Adult Bookstores

A new Arkansas law targeting material "harmful to minors" could force bookstores and libraries to card people at the door. A story in yesterday's Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (available from the online archives for a fee) explains that the the state defines such material as

"any description or representation, in whatever form, of nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sadomasochistic abuse, when the material or performance, taken as a whole" is considered by an average adult as appealing to a "prurient interest" in sex to minors, is "patently offensive" or "lacks serious literary, scientific, medical, artistic or political value" for minors.

Under the new law, which is scheduled to take effect on July 16, material fitting this definition must be kept "not exposed to view and segregated in a manner that physically prohibits access of the material by minors." So unless booksellers and librarians are prepared to review every book and periodical on their shelves, trying to figure out what the average prosecutor thinks the average adult would consider prurient and offensive with respect to minors, they may simply have to keep out anyone under 18.

In response to a lawsuit by booksellers, publishers, librarians, and the ACLU, the chief sponsor of the legislation insisted it "was never the intent to change the existing law so that it would affect mainstream literature" such as romance novels, Of Mice and Men, or Catcher in the Rye. A co-sponsor confessed, "It could open up a can of worms, there's no doubt about that. But our intentions were pure."

[Thanks to Brent Hogan for the link.]

Comments

[David 2]

"But our intentions were pure."

The creed of every moralist thug.

It's also the creed of every extremist group out there planting bombs and hijacking planes.

You know it's a real shame that violating the US Constitution is not a criminal offense... then the jails would be filled to capacity with politicians instead of non-violent drug offenders. It would be a vast improvement IMBHO.

[Anonymous]

constitution says you have a right to libraries

[Magod]

Yeah, if the city just privatized it's libraries, they wouldn't have this problem.

[James]

I am sure Larry Flynt would have a field day taking over the city's library system!

[bomb bomb]

This law will affect public libraries, but I beleive this law is designed to affect private bookstores as well.

[Russ]

F'in libraries. I support 'em, but sometimes I wonder why.

There was a library referendum in my town last election. The library wanted to increase hours and number of volumes... sounded good to me. The numbers they quoted about the increases added up to about a 30% increase in services. I was all for it, but they wanted to raise the library tax by two dollars (per $100K of property value). In dollar amount, not much. But the current library tax was 1 dollar. No mention that the tax was tripling, only that it would go up two dollars. Anyone who can do simple math can see that a tripling of tax and not even a doubling of services does not add up. So their coming clean and still trying to mislead made me vote against the referendum. It passed, must not be too many people who can do math in my town. A 30% increase in services... I'd even support a 60% increase in tax (what can I say, I'm a sucker). But 200% hike in cost for a 30% gain, no thanks.

We don't seem to need government to be able to efficiently check out movies and video games...

[T.Pained]

Anon says, "In forty years when the lawmakers are dead, who will know what the intent of the law is anymore -- unless all the discussion and newspaper accounts are documented and stored at an average-adults-only library."

But don't hold your breath, Anon.

All the discussions and newspaper accounts of The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution are documented and stored at many libraries -- including the Library of Congress -- yet today's agenda-driven lawyers STILL choose to ignore the intent of The Law.

[Madog]

Magod,
(unlike Fox, I enjoy parody)

In this case it wouldn't help since private organizations are affected by the law too.

[Phil]

"...unless booksellers and librarians are prepared to review every book and periodical on their shelves..."

Don't they do this anyway?

Um, no. They rely on publications like Publisher's Weekly and ALA publications to make recommendations on what to purchase for their shelves. Sorry for the misconception.

[Luca Brasi]

Well, at least their intentions were pure. So they got that going for them. Which is nice.

[Anonymous]

Don't they realize the average adult is a dumb ass?

Of course the thing could open a can of worms, that's why they passed the law. The law is purposefully vague to provide work for lawyers, which is probably the real intention.

Unless the intention is spelled out in the law, there is no point to the law. Is the court supposed to follow the law to the (vague) letter, or to the intent? In forty years when the lawmakers are dead, who will know what the intent of the law is anymore unless all the discussion and newspaper accounts are documented and stored (at an average-adults-only library).

[Anonymous]

George W Bush on Eminem: "the most dangerous threat to American children since polio".

[PLC]

That quote about Eminem appears to be an urban legend; oddly, it seems confined to the UK. Do a search on google, and you'll find it referenced in UK papers, but hardly (if ever) mentioned in the US.

I looked at every single instance that came up on google and found none that attributed the quote to any particular time, place, or source. It's just an urban legend they like to repeat in the UK....

[Madog]

Isn't there some saying about intentions and the preferred paving material for roads to hell?

[Grant Gould]

Brandeis said it best:

"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning
but without understanding."

I'd say that just about covers it.
--G

[Anonymous]

Why would they lie?
Is it a conspiracy?

[dhex]

you know, kids are fun and all (other peoples' kids, that is) but i have to wonder if i am ever going to see the day where they're not the moral and legal yardstick for EVERYTHING.

can't we go back to communists under the bed?

[B]

"...unless booksellers and librarians are prepared to review every book and periodical on their shelves..."

Don't they do this anyway? And it's not very hard to tell if something is porn or not (assuming no lawyers are in the room).

I swear, these librarians are a pain in the ass. First they have this b.s. banned book week, as if trying to keep porn or Harry Potter out of publicly-funded libraries is a realistic threat to free speech. I've never come across a copy of Playboy in my library, so it seems they don't have a hard time self-censoring that. In the end, it all comes down to control: librarians want plenty of public funding, but no interference on how to spend it.

Maybe we should privatize them.

[Sage]

They've got nothing on the EU.