Tweet
Looks like Colorado is trying to crush the 1st admendment.
Talbott: Protect us from nude punk rockers
NuTex
Talbott: Protect us from nude punk rockers
March 17, 2004
In its attempt to ban "sexually explicit" displays, the Colorado Legislature might protect us all from homely, naked punk rockers. Those who would applaud should muse on the meaning of the marketplace of ideas.
Under House Bill 1078, which has already cleared the House, it would be a crime for a bookstore or library to "display" salacious photographs or other material deemed "harmful to minors." As it happens, "harmful" includes any depiction of nudity (including images of buttocks) and any representation of "sexual activity" (which could include a picture of someone touching the breast a fully clothed partner).
At a local bookstore, a magazine cover has an image of four nude men, members of the punk band NOFX. The magazine is Alternative Press, and the guys have covered their strategic parts. Nonetheless, two of them expose much of their posteriors.
Would this violate the provision banning the display of nude buttocks? Or would it be protected by the exemption for material that shows "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors"?
Who knows? Just how much artistic value does something have before it becomes "serious," anyway? And can something have "serious artistic value" for adults but not "for minors"?
Maybe the NOFX question is moot, because material would be deemed "harmful" only when it appeals to the sexual interests of minors. But who's to say that nude NOFX is of sexual interest to minors?
Elsewhere on the stands this month, there is Esquire, with a cover illustration of a nude woman whose body is only minimally obscured by a large snake. The cover story is "The Naked Truth About Women."
Nearby, there's American Photo magazine, this time headlined "The Goddess Issue." Inside, there are photographs of women in various stages of undress. Would displaying this magazine be a crime? If it were, bookstores could be slapped with a $500 fine or six months in jail ? for each day the magazine were on the racks.
The bill would impose a three-part definition of material that is harmful to minors: 1) A reasonable adult would find that the material has a predominant tendency to appeal to the prurient interest of minors. 2) A reasonable adult would find the depiction patently offensive to prevailing standards about what is suitable for minors. 3) A reasonable adult would find the material without "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors."
House Bill 1078 is sponsored by Republican Rep. Ted Harvey of Highlands Ranch and Republican Sen. Doug Lamborn of Colorado Springs. In the House, Democrats and moderate Republicans stripped the bill of its restrictions on "sexually explicit" displays. But in the Senate Monday, Lamborn reinserted that provision.
This is stupefying. Some magazines surely offend some people. But the magazines (and a great deal of other books, films and art) are not obscene. The material in question is legal.
"What's at stake in the fight over the Colorado bill ? and in lawsuits challenging Arkansas and Michigan display laws ? is the right of adults to browse freely in bookstores for books and magazines that are protected by the First Amendment," said Chris Finan, president of the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression.
Even if the bill were stripped of the provisions against "sexually explicit" displays, however, it would remain deeply flawed. The bill would also outlaw the dissemination of "sexually explicit" material to minors.
That's why librarians and booksellers opposed this measure even in the watered-down form passed by the House. James Joyce's "Ulysses" could probably be sold or loaned to a minor without penalty. Maybe the same would be true of D.H. Lawrence's "Lady Chatterly's Lover." On the other hand, Lawrence does romanticizes adultery, and a reasonable adult might dispute that Lawrence produced "serious" art. And Anais Nin? Forget it. She was artless.
Freedom has costs and benefits. The First Amendment protects high art and soaring, political rhetoric. It also protects a lot of garbage. Enjoying the former requires tolerating the latter.
Sure, a kid might be attracted to rubbish. But protecting and instructing minors is the responsibility of parents. And in this case, neither the parent nor society needs the censorial intrusions of the Legislature.
Reach Clint Talbott at (303) 473-1367 or [email protected].
Talbott: Protect us from nude punk rockers
NuTex
Talbott: Protect us from nude punk rockers
March 17, 2004
In its attempt to ban "sexually explicit" displays, the Colorado Legislature might protect us all from homely, naked punk rockers. Those who would applaud should muse on the meaning of the marketplace of ideas.
Under House Bill 1078, which has already cleared the House, it would be a crime for a bookstore or library to "display" salacious photographs or other material deemed "harmful to minors." As it happens, "harmful" includes any depiction of nudity (including images of buttocks) and any representation of "sexual activity" (which could include a picture of someone touching the breast a fully clothed partner).
At a local bookstore, a magazine cover has an image of four nude men, members of the punk band NOFX. The magazine is Alternative Press, and the guys have covered their strategic parts. Nonetheless, two of them expose much of their posteriors.
Would this violate the provision banning the display of nude buttocks? Or would it be protected by the exemption for material that shows "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors"?
Who knows? Just how much artistic value does something have before it becomes "serious," anyway? And can something have "serious artistic value" for adults but not "for minors"?
Maybe the NOFX question is moot, because material would be deemed "harmful" only when it appeals to the sexual interests of minors. But who's to say that nude NOFX is of sexual interest to minors?
Elsewhere on the stands this month, there is Esquire, with a cover illustration of a nude woman whose body is only minimally obscured by a large snake. The cover story is "The Naked Truth About Women."
Nearby, there's American Photo magazine, this time headlined "The Goddess Issue." Inside, there are photographs of women in various stages of undress. Would displaying this magazine be a crime? If it were, bookstores could be slapped with a $500 fine or six months in jail ? for each day the magazine were on the racks.
The bill would impose a three-part definition of material that is harmful to minors: 1) A reasonable adult would find that the material has a predominant tendency to appeal to the prurient interest of minors. 2) A reasonable adult would find the depiction patently offensive to prevailing standards about what is suitable for minors. 3) A reasonable adult would find the material without "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors."
House Bill 1078 is sponsored by Republican Rep. Ted Harvey of Highlands Ranch and Republican Sen. Doug Lamborn of Colorado Springs. In the House, Democrats and moderate Republicans stripped the bill of its restrictions on "sexually explicit" displays. But in the Senate Monday, Lamborn reinserted that provision.
This is stupefying. Some magazines surely offend some people. But the magazines (and a great deal of other books, films and art) are not obscene. The material in question is legal.
"What's at stake in the fight over the Colorado bill ? and in lawsuits challenging Arkansas and Michigan display laws ? is the right of adults to browse freely in bookstores for books and magazines that are protected by the First Amendment," said Chris Finan, president of the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression.
Even if the bill were stripped of the provisions against "sexually explicit" displays, however, it would remain deeply flawed. The bill would also outlaw the dissemination of "sexually explicit" material to minors.
That's why librarians and booksellers opposed this measure even in the watered-down form passed by the House. James Joyce's "Ulysses" could probably be sold or loaned to a minor without penalty. Maybe the same would be true of D.H. Lawrence's "Lady Chatterly's Lover." On the other hand, Lawrence does romanticizes adultery, and a reasonable adult might dispute that Lawrence produced "serious" art. And Anais Nin? Forget it. She was artless.
Freedom has costs and benefits. The First Amendment protects high art and soaring, political rhetoric. It also protects a lot of garbage. Enjoying the former requires tolerating the latter.
Sure, a kid might be attracted to rubbish. But protecting and instructing minors is the responsibility of parents. And in this case, neither the parent nor society needs the censorial intrusions of the Legislature.
Reach Clint Talbott at (303) 473-1367 or [email protected].
Comment