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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT