Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Bookseller's nightmare

Senate Bill 125: unenforceable and maybe unconstitutional

The Rocky

Published February 22, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Editorials

More stories »

Back in 2004, then-Rep. Ted Harvey, R-Highlands Ranch, initiated legislation aimed at keeping pornography away from and out of the sight of children. That bill made its way through the House of Representatives only to be killed in committee in the Senate. Before it met its end, however, we objected to the proposed law and outlined a number of problems with it.

Now comes again Harvey, who has since moved on to the upper chamber, with essentially the same legislation. Laudable though the intent may be, the problems that derailed his proposal then are no different today and should send its reincarnation - Senate Bill 125 - off the tracks.

SB 125, as it stands, seeks to hold bookstores, theaters, Web sites - anyone, really - liable for the dissemination or display of material involving nudity or sexual activity when that material is seen by minors. As with 2004's legislation, there are provisos and exceptions, but our objections of four years ago still apply. Let's recap:

* The law is unnecessary. Colorado already has laws against obscenity; bookstores and others can now be prosecuted if they fail to keep obscene materials out of the hands of minors.

* The criteria set forth in the bill about what precisely constitutes sexually explicit material "harmful to minors" rests on the judgment of "a reasonable adult person." Since reasonable people can disagree on these subjective matters, obtaining convictions under such laws is very difficult and renders them generally ineffective.

* The proscription against even displaying material considered harmful to minors could, as we noted in 2004, "make the most prudish bookstore owner's life a litigious nightmare." After all, who's to say the cover of the current issue of Psychology Today (featuring a nude couple and several articles under the heading "The Big Turn On") wouldn't be deemed by some as pornographic in nature?

Yet, under SB 125, minors would have to be kept out of businesses displaying innocuous items like this, or the publications would have to be hidden, covered or simply not displayed at all, an unreasonable abridgment of adult patrons' First Amendment rights.

When businesses do go beyond the pale in what they display, an onslaught of customer complaints is usually sufficient to resolve the situation.

Harvey no doubt means well. For that matter, an innocent childhood polluted by exposure to pornography has to rank among the saddest of human experiences. But Senate Bill 125 is not the way to go about limiting that exposure.

Comments

  • February 22, 2008

    6:13 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Ike writes:

    Ah, yes! Yet another Republican for smaller, less intrusive government shows his true colors.

  • February 22, 2008

    7:01 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    glowrock writes:

    Exactly. It's the Republican way: Get government out of your pocketbook, make your children and grandchildren pay for the excesses of today, and get the government right into your bedroom (and morality) where it rightly belongs!

    Yay, more Republican trash!

  • February 22, 2008

    7:05 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Acemon writes:

    Why is sex so frightening that we rate it XXX, yet violence, murder, and torture are acceptable enough to be rated R? Within the confines of an R-rated film you can stab a woman's breasts, pour acid over them, and torture her until death, but don't you dare touch her breasts in a loving and sexual manner. Does violence cause fewer problems in our society than sex?

  • February 22, 2008

    8:07 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    vudumom writes:

    Once again we need someone to tell us how to parent.i am responsible for what my kids see and what they are exposed to.

    Acemon, You make an excellent point.Parents are allowing their children to watch R rated movies all the time.I know of 2nd graders that have seen "Saw "and all it's re-runs.I watched Saw one night and what I saw was something no elementary student should be watching.If parents don't want to parent society can not legislate them to do so.

    Here is a list of just some of the legislation Colorado lawmaker's have been "working" on.

    1. Charge people for using plastic bags
    2.Hand out birth control in schools
    3.Charge people for the priviledge of going skiing and using public roads they paid for.
    4.More regurgitation of pornography laws
    5.Opening liquor store on Sunday against the wishes of most small store owners,but banning sales in supermarkets.
    6.Finding ways to raise taxes without the public realizing it.
    7.Raise taxes on alcohol to pay for health care for all children in Colorado,they didn't make it clear if that included illegals.
    8.Most children can be covered by the healthcare program just passed and signed by President Bush,so are we going to pay for people who actually can afford health care for their kids but rather have the bigger house and newer SUV?

    There may be other important issues being covered in this legislative session and in cities around the area,all I see is nonsense and much ado about nothing.I think we should give them a pay cut and cut their benefits,keep raising taxes on them and nickel and diming them into struggling to keep their once comfortable living a daily struggle.

  • February 22, 2008

    9:44 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    popo writes:

    This should come as a surprise to no one. Republicans have always had a perverse fascination with other people's sex lives.
    "Big government" and a "nanny state" are OK if you're an "R", but evidently, not if you're a "D".

  • February 22, 2008

    12:36 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Logical writes:

    Stop using such a wide net. Just because I am a Republican does not mean I support or condone the legislation introduced by Harvey any more than all Democrats condoned what Clinton did while in office (sexual escapades).

    I don't want either party legislating morality. It is up to us as parents to guide our children. Acemon has a valid point, and I agree with Earl. I don't think hiding sex from kids is a good idea. That's my choice on how I will raise my kids. But I shouldn't tell you how to raise yours.

    Harvey's bill likely will die, again, as it should. Enough people are fed up with morality legislation that it likely will not get beyond the committee stage.

  • February 22, 2008

    1:08 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    rathmone writes:

    well said, Logical. Only one problem- the bill's already passed out of committee- and passed 2nd reading, albeit with a ton of amendments that are really just band-aids trying to hold together an otherwise crappy bill. Call and email your senators- tell them to drop this one and work on something important.

  • February 22, 2008

    1:28 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    peterpi writes:

    I'm glad to see the Rocky oppose this bill. I echo a bunch of people, and definitely call your state senator as rathmone suggested. It's pathetic that this atrocious bill has been allowed to live through 2nd reading. Call your state senator and tell them to send this bill, make sure you mention SB 125 at least twice, to oblivion. Tell them to kill or postpone indefinitely the bill, SB 125.

  • February 23, 2008

    7:46 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    freethinker07 writes:

    A primary rule in politics these days seems to be that if you have nothing useful to say to support your side, that you say bad things about the people who disagree with you. This makes it easy for those of us reading the posts to determine which side is being supported by the brain dead. All we have to do is find out which side is dominated by people who say: "Republicans are bad." or "Democrats are bad." Those are the brain dead and you vote against them. It's very simple.