ILNews

Update: New obscene materials law struck down

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
On the day it was supposed to take effect, an Indianapolis federal judge struck down in its entirety a new law that would have required bookstores, retailers, and others to register with the state and pay a fee to sell any sexually explicit material.

U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker issued a ruling Tuesday in Big Hat Books, et al. v. Prosecutors, No. 1:08-CV-00596, which challenged the constitutionality of House Enrolled Act 1042 passed earlier this year by the Indiana General Assembly. The statute would have required any person or organization - including all employees - wanting to sell literature or other material deemed harmful to minors under Indiana law to register with the Secretary of State and pay a $250 filing fee.

In her 31-page ruling, Judge Barker ruled that the new law is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and a violation of the First Amendment.

"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 - all incidents of unquestionably lawful, nonobscene, nonpornographic materials being sold to adults - would appear to necessitate registration under the statute," she wrote. "Such a broad reach is, without question, constitutionally disproportionate to the stated aim of the statute to provide a community 'heads up' upon the opening of 'adult bookstore-type businesses.'"

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed the suit May 7, and plaintiffs included the Indianapolis Museum of Art, booksellers, and publishing organizations. They worried that any material they sell - books, music, art, photos - that is considered sexually explicit under Indiana statute would require them to register with the state if they relocate even if the material isn't intended for the sale to or use by minors, or if they hire a new employee after June 30. The plaintiffs claimed that having to register would label the businesses and organizations as purveyors of sexually explicit material and harm their reputation.

Judge Barker determined the new law wasn't narrowly tailored, is clearly content-based, and the $250 fee is itself a "punitive measure." She also wrote that the law is vague because it doesn't give adequate guidance to those who'd have to enforce or follow the statute.

"Defendants have sidestepped entirely the issue of whether such a statement (detailing the materials for sale) needs to be updated as inventories change; clearly the statute provides no guidance on this point," she wrote. "There can be no doubt that compliance with such a vague mandate will be unduly burdensome, will have a chilling effect on expression, and will fail to provide ordinary people with a reasonable degree of notice as to the law's requirements; the Constitution demands no less."

While plaintiffs requested a preliminary injunction, the judge wrote in a footnote that the request was moot because of her striking down of the entire statute. The Attorney General's Office announced today it will not appeal the decision. The law's author, Rep. Terry Goodin, D-Crothersville, has vowed to rewrite and bring the law up again during the 2009 session.

Ken Falk, legal director of the ACLU of Indiana, applauded the decision.

"This emphasizes the fact that it's incumbent on the legislature to think about the First Amendment and constitutional rights when they're drafting legislation," he said Tuesday. "We hope that will happen more in the future."
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Bob Leonard killed two people named Jennifer and Dion Longworth. There were no Smiths involved.

  2. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  3. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  4. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT