Indiana Court Rules Proof Of Harm Required To Halt (Adult) Video Sales

[mongo]

Indiana Court Rules Proof Of Harm Required To Halt Video Sales
By: Mark Kernes
Posted: 5:05 pm PST 12-1-2005

INDIANAPOLIS - A 1977 Indiana statute which makes it a crime for anyone to sell or display for sale sexually explicit materials within 500 feet of a church or school has been barred from being enforced against Video-Home-One, Inc., an Indianapolis video store doing business as V-H-One, whose stock of adult titles comprised less than 10 percent of its floor space.

"This is not an ordinance; it's a criminal statute," noted attorney J. Michael Murray, whose partner Steven Shafron successfully argued the motion for temporary restraining order before U.S. District Court judge David F. Hamilton. "What was at stake here was a felony offense. This poor entrepreneur had been in business for 15 years, and there happens to be a church nearby, and one day, he got a letter from the county prosecutor's office telling him that if he doesn't remove all of his adult merchandise, he will be criminally prosecuted and charged with a felony carrying a potential prison term, and so he was given 30 days within which to either comply with the prosecutor's demand or face criminal prosecution."

<snip>

Although Indianapolis does have an adult zoning ordinance, V-H-One, with its small adult selection, was not in violation of it. The use of the state statute was apparently an attempt to maneuver around the local zoning authority, whose code does not define V-H-One as an adult business.

"The statutory restriction on the location of sales of sexually explicit materials could survive First Amendment scrutiny only on the theory that the restriction is likely to reduce the so-called secondary effects of legal sexually-oriented businesses," wrote Judge Hamilton in his opinion. "The court has before it no evidence that a business like plaintiff's generates the types of secondary effects that can justify location restrictions as in the Alameda Books line of cases. The court therefore found that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the statute and was otherwise entitled to a temporary restraining order."

more (WARNING from Adult Video News - may contain sexually explicit advertising, etc.) http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary_Navigation=Articles&Action=View_Article&Content_ID=249661

[Skip Intro]

1. wow - freedom wins a round

I'm shocked.

[mongo]

3. Made me happy

There's been a lot of back and forth on the issue over the last year.

More prosecutions, but a ruling that obscenity laws were unconstitutional by a federal district court.

Now this. I'm glad because I know that my store has actually improved the neighborhood.

[politicat]

2. There's hope for Indiana, yet!

Thanks for the news, Mongo!

[Ian David]

4. Does "proof of harm" include calluses and chafing? Dry-cleaning bills? n/t

[chrisau214]

5. If you're developing calluses

and chafing I think you might need to switch hands and try a little Vasoline. It's like getting a whole new girlfriend.


Chris

[mongo]

6. Sorry -- you're on your own with that one.