Slashdot Mirror
Washington Dancers Sue To Prevent Identity Disclosure
An anonymous reader writes with this BBC story about a Washington open-records law that is having some controversial consequences for some unlikely people. "Government open-records requests can be boring. Government open-records requests made by a man who wants to obtain information about 70 licensed strippers in his town so he can 'pray for them', on the other hand... The godly citizen in question is David Allen Van Vleet of Tacoma, Washington. In September he filed court papers to obtain personal information on 70 government-licensed nude dancers at a nightclub in his area — including their full names, addresses, photos and dates of birth. (Yes, Washington requires nude dancers to pay a $75 a year license fee.) The county auditor granted his request under the state's open-records law - although she also notified area dancers and club managers of her action. On 21 October two licensees sued to block the release of the information. Two days later a county judge issued a temporary order blocking the release, with a final decision scheduled for 15 December."
Does the state's database only include actual strippers? In Ohio, police stole a woman's drivers license information and assigned it to an undercover officer, who then got hired on as a stripper as part of a sting operation. It sure would suck if, after being victimized by the police in that manner, a woman was then subjected to who knows what sort of harassment from a random citizen who just wanted to "pray for" her.
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
The issue is why in the bloody hell is the government licensing dancers?
Actually, there is. Its to keep underage dancers and those with criminal (prostitution) records out of the clubs. The way it works (is supposed to work) is that dancers are issued licenses in their real names by the state. These licenses must be presented to 'adult cabaret' operators (who are also licensed) as a prerequisite to working on the premises.
At one time, the actual license had to be held by the cabaret. Supposedly, this allowed law enforcement to 'pull' the license of anyone convicted of various offenses (prostitution). In fact, this law was written under the guidance of the Colacurcio family regime as a means to tie dancers to their clubs. This is very similar to how women in some countries are forced into prostitution (sometimes by surrendering passports instead of licenses). The licensing process may have been changed since many Seattle politicians were caught in Frank's back pocket.
Fundamentally, the licensing laws are a good idea. But possession of a license is a matter between a dancer and a cabaret.
One thing that this whole thread might be missing: Since the death of Frank Sr and the ejection of his family from the Seattle strip club scene, the business has really taken off with several new clubs opening. This is in part due to corrupt politicians having been tossed out who helped the Colacurcios maintain their near monopoly. Now, there is a huge demand for dancers in these new clubs and I'm just wondering out loud to myself: Is Van Vleet actually trying to round up the names and addresses of dancers to open his own club?
Have gnu, will travel.
Same-sex marriage has absolutely nothing to do with prudishness, nor does marijuana.
Just out of curiosity, what is your definition of "prudishness?"
"95% of all Slashdot
If only we had some sort of state-issued document that verifies your age -- maybe even with a picture on it. I guess that's just a pipe dream, huh?
Look, I think this is a stupid law, but it's not hard to see past your objections and see where the state is coming from.
It's not all that terribly hard to get a fake ID that will pass muster at a bar. (It's a different issue to get one that will pass muster at a TSA check, or passport application, for example.)
You accidentally let a 19-year-old in to drink with a fake ID, not a huge deal in terms of liability, right? You will probably get fined if he/she gets caught in a sting, worse if they get a DUI, but it's pretty understandable and unlikely to put your strip club out of business.
But let's say a 17-year-old has a good fake ID and gets a job stripping at your club. What is your liability if someone takes pictures and you are the source of "child porn?" What about if she is doing tricks on the side and, worse than abetting prostitution, you are abetting "child prostitution?" Repeat this same exercise for any number of potential legal violations.
It is in the interest of all the strip club owners that saying "this person is OK to be a person who shows their boobies for money" is in the hands of the state rather than the bartender or bouncer who interviewed her/him on their first day of work. (And also theoretically in the interest of anyone who goes to that club and wishes to film, proposition or otherwise engage them.) It sounds puritanical at first, but from a liability limitation perspective I think it is very defensible.
"95% of all Slashdot
It certainly can be "the state's damn business", when the "nose picking" is in food preparation areas or in hospital wards where infections are a large risk. Look up the history of "Typhoid Mary" and the resulting changes in food preparation regulations and laws. It's also the state's business when "sugary carbonated drinks" lie about their ingredients or their health benefits, such as selling aspartame based diet soda past its "sell by date", or making fraudulent health claims for "acai berries". You may not remember that multi-level marketing scam, I certainly do.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal practice that is documented from the Roman Empire and many civilizations since then. It is not a particularly American principle. The presumption of innocence has _never_ been taken as an excuse to discard all regulation of workplace activity, including simple employment itself in the USA. Employment normally requires an I-9 form to verify visa status to work.