] "This is the way constitutional rights are lost," he
] continued. "Not in the thunder of a tyrant's edict, but
] in the soft judicial whispers of deference."

well said, wether or not it applies in this case...

] Faced with rising gang activity at Internet cafes -- the
] number of which had grown from three to 22 in two years
] -- the Orange County city of Garden Grove in 2002 placed
] a moratorium on more cafes. It also prohibited minors
] from visiting the cafes during school hours, required
] uniformed security guards on Friday and Saturday nights,
] and demanded the installation of video surveillance
] systems.

does it seem ok for the gov't to force private business to install/hire their own security apparatus? i have mixed feelings here. on the one hand, if something inherent to the business poses a danger (such as, say, a construction site) then appropriate measures to prevent people from harm should probably be mandated. On the other hand, isn't it incumbent upon the city to provide adequate police protection? Isn't it also incumbent upon parents to pay attention to what their kids are doing and keep them out of cybercafes that have a history of violence?

If the owner of the business, as a means of improving public perception, or because of their own ethical motivations, wants to hire guards or put up cameras, that's cool, the public will decide if that's acceptible, but to be forced by the city seems somewhat improper.