Voyeur News

 

Internet Voyeur Show' Not Covered By Adult-Use Ordinance

From: Land Use Law Report  | Date: October 10, 2001 
 
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled a house in Tampa, Fla., used as the filming facility for an Internet adult entertainment voyeur site was not covered by a city ordinance regulating location of adult entertainment establishments (Voyeur Dorm, L. C. v. City of Tampa, No. 00-16346, Sept. 21, 2001).

Voyeur Dorm, a voyeur site that operates an Internet voyeur web cam site providing 24-hour-a-day coverage of the activities of the female residents of a house in Tampa. Voyeur subscribers to the site pay a $39.95 monthly fee to watch the residents in true voyeur style. Voyeur Dorm has employed from 25 to 30 women during its existence, most of whom signed a contract specifying they were employees working on a filming location for entertainment and voyeurism purposes. After learning that local law-enforcement officials were investigating its business, Voyeur Dorm asked the city's zoning coordinator for an interpretation of the city code as it applied to the activities at the voyeur house. The zoning coordinator replied that based on her examination of Voyeur Dorm's web cam page and other information provided, the activities at the house were an adult use, prohibited in a residential district.

The city's variance review board and the city council upheld the zoning coordinator's determination. Voyeur Dorm then filed suit in federal district court, challenging the city's interpretation of its ordinance. The court granted the city's motion for summary judgment (LULR, Feb. 28, 2001, p. 34).

The appeals court noted the threshold question to be answered was whether the city's adult use ordinance applied to the activities carried on at the voyeur house. The ordinance defines adult entertainment establishments as premises on which is offered to members of the public for a consideration entertainment featuring or including specified sexual activities or displaying specified anatomical areas. The city argued Voyeur Dorm was an adult use business under the express language of the ordinance and as such, cannot operate in a residential neighborhood. It also contended nothing in the city code limited the ordinance's applicability to premises where adult entertainment is actually consumed.

Code Not Applicable if No Customers Present

Voyeur Dorm, on the contrary, argued the ordinance applied to only to locations where adult entertainment is actually offered to the public. Because the public cannot physically visit the house where the filming takes place, its activities did not fall under this within the scope of the ordinance, it contended.

The court agreed. The offering of adult voyeur entertainment to members of the public does not occur until the filmed images are dispersed over the Internet. As a practical matter, the court observed, zoning restrictions are firmly anchored in particular geographic locations. A zoning ordinance designed to restrict the location of facilities offering adult entertainment cannot be applied to a site that does not offer adult entertainment at that location. The case law upon which the city and the district court relied to uphold the ordinance concerns adult entertainment where customers are physically present on the premises where the entertainment is offered. The lower court misapplied the ordinance in finding no requirement that the paying public be on the premises. The court's opinion is available from BPI's DocuDial service, No. 39-4368, 6 p.