Equal Protection With the objectives of preventing crime mai

Equal Protection. With the objectives of preventing crime, maintaining property values, and preserving the quality of urban life, New York City enacted an ordinance to regulate the locations of commercial establishments that featured adult entertainment. The ordinance expressly applied to female, but not male, topless entertainment. Adele Buzzetti owned the Cozy Cabin, a New York City cabaret that featured female topless dancers.Buzzetti and an anonymous dancer filed a suit in a federal district court against the city, asking the court to block the enforcement of the ordinance. The plaintiffs argued, in part, that the ordinance violated the equal protection clause. Under the equal protection clause, what standard applies to the court’s consideration of this ordinance? Under this test, how should the court rule? Why?

Solution

Before answering this question, I do want to stress that Equal Rights Protection is very crucial and is the most important aspect of human social fabric. Without this very fabric, humans can not even imagine living in a peaceful society because as we all hear this statement as often that All Men/Woman Are Equal.

However, there are some important factors which needs to be addressed in order to sustain the very important part of the human values that is respect. Off late we have been witnessing that we are moving towards this human degeneration where, we have started to believe that any aspect of freedom is a right to expression which is not actually!

Yes and off course, everybody loves freedom of expression and its everybody\'s right but, should there be a limit where human values get degenerated? Yes, there should be some amount of limit by which human values and integrity wouldnt get offended. Now, we can see very clearly that Western Countries have been targeted with subject to right to participate directly or indirectly in porn. I mean, not the general citizens of their respective nations but, due to the interests of the business lobbyists and in turn its effecting the very fabric of human values and moral responsibility.

1. Now, coming the to the first part of the question “what standard applies to the court’s consideration of this ordinance?”

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide \"equality\" among individuals or classes but only \"equal application\" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights.

2. Under this test, how should the court rule? Why?

If we look at this incident/issue, its very simple. Court shouldnt be biased in giving the judgment to male or female but, given the fact that the atrocities related to molestation, rape, cheating are increasing against the female counterpart, its very important for the government to take all the necessary actions which will safeguard the society in general. Here in this scenario, government should also bar the activities in which male counterpart involve in porn. This is definitely a human degeneration where, everybody is getting effected. Also, if we have to look back into the past, lets say 100 years, we havent seen this cruelty against human ethics but, this stigma is more of a recent times where business interests are highly involved.

There is definitely no point that we arent proud of our rights of expression of freedom if we have to consider ourselves to Islamic nations where women is oppressed to a degree where, she isnt able to convey the basic expression of freedom to express her problems in general which isnt correct at all. They have to be given equal amount of freedom as compared to the men in human society. But, we know that it will take a long time to see the equality in all parts of the world. But, as of now our concern is to make our society to feel free to express their feelings as long as it doesnt effect the human values and wont leave a negative effect on the future generation.

There is a great article printed some 18 years back and its very interesting to note that supreme court has rightfully described the situation prevailing with regards to declining human values and ethics and the negative effects of the same on the society as well. Please read below further about this piece of article:

“Are not male breasts also alluring? asked Ms. Buzzetti and Ms. Doe, who brought a sex-bias challenge to the law in Federal court, saying that the law prohibits women from dancing topless, but not men.

On their behalf, Lenore Tiefer, a psychologist who specializes in human sexuality, argued that male chests have been increasingly eroticized in recent years. She mentioned a current Diet Coke ad showing women ogling a man, a Ray-Ban sunglasses ad featuring the Olympic runner Michael Johnson in all his pectoral splendor, and the emergence of Calvin Klein underwear models who now rule billboards where the buttoned-up Marlboro Man used to roam.

But yesterday, a Federal judge in Manhattan upheld the constitutionality of the law. The reason, he said, is that in their impact on society, male and female breasts are separate and not equal.

\'\'One does not have to be either a psychologist or a sociologist to recognize that, if it were widely known that 10 topless women were walking down Park Avenue and 10 topless men were walking down Madison Avenue, the effect on the traffic on Park Avenue would be substantially greater than on Madison Avenue,\'\' wrote the Federal District Court judge, John S. Martin Jr.

And the effect on local traffic is exactly what the regulation is about, said the judge, a former United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. He rejected the plaintiffs\' argument that the 1995 zoning ordinance also restricted their First Amendment right to free expression. Citing two Supreme Court decisions on the zoning of sex entertainment businesses, he said the purpose of the city\'s carefully drawn law was not to curb the dancers\' performance but to protect neighborhoods from the impact of the clubs, like crime, reduced property values, and an apparent decline in the community\'s character.

He also said that despite the explicit ban on female breasts, the regulation did not necessarily permit clubs like Chippendales, which feature male topless dancers, to do business in protected neighborhoods, pointing out that it bans \'\'human male genitals in a discernibly turgid state, even if completely and opaquely concealed.\'\' In this regard, he said, the regulation did not reveal an anti-male bias.

\'\'These provisions simply recognize that there are anatomical differences between males and females which in our society elicit different reactions,\'\' he wrote.”

Thank you.