City Violates First Amendment, Property Rights in A&F Seizure
It almost sounds like a sketch from Mad TV:
Some hasty stitches:
--The basic obscenity charge is unsustainable (i.e., the city code is blatantly unconstitutional). An inch of adult butt-crack is simply not "obscenity" under the Constitution. All but child pornography and the most prurient XXX-rated smut is protected under the First Amendment (see Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)).
--The notion of banning "nude" artwork where minors are welcome to traffic might entail a different analysis, but the code refers to "obscenity" — which, again, these pictures simply aren't.
--Even if they were, there is no mention of a warrant to seize the artwork. Since this was clearly a novel question regarding a constitutionally suspect law (not to mention a low-level misdemeanor), would it have so burdensome to the smut patrol police officers to refer the matter to a judge beforehand, rather than "confiscate first, litigate later"?
--Note again how flippantly property rights are utterly disregarded here (cf., this recent post). This was not art displayed on public property or forced upon a captive audience (not even a captive audience of juveniles). Anyone prudish enough to take offense at these photographs, or who does not want their precious little snowflakes corrupted by viewing some butt-crack, can shop at GapKids (or, better still, over the Internet).
--I never pass up an opportunity to highlight that Ron Paul is not a libertarian but only an anti-federalist. In his utopia, the anti-liberty, anti-property activist legislators who enacted this silly ordinance would be perfectly within their rights — their "states rights" — to do so.
More thoughts from Tom Rants, Howling Point, Rolling Doughnut, Dolphin's Dock.
UPDATE: Charges to be dropped. Virginia has some law school graduates after all.
---
For those not familiar with Mad TV and A&F:
And in case you missed this video gem from a few months ago.
Police confiscated two display photos of scantily clad men and a woman from an Abercrombie & Fitch store and cited the manager on a misdemeanor obscenity charge, authorities said.Here is the artwork:
The police issued the summons Saturday after Abercrombie management did not heed warnings to remove the images from the Lynnhaven Mall store after some customers complained, police spokesman Adam Bernstein said.
...
City code makes it a crime to display "obscene materials in a business that is open to juveniles," Bernstein said.
Some hasty stitches:
--The basic obscenity charge is unsustainable (i.e., the city code is blatantly unconstitutional). An inch of adult butt-crack is simply not "obscenity" under the Constitution. All but child pornography and the most prurient XXX-rated smut is protected under the First Amendment (see Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)).
--The notion of banning "nude" artwork where minors are welcome to traffic might entail a different analysis, but the code refers to "obscenity" — which, again, these pictures simply aren't.
--Even if they were, there is no mention of a warrant to seize the artwork. Since this was clearly a novel question regarding a constitutionally suspect law (not to mention a low-level misdemeanor), would it have so burdensome to the smut patrol police officers to refer the matter to a judge beforehand, rather than "confiscate first, litigate later"?
--Note again how flippantly property rights are utterly disregarded here (cf., this recent post). This was not art displayed on public property or forced upon a captive audience (not even a captive audience of juveniles). Anyone prudish enough to take offense at these photographs, or who does not want their precious little snowflakes corrupted by viewing some butt-crack, can shop at GapKids (or, better still, over the Internet).
--I never pass up an opportunity to highlight that Ron Paul is not a libertarian but only an anti-federalist. In his utopia, the anti-liberty, anti-property activist legislators who enacted this silly ordinance would be perfectly within their rights — their "states rights" — to do so.
More thoughts from Tom Rants, Howling Point, Rolling Doughnut, Dolphin's Dock.
UPDATE: Charges to be dropped. Virginia has some law school graduates after all.
---
For those not familiar with Mad TV and A&F:
And in case you missed this video gem from a few months ago.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Fifth Circuit Says Lawrence Extends to Commercial Transactions
- City Violates First Amendment, Property Rights in A&F Seizure
Posted by Kip on
4 February 2008
Feel free to post as a Guest. You do not need to provide a valid email address. Comments are open for fourteen days only. All comments are subject to editing or deletion. There is a 2000-character limit for comments; lengthy multi-part comments are NOT permitted; you should email me such responses instead. Please note that time constraints preclude me from replying to most comments, although I do try to reply to all emails.
Except mabye for the fact that the young one showing the top of his buns appears to be pulling his pants up, instead of down.
The relevant post is here.