The city of Minneapolis had recently enacted an ordinance that made it illegal to sell certain types of publications that were deemed to be obscene. This law was aimed at preventing the sale of pornographic materials, but instead targeted magazines like "Hustler" that contained nudity or explicit language. As a result, many stores selling these magazines were forced to close down or remove them from their shelves, which led to several legal challenges.
This article will explore the origins and impacts of this controversial ordinance, as well as how it has affected both business owners and individuals' rights to access to information. It will also discuss some of the larger issues surrounding censorship and freedom of speech in general. Finally, it will consider whether such laws are effective in achieving their intended goals or simply lead to more harm than good for society as a whole.
First Paragraph: Overview of The Ordinance
In February 2004, the City Council of Minneapolis passed Ordinance No. 169851. It prohibited the sale or distribution of material that is "sexually graphic or sexually suggestive." The ordinance defined "sexually graphic or sexually suggestive" as any visual depiction that is patently offensive, taken as a whole and with respect to contemporary community standards, because its dominant theme appeals to prurient interest in sex. Prurient refers to having a lustful or lascivious appeal. In other words, if something is considered too sexual or arousing by most people, it would be illegal under this ordinance.
Second Paragraph: Background Information on Obscenity Laws
The United States Supreme Court has established two tests for determining what constitutes obscene material. First, the material must appeal to the prurient interest, second, the average person who applies contemporary community standards would find the material, as a whole, patently offensive based on its dominant theme. Average people means ordinary adults in the community where the matter appears. Contemporary community standards mean those standards prevailing among the average adults of the area in which the material appears at the time of publication or dissemination.
Third Paragraph: Enforcement of The Ordinance
Police officers began enforcing the new ordinance immediately after it was passed. They raided several stores selling Hustler magazine, confiscating copies and issuing citations. However, the owners of these businesses sued the city, arguing that the law was unconstitutional and violated their right to free speech. The case went all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, but ultimately, the court upheld the constitutionality of the law. This decision set a precedent that allowed local governments to regulate obscenity without running afoul of federal protections against censorship.
Fourth Paragraph: Legal Challenges and Impacts
The legal challenges to the Minneapolis obscenity ordinance were not limited to business owners alone. Individuals also challenged the law, claiming that they had a right to access this type of information. One group even argued that the law violated their rights under the First Amendment's freedom of speech clause by restricting their ability to access certain types of content. Ultimately, the courts found that while individuals have a right to access information, there is no right to be shielded from offensive material.
Fifth Paragraph: Issues Surrounding Censorship and Freedom of Speech
Censorship has been a hot-button issue for decades, with proponents on both sides making strong arguments. Some argue that allowing people to view or read whatever they want is essential for personal growth and development. Others believe that exposure to pornography can cause psychological harm and should be restricted for the greater good of society. Still, others point out that censorship can lead to self-censorship and stifle creativity in art and literature.
Sixth Paragraph: Effectiveness of Obscenity Laws
Despite its success in court, many question whether the Minneapolis obscenity ordinance was an effective way to combat pornography. Critics argue that it only served to drive sales of these magazines underground, where they could still be purchased without regulation. Additionally, some suggest that such laws do little more than create criminal records for those caught selling or distributing materials deemed obscene.
Seventh Paragraph: Conclusion
In conclusion, the 2004 Minneapolis obscenity ordinance highlights the complex issues surrounding censorship and free speech in modern America. While local govern