ACLU, booksellers sue over registration (to sell explicit material)

Source: Indianapolis Star

The Indianapolis Museum of Art, which sells art books containing images of nudes painted by the Old Masters, joined a civil rights group today in suing over a law that would require business selling pornography to register with the state.

... Filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana and attorneys for several national organizations representing sellers of books, CDs and DVDs, the lawsuit asks the federal court to bar enforcement of the law, which goes into effect July 1 and is aimed at new or relocating businesses that sell “sexually explicit” material.

The suit’s target is House Enrolled Act 1042, approved this year by the General Assembly. It requires businesses that sell such material to pay a $250 fee and register with the secretary of state. The suit says the law also appears to require employees of the businesses to register and pay the fee.

... Under the state’s definition, the suit says, nudes by artists such as Peter Paul Rubens and books ranging from John Steinbeck’s classic “Of Mice and Men” to many modern romance novels “could be deemed harmful” to minors of varying ages.

... State Rep. Terry Goodin, D-Crothersville, who sponsored the legislation, said those behind the suit are reading too much into the law.

Read more: http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080507/NEWS05/805070498

Because we all know courts ALWAYS interpret the laws just like the authors intend, right? :sarcasm:

Fucking puritanical assholes! :grr:

Idiots.

suuuuuuuuuuuuuure

laws like that are written as broadly as possible for a REASON. and its not a good reason.

inalienable right that government is required by our Constitution to protect.

They are blights on their communities, and are magnets for prostitutes and perverts. I lived in Detroit for 12 years, just north of the porno strip in Highland Park.

That said, I love the art collection at the DIA, and some of the paintings are of nude models. My favorite novel is Anne Rice's The Witching Hour, which contains scenes that are erotic. What some call erotic, others call pornographic.

There has to be a way to clearly define what is pornography, and to zone the stores that sell it to locations where it doesn't affect a community with schools, parks and little kids. No kid should have to walk by that on his or her way to school. But I don't want to see anything but kiddie and snuff-type material banned by law. I just wish people wouldn't buy it.

Of course there is: you know it when you see it....

I LOVE Tom Lehrer.

Reference to the actual Bill as passed:
http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2008/HE/HE1042.1.html

This changed an existing law, so the law basically added the following:

Chapter 55. Intention to Sell Sexually Explicit Materials
Sec. 1. This chapter does not apply to a person who sells sexually explicit materials on June 30, 2008, unless the person changes the person's business location after June 30, 2008.
Sec. 2. A person (as defined in IC 35-41-1-22) that intends to offer for sale or sell sexually explicit materials shall register with the secretary of state the intent to offer for sale or sell sexually explicit materials and provide a statement detailing the types of materials that the person intends to offer for sale or sell.
Sec. 3. (a) As used in this section, "local officials of the county" refer to all of the following:
(1) The county executive.
(2) If a person described in section 2 of this chapter intends to locate in a municipality, the executive of the municipality.
(3) A local entity that supervises a zoning board in the county.
(b) After receiving a registration described in section 2 of this chapter, the secretary of state shall notify the local officials of the county in which a person described in section 2 of this chapter intends to offer for sale or sell sexually explicit materials of
the registration filed under section 2 of this chapter.

(The law as it was stays the same between the above and below except adding the $250 fee, among other fees). The act then adds the following definition:

Chapter 16.4. Sexually Explicit Materials
Sec. 1. As used in this chapter, "person" has the meaning set forth in IC 35-41-1-22.
Sec. 2. (a) As used in this chapter, "sexually explicit materials" means a product or service:
(1) that is harmful to minors (as described in IC 35-49-2-2), even if the product or service is not intended to be used by or offered to a minor; or
(2) that is designed for use in, marketed primarily for, or provides for:
(A) the stimulation of the human genital organs; or
(B) masochism or a masochistic experience, sadism or a sadistic experience, sexual bondage, or sexual domination.
(b) The term does not include:
(1) birth control or contraceptive devices; or
(2) services, programs, products, or materials provided by a:
(A) communications service provider (as defined in IC 8-1-32.6-3);
(B) physician; or (C) public or nonpublic school.
Sec. 3. A person or an employee or agent of a person may not offer for sale or sell sexually explicit materials unless a registration and statement are properly filed as described in IC 23-1-55-1.
Sec. 4. A person or an employee or agent of a person who knowingly or intentionally offers for sale or sells sexually explicit materials in violation of this chapter commits unregistered sale of sexually explicit materials, a Class B misdemeanor.

If ya can't define it, ya can't regulate it.

Something I learned in law school.