how uninformed legislators are when they actually pass legislation.  The head of the committees’ position was that since the legislature have lawyers and they looked at the legislation, that any arguments that Daniel Aaronson had that the legislation may be unconstitutional was wrong, in essence because his lawyer said so.  An Assemblywoman told an anecdotal story about how when she goes into a convenience store her children have to look at the covers of girlie magazines and that she arranged for the convenience store to move them.  Somehow this was relevant although I’m yet able to find the relevancy.  That same Assemblywoman, then wanted to know why sexually oriented businesses could not be banned in their entirety, since the military does not allow Playboy or Penthouse at their PX’s.  Daniel Aaronson needed to explain to her, that when you are dealing with the military there are different rules than in any other part of society, such as in the military homosexuals can be thrown out, but not in any other part of society.  Another Assemblyman commented that they can do these things to alcohol establishments so  they can do it to sexually oriented businesses.  It had to be explained to him that alcohol is governed by the Twenty-First Amendment which gives the States incredible rights over alcohol distribution while sexually oriented businesses and expression are protected by the First Amendment.

After making these points,  Daniel Aaronson sat stunned when the head of the committee informed  that it was already a done deal, that the legislation was going to get out of committee; that the heads of the assembly wanted the bill to get to the floor of assembly for debate and that really everything that we said was well and good but it would have no affect on what the committee did.

There was some good news.  Apparently, Daniel Aaronson and the representative of from the League of Municipalities made some points.  The head of the committee suggested that the NJACA meet with the Assemblywoman who sponsored the bill and see if compromises or modifications of the bill could be made.  Secondly, the NJACA was invited to bring its views forth in front of the entire Assembly, not just the select committee.  Lastly, after the hearing was over, the Assemblywoman approached the representatives of the NJACA and agreed to talk.

Will the bill get derailed?  The answer is probably not.  Bills like this become election year fodder.  If you vote against a bill like this, then you are for adult entertainment and against our children.  No one running for election wants to be stamped with that brand.  Is there a chance to modify some of the provisions of the bill?  Most likely, yes.  Is the bill unconstitutional?  Obviously yes.  No evidence whatsoever was presented to the Assembly or to the Committee of the Assembly showing that adult entertainment establishments or sexually oriented businesses have any affect or cause any crimes against children.  The reason there was none of this evidence, is simply that adult entertainment establishments and sexually oriented businesses do not affect the safety of children.  Sexually oriented businesses are businesses where adults enjoy adult material or adult live performances.  People who frequent these establishments are not looking for children, but rather enjoy adults.  It is ridiculous to think that a sexually oriented business in any way, shape or form causes danger to children.

In light of this truth and in light of no evidence to the contrary, should this bill be ultimately passed by the Assembly and then go to the other house in the New Jersey legislature, then be passed, it ultimately will find itself challenged numerous times.  It will be found unconstitutional by the Courts.

Yet, it won’t matter to the Assemblywoman who proposed the bill, the Assembly people who vote on the bill or the other legislators that pass the bill.  They will be able to go home and tell their constituents look what we are doing for them.  They won’t have to tell their constituents look at all the money we have cost you in needless litigation.  Look at the worthless litigation that we have passed that has no bearing on truly remeding an evil.  They won’t have to say that we passed a bill not knowing why we did it or what it would do, because it was good for us politically.  No, they will just be able to say Look at me, I’m against sexually oriented businesses and I’m for children.

This is the lay of the land that those of us in the sexually oriented business arena have to face.  Legislation not based upon logic but based upon emotion.  Legislation not based upon facts, but based upon mere perception.  Laws not based upon the needs of the people, but rather the political needs of the politicians.