from www.kansascity.com – In a major setback for owners of adult businesses in Missouri, the state’s Supreme Court Tuesday upheld tough regulations on what patrons can see at strip clubs and other entertainment venues in the state.

In its 6-0 ruling, the court said the tough regulations — which prohibit nude dancing and broadly limit other kinds of adults entertainment — do not violate the constitutions of Missouri or the United States.

“The restrictions are not content-based limitations on speech but rather are aimed at limiting the negative secondary effects of sexually oriented businesses on the health, welfare and safety of Missouri residents,” the court found.

The legislature passed the tougher rules in 2010, prompting an immediate court battle over the rules. One Kansas City adult club owner said Tuesday he was disappointed in the decision, which he said would chase customers and jobs into Kansas, which does not have similar restrictions.

“I think (the law) was unnecessary,” said Joe Spinello, owner of the Shady Lady lounge. “The courts are tricking themselves right now.”

Among other things, the law:

* Forces sexually oriented businesses to be closed between midnight and 6 a.m. seven days a week.

* Prohibits full nudity in those businesses.

* Prohibits touching of customers by semi-nude employees and requires semi-nude dancers to use a stage. (Semi-nudity is defined as female breasts exposed below the nipple or uncovered male or female buttocks.)

* Forbids alcohol at sexually oriented businesses.

The state’s adult entertainment industry sued last year to block the measure’s requirements. Adult business owners said the new rules cut their business by 75% or more.

At least some businesses were forced to close.

An investigation by The Kansas City Star last May, however, showed at least some clubs were not obeying the restrictions, in part because of alleged lax enforcement by state and local authorities.

Law enforcement personnel said then that they were waiting for guidance from the court before enforcing the regulations.

In its 41-page ruling, the court said the legislature reasonably relied on testimony to determine that some activities in the clubs posed a threat to health and safety. “The Act does not ban sexually oriented businesses of any type,” the court ruled. “Rather, it seeks to reduce negative secondary effects associated with such businesses, including detrimental health and sanitary conditions, prostitution and drug-related crimes both inside and outside these locations, as well as deterioration of the surrounding neighborhoods.”

The court also said lawmakers did not need a fiscal note on the law’s impact before it acted, as the club owners claimed in their arguments to the court.