1

In hearing this case, the town of Grove City cannot shut the studio down on the grounds it currently has. The studio is not a strip club or massage parlor and the instructor currently does not sell any lingerie and sex toys. The pole dancing classes that are offered there are not sexually-oriented in nature. City of Erie et al. v. Paps A.M. established that nude dancing is not a form of expression protected by the First Amendment, but these women were not dancing nude. If Grove City had an ordinance against these kinds of establishments, then they would have a legitimate case against the studio as per Renton v. Playtime Theatres Inc. The town has no ordinance in place that prohibits the building of an establishment that is sexually oriented, like strip clubs or massage parlors this establishment is not one meant for those purposes. Based on Renton, this would mean that Grove City is not shutting the studio down due to any time, place, and manner restrictions present in any ordinances the town may have, but because of the content of the classes themselves, which would be a violation of the studios First Amendment rights. Applying the Roth test established in Roth v. United States to this case it is clear that the pole dancing classes offered at the studio are not considered obscene according to the definition of obscenity given by the Supreme Court during this case as well. The Roth test uses whether the actions are perceived, by an average person applying contemporary community standards, as appealing dominantly to prurient interests. The Supreme Court defines obscenity as anything without any redeeming social value. These pole dancing classes do have social value. They allow people to get exercise in a fun and social environment. There are no men watching them while they do it and, most importantly, they are not naked while they are taking the class. One place where the studio could get in trouble would be if anyone under the age of 16 took this class. In Regina v. Hinklin, it is established that any material that contains sexually-

oriented material can be banned if it has the potential to deprave children, thus creating the Comstock Act. While the class is not a performance for these children, it still has to potential to impact the children and their futures their goals, aspirations, and even the way they view sexual behavior. If the class is open to children under the age of 16, then the town of Grove City, being well within their Constitutional rights, could shut down the studio. As for the secondary effects that the town of Grove City is worried about, there are none that accompany the dance studio at this time. If the studio attracted men to watch these classes or deterred any other businesses from locating close to the studio, then Grove City would be able to file a zoning restriction that prohibited establishments of that kind from locating themselves within a certain area as per Renton v. Playtime Theatres Inc. and the zoning laws present in that case. However, this would be allowed only if there were other areas that the studio would be able to relocate to. As a whole, I think that the town of Grove City has no right to shut down the studio based on the facts currently presented. The studio is not explicitly appealing to prurient interests with the pole dancing classes that it offers because these classes are not for entertainment purposes nor are the women naked or only dressed in pasties and a G-string. Despite the sexual nature of these classes, it is not intended for these women to then go out and find a job at a strip club. Instead, it is intended to give women a work-out in a fun, social environment with other women. Therefore, the town of Grove City is violating the First Amendment rights given to the dance instructor and their studio.