 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
|
||||||||
Back
|
Internet porn site wins legal standoff
By GRAHAM BRINK, Times Staff Writer
TAMPA -- The show can go on at Voyeur Dorm, the home where 31 cameras broadcast the semi-clad lives of five young women over the Internet. The U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday it would not consider an appeal from Tampa city officials who wanted to use zoning laws to shut down the business. By refusing to hear the case, the Supreme Court let stand last year's ruling from the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which decided local zoning laws don't apply to "virtual space" on the Internet. The decision will affect communities across the country that consider using similar zoning laws in an attempt to regulate Internet-based businesses. Monday's decision had Voyeur Dorm co-owner Bruce Hammil singing the title lyric from the Queen song We Are the Champions. "It's nice to finally get the city off our backs," he said. "We knew we were right and now it's been confirmed." Tampa Mayor Dick Greco said the city will follow the court's decision. "We carried it as far as we could carry it," he said. "If the court sees it that way, that's fine with me." The softcore Webcast chronicles the daily activities of young housemates, clothed and unclothed. Subscribers pay $39.95 a month for 24-hour viewing and can chat online with the women. Cameras are installed throughout the house, including bedrooms and showers. Tampa officials claimed the house was an adult business, like a pornographic movie theater or bookstore, that cannot operate in a residential neighborhood under city zoning laws. The owners of Voyeur Dorm argued that the business attracted no customers to the home and had no adverse impact on the neighborhood. Originally the home was in a quiet residential neighborhood just off Armenia Avenue in Tampa. Hammil said he recently moved the women into a $450,000, 6,000-square-foot home on three acres in Brandon. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that since the public doesn't visit the neighborhood where the women live, the city can't apply its local zoning ordinances that ban adult entertainment. The appeals court wrote in its opinion that case law the city used to support its position concerned adult entertainment venues where the customers visit the premises. If a future ruling in another circuit conflicts with the 11th Circuit's ruling, then the Supreme Court could elect to resolve the conflict. But for now, the decision in the Voyeur Dorm case will set precedent across the country. Luke Lirot, Voyeur Dorm's lawyer, said the appellate court was able to look beyond the city's "cloak of sexual innuendos" and see the big picture of free speech and keeping government out of the lives of legitimate businesses that are not adversely affecting the community. "Just like out forefathers intended," he said. Several of the women who live in the home showed up at the federal courthouse in Tampa Monday, holding signs about the city wasting taxpayers' money. Hammil said he was worried when he first started fighting the case two years ago that Tampa's "good ol' boy" network would conspire to work against him. But he remained confident that the appellate courts would see it his way. "I think if anything this is another example of the city of Tampa wasting taxpayers' money," he said. "They have spent tens of thousands of dollars fighting these issues for political reasons." Hammil and his business partner, David Marshlack of Treasure Island in Pinellas County, own several other online businesses, which bring in several million dollars in annual revenue. One such business is Dude Dorm, the Web site offering a live look via 33 Web cameras at "14 hot young college studs." Dude Dorm was originally broadcast from a condo in Pinellas Park before the owners moved it to a compound adjacent to XTC Adult Superstore on Fowler Avenue in Tampa. Given Monday's ruling, Hammil said he intends to move Dude Dorm into a residential area. "It makes more sense for the guys to live in a real house," Hammil said. Steve Crawford, a Tampa lawyer not involved in the case, said the city might be able to find other grounds to try to shut the businesses down, but it won't be easy. They could charge obscenity or claim the business is a nuisance of some sort. Another option would be that the location of the business adversely affects children. "Given the circumstances, those would be tough cases to make," Crawford said. "Unless the owners go park it next to a school, I don't think that will be an issue." -- Times staff writer David Karp contributed to this report, which used information from the Associated Press. Contact Graham Brink at (813) 226-3365 or brink@sptimes.com.
 © 2006 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111 
|
Headlines From the Times local news desks |
