By its terms, the ordinance applies to businesses that enable customers to view movies in “private.” Libra contends that, as a legal matter, private viewing is not available in its booths because a federal court in this district has held that there was no “expectation of privacy” in certain adult-bookstore booths and has further held that such booths were “in public” for purposes of
Wis.Stat. § 944.20, which outlaws the public display of genitalia.
See Czerniak v. City of Milwaukee, 669 F.Supp. 247, 249–50 (E.D.Wis.1987) (Warren, J.).
Czerniak found that the booths did not afford an “expectation of privacy” and that they were “in public” because they contained “large viewing holes” and because noises in the booths were easily detectable from outside.
Id. In other words,
Czerniak used “privacy” and “public” to refer to the extent to which a booth's occupant was exposed to those outside the booth. By contrast, the ordinance at issue in this case presumably uses “private viewing” to mean “isolated” or “solitary” viewing, as opposed to “group” viewing. The ordinance cannot have been intended to apply only where viewing is “private” in the sense of being hidden, for the ordinance itself requires that movie booths be open on one side. The meaning of the ordinance, therefore, is not governed by
Czerniak.