When businesswoman Bobbi Davis tried to lure newcomers to her rural establishment by placing a $50 coupon in a Las Vegas newspaper, she was quickly rebuffed.

"We went in to place an ad, and we were refused," the owner of the Shady Lady Ranch brothel near Beatty said Friday. "The ad didn't even have any pictures, just a special for $50 off our hourly rate."

But Las Vegas' weekly CityLife newspaper, known for publishing plenty of risque advertisements that feature scantily clad women offering "full service," um, services, had to turn Davis down. While prostitution is legal in several rural Nevada counties, it is unlawful to advertise it in counties such as Clark, where prostitution is illegal.

"We can only advertise locally," Davis said. "I live outside a town that has 1,100 people in it. We don't want the locals, we want the tourists."

Now the American Civil Liberties Union has taken up Davis' cause. The organization filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court this week seeking to overturn legislation that prohibits brothel owners from advertising in other counties, claiming the law violates owners' constitutional rights. CityLife and the High Desert Advocate newspaper in Wendover joined Davis as plaintiffs in the lawsuit. CityLife is owned by Stephens Media Group, which also owns the Review-Journal.

The law limiting advertising to counties where prostitution is legal is "an old state law and is unconstitutional," said Allen Lichtenstein, general counsel for the ACLU of Nevada. "Once a business license is issued, that business has the same First Amendment rights as anyone else."

Davis said she can't even place help wanted ads in counties where prostitution is illegal.

"We can't advertise for housekeepers, gardeners or bartenders," she said. "It's ridiculous. We are a legal business and we're not allowed to tell people we are here."

But most of Davis' fellow brothel owners hope the regulations that limit their advertising remain intact. George Flint, a brothel industry lobbyist, called the limits a "life insurance policy" and said brothel owners fear angering legislators with overly sexy ads.

Lawmakers "control our destiny and our right to exist as a legal industry," he said. "Our fear is that some people in our industry will go insane with dramatic advertising and it's going to incense legislators and threaten our long-term survival."

Davis argued that big brothels have an unfair advantage because of advertising limits.

"The larger houses get all the free publicity," she said, citing cable and TV news programs that have focused on individual brothels. "It's like if the Bellagio was the only hotel allowed to advertise. Everyone would think all Vegas has is high-priced, high-end hotels."

She said the inability to advertise eventually will kill off "mom and pop" brothels such as hers.

"Nobody knows we're here."

CityLife Editor Steve Sebelius said other brothel owners are being shortsighted for not supporting the lawsuit.

"They have learned to keep things under the radar and not to make waves," he said. "They're worried there will be more regulation and they'll go out of business. That's just intimidation. Voters have continued to keep prostitution legal over the years."

Lichtenstein agreed.

"The brothel industry has been around for a long time," he said. There is no reason to fear that allowing advertising will "be a groundswell to hurt the brothel industry."

Sebelius said the money brothel advertising could bring to his newspaper wasn't a consideration in joining the lawsuit.

"For me it was about the constitutional principle," the editor said. "Here we have the state telling us we can't allow somebody to advertise what is a legal practice. It doesn't make any sense."

High Desert Advocate Publisher Howard Copelan called the advertising restriction "blatantly unconstitutional."

"I have a right to deny ads myself, but the state doesn't have the right to tell me what I can and cannot advertise as a legal business," he said.