31st March 2008 |
Novel Idea for Repression in Indiana... |
|
| |
Book shops selling Lady Chatterley must register as sex businesses |
See
full article
from
Indy Star
|
A
new Indiana law that requires sellers of adult material to register with
the state has Hoosier bookstore owners fuming about government
censorship and threatening a legal challenge.
This lumps us in with businesses that sell things that you can’t even
mention in a family newspaper, said Ernie Ford, owner of Fine Print
Book Store in Greencastle.
Ford was talking about HEA 1042, which Governor Mitch Daniels signed
into law last week. He was one of 15 independent Indiana booksellers who
signed a letter last week urging Daniels to veto the legislation.
The new law that takes effect July 1 requires businesses that sell
sexually explicit material to pay a $250 fee and register with the
secretary of state, which would then pass the information to municipal
or county officials so they can monitor the businesses for potential
violations of local ordinances.
Co-sponsor Brent Steele said the law does not apply to businesses that
sold sexually explicit material on or before June 30; it applies only to
new businesses, those that relocate or businesses that begin offering
such material after that date.
But groups representing state and national booksellers say the law casts
its net too wide. A legal scholar agrees, calling it overly broad and so
ambiguous that it may violate constitutional rights.
The way we read this bill, if you stock a single book with sexual
content — even a novel or a book about sex education — you will have to
register as a business that sells sexually explicit material, said
Chris Finan, president of American Booksellers Foundation for Free
Expression: This is just outrageous from our standpoint, and we
believe it is a violation of the First Amendment.
While the law does not prohibit stores from selling a book with sexual
content, he said, it has a chilling effect that could force sellers to
limit the scope of their offerings or get out of the business rather
than being placed on a state list of businesses that sell sexually
explicit works.
Finan said his group will ask the Media Coalition — a New York-based
group that defends Americans’ First Amendment right to produce and sell
books, movies, magazines, recordings, DVDs, videotapes and video games,
as well as the public’s right to have access to the broadest possible
range of opinion and entertainment — to take legal action to overturn
the legislation. A decision by the coalition on whether to enter the
fight is expected by mid-April, he said.
|
11th May 2008 |
A Novel Form of Censorship... |
|
| |
Challenging Indiana over ludicrously wide sex business registration |
See
full article from AVN
|
An
association of First Amendment supporters and retailers have filed suit
against the state of Indiana over a new law that would require sellers
of sexually explicit and even softcore material to pay a litany of fees
in order to do business.
Among the plaintiffs in the suit are the ACLU of Indiana, the
Indianapolis Museum of Art, the Media Coalition, the Association of
American Publishers Inc. and the National Association of Recording
Merchandisers.
At issue is Indiana House Bill 1042, which Gov. Mitch Daniels signed
into law at the end of March. The new law, which covers any business
opening after July 1, 2008, or any existing business which changes
location after that date, requires the affected business to register
with the Secretary of State and pay a $250 registration fee, with
several other fees possibly to follow, if the business sells sexually
explicit materials.
The big question, of course, is, what constitutes sexually explicit
materials? Well, among other things, it's any product or service
that is harmful to minors or that is designed for use in,
marketed primarily for, or provides for the stimulation of the human
genital organs or masochism or a masochistic experience, sadism or a
sadistic experience, sexual bondage, or sexual domination.
As to what is harmful to minors:
- It describes or represents, in any form, nudity, sexual conduct,
sexual excitement or sadomasochistic abuse.
- Considered as a whole, it appeals to the prurient interest in sex
of minors.
- It is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult
community as a whole with respect to what is suitable matter for or
performance before minors.
- Considered as a whole, it lacks serious literary, artistic,
political or scientific value to minors.
Rep. Terry Goodin claims the law will target pornography vendors that
pop up along interstate exits in unincorporated areas. What it will
do, however, is to require any business that deals in any way with any
product or service that's remotely sexual - for instance, museums or art
stores that sell statues of Michelangelo's David, or bookstores that
sell mildly erotic literature or information on erectile dysfunction -
to pay the $250 fee.
We're talking about a law that has very broad and very vague and, we
would contend, very unconstitutional restrictions and burdens, said
Ken Falk, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of
Indiana: To the best of my knowledge, there is no similar law in the
United States.
|
5th July 2008 |
Registered as Unconstitutional... |
|
| |
Bad law thrown out in Indiana |
See
full article
from
Sun-Times
|
A
federal judge threw out a new Indiana law requiring bookstores and other
retailers to register with the state and pay a $250 fee if they want to
sell sexually explicit material.
U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker, ruled on the day the law took
effect, found it too broad and said it could be applied against
unquestionably lawful, non-obscene, non-pornographic materials being
sold to adults.
'A romance novel sold at a drugstore, a magazine offering sex advice
in a grocery store checkout line, an R-rated DVD sold by a video rental
shop, a collection of old Playboy magazines sold by a widow at a garage
sale ... would appear to necessitate registration under the statute,'
Barker wrote.
The American Civil Liberties Union took on the case for a team of
plaintiffs that included the Indianapolis Museum of Art, bookstores and
publishers.
It's a victory for booksellers and the arts community but most
importantly for the First Amendment, said Maxwell Anderson, the art
museum's CEO. I'm concerned as we all should be about restrictions on
free expression.
Bill sponsor Terry Goodin said he would confer with the state attorney
general before decided what to do next, but one option included taking
the matter back to lawmakers in the 2009 legislative session: I've
got pencil in hand. I'm ready to go. I'm not going to let this sleeping
dog lie.
|
12th January 2009 |
Registered as Kill Joys... |
|
| |
Registration of strippers proposed in North Dakota |
Based on
article
from
bismarcktribune.com
|
Dancers
will have to give their real names and addresses to the state of North Dakota
under a bill that would require registration for strippers.
Police from Fargo and West Fargo say the so-called sexually oriented business
bill should help crack down on prostitution and drug trafficking they
associate with nude dancers. No license is currently required.
It's common practice for the individuals who are participating as the service
provider to use fictitious names, or stage names, said Mike Reitan,
assistant police chief kill joy in West Fargo: We don't have any way of
identifying who these people are.
The bill defines a sexually oriented business as an individual or
commercial enterprise that advertises, offers or provides live nude
entertainment for a fee, or in connection with any other transfer of money. The
law would require someone who runs a such a business to register with the state
tax commissioner.
Failing to register would be a Class B misdemeanor, which carries a maximum
penalty of 30 days in jail and a $1,000 fine.
Senator Judy Lee, R-Fargo, a sponsor of the bill, said she introduced the bill
at the request of police officials. The bill is SB2170.
|