"Indecency"

While the Supreme Court gets to ponder whether or not to allow the D.C. handgun ban to stand, think about this: you're not legally required to register your rifle, shotgun, or handgun in the state of Indiana, but if you own a bookstore in that state, you're now required to register books that contain "sexually explicit materials," according to a new law.

On March 13th, a measure was passed by Indiana's legislature which makes it a misdemeanor for failure by a bookseller to register a title which is considered deleterious to minors. Under this law, a bookseller must not only pay a usurious $250 registration fee, but also provide a detailed description of the work which may include not only novels, but school texts dealing with health, and sexuality issues. And, if allowed to remain on the books, one may even expect history, and science, books, too, to eventually come under governmental inspection..

Indiana's new law seems like the logical extension of a wider national trend, since 9/11, in which the Federal Bureau of Investigation hands out National Security Letters to bookstores demanding that they hand over personal data, and records of their customers without first obtaining their consent. This insidious practice now appears to have "moral" implications, and encourages book sellers to self-censor, i.e. to avoid the registration fee and hassle by simply not carrying any "suggestive" works.

Notably, this is first law of its kind on the books anywhere in America, thus setting a dangerous precedent for freedom of expression, and one that should be of concern not merely to fans of the First Amendment, civil liberties groups, or constitutional lawyers, but to anyone who wants the government to stay out of our bedrooms, and our classrooms, too. This kind of prohibition, and legal restriction, can only carry over to the media, to films, DVDs, and recordings.

This news is fully consistent with escalating Federal Communications Commission trend of slapping "public indecency" penalties on major networks like ABC which faces a $1.43 million penalty for having rapidly exposed a woman's bare back as she got into a shower in an episode of NYPD aired five years ago. Where are federal indecency laws when it comes to sanitizing the images of troops, and Iraqi civilians, injured or killed in 2003?

But while Congress acted to regulate the maximum amount the FCC can charge a station for violation with their dubious decency standards to $325,000, where is the oversight of those who declare what is indecent? Indeed, where is the oversight of those who are providing oversight?

More importantly, which presidential candidate, if any, will dare to address this administration's overreaching when it comes to blocking out whole sections of military reports, destroying millions of White House e-mails, censoring newspaper accounts of the war in Iraq, both with respect to the number of casualties and with the coverage of caskets coming home and, now, with this precedent-setting state requirement that a bookseller register a "sexually explicit" book with the state or face criminal charges? We are hopeful that, given his expertise in constitutional law, Senator Obama will recognize this explicit threat to free speech. As for Senator McCain, well...

You may recall that, back in 1998, media mogul Rupert Murdoch hosted a fundraiser for John McCain who was then chairman of the committee that oversees the FCC. At that time, Murdoch called McCain "an outspoken leader for the telecommunications industry." We may infer from this comment that now, a decade later, if elected, the Arizona senator will not only support immunity from prosecution for telecoms, but pursue the neo-conservative agenda, as exemplified by the FCC, to impose gargantuan "indecency" fines for little more than exposing a naked back.

HB 1042, which was signed, two weeks ago, by Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, does not go into effect until July, and groups like the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression are organizing to compel the governor to veto it.

As Chris Finan, ABFFE president, says "It is un-American to force booksellers to register with the government based on the kinds of books they carry," and it is yet another symptom of just how demented it is to mandate registering books, and not firearms. When was the last time we heard about a fatality from reading Lady Chatterley's Lover?

This measure must be stopped, dead in its tracks, before it spreads like a computer virus to the rest of the country. There needs to be accountability, from all presidential candidates, with respect to what constitutes public decency, who gets to decide that,, as well as the larger issues of censorship, and government redaction, and it needs to happen now.

Comments

[jayne]

By way of clarification:

It's my understanding that the new law, in Indiana, scheduled to go into effect in July does not explicitly require booksellers to list every single title, but could only require a general description of any material in the store.

Secondly, the USA Patriot Act only enables the FBI to serve booksellers with National Security Letters which does not necessarily mean that any booksellers have been served with NSLs. They are prohibited from divulging if they have been served with an NSL. The article merely intended to suggest that in post 9/11 America, intelligence agencies now have the capacity to strongarm purveyors of literature; this does not mean that they are necessarily doing this. It is the potential for abuse that often poses a graver threat than the legislation itself. The article in no way, shape, or form means to imply that bookstores are turning over your personal information to the government.

[Thirdpower]

So basically you're saying it's alright to strongarm purveyors of legal firearms w/ the potential for abuse of the laws you endorse (that would fall under the 2A) but now OK for the 1A?

Timothy McVeigh used the Turner Diaries as inspiration. Neo-nazis use Mein Kampf as inspiration. Should we require registration for those types of materials?

Why not support both rights?

[JScott]

Silly you can still get this same 'offensive' stuff online, didn't say anything about that.
Kinda shows you where that state legislature's thinking is at.
And that usual crap about 'protecting children' and 'fighting terrorism'.

[Thirdpower]

WHile the law is stupid, it does not do what Ms Stahl claims:

b) The term does not include: (1) birth control or contraceptive devices; or
(2) services, programs, products, or materials provided by a:
(A) communications service provider (as defined in IC 8-1-32.6-3);
(B) physician; or
(C) public or nonpublic school.

http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2008/EH/EH1042.1.html

[Manx]

Imagine, if a broadcast network reported the news of Dick Cheney's famous exchange with Pat Leahy on the floor of the Senate, including the four letter words verbatim directed at Leahy by the vice-president, the network would be subject to huge fines. The networks could be fined for reporting the news of what was being said by public officials in a public forum. That doesn't sound very constitutional to me.

[Rescisco]

HuffPost's Pick

This "law" demonstrates that the legislative process is capable of codifying idiocy. This would perhaps argue against electing idiots to legislative offices. Can we find no other sort willing to serve or are we simply unable to choose wisely? It would appear that the answer to this question is yes on all counts.

[montemalone]

I pledge allegiance to the flag waving moralists
of the United States of America
and to the republicans
and christian hypocrites, who,
praising god
take liberty and justice from all.

[Independent voter]

Jeez - remind me never to move to Indiana.

Man created God.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

Outrageous. Absolutely outrageous.

Who promoted this type of unconstitutional activity? Instead of allowing them to hid behind the anonymity of being in "Indiana's legislature," why not publish their names. Make lists available and offer them to every bookstore in Indiana.

Do you, for example, know how much "sexually explicit material" is in the Bible? Pick one up and see. Then make all those who sell Bibles in the religious book stores aware of the bill's provisions. No exception should exist for them.

If fools in the Indiana legislature voted for this bill, their names and faces should be made known.

[CellarDoor]

How sad indeed...but then again it's starting to look like we'll be revisiting the Scopes-Monkey trial so maybe we'll get around to noticing in 20 or 30 years that this "free" country we so vehemently espouse to love, is no longer remotely free or even "ours". I wonder if there would be public outcry if there was a draft. People seem to think that would turn the tide officially and the dishonor heaped upon our nation would finally be seen for what it is and the "sleeping giant" of the American populace would awaken. Color me pessimistic but I don't even think that would do it...

[alkamm]

This sort of law evidences how pervasive the decidely unspiritual religionists among us are. Their thrust to take away our freedom to read what they think is indecent is a good reason for us to work at reestablishing the constitutional ban against mixing religion with the state.

Religious laws that the Constitution should have protected us against include--alcohol possession and consumption, blacklisting of proscribed authors, banning of books, rating of movies, licensing of comedians, marijuana and other drug related criminalization. Add abortion and birth control blackouts to satisfy the Catholic and evangelical flock and you've got key constitutional abuses that can only be rectified by turning away from faith based laws.

[Thirdpower]

While I agree w/ you on the stupidity of this law, you, as usual, have no clue about firearms. A FFL dealer has to keep strict records on which firearms he/she has in inventory and sells. They are also subject to yearly inspections by the BATFE. Your comparison would be more accurate if background checks and registration were required on the individuals purchasing these books.

[Conservativeslayer]

How sad that there are no comments about this issue. I guess no one cares about the First amendment. Just one more step closer to a police state, if this Indiana law is allowed to stay on the books.

[Cathexis]

Excellent point!

I find it unbelievable, and more than a bit chilling, to think that nudity and sex are considered "indecent" in this Society while shootings, explosions, decapitations, and "24-style" torture are considered "entertainment."

Man ... our watchdogs have *issues*!!!

[sarge]

Yes, Issues indeed, and it's no coincidence that you can get naked on the beach in France, and many other places in Europe, but not in the United States, yet It's us, not them, that have chosen war. In fact, isn't it interesting, that the most repressed countries of the world - the mid-east, South Asia, Northern Africa - they seem to be in a perpetual state of war.