ÿWPCr# 8­OÜŠiýtÖØ-<^: Z”í;@s­†&÷fÒƒÿF Bâ”Ö”Ã{·ÄâW ‰µg¥PeðÈ!-;33dŸÂz‰i¼.^²"ZAaû +”l•éîýY†Ì•Ÿ­‹µ]áŠãEÂþ8Aº³@ÀcAS䳕녷ýêx_'¡žå”„[Xª¥ÔÅ€–œf1¶µ¤”b ¯ØŒfÎw"’X}ôÌ “#RÚ`ò؈* X~‚‚ªx5ã`‹A6%Ù86él€ ¹‰tÑz¤kzq† ”Ïö8ù `‹ ;|“i/=¸öt¿Taóâs8(™”i¨S-¼MÄ×Å #ü^åøP"¨B·@åa—¡þó÷‚þ‹w‚Ìi'ªBÛjeB(°‚svIT,tm‹XΈ¢= Wñåÿßs«)N<œ,™`«d /Ï’ç `;‘„ÚúåmˆNGXpÝf4?é%2Ã…ê딥Q¾!PTi Þ ¸¢ Àa©ÌfÁg B¤<ë-ººÓ–@F«I×<`‹âXП?ÚVÁ©CÆÀ(îù@Bà/09»°"’v.ÚWó ÔÛbWZ†²ßÄ%6‘§’¼ñ!Þgk ùè-/,;ah`#!@UNa %¯ 0(µÝwð 4ô   e 0 ¶„ 0 D: V~ fÔf:- cÍ40ÌdU:0*j(”!¼¦ÝU:ƒU:½^ ÷ f mk k k L‚ Î U:Ö -!N=! B?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! AQ\!Æ­! 0Ds" 0D·" 0Dû"û" D3?#˜HP LaserJet 8000 DN PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ Ý ƒ “ˆ$ÝÔ€X^XXXÔÔ€ôP&òXX^ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Those€acts€included:€male€customers€fondling€the€bare€breasts€and€buttocks€of€female€dancers,Ð ° Ðfemale€dancers€sitting€in€the€laps€of€the€male€customers€gyrating€their€buttocks€in€the€customerððs€groin€area,Ð n¾ Ðdancers€rubbing€the€groin€area€of€a€male€customer,€and€a€male€customer€sucking€the€breasts€of€a€femaleÐ ,| Ðdancer.€{Z='3|x [Ý ƒ “ˆ$ÝÔ€X^XXXÔÔ€ôP&òXX^ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€The€defendants€also€argued€that€the€Tennessee€prostitution€statute€is€void€for€vagueness.€The€CourtÐ ° Ðof€Criminal€Appeals€summarily€rejected€that€argument.€€òòBoydóó,€925€S.W.2d€at€244.(f(2z$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ€X´XXXÔÔ€ôâõXX´ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó LÝ ƒ “ˆ$ÝÔ€X^XXXÔÔ€ôP&òXX^ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAlthough€the€òòBoydóó€case€arose€in€the€context€of€a€criminal€prosecution,€the€exact€legal€questionsÐ ° Ðbefore€that€court,€namely€the€coverage€of€the€terms€ð ðprostitutionðð€and€ð ðsexual€relations,ðð€are€pertinent€to€theÐ n¾ Ðpresent€case.€€Additionally,€the€òòBoydóó€case€involved€an€interpretation€of€T.C.A€ðð€39„13„512,€the€same€sectionÐ ,| Ðthat€the€parties€to€this€action€rely€upon. \Ñ\R AØ'ÿ Legal\Ñ \Ñ\R AØ'ÿ Legal\Ñ #Ñ#€XØXÿÿd#Ñ YÝ ƒ “ˆ$ÝÔ€X^XXXÔÔ€ôP&òXX^ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Similarly,€we€do€not€reach€the€question€of€whether€ð ðlewdnessðð€and€ð ðobscenityðð€have€been€elided€fromÐ ° Ðthe€Tennessee€nuisance€statute,€T.C.A.€ðððð€29„3„101€òòet€seq.óó. *Ý ƒ[¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€X´XXXÔÔ€&XX´ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€X´X&ÔÐ  ÐÌOctober€5,€1999ÌÌCecil€Ô_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ô,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAxÔó ó ÂÝ ƒ “ˆ$ÝÔ€X^XXXÔÔ€ôP&òXX^ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€à ` àð ð1.à ¸ àNo€employee€or€independent€contractor€shall€engage€in€the€lewd€and€obsceneÐ ° Ðexhibition€of€genitals.ðð€Ð n¾ ÐÓ  Ó.€.€.€Ð ,| ÐÌÓ  Ó€€€€€€€€€€€€€à ` à€ð ð3.à ¸ àThe€served€Defendants€herein€are€further€enjoined€from€permitting€employees€orÐ ¨ø Ðindependent€contractors€employed€or€working€at€the€building,€located€at€1849€East€Brooks€Road,Ð f¶ ÐMemphis,€Tennessee€to€engage€in€the€lewd€and€obscene€exhibition€of€genitals.ðð, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular Ý ƒ “ˆ$ÝÔ€X^XXXÔÔ€ôP&òXX^ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Although€the€parties€have€worded€their€questions€presented€somewhat€differently,€their€briefs€showÐ ° Ðthat€they€are€in€general€agreement€as€to€the€actual€issues€before€this€court.€Additionally,€the€parties€haveÐ n¾ Ðnumbered€their€questions€presented€in€reverse€order€from€each€other.€We€will€refer€to€the€issues€as€they€areÐ ,| Ðnumbered€in€this€opinion. Ý ƒ “ˆ$ÝÔ€X^XXXÔÔ€ôP&òXX^ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€We€summarily€reject€any€notion€that€this€activity€(òòi.eóó,€ð ðlap€dancingðð)€is€protected€under€the€FirstÐ ° ÐAmendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution.€€òòseeóó€òòArcara€v.€Cloud€Books,€Inc.óó,€478€U.S.€697,€106€S.Ct.€3172,Ð n¾ Ð92€L.Ed.2d€568€(1986)(citing€òòParis€Adult€Theatre€I€v.€Slatonóó,€413€U.S.€49,€67,€93€S.Ct.€2628,€2640,€37€L.Ed.2dÐ ,| Ð446€(1973))(discussing€the€ð ðfallacy€of€seeking€to€use€the€First€Amendment€as€a€cloak€for€obviously€unlawfulÐ ê: Ðpublic€sexual€conduct€by€the€diaphanous€device€of€attributing€protected€expressive€attributes€to€that€conduct.ðð) Ý ƒ “ˆ$ÝÔ€X^XXXÔÔ€ôP&òXX^ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€The€chancellor€defined€ð ðlap€dancingðð€as€ð ðconsisting€of€the€touching€of€the€employee€or€independentÐ ° Ðcontractor€of€her€breast€to€the€face€or€torso€of€a€male€customer€or€the€touching€by€the€employee€orÐ n¾ Ðindependent€contractor€of€her€buttocks€or€genital€area,€whether€clothed€or€unclothed,€to€the€lap€of€the€maleÐ ,| Ðcustomer.ðð€€ œÝ ƒ “ˆ$ÝÔ€X^XXXÔÔ€ôP&òXX^ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€The€Court€also€struck€down€the€injunction€as€to€the€motion€pictures€described€in€the€complaint€findingÐ ° Ðthat€the€order€lacked€the€specificity€required€by€Tennessee€Rule€of€Civil€Procedure€65.02.€€òòNews€Martóó,€561Ð n¾ ÐS.W.2d€at€753., øð AZ‹"Arial Regular, øð AZ‹"Arial Regularú„I'L  \Ñ\R AØ'ÿ Legal\ÑÿU‹ÿÀÀÀC:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT÷"Arial Regular #Ñ#€#i#Xÿÿd#Ñ dZ[\]_Cþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó&&&&'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòÑ€†ÑÑ€†ÑÑ€†ÑÑ€û£ ÑÔ€X´XXXÔÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑóóÓ  ÓÑ8€XXXdìdÈ8ÑÑ€$¿VÑà@m m ìàò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@hh%ìàAT€JACKSONˆÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,€ex€rel,à À à)Ð `° ÐWILLIAM€L.€GIBBONS,à  àà h àà À à)€€Ð L œ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà  àà ` àó óPetitioner/Appellee,à h àà À àò ò)€€Shelby€Chancery€No.€109795„2€Ô_ÔR.D.Ô_ÔÐ $ t Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)ÌVS.à  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)€€Appeal€No.€02A01„9710„CH„00247Ð ü L  ÐÔ_Ôßx€Y_B2.jzGüe  `€€@ÿE e 8tt}PBè õ  xßÔ_Ôà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)ÌÔ_ÔSHERRODÔ_Ô€JACKSON,€ROBERTà À à)Ð Ô$  ÐWILLIAMS,€NATHANIEL€WILLIAMS,à À à)Ð À  ÐMIKE€WILLIAMS,€SHIRLEY€Ô_ÔBLALOCKÔ_Ô€)Ìand€STEVEN€CRAIG€COOPER,à h àà À à)Ð ˜è  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà  àà ` àó óDefendants/Appellants.à À àò ò)ó óÐ pÀ ÐÌÌà@bbìàAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€SHELBY€COUNTYˆÌà@ää ìàAT€MEMPHIS,€TENNESSEEˆÌà@  ìàTHE€HONORABLE€FLOYD€Ô_ÔPEETEÔ_Ô,€JR.,€CHANCELLORˆÌÌÌò òMICHAEL€F.€Ô_ÔPLEASANTSÔ_ÔÐ ¦ö ÐÔ_ÔFRIERSONÔ_Ô€M.€GRAVES,€JR.Ìó óMemphis,€TennesseeÐ ~Î ÐAttorneys€for€Appellants,€Ô_ÔSherrodÔ_Ô€Jackson,ÌRobert€Williams,€Nathaniel€Williams€andÌShirley€Ô_ÔBlalockÔ_ÔÌÌò òREX€L.€Ô_ÔBRASHERÔ_Ô,€JR.Ð ü L ÐBROWN,€Ô_ÔBRASHERÔ_Ô€&€SMITHÌó óMemphis,€TennesseeÐ Ô"$! ÐAttorney€for€Appellant,€Steven€Craig€CooperÌÌò òJOHN€KNOX€Ô_ÔWALKUPÔ_ÔÐ †%Ö $ ÐAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌMICHAEL€E.€MOOREÌSolicitor€GeneralÌSTEVEN€A.€HARTÌSpecial€CounselÌOffice€of€the€Attorney€GeneralÌó óAttorneys€for€Appellee,€State€of€Tennesseeò òÐ ú+J'+ Ðó óNashville,€TennesseeÐ à,0(, ÐÌÌò òAFFIRMED€IN€PART€AND€REVERSED€IN€PARTÐ ’/â*/ ÐÌÌÌó óà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àò òALAN€E.€Ô_ÔHIGHERSÔ_Ô,€J.Ð B3’.3 ÐÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,€Ô_ÔW.S.Ô_ÔÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ó óà  àÐ ¢:ò5; ÐÓÓà  àÔ_ÔSherrodÔ_Ô€Jackson,€Robert€Williams,€Nathaniel€Williams,€Mike€Williams,€ShirleyÐ Ž;Þ6< ÐÑ$¿VÑâ $âÑ8€#´#XXdæXXdì8Ñâ $âÑ  ÑÔ_ÔBlalock,€and€Steven€Craig€Cooper€(collectively€ð ðAppellantsðð)€appeal€from€the€ChanceryÏCourt€of€Shelby€County,€which€granted€a€temporary€injunction,€enjoining€the€AppellantsÐ |Ì Ðfrom€permitting€ð ðlap€dancingðð€and€from€permitting€employees€or€independent€contractorsÐ H˜ Ðfrom€engaging€in€ð ðlewd€and€obscene€exhibition€of€genitals.ððÐ  d ÐÌà@''ìàò òI.€òòFacts€and€Procedural€Historyóóó óˆÐ ¬ ü  Ðà  àAppellants€allegedly€own€and/or€operate€an€ð ðadult€cabaretðð€business€in€Memphis,Ð xÈ  ÐTennessee€named€ð ðPure€Passion.ðð€€As€part€of€a€police€operation,€members€of€the€MemphisÐ D”  ÐPolice€Department€visited€ð ðPure€Passionðð€on€several€occasions€wherein€they€witnessedÐ ` Ðvarious€ð ðactsðð€involving€female€dancers€and€male€customers.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€The€results€of€theÐ Ü, Ðinvestigation€formed€the€basis€for€an€action€that€the€State€originally€filed€in€July€of€1997€inÐ ¨ø Ðthe€Criminal€Court€of€Shelby€County,€seeking€an€abatement€(forfeiture€and€permanentÐ tÄ Ðinjunction)€of€nuisance,€and€a€writ€of€temporary€injunction.€€Pursuant€to€local€rules,€theÐ @ ÐCriminal€Court€entered€an€order€on€July€8,€1997,€which€transferred€the€case€to€theÐ  \ ÐChancery€Court.€€On€September€3,€1997,€the€State€filed€a€notice€of€amendment€to€theÐ Ø( Ðpetition€for€abatement€whereby€the€State€dropped€any€request€for€forfeiture€of€real€propertyÐ ¤ô Ðand€any€relief€based€on€public€indecency€or€the€common€law.€€Subsequently,€the€StateÐ p!À  Ðfiled€a€First€Amended€Petition€for€Abatement€of€Nuisance€with€the€Chancery€Court,€whichÐ <#Œ" Ðincorporated€the€amendment€eliminating€the€aforementioned€claims€for€relief.€Ð %X $ Ðà  àÌà  àA€hearing€was€held€on€September€5,€1997€regarding€the€temporary€injunction.€€AtÐ  (ð#( Ðthat€hearing,€the€Chancellor€expressed€his€reluctance€to€close€down€the€business.€€Further,Ð l*¼%* Ðhe€expressed€a€predisposition€to€enjoin€certain€acts€pending€a€full€hearing.€€€Ultimately,€theÐ 8,ˆ', Ðfinal€order€that€is€the€subject€of€this€appeal€was€entered€on€September€26,€1997.€€In€thatÐ .T). Ðorder,€the€Chancellor€determined€that€ð ðlap€dancingðð׃ˆ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€constituted€an€act€of€prostitution,€andÐ Ð/ +0 Ðhe€issued€a€temporary€writ€of€injunction€enjoining€such€activity€as€a€nuisance€under€T.C.A.Ð œ1ì,2 ÐцÑâ âÑTR[ì AØ'ÿ Legal[ì AØ'ÿ Legal  AØ'ÿ Legal  AØ'ÿ LegalTÑâ âÑ  Ñðð€29„3„105.€€Additionally,€the€Chancellor€enjoined€any€ð ðlewd€and€obscene€exhibition€ofÐ ° Ðgenitals.ðð€Ð |Ì Ðà  àÌÓ  Óò òII.€òòLaw€and€AnalysisóóÐ  d ÐÓ  Óà  àó óOn€appeal,€the€Appellants€have€raised€three€issues€regarding€the€ChancellorððsÐ à 0 Ðorder€enjoining€ð ðlap€dancingðð€and€ð ðlewd€and€obscene€exhibition€of€the€genitals.ðð€€ThoseÐ ¬ ü  Ðissues€are:׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð xÈ  ÐÓ  ÓÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð à1)€€Whether€the€Chancellor€erred€in€determining€that€ð ðlapÐ D”  Ðdancingðð€as€conducted€at€the€Appellantsðð€place€of€businessÐ *z  Ðconstitutes€€ð ðprostitution,ðð€€thereby€subject€to€a€temporary€writÐ ` Ðof€injunction€under€T.C.A.€ðð€29„3„105(a);€ÐöF` x` x Ðà  àà ` àÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à2)€Whether€the€Chancellorððs€issuance€of€an€injunction€againstÐ Â Ðfuture€ð ðlewd€and€obscene€exhibition€of€the€genitalsððò ò€ó óis€anÐ ¨ø Ðunconstitutional€prior€restraint€in€violation€of€the€FirstÐ ŽÞ ÐAmendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€or€a€violation€ofÐ tÄ ÐAppellantsðð€Fourteenth€Amendment€Due€Process€rights.€ÐZª` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à3)€Whether€ð ðlewdnessðð€and€ð ðobscenityðð€have€been€elided€fromÐ &v Ðthe€Tennessee€Nuisance€statute,€T.C.A.€ððððò ò€ó ó29„3„101€òòet€seq.,Ð  \ Ðóóand,€if€not,€whether€the€inclusion€of€those€terms€makes€theÐ òB Ðstatute€unconstitutionally€overbroad€or€void€for€vagueness.ÐØ(` x` x ÐÌÌò òÌÓÓA.ó ó€ò òà  àProstitution€under€T.C.A.€ðð€29„3„101Ð p!À  Ðà  àó óTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€29„3„101(2)€provides€a€definition€of€a€ð ðnuisance.ðð€Ð <#Œ" ÐThat€definition€includes€€ð ðany€place€in€or€upon€which€.€.€.€,€òòprostitutionóó,€.€.€.€are€carried€onÐ %X $ Ðor€permitted,€.€.€.€ðð€€òòTenn.€Code€Annóó.€ðð€29„3„101(2)€(emphasis€added).€€The€Code€does€not,Ð Ô&$"& Ðhowever,€further€define€ð ðprostitutionðð€or€describe€the€activities€which€that€term€mightÐ  (ð#( Ðencompass.€€The€Appellants€do€not€take€issue€with€prostitution€being€a€triggering€event€forÐ l*¼%* Ðthe€finding€of€a€nuisance.€€In€that€regard,€they€are€not€challenging€the€validity€of€T.C.A.€ððÐ 8,ˆ', Ð29„3„101(2).€€Instead,€we€understand€the€Appellantððs€challenge€to€rest€on€twoÐ .T). Ðinterdependent€grounds:€1)€under€a€proper€interpretation,€sexual€penetration,€oral€sex,€orÐ Ð/ +0 Ðhomosexual€sex€is€a€prerequisite€to€a€finding€of€ð ðprostitution,ðð€and€2)€since€there€were€noÐ œ1ì,2 Ðallegations€that€these€acts€ever€occurred€at€ð ðPure€Passion,ðð€the€Chancellor€erred€in€findingÐ h3¸.4 Ðthat€prostitution€had€taken€place.€€To€the€contrary,€the€State€contends,€and€the€ChancellorÐ 45„06 Ðagreed,€that€ð ðlap€dancingðð€itself,€despite€the€absence€of€intercourse€or€penetration,Ð ° Ðconstitutes€prostitution.€Ð |Ì ÐÌà  àThe€Appellants€challenge€both€the€legal€definition€of€ð ðprostitutionðð€and€the€factualÐ  d Ðapplication€in€the€present€case.€€The€construction€of€a€statute€and€application€of€the€law€toÐ à 0 Ðthe€facts€is€a€question€of€law.€€òòBeare€Co.€v.€Tennessee€Depððt€of€Revenueóó,€€858€S.W.2dÐ ¬ ü  Ð906,€907€(1993)€(citing€òòMoto-Pep€v.€McGoldrickóó,€303€S.W.2d€326,€330€(1957).€€As€such,Ð xÈ  Ðthere€is€no€presumption€of€correctness€attached€to€the€Chancellorððs€decision.€€òòCapps€v.Ð D”  ÐGoodlark€Medical€Center,€Inc.óó,€804€S.W.2d€887,€888€(1991)€(citing€òòKatz€v.€Bilskyóó,€759Ð ` ÐS.W.2d€420,€421-422€(Tenn.€App.€1988).€€We€are,€therefore,€charged€with€theÐ Ü, Ðresponsibility€of€determining€the€parameters€of€the€word€ð ðprostitutionðð€as€used€in€T.C.A.€ððÐ ¨ø Ð29„3„101(2)€and€whether€the€facts€of€this€case€fall€within€those€parameters.€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àThe€standard€for€determining€prostitution€has€previously€been€the€subject€of€disputeÐ  \ Ðin€this€state.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Boydóó,€925€S.W.2d€237€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€The€court's€roleÐ Ø( Ðin€statutory€interpretation€is€to€ascertain€and€effectuate€the€legislature's€intent.€€òòState€v.Ð ¤ô ÐSligeróó,€846€S.W.2d€262,€263€(Tenn.€1993).€€The€legislative€intent€should€be€derived€fromÐ p!À  Ðthe€plain€and€ordinary€meaning€of€the€statutory€language€when€a€statute's€language€isÐ <#Œ" Ðunambiguous.€òòCarson€Creek€Vacation€Resorts,€Inc.€v.€Department€of€Revenueóó,€865Ð %X $ ÐS.W.2d€1,€2€(Tenn.€1993).€€However,€when€a€statute's€language€is€ambiguous€and€theÐ Ô&$"& Ðparties€legitimately€derive€different€interpretations,€we€must€look€to€the€entire€statutoryÐ  (ð#( Ðscheme€to€ascertain€the€legislative€intent.€òòOwens€v.€Stateóó,€908€S.W.2d€923,€926€(Tenn.Ð l*¼%* Ð1995).€€In€the€present€case,€the€parties€are€entirely€reasonable€in€their€alternative€positions.€Ð 8,ˆ', ÐThe€statute€does€not€provide€a€clear€answer€to€what€acts€constitute€ð ðprostitution.ðð€€As€such,Ð .T). Ðwe€must€undertake€to€interpret€the€statute€under€the€recognized€rules€of€statutoryÐ Ð/ +0 Ðconstruction,€considering€the€entire€statutory€scheme.Ð œ1ì,2 Ðà  àÌà  àIn€endeavoring€to€determine€the€meaning€of€the€term€ð ðprostitution,ðð€we€can€look€toÐ 45„06 Ðother€sections€of€the€Tennessee€Code.€€òòSeeóó€òòLyons€€v.€Rasaróó,€872€S.W.2d€895,€897€(Tenn.Ð 7P28 Ð1994)€(the€construction€of€one€statute,€if€doubtful,€may€be€aided€by€the€language€andÐ Ì84: Ðpurpose€of€another€statute€dealing€with€the€same€subject).€€In€their€briefs,€both€parties€haveÐ ° Ðreferred€to€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„512.€€This€section€defines€ð ðprostitutionðð€in€the€criminal€contextÐ |Ì Ðas€ð ðengaging€in,€or€offering€to€engage€in,€sexual€activity€as€a€business€.€.€.€ðð€òò€Tenn.€CodeÐ H˜ ÐAnnóó.€ðð€39„13„512(5).€€€ð ðSexual€activity,ðð€in€turn,€means€ð ðany€sexual€relations€includingÐ  d Ðhomosexual€sexual€relations.ðð€òò€Tenn.€Code€Annóó.€ðð€39„13„512(6).€€Ð à 0 Ðà  àÌà  àWe€are€left€with€a€two„prong€analysis.€€We€must€first€determine€what€qualifies€as€aÐ xÈ  Ðð ðsexual€activity.ðð€€Second,€we€must€determine€whether€the€ð ðsexual€activity,ðð€if€found€to€exist,Ð D”  Ðis€conducted€as€a€business.€€One€would€hesitate€long€to€argue€that€the€activity€inÐ ` ÐAppellantsðð€place€of€business,€whatever€the€nature€of€that€activity,€is€undertaken€asÐ Ü, Ðanything€other€than€a€business.€€No€authority€need€be€cited€for€the€proposition€that€ð ðlapÐ ¨ø Ðdancing,ðð€in€such€establishments,€€will€always€involve€the€exchange€of€money€betweenÐ tÄ Ðð ðcustomerðð€and€ð ðdancer.ðð€€In€this€regard,€if€the€ð ðlap€dancingðð€conducted€at€Appellantsðð€placeÐ @ Ðof€business€is€found€to€constitute€ð ðsexual€activity,ðð€undoubtedly€such€would€qualify€as€anÐ  \ Ðact€of€prostitution€under€the€statute.€€€€Ð Ø( Ðà  àÌà  àWe€note€that€certain€words€or€terms€are€defined€elsewhere€in€the€Code,€but€areÐ p!À  Ðconspicuous€by€their€absence€in€the€definition€of€prostitution.€€Of€particular€significance,€theÐ <#Œ" Ðterm€ð ðsexual€penetrationðð€is€not€included€in€the€definition€of€prostitution.€€That€term€is,Ð %X $ Ðhowever,€defined€elsewhere€as€ð ðsexual€intercourse,€cunnilingus,€fellatio,€anal€intercourse,Ð Ô&$"& Ðor€any€other€intrusion,€however€slight,€of€any€part€of€a€person's€body€or€of€any€object€intoÐ  (ð#( Ðthe€genital€or€anal€openings€of€the€victim's,€the€defendant's,€or€any€other€person's€body,Ð l*¼%* Ðbut€emission€of€semen€is€not€required.ððòò€€Tenn.€Code€Annóó.€ðð€39„13„501(7).€€We€find€noÐ 8,ˆ', Ðindication€that€ð ðsexual€penetrationðð€or€ð ðsexual€intercourseðð€are€applicable€to€the€section€atÐ .T). Ðissue€in€the€present€case,€namely€T.C.A€ðð€39„13„512.€€The€clear€inference€is€that€theÐ Ð/ +0 ÐLegislature€did€not€intend€for€prostitution€to€be€limited€to€those€instances€where€sexualÐ œ1ì,2 Ðpenetration€or€intercourse€occurs.€€€Appellants€point€out€that€past€prostitution€statutes,Ð h3¸.4 Ðparticularly€the€1943€version,€have€referred€to€ð ðsexual€intercourse.ðð€€Appellantsðð€Brief€€atÐ 45„06 Ð47.€€Additionally,€they€state€that€the€1986€version€used€the€terms€ð ðsexual€intercourse,ððÐ 7P28 Ðð ðdeviate€sexual€intercourse,ðð€and€ð ðsexual€contact.ðð€€Appellants€assert€that€by€taking€out€theÐ Ì84: ÐцÑâ âÑTR[ì AØ'ÿ Legal[ì AØ'ÿ Legal  AØ'ÿ Legal  AØ'ÿ LegalTÑâ âÑ  Ñspecific€references€to€intercourse€or€ð ðsexual€contact,ðð€the€Tennessee€General€AssemblyÐ ° Ðlimited€the€conduct€that€would€be€defined€as€prostitution.€€We€disagree.€€The€fact€that€suchÐ |Ì Ðrequirements€were€previously€in€the€statute€but€were€taken€out,€shows€that€the€LegislatureÐ H˜ Ðintended€to€expand€the€definition€of€prostitution€beyond€intercourse.€€We€read€the€statuteÐ  d Ðto€include€acts€that€would€not€have€been€included€under€prior€definitions€(òòi.e.,óó€acts€notÐ à 0 Ðinvolving€intercourse€or€penetration).€€Had€the€Legislature€intended€to€equate€prostitutionÐ ¬ ü  Ðwith€intercourse,€we€must€presume€that€language€expressing€such€intent€would€be€found.€Ð xÈ  ÐAs€such,€we€reject€Appellantsðð€argument€that€the€current€version€of€the€definition€ofÐ D”  Ðprostitution€should€be€read€to€require€sexual€intercourse,€oral€sex,€or€homosexual€relations.€Ð ` ÐÌà  àWe€are€not€alone€in€rejecting€the€interpretation€that€Appellants€thrust€upon€the€termÐ ¨ø Ðð ðprostitution.ðð€€In€òòState€v.€Boydóó,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals,€although€reversing€theÐ tÄ Ðconviction€of€€two€female€ð ðdancersðð€for€prostitution,€declined€to€interpret€the€wordÐ @ Ðð ðprostitutionðð€as€requiring€any€sexual€penetration.€€925€S.W.2d€237€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð  \ Ð1995).€€In€òòBoydóó,€the€two€female€defendants€were€employees€of€an€escort€service€and€hadÐ Ø( Ðgone€to€a€hotel€room€with€an€undercover€police€officer.€€òòId.óó€at€241.€€There,€they€removedÐ ¤ô Ðeach€otherððs€clothing€and€began€to€touch€each€otherððs€buttocks.€€òòId.óó€€One€defendant€placedÐ p!À  Ðher€face€ð ðnearðð€the€otherððs€genital€area€and€later€proceeded€to€ð ðsuckðð€the€officerððs€finger.€Ð <#Œ" ÐòòId.óó€€On€appeal,€the€defendants€argued€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€convict€themÐ %X $ Ðof€prostitution.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€òòId.óó€€Ð Ô&$"& Ðà  àThe€issue€in€òòBoydóó€was€whether€the€prostitution€statute€gave€adequate€warning€ofÐ  (ð#( Ðwhat€activities€or€actions€were€prohibited€under€the€guise€of€€ð ðsexual€relations.ðð׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€courtÐ l*¼%* Ðbriefly€surveyed€the€range€of€activities€that€might€or€might€not€be€ð ðsexual€relations.ðð€€òòId.óó€atÐ 8,ˆ', Ð243€(citing€òòPeople€v.€Loveóó,€111€Cal.App.3d€Supp.€1,€168€Cal.Rptr.€591€(Super.Ct.€1980)Ð .T). Ð(finding€the€fondling€of€genitals,€buttocks,€and€breasts€to€be€"sexual€relations");€€òòPeople€v.Ð Ð/ +0 ÐHillóó,€103€Cal.App.3d€525,€163€Cal.Rptr.€99€(1980)€(nude€modeling€held€not€to€beÐ œ1ì,2 Ðprostitution)).€€The€òòBoydóó€court€went€on€to€state€succinctly€what€we€believe€to€be€the€crucialÐ h3¸.4 ÐцÑâ âÑTR[ì AØ'ÿ Legal[ì AØ'ÿ Legal  AØ'ÿ Legal  AØ'ÿ LegalTÑâ âÑ  Ñissue€in€the€present€case:€ð ðAlthough€many€people€would€agree€that€actual€intercourse€isÐ ° Ðnot€necessary€to€constitute€ððsexual€relations,ðð€there€may€be€much€disagreement€as€to€whichÐ |Ì Ðsexually€arousing€or€suggestive€acts€short€of€intercourse€constitute€sexual€relations€andÐ H˜ Ðwhich€do€not.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€244.Ð  d Ðà  àÌà  àThe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€reversed€the€conviction€of€the€defendants€because,Ð ¬ ü  Ðin€essence,€the€actions€of€the€defendants€did€not€amount€to€ð ðsexual€relationsðð€as€the€courtÐ xÈ  Ðinterpreted€the€statute.€The€court€stated:Ð D”  ÐÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThere€was€some€contact€between€the€dancers€and€betweenÐ ` Ðthe€dancer€and€the€patron,€but€there€was€no€touching€of€theÐ öF Ðgenitals€between€the€dancers€and€only€the€finger€of€the€patronÐ Ü, Ðwas€touched.€€The€question€is€whether€the€statute€gave€theÐ Â Ðdancers€adequate€warning€that€their€conduct€amounted€toÐ ¨ø Ð"sexual€relations.ðð€€While€there€is€no€doubt€that€the€dancersÐ ŽÞ Ðintend€for€their€act€to€be€sexually€arousing€and€suggestive€ofÐ tÄ Ðmore€intimate€acts,€we€conclude€that€the€language€of€theÐ Zª Ðstatute€did€not€give€them€or€anyone€else€sufficient€warning€thatÐ @ Ðthose€acts€would€constitute€ððsexual€relationsðð€such€as€isÐ &v Ðprohibited€by€the€prostitution€statute.Ð \` x` x ÐòòÌId.óó€Ð Ø( ÐÓÓà  àÌà  àWhile€we€fully€agree€with€the€analysis€used€by€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals,€theÐ Š Ú Ðpresent€case€presents€a€distinct€factual€difference€from€that€dealt€with€in€òòBoydóó.€Ð V"¦! ÐSpecifically,€the€contact€between€dancers€and€customers€at€ð ðPure€Passionðð€and€the€contactÐ "$r# Ðin€the€òòBoydóó€case€are€clearly€distinct.€€In€òòBoydóó,€the€dancer€only€sucked€the€finger€of€theÐ î%>!% Ðundercover€police€officer.€€However,€in€the€present€case,€the€record€shows€that€customersÐ º' #' Ðwere€able€to€touch€the€bare€breasts€and€buttocks€of€the€dancers,€as€well€as€there€beingÐ †)Ö$) Ðcontact€between€the€customerððs€groin€area€and€the€dancerððs€hands€and/or€buttocks.€€InÐ R+¢&+ Ðshort,€the€present€case€is€distinguishable€from€òòBoydóó€in€both€the€quantity€of€contact€andÐ -n(- Ðsexual€quality€of€that€contact.Ð ê.:*/ Ðà  àÌà  àThe€legislative€intent€or€purpose€is€to€be€ascertained€primarily€from€the€natural€andÐ ‚2Ò-3 Ðordinary€meaning€of€the€language€used,€when€read€in€the€context€of€the€entire€statute,€andÐ N4ž/5 Ðwithout€any€forced€or€subtle€construction€to€limit€or€extend€the€import€of€the€language.€Ð 6j17 ÐòòWorrall€v.€Kroger€Co.óó,€545€S.W.2d€736,€738€(Tenn.€1977);€€òòCity€of€Caryville€v.€CampbellÐ æ7639 ÐCountyóó,€660€S.W.2d€510,€512€(Tenn.€App.€1983).€€We€must€enforce€the€statute€as€written.€Ð ²95; ÐThe€statute€contains€no€requirement€of€penetration€or€intercourse;€therefore,€we€declineÐ ° Ðthe€opportunity€to€craft€such€a€requirement.€€The€activities€described€in€the€record€as€takingÐ |Ì Ðplace€at€Appellantsðð€place€of€business€clearly€satisfy€the€standard€of€€ð ðsexual€activity€as€aÐ H˜ Ðbusiness.ðð€€As€such,€we€find€no€error€in€the€Chancellorððs€ruling€that€ð ðlap€dancing,ðð€asÐ  d Ðconducted€at€the€Appellantsðð€place€of€business,€constituted€ð ðprostitutionðð€as€that€term€is€Ð à 0 Ðused€in€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„512.€€The€Chancellorððs€issuance€of€€an€injunction€against€suchÐ ¬ ü  Ðactivity€was€proper€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€29„3„105(a).׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð xÈ  ÐÌò òB.à  àLewdness€and€ObscenityÐ ` Ðà  àó óThe€Appellants€also€argue€that€the€Chancellor€erred€in€granting€the€temporary€writÐ Ü, Ðof€injunction€in€regards€to€ð ðlewd€and€obscene€exhibition€of€the€genitals.ðð€€This€argument€isÐ ¨ø Ðbased€upon€two€points.€€First,€Appellants€assert€that€the€injunction€operates€as€anÐ tÄ Ðunconstitutional€prior€restraint€in€violation€of€the€First€Amendment€to€the€United€StatesÐ @ ÐConstitution.€€Second,€Appellants€argue€that€ð ðlewdnessðð€and€ð ðobscenityðð€have€been€elidedÐ  \ Ðfrom€the€nuisance€statute,€and€if€this€is€not€so,€they€urge€this€court€to€strike€down€thoseÐ Ø( Ðprovisions€as€overbroad€and/or€void€for€vagueness.€€This€second€point€presents€a€myriadÐ ¤ô Ðof€seemingly€conflicting€case€law.€€òòSeeóó€òògenerallyóó€òòAirways€Theater,€Inc.€v.€Canaleóó,€366Ð p!À  ÐF.Supp€343€(1973);€òòDavis„Kidd€Booksellers€v.€McWherteróó,€866€S.W.2d€520€(Tenn.€1993);€Ð <#Œ" ÐòòState€òòex€relóó.€Webster€v.€Daughertyóó,€530€S.W.2d€81€(Tenn.€App.€1975);€€òòState€of€TennesseeÐ %X $ Ðòòex€relóó.€Dossett€v.€Richland€Bookmart,€Inc.óó,€1990€W.L.€209331€(Tenn.€App.€E.S.,€Dec.€21,Ð Ô&$"& Ð1990).€€We€find€no€need,€however,€to€reach€the€Appellantsðð€argument€attacking€the€validityÐ  (ð#( Ðof€the€statute€on€the€grounds€of€vagueness€and/or€overbreadth.׃F×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€We€find€the€ChancellorððsÐ l*¼%* Ðorder€in€regards€to€ð ðlewd€and€obscene€exhibition€of€the€genitalsðð€to€be€a€prior€restraint€inÐ 8,ˆ', Ðviolation€of€the€First€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution.Ð .T). Ðà  àÌà  àWe€begin€by€recognizing€that€nude€dancing€is€entitled€to€some€measure€of€FirstÐ œ1ì,2 ÐAmendment€protection.€€òòSeeóó€òògenerallyóó€òòSchad€v.€Mount€Ephraimóó,€452€U.S.€61,€101€S.Ct.Ð ° Ð2176,€68€L.Ed.2d€671€(1981);€€òò€Doran€v.€Salem€Inn,€Inc.óó,€422€U.S.€922,€95€S.Ct.€2561,€45Ð |Ì ÐL.Ed.2d€648€(1975);€€òòCalifornia€v.€LaRueóó,€409€U.S.€109,€93€S.Ct.€390,€34€L.Ed.2d€342Ð H˜ Ð(1972)€.€Although€we€do€not€consider€the€extent€of€that€protection€to€be€important€to€theÐ  d Ðpresent€case,€the€fact€that€such€protection€does€exist€is€of€vital€importance.€€Based€uponÐ à 0 Ðthe€record,€we€find€no€mention€of€specific€activities€which€were€deemed€to€be€ð ðlewd€andÐ ¬ ü  Ðobscene.ðð€€In€fact,€the€order€makes€only€two€references€to€ð ðlewd€and€obscene€exhibitionÐ xÈ  Ðof€genitals.ðð׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ò ò€€ó óWe€realize€that€the€intent€of€the€order€was€to€enjoin€specific€acts.€€However,Ð D”  Ðat€present,€there€is€no€way€to€know€what€those€acts€might€be.€€Simply€stated,€the€injunctionÐ ` Ðattempts€to€prohibit€a€future€undescribed€activity.€€There€has€been€no€determination€thatÐ Ü, Ðany€act€sought€to€be€enjoined€is€in€fact€obscene.ò ò€€ó óMore€to€the€point,€we€do€not€even€knowÐ ¨ø Ðwhat€those€acts€might€be.€€€As€appellants€note€in€their€brief,€ð ð[a]n€injunction€whichÐ tÄ Ðincorporates€the€statutory€definition€of€obscenity€.€.€.€merely€begs€the€question.ðð€€€In€thisÐ @ Ðcase,€the€Chancellorððs€order€merely€incorporates€the€phrase€ð ðlewd€and€obscene.ðð€As€such,Ð  \ Ðknowing€the€specific€acts€that€are€enjoined€is€impossible.€€In€light€of€the€fact€that€theÐ Ø( ÐAppellants€business€is€entitled€to€some€measure€of€First€Amendment€protection,€it€appearsÐ ¤ô Ðthat€the€injunction€will€infringe€on€protected€rights.Ð p!À  ÐÌà  à€The€United€States€Supreme€Court,€in€òòVance€v.€Universal€Amusement€Co.,€Inc.óó,Ð %X $ Ðnoted€that€the€burden€of€supporting€an€injunction€against€a€future€exhibition€is€even€heavierÐ Ô&$"& Ðthan€the€burden€justifying€the€imposition€of€a€criminal€sanction.€€445€U.S.€308,€316,€100Ð  (ð#( ÐS.Ct.€1156,€1161,€63€L.Ed.2d€413€(1980)€(citing€òòBantam€Books,€Inc.€v.€Sullivanóó,€372€U.S.Ð l*¼%* Ð58,€83€S.Ct.€631,€9€L.Ed.2d€584€(1963);€€òòNew€York€Times€Co.€v.€United€Statesóó,€403€U.S.Ð 8,ˆ', Ð713,€714,€91€S.Ct.€2140,€29€L.Ed.2d€822€(1971);€€òòOrganization€for€a€Better€Austin€v.€Keefeóó,Ð .T). Ð402€U.S.€415,€419,€91€S.Ct.€1575,€29€L.Ed.2d€1€(1971);€€òòCarroll€v.€President€and€CommððrsÐ Ð/ +0 Ðof€€Princess€Anneóó,€393€U.S.€175,€181,€89€S.Ct.€347,€21€L.Ed.2d€325€(1968);€€òòNear€v.Ð œ1ì,2 ÐMinnesota€òòex€relóó.€Olsonóó,€283€U.S.€697,€716,€51€S.Ct.€625,€75€L.Ed.€1357€(1931).€€TheÐ h3¸.4 ÐÑû£ Ñâ âÑ8€ }XXdæ#XXdæ8Ñâ âÑ  Ñpresent€injunction€impermissibly€places€the€burden€on€the€Appellants€by€forcing€them€toÐ ° Ðchoose€one€of€two€courses€of€action.€€They€may€continue€to€operate€their€business€in€theÐ |Ì Ðsame€manner€as€always€and€risk€a€contempt€proceeding,€or,€alternatively,€they€mayÐ H˜ Ðattempt€to€discern€the€scope€of€the€injunction€and€limit€the€activities€in€their€businessÐ  d Ðaccordingly.€€Either€choice€presents€risks€to€the€Appellants€because€there€is€no€way€toÐ à 0 Ðknow€which€acts€will€or€will€not€be€allowed.€€In€essence,€the€State€becomes€the€decision„Ð ¬ ü  Ðmaker€as€to€what€is€ð ðlewd€and€obsceneðð€due€to€the€absence€of€a€judicial€determination.€€Ð xÈ  ÐÌà  àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€dealt€with€a€similar€issue€in€òòNews€Mart,€Inc.€v.€StateÐ ` Ðòòex€relóó.€Websteróó,€561€S.W.2d€752€(1978).€€In€that€case,€the€trial€court€issued€a€permanentÐ Ü, Ðinjunction€against€the€showing€of:€ð ð(1)€the€untitled€motion€pictures€ððdescribed€in€theÐ ¨ø Ðcomplaint€and€the€affidavit€of€Captain€Roy€Whitfieldðð€filed€as€an€exhibit€to€the€complaint,Ð tÄ Ðand€(2)€ððany€film,€picture,€publication,€or€other€matter€which€depicts€explicit€acts€of€fellatio,Ð @ Ðcunnilingus,€and€excretory€function€of€the€human€body.ðððð€€òòNews€Martóó,€561€S.W.2d€at€753.€Ð  \ ÐThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€struck€down€the€injunction€pertaining€to€the€future€showingÐ Ø( Ðof€òòunnamedóó€and€òòundescribedóó€films€finding€that€such€an€injunction€would€be€a€prior€restraintÐ ¤ô Ðon€the€freedom€of€expression.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€òòId.óó€(emphasis€added).€€We€find€nothing€in€the€present€caseÐ p!À  Ðto€distinguish€the€òòNews€Martóó€decision€to€the€extent€the€present€injunction€purports€to€enjoinÐ <#Œ" Ðfuture€unspecified€acts.€€In€fact,€the€injunction€struck€down€in€òòNews€Martóó€was,€if€anything,Ð %X $ Ðmore€specific€than€the€injunction€in€the€present€case,€yet€was€still€found€to€be€anÐ Ô&$"& Ðunconstitutional€prior€restraint.€€€Ð  (ð#( ÐÌà  à€In€its€present€posture,€this€case€presents€an€unconstitutional€prior€restraint€inÐ 8,ˆ', Ðviolation€of€the€First€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution.€€òòSeeóó€òòNear€v.€MinnesotaÐ .T). Ðòòex€relóó€Olsonóó,€283€U.S.€697,€51€S.Ct.€625,€75€L.Ed.€1357€(1931);€€òòNews€Mart€v.€State€òòex€relóóÐ Ð/ +0 ÐWebsteróó,€561€S.W.2d€752€(1978).€€Under€the€injunction,€the€Appellants€could€be€foundÐ œ1ì,2 Ðguilty€of€contempt€even€though€no€court€had€ruled€on€the€lewdness€or€obscenity€òòof€aÐ h3¸.4 Ðspecific€act.óó€€òòSeeóó€òòFreedman€v.€State€of€Marylandóó,€380€U.S.€51,€60,€85€S.Ct.€734,€739,€13Ð 45„06 ÐL.Ed.2d€649€(1965)€(emphasis€added)€(citing,€with€disapproval,€the€fact€that€ð ð[u]nder€theÐ ° Ðstatute,€appellant€could€have€been€convicted€if€he€had€shown€the€film€after€unsuccessfullyÐ |Ì Ðseeking€a€license,€even€though€no€court€had€ever€ruled€on€the€obscenity€of€the€film.ðð).€€AsÐ H˜ Ðsuch,€we€find€the€deficiency€in€regard€to€this€issue€to€be€the€specificity,€or€lack€thereof,€inÐ  d Ðthe€Chancellorððs€order€as€opposed€to€any€statutory€problems€relating€to€ð ðlewdnessðð€orÐ à 0 Ðð ðobscenity.ðð€€The€Chancellor€in€this€case€attempted€to€prohibit€acts€that€had€not€yet€beenÐ ¬ ü  Ðdeclared€obscene,€and€more€importantly,€that€may€ultimately€be€determined€not€to€beÐ xÈ  Ðobscene.€€The€justification€for€prohibiting€such€restraints€may€be€summed€up€in€noting€that:Ð D”  ÐÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àa€free€society€prefers€to€punish€the€few€who€abuse€rights€ofÐ ` Ðspeech€after€they€break€the€law€than€to€throttle€them€and€allÐ öF Ðothers€beforehand.€It€is€always€difficult€to€know€in€advanceÐ Ü, Ðwhat€an€individual€will€say,€and€the€line€between€legitimate€andÐ Â Ðillegitimate€speech€is€often€so€finely€drawn€that€the€risks€ofÐ ¨ø Ðfreewheeling€censorship€are€formidable.ÐŽÞ` x` x ÐÓÁƒÓòòÓÓÌÓÓVanceóó,€445€U.S.€at€1161,€n.€13€(citing€òòSpeiser€v.€Randallóó,€357€U.S.€513,€78€S.Ct.€1332,€2Ð Zª ÐL.Ed.2d€1460€(1958);€òòSoutheastern€Promotions,€Ltd.€v.€Conradóó,€420€U.S.€546,€558„559,Ð &v Ð95€S.Ct.€1239,€1246,€43€L.Ed.2d€448€(1975).€Ð òB ÐÌà  à€€Accordingly,€we€reverse€that€part€of€the€Chancellorððs€order€relating€to€ð ðlewd€andÐ Š Ú Ðobscene€exhibition€of€the€genitals.ððò òÐ V"¦! ÐÌÓ  ÓIII.€òòConclusionóóó óÐ î%>!% ÐÓ  Óà  àThe€judgement€entered€by€the€Chancery€Court€is€hereby€affirmed€in€part€andÐ º' #' Ðreversed€in€part.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€one„half€to€each€party,€for€whichÐ †)Ö$) Ðexecution€may€issue€if€necessary.ò òÐ R+¢&+ ÐÌÓÓÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àó óòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð ¶0,1 Ðóóà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àHIGHERS,€J.Ð œ1ì,2 ÐÌÌÌCONCUR:Ð 45„06 ÐÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ Ì84: ÐCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.Ð ²95; ЇÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ |Ì ÐFARMER,€J.ò òÐ b² Ðó óà  à