Musings on a Sticker Fiend

I got e-mail from a reader recently who responded to my post about a man in Clovis, NM, who'd been charged with distribution of sexually oriented material to minors. To refresh your memory: the guy had put a sticker of barebreasted, quasi-fornicating she-devils on his car. That was the entire extent of his 'crime.' I came to his defense, and the question I received was if there are any words or images that I think should be legally actionable if displayed in public. "How about actual pictures of sex?" asked my correspondent. "What about pictures of bestiality? How about graphic photos of aborted babies? Is there anywhere you would draw the line?"

First of all, it's a good and certainly a fair question — but it still may not ultimately be the right question. After all, it is of no consequence what I believe is permissible, or what Hugh Hefner or James Dobson or the Pope think is O.K. All our standards in this regard differ tremendously, I would think. What matters is the law, especially the Constitution. The sticker fiend in question could not be found guilty as long as we have the First Amendment. I know, I know, it's not the prettiest of free speech issues, and I'll confess to feeling just a tad silly defending a pretty stupid sticker on constitutional grounds. But I don't know of a law that supersedes the Constitution, and so I don't see how people can be convicted in the United States for carrying a sticker on their car, even a sticker that implies (but does not show) a sexual act.

Secondly, there's a fine line between what U.S. society as a whole deems fun, or at least unobjectionable, and what it deems beyond the pale. For instance, the silhouette of the naked girl (see picture) is a cheesy classic. I've seen it on thousands of mudflaps all over our country. As long as we're talking about vehicle embellishments, take a look at this. The rest of what you see on that page tends toward the risqué, but it's still something you'll see, in abundance, in the parking lot of any NASCAR event. Does that mean these stickers and decals are inoffensive to everyone? Of course not. There are surely millions of Americans who feel this art is smutty, and wrong, and they don't want their children to see it. Are they right? Should we defer to whomever has the thinnest skin? Should these particular stickers be outlawed? If not, should the one on the car in Clovis, NM? If we go down that road, are we to have a censorship commission on the subject — a body of wise men and women who get to pre-approve mugs and stickers and posters and T-shirts for general sale? If it wasn't for the First Amendment, it'd be hard to avoid just such an outcome. Because then it all comes down to, Who draws that line?

Thirdly, as a libertarian, I generally believe in letting the market take care of itself, with as little government intervention as possible. So, if there's a market for smutty stickers, fine. If that market is too small, the manufacturer will have to go out of business or start producing more marketable fare, and that'd be fine too, as far as I'm concerned. If conservatives help bring about the demise of any smut peddler by picketing the building and urging everyone to boycott the products, no sweat — that's the First Amendment at work, too.

Back to the original question: Would I object to a publicly displayed sticker depicting bestiality, or one with an aborted fetus? While I'd consider the second sticker worthier of protection than the first one (because the fetus picture presumably stands for a political opinion), I'd hate to have to be the arbiter of any sticker's propriety. Worse, I chafe at the thought that the government, or law enforcement and the judiciary, could make those decisions for me (and for everyone else).

And in an ideal world, they can't. The Bill of Rights takes care of that, and I'm grateful for its existence every day.

Comments

[ripe]

http://vr-tour.net/wwwboard/messages/39550.html iwasshoespilling