Fort Walton Beach Council minutes — 01-25-1983 Regular — reading text

it was scrambled to commercial establishments; that they could not buy channel 7. The Attorney asked Mr. Lillio if it were his opinion that the movies that prohibited by are the ordinance should be shown by your restaurant. Mr. Lillio said no, I opinion that it should be, particularly, it was not his not in his restaurant. Mr. Lillio said the issue was that he could not stand by the television and wait to find out what Warner was going to show and if it so happens that someone should be there at the time and it could happen anytime would he be held responsible for that. The Attorney said again, going back to the ordinance itself, the ordinance talks to institutions which offer and advertise those activities and if your institution or whoever you are offers and advertises those activities he thought the ordinance does address that, saying that was his opinion. He felt it did. He said there was some extent to which he perhaps as the one who drafted the ordinance owed an explanation many as to how it was worded to and if so, he would respect the effort to ask. He said there were some areas in which it was very difficult to provide one intepretation that fit all circumstances, noting several questions posed to him over the last two weeks by the media whether or not the ordinance addresses wet T- shirt contests. He had said yes it did; at the same time prosecutions under a extremely wet T- shirt contest could be difficult for a practical point of lot of reasons from a view and at the same time while he felt the contest probably would not be prosecuted under the statute in the sense they are very difficult to obtain convictions in - saying wet T- shirts were not always transparent. He explained the difficulty in being what to define what a wet T- shirt is. Mr. Franklin asked if Paragraph F would not apply ( Section II apply to Mr. Lillio' s question, or whatever his name was. Meaning where it said " except for the exhibitioning or showing of motion picture films which have received a rating of general, PG, or restricted from the Motion Picture Association of America shall not be restricted or prohibited." He felt he did not believe that Warner Cable showed X rated movies. The Attorney said if something is shown that they were not aware of, whatever it was, then it would not violate I the ordinance. Mr. Lillio asked if they did not have to worry about that. The Attorney said if there were something on the television that they were not aware of or whatever it was, they had no responsibility for it. He indicated some other programs they showed, congressional and senate sessions and the channel did stay on quite a bit. He said his real question was what was their guarantee; that someone would not arbitrarily come in and say, we find this in violation of the ordinance and you ~ hould pay a penalty. The Attorney said the best answer was the ordinance itself. He thanked the Council.  1- 25- 83 224 ANTI- NUDITY CONTINUED Joe Cantavespre, of Club, felt Sammy' s a lot could be cleared up if the girls were allowed to use pasties and had to cover the nipple. He felt a tourist patron in a low cut dress would have nothing said . to her. He asked for guidelines from the Council'. The Mayor said that was covered in the ordinance. The Mayor announced she believed the consensus was that Council was going to stand by the ordinance. BRIAN MASSEY Mr. Massey, Cinco Bayou, Playground Daily News. noticed that the ordinance had been divided into 6 sections including the whereas clause in the beginning and noted that it was divided into two the legis- parts, lative intent and then the law. The City Attorney confirmed this. Mr. Massey asked if the legislative inte- nt carried any weight in court if in fact the ordinance were to go to court. The Attorney said yes. Mr. Massey said in the first part of the legislative intent where it said the ordinance addresses establishments which sell alcoholic beverages and offer publicly advertise and items forbidden in the ordinance, saying under section 1, definition which defined " establishments dealing in alcoholic beverages as any business establishment" and asked if that were Attorney a contradiction? The said it could Massey said under Section 2, be. Mr. all the sub- paragraphs A through F defines establishments as any establishment dealing in alcoholic beverages, not referring to which offer and publicly advertise and asked again could cause any contradiction. The, Attorney said there were people who would read it that way; in his opinion it should not be read that way. Mr. Massey asked if that