The Texas Supreme Court has upheld the state's "pole tax," levying a $5 per customer fee that must be paid by strip club owners who serve alcohol at their locations. The constitutional law issue litigated in this case is the club's free-speech right, guaranteed in the 1st amendment of the United States Constitution stating, "Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech" of the people. The case was heard under the Texas Supreme court who overturned the ruling by the Texas Third Court of Appeals, that the "pole tax" was unconstitutional. The Texas Supreme Court overturned the original ruling to say that the pole-tax did not violate the clubs' free speech rights because the tax is a "minimal restriction," meant to suppress the secondary …show more content…
Speech is defined as the oral, written or symbolic expression of ideas or thoughts. That being said, the U.S. Constitution recognizes three forms of speech: fully protected, commercial, and dangerous speech. The Association could argue that the taxation is a hindrance on pole dancing as a symbolic form of speech, being categorized under the form of fully protected speech. Pole dancing, can be viewed as possessing artistic, and cultural value in the United States. Imposing a tax on strip clubs may cause them to hire less dancers, downsize, or even shut down if they cannot bring in enough profits to cover their fees. Consequently, this monetary fee will be restricting the free expression of symbolic speech as a part of American culture; that of which is fully protected under the U.S. Constitution. The government is not allowed to evaluate the content of this fully protected speech, and must be neutral to its value, regardless of any negative connotation associated with pole dancing. Being ruled as fully protected speech would require the court to evaluate this speech issue under strict scrutiny because speech is a fundamental right as stated in the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, they must have a compelling reason to impose this tax and use the least restrictive means possible to prevent it. A $5 tax per customer is not the least restrictive means available, and pole dancing itself would not be a compelling enough reason to impose the tax because any negative reverberations from its practice primarily result from other external stimulus happening around this "symbolic" form of dancing. From pole dancing alone, there is no actus reus, "a bad act," being performed since the dancing is a cultural expression of speech and