from www.lvrj.com – Nevada’s legalized brothels have traditionally tried to stay under the radar screen so as not to jumpstart the prohibitionists.

But in 2006, the Shady Lady Ranch in Nye County — along with the ACLU and two newspapers, the High Desert Advocate and Las Vegas CityLife (owned by the Review-Journal’s parent company) — challenged two 1979 state laws prohibiting brothel advertising in Clark and Washoe counties, where prostitution is illegal.

Bobby Davis [pictured], owner of the Shady Lady Ranch, sought to advertise her bordello — located about 130 miles northwest of Las Vegas — in the High Desert Advocate, a newspaper that circulates in some areas of Nevada where prostitution remains against the law.

She sued. Both the publishers and editors of the High Desert Advocate and Las Vegas CityLife stated in the suit that they wished to accept such advertising.

“The key issue is freedom on speech,” said Allen Lichtenstein, an attorney for the ACLU.

U.S. District Judge James Mahan ruled in her favor, holding that the laws were too vague and thus an abridgement of the First Amendment.

But on Thursday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals tossed out Judge Mahan’s decision and reinstated the ban. It’s a strange ruling, in that it seems to open the door for a whole range of restrictions on advertising for sexually oriented businesses, from topless bars, to adult bookstores to the ubiquitous escort service shills on the Strip.

The decision also runs counter to a 1996 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the justices found that a Massachusetts liquor store was free to advertise prices even if residents of Rhode Island, where such advertising was illegal, might see the ads.

And there’s the 1999 U.S. Supreme Court ruling involving casino advertising in which the justices held that restrictions on broadcast advertisements by legal Mississippi riverboat casinos were unconstitutional even if they may be heard in Louisiana where casino gambling was illegal.

In the Louisiana case, the court applied a four-pronged test, which included determining whether the government has a major interest in restricting the commercial speech at hand. The 9th Circuit panel stopped right there, ruling that Nevada has a “substantial” interest in “preventing the commodification of sex.”

If that’s the case, however, why hasn’t the state banned brothels outright? And why hasn’t it shown an interest in restricting suggestive billboards or radio advertisements for Las Vegas topless clubs? In fact, this is an arbitrary prohibition on a specific segment of the sex industry, an industry that — most Southern Nevada officials will have to admit — is an integral part of the state’s tourism trade.

The case may be too narrow for the U.S. Supreme Court to consider — although the justices have shown a refreshing willingness in recent years to rethink the notion that commercial speech is somehow different from other communications, and thus open to heavy handed regulation. But Ms. Davis, the ACLU and the two newspapers should ask for either a rehearing before the full 9th Circuit or push on to the high court. Providing consumers with information about a legal business or activity should not be against the law.