Legal businesses are able to advertise in the Appeal, even brothels

As most of you know, in July U.S. District Judge James Mahan dressed down (forgive me) prior laws forbidding legal brothels to advertise, fortifying our U.S. Constitutional First Amendment rights.

Now a word to those already cupping their hands over their mouths as if witnessing a horrific highway accident: Take this time to breathe deeply. Maybe even immerse yourself in a tub of Holy Water. The Nevada Appeal has decided to accept brothel advertisements.

OK, now is when you hear cars crashing, alarms blaring, winds bursting, bombs exploding and people screaming while jumping from buildings.

But to those who just cracked open their Bibles in desperate need of resolution, or fell to their knees in a moment of agonizing prayer for better understanding, be assured that my editors and I carefully compiled our own list of terms and conditions of acceptance of brothel advertisements prior to making our final decision.

I will not bore you with the details of our terms and conditions policies, but the overall message can be summarized with the fact that the Nevada Appeal reserves all rights to refuse content that we decide is offensive to the masses. It may be of singular interest to many of you to know, however, that the Appeal will not allow photos in the brothel ads that appear in our main newspaper. That means that you might see a photo in a brothel ad on our Web site, in one of our supplemental publications, in our national news Today tabloid, or as an insert that is zone-restricted from schools. But do not expect a rash of brothel ads in the pages of the Nevada Appeal. We will welcome the ads like any other legal business, but there are just not a lot of brothels in our proximity that would even be interested.

Actually, if you want me to strip my own opinion down to the naked truth, I really don't see a problem with photos in the brothel ads. I am not speaking for my editors. That is just my own opinion. But before anyone damns me to Hell, please allow me to explain. The photos I am referring to are facial shots and fully clothed body shots - the same type of photos (and maybe even less revealing than) you see from major department stores. The Victoria's Secret catalog has photos that would make the ones I am referring to for brothel ads look like pictures of nuns at Sunday school. But no one says anything. No one complains. D'ya know why? Because Victoria's Secret is not a brothel. Would I accept a Victoria's Secret catalog or ad in our paper? I guess I would. Probably few readers would even say a word. And most men would see it as the lifting of a jail sentence, allowing them guiltless freedom to eyeball the photos with slow motion panning. But put the name of a brothel on that same catalog - even if it were for a brothel gift shop - and drop in the newspaper, and watch as some readers form a hang noose with my favorite necktie and hang me with one shoe dangling over my desk.

Ads for major department stores feature women in panties, and bras appear in print and on TV as frequently as I brush my teeth, but no one runs for repentance ... because??? You got it! They're ads from department stores!

Ever see a Hooters ad? Weight loss ads? Medical ads for breast implants? Body sculpting? Don't tell me that the designers of those ads haven't a clue about the subtle eroticism hidden under the bed sheet veil of medicine. They are selling a product. They are selling a service. They're hoping to capture the attention of men and women. People who want to look better, feel better, look at someone who is looking better and feeling better, advise someone they love to look better and feel better. But the photos are in the name of health and science.

How about TV shows for kids? Ever see an episode of Rug Rats? Talk about double entendre! MTV? MTV is not the music video forum that it was in the 1980s. Not even close. How about the Internet? Check out My Space recently? How about YouTube? Even though the more adult-oriented images on YouTube require confirmation of being 18 and over, the not-so-adult videos have more sexual sting than any of the proposed brothel ads I have seen so far.

My wife is going to poison my food for writing this column. In fact, my stomach has strangely felt like I imbibed a bit of Liquid-Plumr since I mentioned to her that the Appeal would accept brothel advertising. But I believe the Appeal has handled this decision with open and sound fairness. Legal business, legal ads. Freedom of speech fully intact. Man ... My stomach hurts.