(a) Protection of Lemen's Statements:
All citizens have a right to the freedom of speech. Freedom of speech allows people to speak openly and critically about their political views and government action.
However, there is a restriction of reasonableness in regards to free speech.
For instance, certain speech may have slight benefit if it is not true and it aimed at harming an individual. In that case, it is defamation and is not entitled to the same protection as traditional political free speech.
In this case, it seems that the defendant was targeting the Inn with blatantly untrue claims of illegal activity that resulted them losing business. In this case, the court should enjoin the behavior of the defendant.
(b) Acts of Lemen:
The defendant did act unethically.
By calling patrons and employees names and claiming they were evil or engaging in illegal activities with no grounding in reality, the defendant was lying.
Her behavior resulted in the loss of profits to a business that was acting in a perfectly legal fashion.
The harm caused to the business based on lies emphasizes the unethical nature of the defendant's behavior.
To protect the public life and reduce the crime rate, the city NY passed regulations on the adult entertainment establishments. The ordinance covers only female in the topless entertainment. AB, owner of a cabaret and an anonymous dancer filed suit in the district court against the city to prevent the enforcement as it violated the equal protection clause.
The Equal Protection Clause ( EPC ) of the 14 th amendment to the constitution entitles every citizen for equal treatment to the laws. The laws should not be different the individuals who are in similar situations.
If the law prevents the exercise of rights or actions of some persons but not all the persons, it is called violation of the equal protection law.
When there is any suit on violation of equal protection clause, the court uses the intermediate scrutiny if the case includes gender discrimination. The selection of the group of individuals who are prevented from exercising their laws should be based on the government objectives.
In this case, the ordinance is to reduce crime rate and preserve the quality life. The public reactions are different for male and female topless dancers as there are differences between the genders. So, the conduct or the entertainment which may have negative impact on the public should be controlled.
The ordinance did not prevent the females from all the adult entertainment but only topless performance.
Therefore, it cannot be considered as violation of equal protection law.
In the case where most small wineries are located out-of-state and thus, out-of-state wineries reap a competitive advantage over in-state wineries, the law would still be discriminatory.
The law allows out-of-state wineries to market to wholesalers as well as directly to consumers, whereas the large in-state wineries would not have that ability.
This would not violate the traditional Commerce Clause, as the state is not reaping any benefit by affording preferential treatment to out-of-state wineries.
There is no answer for this question