Here is a judge that needs to be impeached or at the very least voted out when he is up for retention:

The Iowa Court of Appeals on Wednesday dismissed the state’s request for a review of the issue. The request followed a judge’s 2008 decision that Clarence Judy, then-owner of Shotgun Geniez, didn’t violate the state’s public indecent exposure law.

Judy was charged after a 17-year-old girl stripped onstage in the southwestern Iowa club in 2007.

Iowa law makes it a criminal offense to allow minors to perform a live act intended to arouse patrons. But Fremont County Judge Timothy O’Grady ruled that the strip club was protected because the law doesn’t apply to theaters, art centers, or other venues devoted to the arts or theatrical performances.

O’Grady said prosecutors failed to prove the club wasn’t a theater.

Not that I have personal experience, but I fail to see how a strip club named “Shotgun Geniez” could be mistaken to be a theater or art center.  But after a quick google search I found out (no I didn’t visit the site) that they are calling themselves “Shotgun Geniez Theater.”  Well there, that makes sense.

Not really, Emily looked up the statute in the Iowa Code that covers this so I didn’t have to:

An owner, manager, or person who exercises direct control over a place of business required to obtain a sales tax permit shall be guilty of a serious misdemeanor under any of the following circumstances:

1. If such person allows or permits the actual or simulated public performance of any sex act upon or in such place of business.

2. If such person allows or permits the exposure of the genitals or buttocks or female breast of any person who acts as a waiter or waitress.

3. If such person allows or permits the exposure of the genitals or female breast nipple of any person who acts as an entertainer, whether or not the owner of the place of business in which the activity is performed employs or pays any compensation to such person to perform such activity.

4. If such person allows or permits any person to remain in or upon the place of business who exposes to public view the person’s genitals, pubic hair, or anus.

5. If such person advertises that any activity prohibited by this section is allowed or permitted in such place of business.

6. If such person allows or permits a minor to engage in or otherwise perform in a live act intended to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires or appeal to the prurient interests of patrons. However, if such person allows or permits a minor to participate in any act included in subsections 1 through 4, the person shall be guilty of an aggravated misdemeanor.

The provisions of this section shall not apply to a theater, concert hall, art center, museum, or similar establishment which is primarily devoted to the arts or theatrical performances and in which any of the circumstances contained in this section were permitted or allowed as part of such art exhibits or performances.

How can anyone not think that establishment’s purpose isn’t the arousal or satisfaction of sexual desires of the patrons?  Seriously?  I can’t believe this judge ruled this way.  If this law can’t be applied in this case it can’t be applied in any case.  It has no teeth.

So I’m curious where does the line get drawn here?  Does anyone really think it’s ok for minors to perform nude in front of adults say if it were in a theatrical performance.  Perhaps we should allow nude scenes in school plays; according to this judge’s ruling that would be ok too.

The law needs to be tightened up here General Assembly or our kids can be further exploited.

Update 2/12/10: I offered a suggestion this morning on how the loophole can be closed and I ask you to check it out and contact your legislator (if you live in Iowa).

The word is getting around.  Linked at Memeorandum here and here.  Also getting a lot of traffic from Linkiest.com (never heard of that before).  I also appreciate NewsReal Blog, The Other McCain and The American Spectator linking here.  By the way, Stacy, this story is about owners being held accountable for who they put up on stage.  No patron, to my knowledge, was charged.

2nd Update: A request for comment was sent to all of the Iowa Republican Gubernatorial Candidates and incumbent Governor Chet Culver.  So far Bob Vander Plaats and Rod Roberts have responded to Caffeinated Thoughts request.

You May Also Like

We Must Not Forget the Dark and Evil History of Communism

John Hendrickson: Ideas have consequences and the dark history of socialism and communism should not be forgotten or treated lightly. 

Mississippi Could Soon Be An Abortion-Free State

CNN reports that because of a new law in Mississippi, Jackson Women’s…

Which Personhood Bill Should the Iowa Pro-Life Community Support?

Most in the Iowa Pro-Life Community probably don’t realize there has been not one, but two personhood bills filed in the Iowa House.

Phoenix Father Begins Jail Sentence For Hosting A Bible Study In His Home

According to News Times Phoenix, Micheal Salmon, who arrived at Maricopa County…