Indiana Store Registration Law (From Publishers Weekly)

(Although I am for restricting certain materials from children, this sounds like an attempt at censorship and restriction to me.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ABFFE to Fight Indiana Store Registration Law
By Rachel Deahl
The American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expres​sion(ABFFE) has blasted a new Indiana law that requires bookstores to register with the government if they sell what is considered "sexually explicit materials." The new law, H.B. 1042, was signed by Governor Mitch Daniels on March 13, and calls for any bookseller that sells sexually explicit materials to register with the Secretary of State and provide a statement detailing the types of books to be sold. The Secretary of State must then identify those stores to local government officials and zoning boards. “Sexually explicit material” is defined as any product that is “harmful to minors” under existing law. There is a $250 registration fee. Failure to register is a misdemeanor.

ABFFE spokesman Chris Finan said the law is the only one of its kind currently on the books in the country. Calling it "clearly unconstitutional," Finan said ABFFE will urge the Media Coalition to challenge the law at the organization's next meeting on April 9. H.B. 1042 does not go into effect until July, by which time Finan is hopeful the lawsuit will be filed and an injunction issued by the court.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


If you are not a subscriber to Publishers Weekly but would like to be,
you can sign up for their virtual edition here:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Zada,
it is the first step that will lead to even more restrictions of free speech, free expression and freedom to choose. Each year I'm amazed to see how the "land of the free" is no longer so free anymore. I find more freedom where I live than when I lived in the USA. "Harmful to Minors?" All the Tabu's that I grew up with in a very strict christian home, were the things I wanted to know more about. All it did was bottle up the desire to see those things that were "Tabu" or "forbidden" by the moral standards layed down by the church. When will people learn that what is forbidden or hidden is what becomes sought after. Next thing you know that State will sponsor book burnings.

Wow, what a backwards move for them to make! It's stunning in this day and age that we can do such stupid things, and I agree with Abe that it does drive up the curiosity factor too. I wonder why they do not pay attention to more important matters, like actually teaching all kids to read.

If you check out my blog post from yesterday, it's about longstanding violent racially motivated tension at a school here. One of the serious solutions being proposed is to build a new school and thereby seperate the kids!

Sometimes it is embarrassing to be an adult, when we are charged with great responsibility and yet can be so dumb.

Wow, indeed. I imagine that will also include any sexually explicit novels, which will include a large number of top authors, including Nora Roberts, Jackie Collins...and Victoria Howard!!!

... but doesn't include bottom authors such as Shelagh Watkins!

Am I allowed to say bottom?

How about bottoms up?

Cheers! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Seeing as how you write children's stories too Shelagh, I think some of yours are likely OK

Talk about a slippery slope.

It's good they're getting on it early-on. This is a bum law.

(Can we say "bum", too? Will books be allowed to have colons or slashes?)

Abe F. March wrote:

Zada,
it is the first step that will lead to even more restrictions of free speech, free expression and freedom to choose. Each year I'm amazed to see how the "land of the free" is no longer so free anymore. I find more freedom where I live than when I lived in the USA. "Harmful to Minors?" All the Tabu's that I grew up with in a very strict christian home, were the things I wanted to know more about. All it did was bottle up the desire to see those things that were "Tabu" or "forbidden" by the moral standards layed down by the church. When will people learn that what is forbidden or hidden is what becomes sought after. Next thing you know that State will sponsor book burnings.

I could not agree with you more, Abe. A nibble here and a nibble there. Pretty soon the cookie has been devoured. The thought of book burnings makes me want to be violently ill.

I am glad that I am not the only one on the forum upset by this. I was pretty sure everyone else would view it as I do.

Using the words "bum" and "bottom" in some jurisdictions will get you thrown in jail. And that's a plus because of the publicity value for your books.

Any time I see the words "register with the government" I hope we're talking about the old USSR. I didn't really expect Indiana to be leading the race backward.

Malcolm

Since I went far beyond "Bum" and "Bottom" in my novel, perhaps I could gain some notoriety? Could certainly help with sales.

Zada,

If your books get a bookstore in trouble, you'll be the big winner. Those who see you as a shy, retiring writer will be so impressed that you even thow "naughty" words, much less can use them appropriately in a sentence.

And then, as you say, it's a plus for sales.

Malcolm

Well, like they say in the sado-masochist community: just start as a Bottom and work your way up.

... and be careful not to make any boobs.

Malcolm wrote:

Zada,

If your books get a bookstore in trouble, you'll be the big winner. Those who see you as a shy, retiring writer will be so impressed that you even thow "naughty" words, much less can use them appropriately in a sentence.

And then, as you say, it's a plus for sales.

Malcolm

Moi? Shy? Retiring? I did not even submit my book to very many places to get reviews. I was afraid they would view it as porn!! Then I submitted an erotic romance, plenty of explicit sex (or so I thought) and they wanted more! Borders on 'smut' if you ask me, but sex does sell. We will have to wait and see what happens, I guess.

Just for the heck of it, do any of you think there are things that children shouldn't read?

And if so, exactly how do we go about keeping it from them?

Kids will find whatever you have in your house. They'll read things their friends have. They'll see it on television. If it's available for adults to see, there's no way to keep it out of the hands of kids.

I don't like censorship anymore than anyone else, but I think there are things kids shouldn't read. What's the answer? Oh, and if you say parental control, just remember how well that's worked with guns.

I think this is a valid question, and while I don't agree with what Indiana is doing, at least they seem to be trying to address the issue.

Oh, I also meant to ask about what age kids should be allowed to read anything they want to.

18 - 16 - 21? How aboit 7? Anybody for 9?

Sorry guys, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. How old is old enough to read material that would make a sailor blush? Kids will find things, and they will read them. I agree that telling them not to only tempts them more, so maybe the only thing is that if you have children in the house, you don't have books with porn, or soft porn, or graphic violence.

I won't even pretend to know what the answer is, but I do know they won't read it at my house. I'm not a prude, and sometimes I use language that can scortch paint, but I have a seven year old grand daughter, and I refuse to have material laying around, or even hidden, that I know she doesn't need to see, just as I watch my mouth when she's around.

Some things are best kept from children, and for the life of me I don't see how that can be done if you have them in your house.

Don,
your question is difficult to answer. At what age should kids learn about the birds and the bees? Deciding that in my view is the first mistake we make. Children don't grow at the same rate nor are they raised with the same set of moral values - and that is subjective.
It becomes a family thing. And if it is too strict, it backfires. As soon as kids talk to their friends, they learn things they don't hear at home. And, as you admitted, they want to learn all the things forbidden. That happened to me in my puritan family. Why was it hidden from me made me curious to find out.

Country kids learn more than city kids about those things. They see farm animals in the act of creation and it is a natural process. It doesn't take too much to realize that the human animal does the same thing. Based on my own experience, I wouldn't hide anything from a kid nor would I tell them some fairy tale about how kids are made. There is more harm done by lying than by the truth.

Abe, there is a big, big difference between telling children how life is created, and letting them read or look at porn. True, children will learn from their peers, and they will want to find out more about stuff that they think if forbidden, but talking to them about sex is one thing, allowing a seven year old to find a copy of the Kama Sutra lying about is something else.

That is a valid concern, Don. But as Abe has stated, where do you draw the line?

There is the influence of a child's peers as well. One misinformed child can mess it up for many. There is also the influence of what one views on TV. I am often amazed at what is shown just in commercials, let alone the programs!

Forbidden fruit is always sweetest, but no matter how hard one tries to shield their children, they will be exposed.

I wish there were a simple solution, but honest open communication seems to be the key. And as Abe pointed out, not all children mature at the same speed.

Dooby Dooby Doo...'Indiana wants me, but my books won't be there....' 'oh dear what can the matter be, books are banned even if litery...'

I wonder if a phrase in my book will count in Indiana's censorship law, I was talking about a proctologist a man at the bottom of his profession, oooh what a bummer!

Mind you since I've been here I've come to call it Home of the Slave and Land of the FEE, sometimes I think it's France, everybody says, 'Fee Fee!' Sacre Blue! oh posteriors and derrieres!

Don,
I suppose my attitude is a bit different. Living in Europe where newspapers, magazines, etc., showing nudity is commonplace and no one blinks an eye. Prostitution is legal and seldom does one hear of rape.
Therefore, my opinions may not fit the mindset of most Americans. Yes, I'm an American but my views have changed drastically over the years having lived and worked in a number of countries.

If we think something is wrong, it is. If we don't think it is wrong, it isn't.

Abe F. March wrote:

Don,
I suppose my attitude is a bit different. Living in Europe where newspapers, magazines, etc., showing nudity is commonplace and no one blinks an eye. Prostitution is legal and seldom does one hear of rape.
Therefore, my opinions may not fit the mindset of most Americans. Yes, I'm an American but my views have changed drastically over the years having lived and worked in a number of countries.

If we think something is wrong, it is. If we don't think it is wrong, it isn't.

Abe my boy thanks you've just brought back to me some scrumptious mammaries ooops memories of the Page 3 girls in The Sun Newspaper

When 'forbidden fruit' is not longer forbidden, it tends to lose its appeal. I believe, if memory serves, that many cultures have open nudity which tends to make it commonplace. Here, it is looked on quite differently, and that does tend to be a shame. In the right context, it changes one's views.