* nude dancing is a form of expression entitled to limited protection under the First Amendment.
Soon after Miller, the Supreme Court heard Barnes v. Glen Theatre (1991), a similar case involving the Indiana public indecency law. A splintered majority upheld the law, ruling that although nude dancing was a form of expression that had at least some minimal protection under the First Amendment, it could nonetheless be regulated under an appropriate standard. Just what that standard consisted of was not resolved. On March 29, 2000, the Supreme Court took up the issue again, and ruled that cities and states may ban nude dancing as a way of combating the crime and other "negative secondary effects" associated with establishments offering nude entertainment. In its 6-to-3 vote upholding a Pennsylvania ordinance that requires dancers to wear at least pasties and a G-string, the Justices differed over the amount of evidence cities must present in order to justify banning nude dancing as a means of combating these "secondary effects." Interestingly, in his1990 opinion in Miller, Posner suggested in closing that if Indiana was seriously concerned with "the social consequences of nude barroom dancing... it will amend its public-indecency statute to prohibit nude dancing in establishments that serve liquor. Such an amendment would be valid by virtue of the Twenty-First Amendment and would moot the questions that divide this court."
Return to the article