LF: Driver Sues State After Receiving Ticket For 'Obscene' Stick Figure Vehicle Decal

Title: Driver Sues State After Receiving Ticket For 'Obscene' Stick Figure Vehicle Decal
Source: TechDirt
URL Source: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2 ... ick-figure-vehicle-decal.shtml
Published: Mar 14, 2017
Author: Tim Cushing
Post Date: 2017-03-15 10:09:54 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 1789
Comments: 6

from the [same-decal-but-with-Tennessee-in-back-and-driver-in-front] dept

The problem with bad laws (well, ONE problem) is they'll need to be enforced at some point. Legislators pass laws out of fear, boredom, or a desire to look busy. They'll pass laws to push personal agendas and closely-held beliefs. They'll pass laws in response to bizarre tragedies so unique they can't be found in expanded actuarial tables or at the behest of favored industry leaders. Every so often, they'll even pass laws citizens are demanding. But far too often, they'll just pass laws because they're legislators and it's right there in the job description.

They'll pass laws with zero regard for enshrined rights or their consitutents' civil liberties… like this Tennessee law which almost seems constitutional if no one examines it too closely. (via Adam Steinbaugh)

To avoid distracting other drivers and thereby reduce the likelihood of accidents arising from lack of attention or concentration, the display of obscene or patently offensive bumper stickers, window signs, or other markings on a motor vehicle which are visible to other drivers is prohibited and display of such materials shall subject the owner of the vehicle on which they are displayed, upon conviction, to a fine of not less than two dollars ($2.00) nor more than fifty dollars ($50.00).

The catch here is offensive speech can still be protected speech while obscenity cannot. The state attorney general's office felt the law was perfectly consititutional, even as it was amended further to prevent the showing of "obscene or patently offensive movies" in vehicles if the content could be viewed outside of the vehicle. (My apologies. I have no idea what incident prompted this amendment, but I would imagine it would involve another driver or passerby being shocked, shocked! at the content being viewed by another driver in their own car.)

It even believes this law is constitutionally-sound despite paragraphs it included in its recommendation that clearly show this law actually ISN'T constitutional.

The Supreme Court has held that the police powers of the state permit the regulation of the display of obscene materials, including movies, and established the following test for judging whether material is obscene: (1) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (2) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (3) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

As the AG clearly stated in 2004, it could regulate obscenity. What it can't do is regulate mere offensiveness. It has to hit a pretty high bar to do so. The question is: does this window decal clear that bar?

This is why laws should be carefully crafted. This decal was applied to a man's car by his brother as a joke. And it's clearly a lowbrow parody of all those stick figure family decals, but for those who are more interested in the act of procreation.

A Metro police officer apparently didn't like the decal. Luckily, the Metro police had the (bad) law on its side. And a hint of Nuremberg in its press statement.

Channel 4 reached out to Metro police who said they don't make the laws, they simply enforce them.

It's not a law that needs much enforcement, fortunately.

Since 2011, Metro police have only cited four other people with violating the state's obscene sticker law.

Actually, this indicates that it's a law that's very selectively enforced. With enough imagination, a great many bumper stickers and decals could be considered offensive. This law allows police officers to make that call subjectively. With the fine being $50 and the end result usually a fix-it ticket, no one's going to protest the unconstitutional law too loudly. Until they do.

Daniel Horowitz has taken up the driver's case. Horowitz is hoping to block [PDF] the law's enforcement until the court can rule on its constitutionality. The law certainly doesn't play nice with the First Amendment. Horowitz's restraining order motion [PDF] points out the parodic stick figure decal is protected speech as it's neither obscene nor patently offensive.

It does not, for example, display genitalia or any vivid portrayal of an ultimate sex act. It certainly does not display bestiality. And, in fact, the only indication that the stick-figure cartoons depicted in Mr. Owens’s bumper sticker are engaging in sex at all comes from the context offered from the description: “Making My Family.” See Exhibit B. Consequently, the notion that Mr. Owens’ stick-figure cartoon is even theoretically on par with “the ‘hard core’ types of conduct suggested by the examples given in Miller” is fantastical, and no reasonable fact-finder is likely to find otherwise.

The parodic nature of the decal only adds to its free speech value.

Rather than portraying his family, it indicates instead that he is in the process of “making [his] family,” and it displays two cartoon stick-figures engaged in that process. Id. Consequently—its crass nature notwithstanding— Mr. Owens’ sticker is a humorous and highly effective parody of “family stickers,” and it carries serious First Amendment value as a result.

With this filing, the state will likely be forced to confront its speech-hindering law. Dismissing the charges isn't going to dismiss the lawsuit and belated attempts to remove the plaintiff's standing aren't going to gather much judicial sympathy. This is why laws need to be crafted with an eye on the unintended consequences as well as their compliance with the Constitution. Doing otherwise results in litigation, which forces taxpayers to pay for the privilege of having to comply with unconstitutional laws -- and this is on top of the money they pay their representation to hopefully not screw things up TOO MUCH while in office.

To me its alot like stupid illegal aliens who hang "balls" off that back of their hitch. Childish minded people and we wonder why America is in the condition its in.

Do what you want in the privacy of your own property but we do not want to see smell or know!

As the AG clearly stated in 2004, it could regulate obscenity. What it can't do is regulate mere offensiveness.

I guess around here we do not have that many illegal aliens. But we do have an abundance of Rednecks. Good people, but very uncouth. I have a friend that said he saw a guy he knows that had that on his truck. Said he berated the guy for it, told him it was very childish. Said the guy was offended, claimed he was just trying to be funny. My friend said that the next time he saw the guy, they were gone. My friend said that the guy was just a redneck, but a good guy. He also said that if the balloon goes up, he would want that guy watching his back.

I like to joke around too, but not like that. I guess sometimes you have to take the good with the bad.

There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."Theodore Roosevelt-1907.

I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur

The image is clearly protected by the First Amendment. It is not obscene (as defined by the courts).

The ticket will be struck down. The law may not be voided completely, but it will not be able to be applied to this circumstance.

The image is clearly protected by the First Amendment. It is not obscene (as defined by the courts). The ticket will be struck down. The law may not be voided completely, but it will not be able to be applied to this circumstance.

from the [same-decal-but-with-Tennessee-in-back-and-driver-in-front] dept

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul

Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.