Link This |
Email this |
Blog This |
Comments (8)
Could Nudity Harm Indiana's Minors, Booksellers?
March 31, 2008
One of the big topics in the bookselling world recently has been the news that the state of Indiana has put a new law on the books that will require any businesses that sell "sexually explicit material" to register with the state government. To quote from PW's article on this subject, "'Sexually explicit material' is defined as any product that is 'harmful to minors' under existing law. There is a $250 registration fee. Failure to register is a misdemeanor."
While the law applies only to stores that are newly established, relocated, or that to sell "sexually explicit material" for the first time after the law goes into effect on July 1st, established bookstores are understandably upset about it. The American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression has condemed the law on grounds that it is a violation of Indiana booksellers' (and customers') First Amendment rights and therefore unconstitutional. They are considering filing a legal challenge to the law.
Indiana booksellers, 15 of whom signed a letter sent by ABFFE to Indiana's governor last week, are concerned that the state's vague definitions of "sexually explicit material" could get them into trouble for selling books on health and human sexuality, many titles considered classic literature, and who-knows-how-many young adult novels.
The Indiana Library Federation's "Intellectual Freedom Manual" provides more specific insight into the wording Indiana uses in Title 35, Article 49. Matter is reportedly considered "harmful to minors" if it "describes or represents, in any form, nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sado-masochistic abuse; considered as a whole, it appeals to the prurient interest in sex of minors; it is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable matter for minors; and considered as a whole, it lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors."
Could this be any LESS specific??
The fact that nudity in itself is considered "harmful to minors" threw me for a loop. I expected to see "sexual conduct" mentioned, but nudity?! How many art books can you think of that DON'T contain nudity? Or, to play the opposite end of the age spectrum, how many potty training books avoid images of naked toddlers?
As for the "prurient interest in sex of minors," it raises for me the same question asked (in the Indianapolis Star article) by Henry Carlson, a professor at Indiana University School of Law-Indianapolis and expert on the First Amendment: "The problem is, minors have an interest in sex, prurient or otherwise, and how do you distinguish what is normal and what is prurient?"
Question on the table: If you were (or are) an general or children's bookseller in Indiana, what do you do under this new law? Do you register with the state and see your store's name listed alongside self-professed peddlers of pornography? Or do you make the decision NOT to register, and run the risk of facing charges or being fined? You tell me.
And if you have an answer to the question of how you determine whether a teenager's interest in sex is normal or prurient, I'd like to know that too!
Posted by Alison Morris on March 31, 2008 | Comments (8)
