No Sympathy for the Devil-Babes

Coop, the L.A. artist famous for his devil babes and hot rods, is not welcome in Clovis, New Mexico:

Stickers on a Clovis man's car portray cartoon images of bare-breasted female devils in sexually compromising positions. And the images have caught the attention of Clovis police.

Officials have charged 31-year-old Dean Young, the owner of a yellow Ford Focus displaying the images, with distribution of sexually oriented materials to minors. The charge is a misdemeanor carrying a maximum punishment of 364 days in jail and $1,000 fine. [...]

"Once you look at the picture it obviously depicts a sexual act. That's far beyond what is depicted on the mudflaps truckers have," [state prosecutor Chris] Chandler said.

What's the offending image? Check it out ... though I also enjoy the newspaper description:

The stickers depict one devil with its mouth around another's tail, which may suggest oral sex, according to the Dec. 12 police report.

Best of all is Young's reason for displaying such blatant tail-sucking:

He said he put the stickers on his car to protest a Clovis law prohibiting alcohol and beer sales on Sunday, something he believes is brought on by churchgoers.

"I'm offended by church people saying I can't drink on Sundays, so I put the devil chicks on my car, because I figured it would offend them right back," Young said. "That's not a government issue, because if it was, why not on Tuesday or why not on Wednesday."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Ya know, I'm all for repealing blue laws and such, but if you can't have to foresight to, I don't know, stock up on Saturday, then you deserve to get the shakes during your "dry day".

  • ||

    Finally, we get our legal test case to determine whether simulated diabolical fellatio is more or less obscene than driving a yellow Ford Focus.

  • ||

    at least someone is thinking of the children!

  • ||

    That's not the point, UFP. The government shouldn't have the right to dictate which days of the week alcohol is sold on, especially since the day prohibited is "conveniently" what is known in Christianity as "the Lord's Day" a.k.a. Sunday.

    I thought there was a discussion not too long ago on H&R stating that bumper stickers cannot be censored or punishable because they're covered under the 1st Amendment freedom of speech.

  • ||

    Finally, we get our legal test case to determine whether simulated diabolical fellatio is more or less obscene than driving a yellow Ford Focus.

    So true!!

  • ||

    I am extremely offended.

    Even more of these hideous works should be linked on H&R so the full extent of this offensive artist's output can be examined. At least 20-30 more pictures are necessary ASAP.

    To paraphrase the knight in "Holy Grail," I should face the peril.

  • ||

    "Officials have charged 31-year-old Dean Young, the owner of a yellow Ford Focus displaying the images, with distribution of sexually oriented materials to minors."

    I can't see how the hell the authorities can prove this. It's one thing to be handing out Hustlers at a grade school. It's another to display stickers that EVERYONE, at any age, can see.

    I think the Puritans are missing out on a great opportunity to teach something important to their kids.. that some people go to great lengths to abuse the 1st Amendment purely for the sake of getting attention. But that is the necessary "evil" for the greater good.

    But maybe that is just too complex for some people..

  • PintofStout||

    Amen,Snake!

    You must bring us.....A SHRUBBERY!!

  • ||

    if this guy plays his cards right, the city of clovis is going to pay for a brand new ugly car, and then some.

  • ||

    smacky:

    Even from a libertarian standpoint, isn't it ok for the smallest form of governments to engage in social experimentation like this? I'm personally against it, but shouldn't towns and villages have the right to regulate alcohol sales? It's not like some states where there are statewide blue laws.

  • ||

    Nice Guy,

    Displaying the sticker to "EVERYONE, at any age" strikes you as relevant? Would you only hold a convenience store owner liable for distributing obscenity to minors if he carded everybody, and refused to sell you porn unless you were under 18?

  • ||

    Smacky,

    "especially since the day prohibited is "conveniently" what is known in Christianity as "the Lord's Day" a.k.a. Sunday."

    Why "especially" because of this? Either you believe the government has no place dictating what days certain commerce happens, or you don't. Who cares for what reason?

  • ||

    I see where you're going, UFP, but my libertarian counter-view is that certain members of the town's population believe that purchasing alcohol on Sundays is an offense to the Lord, so my expected solution would be that those certain members privately choose not to purchase alcohol on Sundays, and let their neighbors, godless drunks though they may be, buy all the liquor they want. That is full separation of church and state. Even the smallest form of tax-supported government should practice complete church-state separation, in my view.

  • ||

    FYI:

    1 Falwell 10:13-16:

    "Behold, any of ye who drive the Ford Focus, know ye that the flames of Eternal Damnation shall engulf thee and thine, and that the God of Abraham shall turn away deaf from your entreaties for mercy. Hear, O Faithful, that your God tells you the yellow-colored Focus is unclean and an offense to His nostrils."

  • ||

    Coming from New Mexico, I know that it's chock FULL of blue laws- all of which are based upon religion. However, while I may 'morally' agree that it's not the government's business to dictate when or what day alcohol sales should be allowed- I would add that if one takes a slightly broader look, one not need focus on the small 'red state' blue law, but can find examples of Blue State laws which mandate the EXACT same thing, but for different reasons. More often, generic (and secular) 'public good' concepts can be found everywhere. Many states and towns won't allow the sale of alcohol after a certain hour of the night-- assuming that anyone buying beer at 2am is 'up to no good'.

    Paul

  • ||

    Paul, is that the official long-form of "but Kerry would have been worse?"

  • ||

    Check out the sex toys on the cover of City Beat I picked up at a grocery store full of caterwauling, crumb-crunching carpet-monkeys. It didn't seem to hurt anybody by being openly displayed at the entrance.

  • ||

    An example of what Paul said would be where it's in the interest of small businesses to support such laws because they want Sunday off, when they cannot in a free market because of competition with massive chain stores.

    c,
    I think that's less a "but Kerry'd be worse" perspective than it is, "those laws are irrational regardless of the reason". Perhaps in response to Smacky's post.

  • ||

    "Behold, any of ye who drive the Ford Focus, know ye that the flames of Eternal Damnation shall engulf thee and thine, and that the God of Abraham shall turn away deaf from your entreaties for mercy. Hear, O Faithful, that your God tells you the yellow-colored Focus is unclean and an offense to His nostrils."

    ROTFL!


    Wellfellow,

    Ok, I see your point. But if you want my answer, I said "especially" because seperation of Church and State is one of the most important tenets of our Constitution, IMHO.

    UFP,

    Even from a libertarian standpoint, isn't it ok for the smallest form of governments to engage in social experimentation like this? I'm personally against it, but shouldn't towns and villages have the right to regulate alcohol sales?

    No. The regulation of alcohol retail sales has nothing to do with the neccessary, basic purposes of the government. If you disagree, I'd like to see scientific, real evidence that selling alcohol on Sundays or after 2am is deteriorating the quality of our society.

  • ||

    Hey, is this obscene then?

    http://www.teamofk.com/DSCN0080.JPG

  • ||

    Those girls aren't wearing any pants!

  • ||

    Smacky,

    Fair enough, but beware that when you qualify such things by their reasons, you merely invite new excuses. If the wacko church moralists can't use debauchery as a reason, they just find another. "What's best for the ma and pop stores" or whatever. It's like the battle against pornography. If it's not against God's will then it objectifies women or what have you.

  • ||

    wellfellow, I think you're misreading Paul. I understand him to say "lefties complaining about red state blue laws should tend their own garden. Blue state laws can be found that rest on just-as-spurious grounds of the 'public good.'"

    The only response to that is "the constitution doesn't guarantee seperation of 'public good' and state." Those blue-state laws might be based on spurious grounds - they might be counterproductive, they might be ineffective - but they don't run afoul of the bill of rights.

  • ||

    Blue laws aren't everywhere. When I was a teenager, growing up near Cocoa Beach, FL, the bars used to be open more or less 24 hours. In fact, I remember the Cocoa Beach ABC lounge used to have a happy hour from 7-9 am (that's right--AM) for third-shift workers from Kennedy Space Center. And the legal drinking age was 18 then, too. And yet, somehow, the town seems to have survived such reckless disregard for the children...

  • ||

    c,

    That may be true, but all that means is that one has to mind the reason they give. If I'm a puritan about rap lyrics, say, I'll just express how it glorifies violence. See, you can't really define "public good".

  • ||

    I think we can in fact define the "public good." I think that we just happen to disagree with some people's definition of it, and we further disagree with some people's plans to promote it. I think you and I (and the rap lyric puritan, for that matter) would all agree that not having violence in our streets would be a public good. It's just that you and I don't agree that censoring rap lyrics are going to get us any closer to it.

  • ||

    Smacky:

    My point is that at the lowest levels of government, government is most responsible to following the "will of the people". If the "will of the people" dictates no alcohol sales on Sunday, so be it. If Mr. Naked Devil Woman Sticker wants to start a referendum to allow alcohol sales, it'd be more effective than his sticker.

    I grew up in a dry city, and even there ballot issues were available for neighborhoods to decide whether or not alcohol would be sold in their ward. It's democracy in action, not democracy except when it conflicts with your principles.

  • ||

    Since the devils aren't human (and I think even church-goers would agree), does this mean that images depicting sex acts of non-humans fall under the same law? If that's the case can the local cable company be charged if they are showing lion or rhino sex on the discovery channel?

  • ||

    How does the constitution limit the laws that cities can make?

  • ||

    [mumbling]Ok, got the bull's-eye painted on my ass, and got the 'Kick Me' sign taped to my back. Putting on the donkey's head... there. Ready.[/mumbling]

    All liberty aside, and however compelling I find the image itself (sigh), I'd not be delighted to have to explain to my four year old daughter, seeing the Ford Focus drive by, why the ladies didn't have any pants (it *was* a funny post, though, smacky), why their boobies were showing, and why the one lady was kissing the other lady's tail.

    I'd turn it into as 'teachable' a moment as I could, and would be as bland and upbeat about it as possible, hoping to parent as un-damagingly as possible (who knows what we say is going to effect who how, anyway), but I'd be feeling a bit hosed by the car owner for determining that *this* was the time and situation in which to raise my daughter through this particular growth moment.

    'Public good'? Yeah, it's not always totally clear cut. I was thinking earlier today about the sexual harassment climate, which could be fairly lampooned to suggest that you pretty much have to ask permission before you ask permission. I kind of think there must be some sort of concept that a 'reasonable person' would know that the devil gals might be a bit too much to put on your car. Wouldn't other parents among you kind of see where I'm coming from? [Winces in anticipation of a kick/flame.] I mean, it seems ridiculous that you'd have to have a gov't/law about this, because that is inherently dicey in terms of liberty, but when a person just doesn't get it about how to get along, what do the rest of us who hopefully have common sense do? [Holds breath and tenses belly to deal with blows and ridicule he is sure is coming.]

  • ||

    My favorite Coop illustration was the liner art he did for the Lords of Acid's Voodoo-U. And the outrageously obscene lyrics are even dirtier than the lesbo devil women.

  • ||

    UFP -

    Democracy is all fine and good, but the essence of a free republic is that only some decisions are subject to governmental decision-making, and I, and I suspect many who read this board, don't think that restrictions on selling booze (or other recreational drugs), with perhaps some exceptions*, are legitimate.

    Imagine if you ran a restaurant or tavern in Clovis, but you were a member of a religion that kept a different Sabbath day. You might want to close on Saturday, and open on Sunday. I'd say that a law that demanded that every business close at least one day a week, but left it to the owner to choose the day, might pass 1st Amendment muster, even though I think it would violate my right to enjoy my property and liberty. Of course, for those who keep no Sabbath, their law is plainly illegitimate.

    As for having the foresight to stock up on hooch, I have a different view. Years ago, I could work late, get home by 10:00 p.m., and still have two hours to wander over to a local grocer and buy a six-pack of beer. I could even stop for a drink at a tavern, and buy a sixer for take-out, as long as I was out the door by midnight. Ninnies on the city council of the state capital passed an ordinance pushing those sales back to 9:00 p.m. It was sold as a measure to combat drunk driving, drinking by the "underage" and as a general neo-prohibitionist tool to reduce drinking overall. When the same measure was proposed in my town, a smaller competing grocer, who also sold beer, lobbied in favor of the shorter hours. They must have figured that the competition, which was open 24 hours and had a parking lot, would lose so much business on the 9-12 p.m. shift that they couldn't afford it. The ordinance passed, and the 24-hour shop went into decline. First it started closing at 11 p.m., then the property was sold to a national drug store chain, who were unable to get the liquor license transferred to them.

    When I was asked to sign the petition supporting the ordinance, I opined that, as far as alcohol abuse was concerned, having to plan ahead was a possible sign of dependence, whereas a healthy attitude towards drink came with the knowledge that, if one wanted it, one could easily go out and get it.

    Religious reasons aside, many of these picayune local restrictions are an attempt to cartelize commerce. What they can't do voluntarily due to the (also illegitimate) anti-trust laws, they try to institute via legislation.

    Kevin

    *Selling watered whiskey, for example, should be a hanging offense. :)

  • ||

    misreading Paul. I understand him to say "lefties complaining about red state blue laws should tend their own garden. Blue state laws can be found that rest on just-as-spurious grounds of the 'public good.'"

    c:

    Close, but not exactly. While I made reference to a Blue State vs Red State schizm my argument doesn't come down to a Bush Vs Kerry anaology. In fact, I really wasn't trying to make a party based political statement at all. What I was really trying to say is, that one can scrutinize the New Mexico blue law and become highly indignant about its purpose (stated or not) where the government interferes with the same results for all kinds of purposes. Not so much that 'lefties' should tend to their own garden... more we ALL should be tending ALL the gardens because when you block alcohol sales for one reason, it becomes easy to justify it for a whole host of reasons.

    And no, there is no seperation of state and 'public good', but again, that's an oversimplification. People pushing religion down our throats are doing it for 'public good'. "People buyin' likker on a Sundy 're up to no good and ain't got no respect" or "Restricting the purchase of spirits after the hour of 2am will reduce 'binge drinking' and vagrancy- we enact this law in respect of our community". What we need to do is decide if a govt can restrict something highly specific such as alcohol sales (in the venue of times and dates) for ANY reason.

  • ||

    UFP,

    My point is that at the lowest levels of government, government is most responsible to following the "will of the people". If the "will of the people" dictates no alcohol sales on Sunday, so be it.

    If 51% of the population says something, does that make 49% wrong? The point is to recognize government as a coercive force.

    I do agree that the most local of levels would be a good place to experiment, but you still have to consider what limits there are to this experimentation. What you suggest could lead down the road to democracy, and where would we be then?

    If you want to have restrictions of this sort, perhaps the best way to do them would be through private contract, much like a homeowners association. You sell off the right to sell alcohol on your property on Sunday.

    Now imagine the difficulty of getting everyone in an area to agree to that and you'll see the coercive force at work.

  • ||

    Paul,

    You're exactly right. It's funny how people will feel one way about a law when proposed by a churchman, but feel another when it's proposed by the local social work group to help the children.

    When really, we shouldn't be considering who is proposing the restriction, just that it is a restriction.

  • ||

    Anyone help me out? In the abstract I want liberty for all, but in the concrete it comes down to specific situations. Geez, let the folks buy booze at all hours if they want. Then again, if loud drunk voices are constantly keeping me awake in the wee hours because I live between the store and the bus stop, I'm going to be peeved.

    I guess my point is that not *all* the folks who are behind *every* liberty-limiting initiative are *utterly* evil/stupid/shortsighted-- just like not all the liquor customers or truckers-with-chick-mudflaps are problems. It's usually dolts who go too far on either the rule-bending or rule-creating side who cause the problems. And produce laws or objections to laws.

  • ||

    Poustman,
    I can see where you are coming from. Someone in another thread mentioned that just because he found something objectionable, doesn't mean he wants to legislate against it. I can see why you want to keep these sorts of images from your daughter before the appointed age, the problem is what is appropriate differs for everyone. While the line may be fellatious devil chicks for you, someone may fine naked woman mudflaps offensive. Someone's son may as what erectile dysfunction is during one of the 900 commercials during a sporting event, etc. The question is who draws the line and why one line is valid but another isn't. Is the line 50.1% or 66% or 75%? Better to let the saming effects of society work and let freedom determine rather than the most active busybodies. People live in Las Vegas their whole lives and are able to come out relatively well adjusted and moral. It's uncomfortable, but life ain't easy.

  • ||

    YO SNAKE!! YOU WANT COOP? LOOK OVER HERE!!!

    WWW.COOPSTUFF.COM

    FEAST YOUR EYES ON THE GLORY

  • ||

    This may be speaking unfairly, since I don't have kids, but perhaps it's not "for the public good" to pass parents' own sexual inhibitions and discomfort with the human body on to their children and generations to follow. People and children in Europe see sex and the naked human body all over the media, and I wouldn't say that they are all sexually perverse or worse off for it.

    On the contrary, many people who are NOT religious or inhibited may see protecting their children from these "sins of the flesh" perverse as it were, because after all, that is what adults do by nature. Yes, even homosexuality occurs in nature (although to the dismay of some, naughty devil-lesbos do not). Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating SHOWING this stuff to children, but if they happen to see something inappropriate for their understanding/age level, it's the task of the parent to either shield them from these images, or else come up with a creative explanation for these things. It's yet again a question of "how good of a parent do you want to be"? One simply cannot expect society to raise your child, because the nature of children is that they are of YOUR flesh and blood, so it's the parents' job to raise them, not the society's.
    Plus, it's faulty reasoning to suppose that just because you slap a big fine on some hick with a tasteless bumper sticker, that children won't ever be exposed to this stuff at some point or another.

    Counterexample: As a childless person, maybe I would find it offensive that my rights to put an explicit bumper sticker on my privately-owned car are being taken away, simply because some parents don't want to take the time to explain complicated social phenomena, or the facts of life, to their own child. But of course it would be unheard of to defend my rights as a non- pro-family interest.(I would simplify with "anti-family", but that word isn't correct - I'm not anti-family, I just don't buy that every law is really "for the children" - particularly because it's usually old ladies and churchpeople who are always crying pro-censorship, not the kids, who probably don't even pay attention most of the time).

    So it might seem like some people with children justify these laws in order to make parenting easier on themselves, or to ease their own sexual and moral hangups/biases.

    Censorship laws are the adult equivalent (and possibly an inadvertent cause) of teaching kids in schools to "Feel Good About Themselves", instead of focusing on teaching them the subjects they're supposed to learn.

    The attitude that if you are not comfortable with something to make a law censoring it, is just not right, in my opinion.

  • ||

    I'm feeling Solomonic, so I will now render judgment.

    Nude chicks on mudflaps are OK, if they are the traditional silhouette, `cause that doesn't really show anything.

    Devil chick on stickers in public view must wear bikini tops and bottoms in the appropriate areas, but shall be allowed to smooch on each others' tails, as real women don't actually have them.

    Do they?

    Kevin

  • ||

    Thank you all who support freedom of expression and every other civil liberty we as americans are endowed with. As to all the focus haters out there, can you beat 460hp courtesy of Sean Hyland motorsports.

  • ||

    And as for the blue laws in this town, the ordinance banning sales of alcohol on sundays was passed mainly because this is the bible belt and the churches loaded their flock onto buses and drove them to the polls. Restaurant chains wanting to open here have to go through idiotic amounts of time spent negotiating with churches to purchase liquor licences, which through one way or another all remaining licences are firmly in the churches grasp. I know of one particular church that owns and sits on 14 liquor licences and wont sell one for less than a couple million dollars. We have 3 bars, none of which I would be caught dead in if I were back home in Los Angeles, all stuck in hillbilly heaven and 80's hair band denial. In the 3 years since I moved here this town has grown alot and is about to grow even more with the military planning on moving more personel into their base which is a mere 8 miles down the road. I'd love to open a good italian restaurant here since there isnt even a bad one, but its impossible to get even a beer and wine license away from the church.
    And in response to some comments I've read. A) I'm not an alcoholic, I rarely drink more than 2-3 on friday or saturday nights.
    B) I am a Patriots fan though, and watching football in a bar on sundays and the frickin Superbowl for that matter is an absolute must, sittin in a friends living room just isnt the same.
    C)Yes I drive a yellow focus, with the shitty wages the state sees fit to impose on people who get tips as part of their wages ($2.13/hour) and people who think

  • ||

    Hey, Dean!

    I think it is great that someone getting screwed over by local govt. has found his way to the Reason board. If you are serious about getting into the restaurant/tavern trade, you might need the help of the Institute of Justice ( http://www.ij.org ) which specializes in challenging unconstitutional roadblocks to small businesspeople exercising their rights. The main Reason site is chock full of articles about cases where they have pitched in. IJ bigwig Clint Bolick once wrote a book about local regulations called Grassroots Tyranny, which phrase often explains the attitude of small-town burghers and big city wardheelers alike.

    Good luck,

    Kevin

  • ||

    Thanks, Mo. That's helpful. And kudos on your discernment-- you got me, as 'Idiotic' as I am. ;)

    anon, that's not an unreasonable position. I hear you. Not having kids I suspect you aren't fully familiar with the amount of readiness it requires to deal with arguably delicate issues on demand, but if I'm being rigorous on myself I think that yeah, it *is* my job as a daddy to *be* as rigorous as required, and if I'm proposing legislation to protect my daydreaming, in effect, that's ignoble.

    You know, I think what a great deal of this comes down to from my perspective is that many people who consider themselves 'moral' have come to rely on the state (in other words, on *force*) rather than on their own 'good neighbor' behaviors (persuasion?) to establish a general societal 'tone' that they can feel comfortable in. As I read Mo and anon's comments above, and think about the Valentine's 'martyr for state-free marriage' article, I think that has been my own error for sure.

    Let me try this on for size: If I as a Christian can't persuade someone else to adopt my views, how dare I try to force them to? (Views on doctrine or morality.) Wow. That's a new perspective. Hm....

    I remain an Idiot, but am learning a few things here and there, hopefully.

  • Pierce Wetter||

    It's clear that you guys don't know the true story of the Mudflap Madonna! I posted this a long time ago on my blog. http://www.opinionatedbastard.com/archives/000281.html

  • ||

    That's a beautiful story, and on St. Val's Day, too.

    Snif!

    Kevin

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement