Defending The Nanny (Sort Of)

Pat Powers goes on a rant against Sen. Sandy Jerstad for a bill to require those who "sell, distribute, or use obscene material or provide obscene material" to be licensed by the state.  I have not considered the full implications of all of the language in this bill, but I do want to point out a couple things that maybe should cause people to lower their blood pressure.  First, obscene material is not covered by the First Amendment.  Granted, what qualifies as "obscene" is the subject of much debate, but the Supreme Court has been consistent in saying it is not protected speech.  Second, this kind of activity falls squarely into what is known as the police power, which is the state's power to regulate public safety, health and morality.  In American law this has been considered one of the powers reserved to the states.  So far from being an abuse of the state's power, this is exactly the kind of thing that states have traditionally regulated. 

I might suggest that the wording of the bill is sloppy.  Words like "use" and "provide" are over broad. If Sen. Jerstad is serious about this becoming law she should restrict it to those who sell this material and be more precise in her definition of obscene so as to overcome Mr. Powers' legitimate worry that this bill places a burden on regular bookstores and libraries.

Update: This is a much better bill.  Simply note the clear definitions and its limitation to those business for whom selling so-called "adult" materials is their main source of income.  This does not implicate your average bookstore or gas station.