Laserfiche WebLink
■RCM 2'90 16:46 2“ i6:44 ::0. S7o0044222 <br />JtliiN5>tlAVV <s: VJUL.151iK 1 5UiN <br />?IPEI)A5?7lAYTO‘iFJJ <br />icmj 100 <br />SOUTH NINTH SniET <br />MC*TCEA?CL3. KDOfESCTTA iUixi <br />4:unuu <br />TZLE?aZ: 41151 Um <br />MEMORANDUM <br />TO; <br />FROM <br />City Council <br />City Manager <br />Thomas J. Barrett, City Attorney <br />RE;Adult Use Ordinance <br />DATE;October 8, 1999 <br />We have reviewed the draft Adult Use Oiiaance prepared by Kris Jeason based on her <br />review of pertinent studies and adult use ordinances adopted by other area raunicipaUties. In <br />reviewing the draft ordinance, we also have considered studies concerning the secondary <br />effects of adult busiuesscs. as weU as coaso'dins and peisuasive case law which. coUectively, <br />establishes the peimissible scope and houadaries of municipal regulation of adult uses. <br />A revised version of the draft ordinance is ahcched for your consideration. We have tried to <br />incoiporate what we consider to be essential components that ate mandated or. in out opiiuon. <br />advisable under current law, as well as less fundamental revisions that ate de.signed to remedy <br />the somewhat circular nature of the regulatory scheme ptoposetl in the original draft. In <br />addition to those changes, we have the foLowing general comments. <br />Under United States Supreme Court precedent, adult businesses generally are entitled to First <br />Amendment protection because they involve the exercise of the fundamental right to freedom <br />of expression. That right is constrained, b the context of adult businesses, by the <br />government ’s right to prohi ’oit obscenity (as defined by siamte in Minnesota) and by the <br />principle that commercial speech or expmsslon, including expression that involves sexuaUy- <br />oriented materials or content, is cnutled to a lesser degree of First Amendment protection t.an <br />I <br />128/21l*-t735 UV&rSO