Jump to content

Talk:35 Bar & Grille LLC v. City of San Antonio

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Google search for news sources

[edit]

Next GLAM Boot Camp DYK

[edit]

So I think it I found another DYK for us to work on, check out the draft/outline on User:Sadads/Sandbox and the above google news link. I would appreciate any collaboration or help in getting it DYK worthy by this weakend. I am summoning you all via the new notifications tool, lets see if it works, Sadads (talk) 04:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The list:

FYI as a lawyer I am extremely skeptical that this is a notable case. It's just a district court case in a random district (W.D. Tex. is nothing like S.D.N.Y. etc.), and only an order on a preliminary injunction.... Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it's got a fair amount of media coverage, probably enough to meet GNG independent of the legal-specific guidelines. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The media coverage sends it up to the point of GNG, and seems like a good excuse to expand some related content, including the article for the judge and perhaps an article on the definition of sexually oriented businesses, which seems like a meta-level legal definition that would be worth writing an article on, Sadads (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doing some research on the judge, he appears quite notable because he banned organized public prayer at a high school graduation to defend the liberties of an agnostic student. Might be worth exploring more because he is controversal, Sadads (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to Nikkimaria and Sadads, many humorous opinions are picked up briefly by news sources and blogs. This has zero lasting significance, and I believe it runs afoul of WP:NOTNEWS. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to consider is that by picking this up and seeking a DYK, it may obtain lasting significance - and that's not necessarily a good thing. Wikipedians need to be cognizant of the fact that we don't just write about important facts but facts can be viewed as important because we've written about them. I would hate to see this case reported on further or cited in other cases merely because it made the mainpage (though this is the sort of case that would be picked up by some land use or takings prof). At the same time, I must agree that looking at this with lawyer eyes may not result in an entirely fair analysis. (I know I don't play over here much and wouldn't normally comment but you did list me ;) ).--Doug.(talk • contribs) 16:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will think about both criticisms, they both have merit and I hadn't really thought about WP:NOTNEWS, but I also think part of Wikipedia's mission is pushing the boundaries of what our culture accepts as "important" or "appropriate" topics of legitimate discussion. I am planning on an expansion of both the article for Fred Biery and have started a draft for Sexually oriented business which seems like a legal concept that could use an article that orients readers towards the appropriate legal precedents, including the couple of Supreme Court cases that cover SOBs explicitely. I would appreciate the experience of both of you, User:Doug and User:Calliopejen1, in negotiating the legal nuance of the scholarship. Thanks for the feedback, Sadads (talk) 19:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For Biery, I'd start with the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary which has profiles of all federal judges, plus his official bio which is probably already there. There might be other sources that also have judicial profiles--not sure. (For example, the Daily Journal profiles judges in California... not sure if there's something like that for Texas.) I'd caution you about starting from what news coverage he happens to be mentioned in because it may not present an accurate picture. Federal judges hear an obscene number of cases, and only a small portion of them tend to hit the headlines. For "sexually oriented business"--yes, that is a buzzword that appears in a lot of cases. But that's probably not the best starting place for an article. I'd probably recommend starting by thinking about non-content-neutral regulation of sexual content under the First Amendment, which is driven by concern for secondary effects (might be a better title? not sure). I'd pull a couple treatises/hornbooks on First Amendment law to start. A short easy read is Daniel Farber The First Amendment which has a good overview. Here's a random law review article describing some of the issues: [1]. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"sexual content under the First Amendment" seems a little bit beyond my purview ability to negotiate legal mattes, maybe we should get a law class to write that one :P But from one I have found as regards the sexually oriented businesses, there seems to be a narrow enough definition, but a broad enough sets of examples and impacts on zoning considerations, etc, for it to be worth exploring! Unless I am an expert in a field, I try to shy away from things that aren't searchable objects (which for me is historiography, literary criticism and cultural studies), unless helping someone else who already has a plan. Though if you want to provide a outline and the best materials, we might be able to do both SOBs and the proposed article, Sadads (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that "sexually-oriented business" would probably just end up as a fork of whatever first amendment obscenity articles we have (or ultimately will have).... It will raise issues of what is content-neutral, whether zoning is legitimate (i.e. whether sexual content is second class protected speech), issues of secondary effects, perhaps feminist arguments re: whether pornography violates women's civil rights........ I don't think there's any way of circumscribing "sexually-oriented business" not to include these things--I think it's a bigger can of worms than you realize, and nearly coextensive with obscenity law generally. If you're interested in following up on this, I'd recommend looking into "secondary effects" (which is discussed in this opinion) which is a discrete, manageable area of law and is not yet covered in United States obscenity law (which is a bit of a mess btw). Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hook for DYK?

[edit]

I was thinking something like "...judge Fred Biery ruled in a recent court case that employees of San Antonio SOBs had to cover their breasts with more then "Itsy Bitsy Teeny Weeny" pasties?" Any other thoughts? Sadads (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed WP:EDU tag

[edit]

I'm working on assessment of WP:EDU art icicles. This one did not seem to fit so I removed the tag. If there is justification to keep it feel free to add it back as complete assessment. {{WikiProject Education}} Ryanx7 (talk) 03:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 35 Bar & Grille LLC v. City of San Antonio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:35_Bar_%26_Grille_LLC_v._City_of_San_Antonio&oldid=1197022179"