Theoretically, what makes a burlesque performance a constitutionally protected form of "speech" vs. any other service that the state can regulate?
Dance is speech, and the state can't regulate it as such. I'm not sure what the difference with strip clubs is.
The difference between obscenity and not obscenity (I'm not addressing the issue of whether obscenity is speech) can be artistic merit. If there is any artistic merit to your burlesque performance, the law says it's speech.
The difference between obscenity and not obscenity
Its called the Miller Test for anyone interested, that's the official criteria for the Supreme Court and should be in theory for the Federal Courts as a whole. It has three parts:
the average person finds it appealing entirely to sexual interests
the sexual interest is patently offensive
it lacks literary, artistic, political, or scientific value
It requires all three be met to be considered obscene, which the "artistic merit" loophole allows for most things to slip through (not just for them, but basically anything that any morality police wants censored as it was heavily used in the 90s for violent comics).
Not to mention the "average person" part allows a claim that if the majority of the community finds it perfectly fine, then its fine. So a bunch of fags shitting on each other's chest in LA is perfectly allowed because its acceptable to most people there.
the "artistic merit" loophole allows for most things to slip through (not just for them, but basically anything that any morality police wants censored as it was heavily used in the 90s for violent comics).
Dance is speech, and the state can't regulate it as such. I'm not sure what the difference with strip clubs is.
The difference between obscenity and not obscenity (I'm not addressing the issue of whether obscenity is speech) can be artistic merit. If there is any artistic merit to your burlesque performance, the law says it's speech.
Its called the Miller Test for anyone interested, that's the official criteria for the Supreme Court and should be in theory for the Federal Courts as a whole. It has three parts:
It requires all three be met to be considered obscene, which the "artistic merit" loophole allows for most things to slip through (not just for them, but basically anything that any morality police wants censored as it was heavily used in the 90s for violent comics).
Not to mention the "average person" part allows a claim that if the majority of the community finds it perfectly fine, then its fine. So a bunch of fags shitting on each other's chest in LA is perfectly allowed because its acceptable to most people there.
The question with all censorship is who decides?
The people who shouldn't be deciding, as always.