[City] State Appeals Court Upholds Footloose Laws

On Friday, the New York State Court of Appeals, in a unanimous decision, upheld the city statute banning dancing by three or more people in most bars and taverns. The suit was brought by a group of "social dancers" who claimed that the cabaret restrictions limited their right to free expression. The court ruled that "recreational dancing is not a form of expression protected by the federal or state constitutions," and continued on to say that the laws are meant "to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the public by limiting noise, congestion and various hazards in residential areas." In all, there are 4,811 establishments licensed to serve liquor and only 276 licensed to allow dancing.

The cabaret laws, which were first enacted in 1926 as a means of restricting interracial groups from jumpin' and jivin' at Harlem jazz clubs, began being reinforced under the rule of Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who sought to "clean up" 42nd Street, and, in the meantime, keep everyone stiff-legged as they go out on the town. Now, with a chance to overturn the ridiculous statute, the state instead upholds it using equally ridiculous logic to maintain the absurdly fascitic.

Firstly, the first amendment affords us the right of free expression, and dancing is most certainly a form of expression. The cabaret laws were enacted specifically to prevent racially liberal individuals from assembling and expressing themselves. The fact that they began in Harlem is significant, because though the white status quo may have not used dancing as a form of free expression, dancing has played a hugely important role in expression for African and African-American cultures. And though it may not be racially motivated today, the laws, if nothing else, do have the effect of curbing an important form of expression, and with awful, not to mention, contradictory reasoning.

The claim that the laws help to curb congestion and noise is downright ridiculous. If they are in fact seeking to curb congestion, then they obviously intend to prevent nightlife establishments from being part of a vibrant economy, by preventing people from gathering in bars. But clearly the laws have not had that effect as bars and taverns are as crowded as ever. The only way to slow congestion in one nightlife area is to increase it in another, by forcing people to plop down thrity-dollar covers and $10 per drink at licensed clubs (where you can also find drug-dealing and violence among the dangers and problems of dancing).

What's worse is the court's claim that the laws are intended to limit noise. Limit noise? Anyone who lives in New York City knows that the city only pretends to care about limiting noise. I can attest to this personally because I live on a very busy street that specifically has signs noting the $350 fine for unnecessary honking, and yet as I sit here writing, the car and truck horns are blaring behind me and their violation never has been, and never will be, enforced. Also, if the city did care about noise, why would they force all of the the drunken cigarette smokers to stand out on residential streets yapping between cigs at all hours of the evening? Oh, that's right, because the city cares about our health. Well guess what Mayor Bloomberg, dancing is a form of cardiovascular fitness!