UPDATE: Indiana Judge strikes down registration law for retailers

Jul 07 2008

Back in March I wrote this post about a new law in Indiana that would require retailers to register with the state if they (the retailers) sold material that was considered "sexually explicit." Registering meant that retailers would have to pay a $250 registration fee and provide detail to the state about the types of sexually explicit material to be sold.

Well, in a clear victory for freedom of speech/expression, a judge shot the law down pretty quickly. Here’s a snippet from this Publishers Weekly article:

Judge Sarah Evans Baker (who also struck down, in 1984, an anti-pornography law) said in her ruling that the law has too vast a reach "as written." She elaborated: "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, non-obscene, non-pornographic material being sold to adults–would appear to necessitate registration under the statute." Ultimately, Judge Baker said that "such a vague mandate will be unduly burdensome" and "will have a chilling effect on expression."

I think Judge Baker hit the nail on the head with this decision. All the hoops retailers would have to jump through just for selling romance novels or magazines giving advice on sex is "unduly burdensome." What were these lawmakers thinking? Were they trying to legislate their ultra-conservative morality? A law that is so vague is ripe for abuse and, if allowed to continue, would no doubt stifle creativity and expression in Indiana.

In a follow up article, Publishers Weekly posted that the Indiana Attorney General will not appeal the case, instead, opting to let lawmakers re-write the law if they so please. You can read the updated PW article here.

2 Responses

Interesting news piece and post. Thanks! Yeah, sexually explicit is rather wide reaching.

Jaden @ Screenwriting for Hollywood 7/7/2008 10:13 pm
What a ridiculous law! Clearly, this infringes on freedom of speech and expression, so I’m glad the good judge shot it down. Sounds to me like it was a way for the extremists to penalize people who write or produce material that they find morally questionable. Live and let live, I always say.
Whenever I hear stories like this, I always wonder — don’t the people who come up with these laws have bigger fish to fry? I mean, there are obviously people spending time and money getting fluff like this passed into legislation when clearly there are bigger issues that warrant our attention. What a waste of time.

Melissa Donovan 7/8/2008 2:47 pm