Arkansas Law may make selling comics to minors illegal

[Ares]

Click Link for full article.. Gist of it is below

http://www.newsarama.com/pages/ARCOMICS.htm

=================================================

A law aimed at protecting the children goes into effect in Arkansas on June 26th. Best-case scenario - some kids may not get their hands on a Penthouse. Worst case - every single comic book retailer in the state is brought up on charges by the close of business Thursday.

 

The legislation, Act 858, which served to amend Arkansas Code § 5-68-502, was signed into law by Arkansas Governor Huckabee on March 28th and makes it unlawful "to display material which is harmful to minors in such a way that minors, as a part of the invited general public, will be exposed to view such material . . . provided, however, that a person shall be deemed not to have displayed material harmful to minors if the . . . lower two-thirds (2/3) of the material is not exposed to view and segregated in a manner that physically prohibits access to the material by minors;" or to "allow to view . . . to a minor, with or without consideration, any material which is harmful to minors."

 

In simple® English, it's against the law to display more than the top 1/3 of material that is deemed to be "harmful to minors" even when the material cannot be accessed by the minors or to allow a minor to view, with or without consideration anything that is deemed to be harmful to minors. That is, even if you consider something not to be harmful to a minor - and have a real crisis of conscience over it before showing it to them, it can still alter be found that the material was in fact, harmful to a minor, and therefore you broke the law.

 

Yep - it's the old "harmful to minors" bugaboo. As with other statutes of this ilk passed, the Arkansas amendment's definition of what "harmful to minors" specifically means is woefully vague.

 

Another Arkansas law defines "harmful to minors" as such:

 

"that quality of any description or representation, in whatever form, of nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sadomasochistic abuse, when the material or performance, taken as a whole, has the following characteristics:

 

(a)The average person eighteen (18) years of age or older applying contemporary community standards would find that the material or performance has a predominant tendency to appeal to a prurient interest in sex to minors;

 

(b)The average person eighteen (18) years of age or older applying contemporary community standards would find that the material or performance depicts or describes nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sadomasochistic abuse in a manner that is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable for minors; and

 

©The material or performance lacks serious literary, scientific, medical, artistic, or political value for minors."

 

Teenagers From Mars anyone?

 

The definitions are vague enough that, if one was so inclined, one could lump comic books from virtually any publisher in the Top 5, and many others into the category of being "harmful to minors." As such, comic shop owners would face charges.

 

While comics could be affected, they're not the only form of art that could fall under the wildly broad definition of being "harmful to minors." In an article in the Times Record of Fort Smith, AK, one of many state newspapers reporting on the new law, bookstore proprietor Mary Gay Shipley, said the new law would keep minors away from some of the greatest novels and most important works of nonfiction, including Of Mice and Men, Forever and Joy of Sex.

 

Ironically, although no one in Arkansas will likely make the argument, given the violence and occasional depravity in it (Old Testament), the Bible itself could be deemed to be harmful to minors. Of course, if the suit fails, and the law does go into effect, look for the ACLU or some other group to do precisely that (probably going after Wal-Mart for selling it, in order to get the big headlines) in order to forcefully make a point.

 

"I don't sell 'dirty books' and I resent being treated like I run an adult bookstore," Shipley said in a news release from the Arkansas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

 

Under the new law, Shipley could be charged with a crime if a minor saw of purchased one of the above named books in her store, as could any other retailer of books or printed materials.

 

In an article in today's Arkansas -Gazette, reporter Linda Satter spoke with state Rep. Shirley Borhauer, a 76-year-old grandmother and former schoolteacher, who, "readily acknowledged upon hearing the lawsuit's allegations that the law may have been written too broadly and end up having undesired effects.

 

"'It could open up a can of worms, there's no doubt about that,' she said with a sigh. 'But our intentions were pure.' Keven Anderson, a , sponsored the Amendment."

 

................

 

"The more immediate threat that this law poses for comic stores is the vague definition of 'harmful to minors.' Along with what is in the complaint, there's a passage in Arkansas' Harmful to Minors law that makes it a crime to show, or allow minors to be shown sadomasochistic abuse. The problem with that is the language of the law in that particular area is that sadomasochistic abuse is any person in underwear, a mask, or a bizarre costume either beating or harming another person."

 

Right - see the problem? If the law goes into effect, PG and under autobiographical comics, and Archie are going to have a real bright future in Arkansas.

 

"Read broadly, the way that the new Arkansas law would work is that any comic book story with a fight scene or where someone is tied up for any reason could be deemed as being harmful to minors. This means that to be 100% compliant with the law, you're going to have to put your copies of Batman, Spider-Man, Wonder Woman, and any other costumed character behind a blinder rack where minors cannot reach it."

 

.............................

"Yes, the language of the law is ridiculous in this instance, but for the law to be changed if it is passed, it has to go to trial. Going to trial involves lawyers, evidence, and a major disruption of everybody's life that's involved. We don't want to see that happen, and that's why we joined the coalition to prevent it from becoming law. But if it passes, it could be very dangerous. The Fund is committed to standing behind the retailer who, knock on wood won't be, but if he is called up on charges, we'll be there to help them."

 

[Bugaboo-migration]

Yep - it's the old "harmful to minors" bugaboo. As with other statutes of this ilk passed, the Arkansas amendment's definition of what "harmful to minors" specifically means is woefully vague.

Hmmmm.......it appears that word of my antics are becomming known to the general public.......but I have never hurt any minors.

[jeff2004]

That is the problem with the laws in America today. They make them too vague so they can get anybody in trouble they want. Heck, under the USA PATRIOT Act, they can declare anyone a terrorist for any reason. And who says we have freedom?

[DiceX]

Yet, in Arkansas...you can still legally marry your sister.

 

Make a note in the Arkansas Constitution...

Kneading the loaf in the bathroom while looking at a comic book = BAD!

Marriage to a close relative = GOOD!

[valiantman]

Yet, in Arkansas...you can still legally marry your sister.

 

I think you meant Alabama.

 

In Arkansas, sisters and first cousins are prohibited.

However, any "green state" on this map is a yee-haw cousin weddin' state.

And yes, that includes New York City and L.A.!

(Hey Jed! Look who's in-breedin' now!)

 

http://www.cuddleinternational.org/laws/law-index.html

[fazman]

Yet, in Arkansas...you can still legally marry your sister.

 

Hmmm, is she HOT