Obscenity Rampant in Kansas!
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 10:49 PM

Except, er, that if it is rampant, then it can't legally qualify as obscenity, because obscenity has to violate community standards.

A grand jury in Johnson County brought misdemeanor charges against four businesses for peddling filth, including one accused of displaying nasty Halloween costumes in store areas where the children might be harmed. Another business, which presumably offers many items for sale, was indicted for a single proffered DVD that the grand jury thought merited further court review. Somehow I missed the story that violent crime had been eliminated in Kansas.

The Supreme Court of the United States also contributed to the purification of America, by declining to review an Alabama law that bans the sale (not the possession, just the sale) of something called a vibrator, along with related items. But will the state law, now allowed to persist, actually be enforced? The "senior media and sexuality analyst" for Focus on the Family Action is concerned: 'Upholding the law is one thing, but consistently enforcing it is an entirely different matter. The citizens of Alabama will need to remain vigilant on this issue.' The price of unliberty is eternal vigilance.

Labels: Kansas, obscenity, sex

 
Kansas Community Standards
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 10:36 PM

Sexually-explicit forms of speech in the US can be regulated or banned provided that the three-part test from the 1973 case of Miller v. California is satisfied. The first part of the "Miller test" is that the work, taken as a whole, and in applying contemporary community standards, appeals to the prurient interest in sex. The second prong of the Miller test relating to "patent offensiveness" also relies upon contemporary community standards. (The third prong concerning the lack of serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value is not to be judged by community standards, according to a later Supreme Court decision, Pope v. Illinois (1987).)

I bring it up because I am wondering about the latest activities of anti-obscenity crusaders in Kansas. They have presented county prosecutors with petitions urging that grand juries be empaneled with the aim of bringing obscenity charges against some local businesses -- not one or two businesses, but, er, 32. Doesn't the very fact that they can identify 32 filth peddlers suggest that these businesses are operating in accord with community standards? I mean, maybe one or two businesses might be able to make a go of it even while flying wildly in the face of community standards -- but 32?

The anti-obscenity crusaders should be careful in opening up this petition thing. In Hong Kong, a student journal that included a quiz asking about incest and bestiality fantasies provoked 184 complaints, leading to a finding that the journal was indecent. But then a website went up describing some Biblical scenes; more than 1700 complaints have now been submitted to the indecency authorities about the Bible.

Labels: Asia, Kansas, obscenity, pornography, Supreme Court

 
Back to Kansas...
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 11:40 PM

...and to prostitution. Wichita has its shaming (shameful?) website, and Topeka recently dusted off another tried-and-true method of prostitution control, bringing the local media along on raids to serve as enthusiastic cheerleaders. Here's the end of the linked story:

Women convicted of soliciting prostitution in Topeka receive a mandatory 30-day jail sentence, according to city code. They get 90 days in jail and are required to attend a 30-day treatment program for a second offense. After three or more offenses, they receive a 150-day jail sentence and the 30-day treatment program. The prostitutes are also banned from a four-block radius from where they were arrested.

A 30-day "treatment" program for a prostitution offense? Let's hope that it is an "offer" of treatment for an alcohol or drug addiction.

The news channel couldn't help but to present a follow-up story on prostitution in Topeka. Mostly it concerns the fact that many prostitution arrestees are repeat offenders. But it also throws down the gauntlet at Wichita for primacy in the regulation-by-humiliation game:

The city [Topeka] is also considering the use of public humiliation to curb the problem. The police chief wants to put pictures of prostitutes and the men who hire them on the city's government access cable channel.

Labels: Kansas, prostitution, shaming

 
Wichita Prostitution Policing
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 6:18 AM

Wichita, Kansas seems very pleased that its police department's anti-prostitution page, launched in early March, is the most popular of its police webpages, and sixth most popular of the city's entire (500 pages plus) web presence. Naturally, the page posts photos of those arrested, though not yet convicted, of prostitution-related offenses, re-posting an arrestee's photo if there is a later conviction. And the police webpage lets us know just why their anti-prostitution work is so important:

Prostitution stings represent one aspect of the department’s comprehensive effort to rid Wichita of crimes that detract from our quality of life. A number of other criminal offenses coincide with prostitution, including assault, robbery and theft. Because many prostitutes and other persons associated with prostitution are drug users, illegal drug sales and usage are also linked with and perpetuated by prostitution. Therefore prostitution increases public health concerns, specifically the spread of sexually transmitted diseases including HIV, and other blood disorders.

Prostitution also exists, because those who solicit it, also known as “johns,” are willing to risk arrest. These “johns” are equally responsible for related criminal public safety and public health issues. They make it increasingly difficult for prostitutes to break the cycle of crime, violence and drug use.

Hmmm, they go to a lot of effort to try to link prostitution to other activities that they know their readers won't like, such as theft and illegal drug sales. Sort of sounds like they don't really see much wrong with prostitution per se, no? Perhaps they should think about legalizing prostitution, to break that link with assault, robbery, and theft.

Speaking of theft, are there photos available on the Wichita police website of people arrested for theft? In terms of protecting the good people of Wichita, doesn't it make more sense to alert them to the identity of accused thieves than of accused solicitors? But somehow I could not find photos of accused thieves. Could this be because the real purpose of the website is not to protect the public but rather to shame those who are arrested for prostitution-related offenses? Surely not, because that would be punitive, and people in the US cannot be punished until after a conviction, following due process of law.

These extraordinary acts of publicity for 'crimes' such as prostitution are employed precisely because of the lack of a link between participation in these vice activities and generalized criminality. The people caught up in anti-prostitution stings often really are regular folks, generally law-abiding people, whose prostitution-related behavior would not be a crime nor a matter of public concern in much of the world. Unlike inveterate thieves, these people have a stake in legitimate society, and therefore really will be shamed by having their photos posted on the web. Robbers tend to be less in thrall to the norms of mainstream culture, so there is little deterrence value in a publicity threat to them.

By the way, Wichita also has created "anti-prostitution emphasis areas," which are similar to drug-free zones: penalties for prostitution-related offenses are raised if the offense takes place in an emphasis area.

Labels: Kansas, prostitution, shaming

 
Obscenity in Kansas
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 5:58 PM

Having wasted $45,000 already in a star-crossed grand jury attempt to pin obscenity convictions on the owners of the Lion's Den adult superstore, Dickinson County, Kansas, is back in court. This time it is the county prosecutor who is bringing the charges. (Hey, isn't all this obscenity litigation diverting resources from some anti-evolution squabble?) Yesterday, the Lion's Den proprietors pled 'not guilty,' and requested to be tried by a jury of their peers.

Evolution Update: The Lion's Den in Abilene, Kansas, used to be a Stuckey's.

Labels: Kansas, obscenity

 
Good Sense in Saline County
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 5:48 PM

Recall that following a petition drive, a grand jury had been empanelled in Saline County, Kansas, to look into whether obscenity charges should be brought against two adult stores in the town of Salina. The fifteen-person jury, which could have met for 3 months, took less than a month to decide not to return indictments. The Kansas anti-obscenity activists first try to have charges filed by the County Attorney. If that fails -- as it has so far in Saline County -- they then use the petition/grand jury route. In neighboring Dickinson County, a similar petition drive hit a snag, but the County Attorney there stepped into the breach by filing charges.

Labels: Kansas, obscenity

 
Time On Their Hands in Kansas
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 4:37 PM

This week saw the initiation of a 15-person grand jury in Saline County, Kansas, to determine if indictments for peddling obscenity should be brought against two adult businesses. Members of the jury will get to watch some pornographic movies and look over various sex toys. The jury meeting could last up to ninety days. Vice Squad has despaired over this activity in the past.

In neighboring Dickinson county, the $45,000 they spent on a similar jury came to naught when the jury's indictments were thrown out. But the Dickinson County Attorney is more eager to pour resources into anti-obscenity enforcement than is his Saline County counterpart, so he brought his own misdemeanor indictments against the Lion's Den Adult Superstore. What is that old saying about good money after bad?

Labels: Kansas, obscenity

 
"A Daniel Come to Judgment"
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 6:27 PM

The Lion's Den Adult Superstore near Abilene, Kansas, has been facing twenty-odd charges for promoting obscenity. As Vice Squad noted last April, this case came into being thanks to a petition campaign by Citizens for Strengthening Community Virtues; the signatures on the petition led to a grand jury being empaneled, culminating in the charges. But the petition giveth, and the petition taketh away: a judge threw out the charges this week due to irregularities in the petition. Seems some information about where signatories voted was added (for those signers who hadn't included the info themselves) by the organizers. Apparently that is a problem.

Labels: Kansas, obscenity

 
Mob Justice Gains in Salina, Kansas
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 4:15 PM

Some people who object to obscenity refuse to patronize stores that peddle filth. Others take up a petition to convene a grand jury, to ensure that other people are not allowed to patronize such stores. 476 valid signatures have now been certified in Saline County, Kansas, requesting that a grand jury be convened to explore indictments for promoting obscenity against two Salina stores. Some judges still have to sign off before the grand jury gets down to business. Presumably, at that point, Salina will have to follow the lead of neighboring Dickinson County, which ponied up over $1,300 in Sheriff Department funds to buy some potentially obscene stuff to make a similar case before a grand jury. (In November, Vice Squad mentioned one fellow who was unlikely to sign the Salina petition.)

Speaking of petitions, the official Saline County website has a poll asking "Would you like to see Ice Hockey at the Livestock and Expo Center?" Vice Squad recommends a vote of "No".

Labels: Kansas, obscenity

 
Adult Superstores and Their Discontents
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 6:13 PM

Back in April Vice Squad noted the grand jury proceedings in Dickinson County, Kansas, aimed at a Lion's Den Adult Superstore. A criminal indictment for violating obscenity laws ensued, and the Lion's Den counter-(en)sued Dickinson County in federal court. Today's Chicago Tribune includes a lengthy article out of Abilene, Kansas, about the whole rural adult superstore phenomenon. Why are such stores popping up in rural areas? Uh, because they are rural; this means limited competition, among other factors:

Rural locations also appeal to store owners because land and buildings tend to be cheap. There are few neighbors to complain about late-night hours. Potential customers stream by on the interstate, including long-haul truck drivers who are likely to stop anywhere that's open at 3 a.m. just to keep themselves awake.

And, perhaps most important, out-of-the-way counties like this one have few -- if any -- laws to restrict sexually oriented businesses.

In April we noted that protestors had been reporting the license plate numbers of Lion's Den customers, but we couldn't imagine to whom they might be reporting these license numbers. Today's Trib article unlocks the mystery: "They took down the license numbers of truck drivers who went into the store and reported them to their companies."

I can understand how rural residents would be concerned about the sudden intrusion (the Abilene Lion's Den opened "without warning"!) of pornography into their lives. Wait, hold it, you mean they have had porn available for a long time now?:

Along with the standard Hollywood blockbusters, the local Video Junction used to stock a small -- but popular -- selection of pornographic titles. "We had them here 18 years and never heard a word about it," said owner Gary Sweatland, who stopped carrying them after protesters raised a ruckus about the Lion's Den.

Just over the county line, in a dingy old gas station reeking of cigarettes, I-70 Adult Novelty has operated without protest for a dozen years, selling pornographic videos and charging by the minute to watch X-rated movies in a curtain-draped booth.

Labels: Kansas, obscenity

 
Anti-anti-porn Protest
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 5:02 PM

Vice Squad mentioned a few weeks ago petition efforts underway in Saline County, Kansas, to force a grand jury investigation of two Salina bookstores for obscenity violations. Vice Squad's own disgruntlement with this effort was somewhat muted; not so that of one 38-year old, who camped out in a tent on the roof of one of the stores for a week. The protestor announced that he is pro-consumer-choice, not pro-porn. (Funny how hard it is to find any people who actively and positively support the multi-billion dollar porn industry.) The Chicago ("Dewey Defeats Truman") Tribune has more (registration required).

Adult Video News covers the porn industry and could safely be called pro-porn, I think, though not work-safe. In one AVN story today, we learn that an adult actress turned up on a recent "America's Most Wanted" episode, and has now turned herself in to the authorities investigating a child custody case. (Let me mention again that AVN links are not work safe.)

Labels: Kansas, obscenity, pornography

 
What's the Matter With Kansas?*
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 4:01 PM

Just days ago Vice Squad mentioned efforts in Salina, Kansas, to clamp down on an adult goods store. Today we learn that the owner of a Salina nightclub, The Groove, has pleaded "no contest" to charges of not having the appropriate license to operate an adult business. It seems that a wet t-shirt contest got, predictably, out of hand, and the owner appeared to be encouraging the unlicensed nudity. But the plea agreement allows him to avoid a "promoting obscenity" charge, and he and Salina will get their Groove back, complete with liquor -- but not nude dancing -- license.

Incidentally, the owner's lawyer referred to the verboten activity as "spontaneous nude dancing" (odd how nude dancing doesn't seem to spontaneously break out, say, when I am walking home), and the terms of the plea agreement require the owner to make "a $500 donation to the Domestic Violence Association of Central Kansas."

*with apologies to Thomas Frank

Labels: dancing, Kansas, obscenity

 
Keeping Up With the Joneses
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 7:49 PM

Dickinson County, Kansas, has decided to put lots of resources to a good cause, that of trying to use the criminal law to shut down (or change the product mix of) an adult store. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and now the good people of Saline County want in on the act:

One group of Salina residents say they're opposed to two stores within the city limits that sell pornographic material. They're working to gather 476 signatures to force a grand jury investigation of the stores, claiming they violate state obscenity laws as Salina residents interpret them.

The Saline County Attorney has the good sense to suggest that they might want to wait to see how things turn out in Dickinson County (and Ellsworth County, where apparently a similar proceeding is under way). Not everyone is enamored of her temporizing: "People against the adult businesses say they shouldn't wait because the issue is too important."

Labels: Kansas, obscenity, pornography

 
State Marijuana Taxes
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 4:25 PM

The blogosphere has been jumping about the fact that many US states officially tax marijuana, even though it is an illegal product. Here is the webpage from Kansas, which explains:

A dealer is not required to give his/her name or address when purchasing stamps and the Department is prohibited from sharing any information relating to the purchase of drug tax stamps with law enforcement or anyone else.

Purchasing drug tax stamps does not make possession of drugs legal.

Two things that seem to be overlooked in the discussion of these taxes are (1) taxing illegal vices is not novel and (2) the prohibitionists better watch out, despite what Kansas claims, because this can lead to legalization. After the 21st Amendment ended national alcohol prohibition in the US, many states maintained their own prohibitions. Mississippi prohibited anything stronger than 3.2 beer, but in the 1940s passed a tax on stronger stuff. In the mid-1960s (following a high-profile alcohol raid), a judge ruled that the fact that taxes were being collected meant that alcohol was de facto legal. The state legislature followed by making the de facto legalization de jure, and in 1966, Mississippi became the last state to get rid of statewide alcohol prohibition. Along similar lines, brothels became legal in Nevada because an illegal brothel owner was fined (as I recall, $1000 per month for the previous three months that the brothel had been in business.) He didn't go out of business, but kept sending $1000 per month to the relevant (Storey county, as I recall) authorities. Eventually, the courts again said, you have been cashing the checks, so it's de facto legal. The state then passed a statute setting up the broad rules for legal brothels in those rural Nevada counties that were willing to have them.

Pete at Drug WarRant has more. Also, a couple of months ago a federal court ruled that Wisconsin's marijuana tax law violated the double jeopardy clause of the US Constitution, so it is doubtful that any tax evasion charges brought in addition to criminal charges would stick (especially in the 7th Federal district)!

Labels: Drug WarRant, Kansas, marijuana, taxes

 
Kansas Students Question Vice Answers
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 4:16 PM

The Baldwin City (Kansas) Signal surveyed Baldwin High School's graduating class about various topics, including drug and alcohol use. Of the 75 students who responded, it seems that 96% (72 out of 75) claimed never to have smoked marijuana, while almost two-thirds of the graduates reported that they didn't drink alcohol. But then the Signal interviewed six of the surveyed students, and voila, all six claimed that the survey results seemed about right -- except for those pesky alcohol and drug questions! One student said that more than three fellow graduates smoked marijuana on any given weekend, much less in their lifetimes. Interestingly, the students who were squeaky clean when asked about their own drug and alcohol use nevertheless thought (on average) that drug abuse was either somewhat of a problem or a serious problem at their school!

Now why would high school graduates in Kansas be less than forthright about their own vice-related behavior?

Labels: alcohol, Kansas, marijuana, teens

 
Kansas Comstockery
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 7:33 PM

Dickinson County, Kansas, is so rich that it is happy to spend its resources on sex novelties and special prosecutors: "On Thursday, a grand jury in Dickinson County District Court indicted the Lion’s Den Adult Superstore for engaging in promoting obscenity for selling sex toys from its store northwest of the city along Interstate Highway 70."

John Stuart Mill was afraid that democracy would be no cure for intolerance, and Dickinson County bears out his fears:

"The grand jury was impaneled in November after an opposition group, Citizens for Strengthening Community Virtues, collected voter signatures to force a summons. Jurors reviewed items that were purchased in an investigation by the Dickinson County Sheriff’s Office. The sheriff’s office spent $1,332.71 from the county’s diversion fund to purchase items from the Lion’s Den, after a complaint about the store was received." The move was applauded by an anti-obscenity crusader who just happens to be running for office. The would-be office holder knows not only what is right for himself, but what is right for all the good people of Dickinson County, and indeed, the Midwest, according to the linked article: "'I know what this community is about, what the Midwest is about — if they had their druthers, they wish (adult stores) weren’t there. But now they’re beginning to understand they can shape the destiny of their community.'" Let me see if I understand this: he knows his virtuous community well, and yet, he seems very concerned about "Community Virtues!" Funny how other people's virtues are such a popular target for crusaders.

Apparently our generous office-seeker and his supporters moved to state coercion after private intimidation proved insufficient: "He also helped lead Operation Daniel, a 100-day protest in which picketers stood outside the Lion’s Den and recorded and reported license tag numbers of store patrons." Reported? To whom, I must wonder, though I doubt that I would be enthused by the answer. Oh yeah, our fearsome crusader also accompanied sheriff's officers to the store to identify potentially obscene objects. Hey, if community standards are the issue, shouldn't everyone in the community know what is obscene? Why would the officers need help? Maybe they are from some neighboring, licentious community -- er, not in the Midwest, of course.

More people lived in Dickinson County in 1900 than in 2000 -- that "diversion fund" has been doing its job! Of the nearly 20,000 current residents, no doubt some live in despair (and with crusaders such as this, who can blame them?), but at least a fraction live in Hope....

Labels: Kansas, Mill, obscenity

 
Kansas and Sodomy
- posted by Bernard Bradshaw @ 3:12 PM

While sex with underage children isn't exactly vice--sodomy is--and as this report is linked to sodomy...The AP reports that in one of the first non-marriage cases to interpret the Supreme Court's Lawrence v. Texas ruling (which found sodomy statutes unconstitutional), a Kansas court of appeals ruled that the state can punish illegal sex with children more harshly when it involves homosexual acts. The case involves an 18 year old man convicted of sodomy (and sentenced to more than 17 years) for having sex with a 14 year old boy. Had the 14 year old been a girl, "Romeo and Juliet" laws could have kicked in and the 18 year old could have faced at most 1 year and a few months.

At issue in the case is not whether individuals have a right to engage in sodomy with children--but whether the state should be able to distinguish between homosexual and heterosexual acts--an issue that Justice O'Connor speaks to in her concurrence in Lawrence.

Labels: Kansas, sex, teens