HB2054 Phill Cosby Strikes again

[Grizzly]

Once again it is that time of year for Phil Cosby to beat his war drums and drum up an army of Right Wing Christian Fundamentalist to take our freedoms away.

did he not learn his lesson in 2010 or 2011 when he tried this.

HB2054 Community defense act; sexually oriented businesses is back on the table

http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b201...asures/HB2054/

http://cjonline.com/news/2013-01-28/...comment-965075

According to CJ Online this what the supporters want

"The measure, HB 2054, would ban lap dances and dancing onstage in various levels of undress, as well as regulate where adult businesses may locate. It would bring Kansas regulations in line with Missouri's, and supporters say it is overdue."

The "Community Defense Act," as supporters call it, opens with a long paragraph explaining that its purpose is to "regulate sexually oriented businesses in order to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of Kansas," and not to restrict adult materials or entertainment that are free expressions protected by the First Amendment.

So what is everyones opinons of this?

I am interested in hearing what you have said and yes I have emailed my legislators asking them to vote against this bill.

[bartipero]

The Senate moderates kept it from passing last time. Their majority is gone. The most effective way to deal with this is to have one house pass a version with a home rule choice on it and the other without it. That keeps both sides from agreeing because it creates a philosophical issue that gets past the moral and emotional ones.

Beyond that, legislators understand only two things: votes from their own constituents and money. Call, write and follow up, and get a commitment for a vote against it, then follow up later reminding them because they will vote the last contact. Until it makes it to the floor of the respective house considering the measure legislators will deflect the issue unless they are on the committee it is in and it has had a hearing or soon will. Those are the people to initially concentrate upon and ask your legislator to influence, but you have to be rational and not angry with them about it. Know your audience, what appeals to conservatives. You have to get around their version of morality and freedom.

Fundamentalist Christian legislators are firm in their perception of morality. So appeal to what works because that won't. Use alternative points and rhetorical questions that gives them policy reasons not to get into this issue, because you can't otherwise justify it to them.

Use an emphasis on home rule and a community determining what is best for it without state intervention. How does another law help when there isn't a proliferation of problems. Point out there are plenty of existing laws so they don't need to deal with it as these range from zoning to local ordinances and state laws prohibiting solicitation. You can point out that many such businesses are going out of business without state intervention, so why devote public funds we don't have to passing it, defending it in court, and then enforcing it. Just because Missouri does something doesn't mean we have to copy it. Wouldn't it be better to be perceived to be open to less business control and freedom rather than show businesses they risk being micro-managed by the government if their business offends a legislator. Wouldn't they be in a better position to control any ills they are concerned about by not driving the illegal activities they are concerned with underground? How has this helped create new jobs and lower crime when there is no difference in cities with them versus those without. And finally, did the legislator you are contacting really become part of the government to further restrict freedom, and isn't less government more consistent with conservative principles of freedom and smaller government?

You can point out major cities with such enterprises just as conservative as ours that put tolerance and freedom over government directed life. These include our nation's capitol, Denver, Phoenix, Dallas and any other major city with them.

You can point out the fallacies in the reasons for the law. It may not get you far, but it sets the stage for accepting other reasons to justify killing the issue. Prostitution: been here since the beginning of time and at least with clubs you can do direct enforcement, but the Internet will still be there. Human trafficking--same thing. Increase in crime--fallacy as such businesses have an incentive to avoid it or their customers will leave if it's unsafe and other types have higher experiences of crime, including bars and banks.

Put them on the spot if you're getting nowhere. If they insist it's a problem ask them how they know, have they been in one? Legislator: These businesses promote prostitution, are high crime and sell drugs. You: Oh, so you go to clubs and see this? Or, and you think that the fact we have laws that haven't stopped those things in our community will dry it up if you take away yet another freedom of choice? But it's a fine line to entrench a position by being confrontational, so if you use that method do it friendly, not condescending or insulting. There is nothing wrong with pointing out that you doubt the voters will look kindly upon wasting time and tax dollars on efforts to legislate morality when there are serious issues of budgeting, quality job growth, business and education. They weren't sent to Topeka to take rights away and substitute their own preferences and point of view.

We got here because adult businesses--and some of us here regarding clubs--didn't have enough sense to stay under the radar. Strip clubs and book/video stores put up billboards and opened in communities that were just wrong for the concept and then put it in their face, like Meridan, Salina and Abilene, for example. Seriously, did these owners think small and mid-size cities would just take it? Dumb. But now it's here and Missouri showed it will stick. (Which allows you to point out such businesses are still there, so what is the point?)

We are in a schitzoid era. Show sex on t.v. and graphically blow people's brains out and show it and the aftermath on t.v., but heaven forbid you have a non-violent business dedicated to 3-D bawdy fun. There are numerous ways to approach this, but in the end also keep in mind you have to give them a simple way to explain away not supporting it, so they can justify breaking from the herd. Everything they give you for it will be an excuse, so you have to show them there is none, freedom for only one point of view isn't freedom for all. You can't have a culture that asserts defense of freedom and at the same time restricts or takes it away. If something is widely legal today and is illegal tomorrow that is what has happened.

Legislators actually monitor letters, cards and phone calls. It is their vote count from their constituents and they don't want to be unpopular. A simple email or phone call against something will count. They consider those reflective of votes even if they don't take the call, but only get the message. But they do tend to discount those which are not from their own district. Those people can't hurt them in the next election is why. Don't be a crackpot, but do make your preference known. There won't be that many people who come out against this, though there will be a vocal minority in favor, so your voice can work. The squeaky wheel gets the grease and legislators don't want to be in the spot light of a no win situation. If they have to publicly vote on this it will pass. If they get opposition before it gets that far it will be shuttered. This will be a continuous 2 year battle, though, because a bill once introduced remains alive until the next House election cycle. So, if you sit on your rights you will lose them.

[Grizzly]

Thanks for your response Barti

I did contact both my Senator and Representative they voted it down last time and they have not changed their position in fact they say they are tired of this being brought up time after time and wishes it would just stay dead. They will vote no again.