Judge Overturns State Harmful-to-Minors Law

The Curmudgeony Librarian writes "In Little Rock AR, U.S. 8th District Court Judge G. Thomas Eisele ruled that a 2003 Arkansas law requiring stores and libraries to shield minors from pornographic material in books and magazines violates the U.S. Constitution. The Judge said that the law violates the constitution due to its overbroad nature. Said Judge Eisele, "The statute. . .effectively stifles the access of adults and older minors to communications and material they are entitled to receive and view."

The law required "harmful to minors" materials to be kept entirely separate from other materials. The plaintiffs in the case--which included the American Library Association and American Civil Liberties Union--claimed the law would require bookstores and libraries to either erect partitions and carefully inspect the content of every item or totally bar access to anyone under 18. The defendants may appeal the ruling to the United States Supreme Court."

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

What wil be next?

Once again the free and unhindered distribution of porn wins a victory under the law. Does this mean that porn distributors can operate freely? What is happening to society in general? The Monday night football incident, the news reporter in Ohio broadcasting in the nude? Desparate housewives? Just because someone objects to these things doesn't make them a reactionary repressive person. People resort to desparate actions such as the Arkansas law not because they want to control or limit but rather they feel that one group and philosophy, of making all forms of literature and entertainment no matter how degrading of women, are socially acceptable. I am quite surprised that women's groups don't protest porn, which in many cases degrades women and portrays violence against them. Maybe the law was not well written, but the spirit of the law was. I have been in supermarkets where questionable materials at the check out counter are covered up. As I have said many times why can businesses understand people's feelings and libraries can't? I wonder if the same people who protect these materials would say the same if a member of their family was sexually assaulted.Something to think about.

Syndicate content