# Can we legitimately enforce "decency"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 23, 2003, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-legitimately-enforce-decency/170580 "2003-04-23T13:57:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![X\_Slayer\_ALE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/bbe5ce/32.png) [@X\_Slayer\_ALE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/X_Slayer_ALE)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2003, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-legitimately-enforce-decency/170580/21 "2003-04-24T18:50:46Z")
If you can define “Decency” and make that definition universally acceptable, then yes, you can legislate and regulate it. As such, decency is as nebulous as indecency and subject to the interpretations of the individual and the group. Legislating decency is like having a race where the finish line moves. Sometimes its easy, sometimes damn near impossible. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2003, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-legitimately-enforce-decency/170580/22 "2003-04-24T20:12:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by mrblue92 \* > \*\*C’mon, **Sua**. The American system is not a pure democracy, nor even a purely representative one. If the majority creates an unjust law, the courts have the power to strike it down. Witness the current Supreme Court case over sodomy laws. I don’t see anything wrong with that particular Constitutional check in our system, though I might have disagreements with certain decisions from time to time… \*\* What Constitution are you reading? The Constitution protects particular enumerated rights and requires that laws regulating other behavior apply to all equally (a short-hand version of the Equal Protection Clause). Since the right to nudity is not protected by the Constitution, and everyone has to keep their knackers on,[sup]1[/sup] it is not an “unjust law” that the courts have the power to strike down. There is no constitutional check that applies here. Your analogy to the sodomy case is inapt - the strongest argument against that law is that it criminalizes homosexual sodomy while allowing heterosexual sodomy (that is, there is no equal protection under the law). If the law criminalized both equally, it would stand a much stronger chance of surviving Supreme Court review. Sua [sup]1[/sup] laws that allow men to be bare-chested, but require women to cover their breasts present a slightly different, and pretty interesting, legal issue. ---
**Author:** ![mrblue92](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@mrblue92](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mrblue92)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2003, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-legitimately-enforce-decency/170580/23 "2003-04-24T21:44:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > What Constitution are you reading? The Constitution protects particular enumerated rights and requires that laws regulating other behavior apply to all equally (a short-hand version of the Equal Protection Clause). > Since the right to nudity is not protected by the Constitution, and everyone has to keep their knackers on,[sup]1[/sup] it is not an “unjust law” that the courts have the power to strike down. There is no constitutional check that applies here. > > Your analogy to the sodomy case is inapt . . . First off, the analogy was not intended as a direct one. IANAL, but I think technically what we could be talking about here is a Ninth Amendment claim, and I’m well aware that it’s shaky and precedent is most definitely against it. You are absolutely correct that it’s not an equal protection issue[sup]1[/sup], but that’s not at all what I was going for–rather, the point was merely to counter your (apparent) argument that majority rule applies because of your assertion that it was the majority public’s “right to choose” not to view nudity. Similarly, the public could have a “right to choose” not to allow homosexual acts in a community, but I don’t think there’s a particularly good reason for that, either. And I’m not terribly concerned if striking down existing indecent exposure or sodomy laws would run contrary to the Ninth’s “original intent”. The Founding Fathers were superbly intelligent, but they weren’t perfect. [sup]1[/sup] Unless possibly if the law is enforced such that children running around naked in the park is allowed but adults doing the same are arrested… ---
**Author:** ![lynn73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ebca7d/32.png) [@lynn73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lynn73)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2003, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-legitimately-enforce-decency/170580/24 "2003-04-24T23:28:24Z")
What about people who don’t want to see other people naked. Public nudity should be limited to areas where people want to be nude and don’t care about seeing other people nude, such as beaches or clubs, etc. You shouldn’t just be able to go nude anytime and anywhere you choose. If you do, you’re infringing on the rights of people who don’t want to look at you without your clothes on. ---
**Author:** ![ElJeffe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/958977/32.png) [@ElJeffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElJeffe)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2003, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-legitimately-enforce-decency/170580/25 "2003-04-24T23:54:11Z")
> [@](#): > > I expect some people will decry the loss of innocence, yet none should deny that all must lose innocence eventually–I would argue that innocence is actually ignorance in the clothing of youth. And you would be exactly right - innocence is ignorance. But it’s ignorance for a reason. Most people would agree that children of sufficiently young age should ideally wait until they’re older to confront certain truths. I wouldn’t let a 3 year old watch Starship Troopers, because I don’t think he would be mature enough to comprehend death. Similarly, I wouldn’t let him watch a porno, because I don’t think he would be mature enough to comprehend sex, and certainly not mature enough to engage in it (even if only in make-believe). Fortunately, it’s fairly easy to keep young children from having to address these things when they’re too young to understand them - monitor what they watch. But how do I make sure my 3 year old isn’t exposed to sex, when it’s legal for people to have sex on the sidewalk? It would be functionally impossible to shield him from these images, unless I confined him to the house. The harm done to the children, should public sex and nudity be legalized, is appreciable - children will be effectively forced to “grow up” before their parents feel they’re ready. The harm done to would-be nudists and public fornicators is comparitively small - wait until you get home to unleash the weasel (or the corresponding woman-part). And since the number of people who would like to have control over their kids’ encounters with the World’s Truths vastly outnumbers the number of people who would like to wander around naked and screw in public, us prudish folks win. Jeff ---
**Author:** ![Foolonthehill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e274bd/32.png) [@Foolonthehill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Foolonthehill)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2003, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-legitimately-enforce-decency/170580/26 "2003-04-25T01:52:53Z")
Decency laws came about to protect eyeballs: Some people should never, (say again), never be viewed naked. ---
**Author:** ![Arcana](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/aca169/32.png) [@Arcana](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arcana)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2003, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-legitimately-enforce-decency/170580/27 "2003-04-25T03:22:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Arcana \* > \*\*\>You say you shouldn’t have to worry about children “being exposed to that kind of thing”, but clearly, you already are. I don’t think they should be purposely exposed to hard-core porn, but the chance exists already. The world is full of sexual creatures–it’s a pretty hard thing to hide. The fact that children can actually learn the reality first-hand that people have sex doesn’t justify forcibly removing it from their potential presence as a public policy.\< > > So is this all a euphemistic way of saying that you see nothing wrong in a child walking into a public restroom and encountering a couple having sex? \*\* \>Arcana: If a child sees two birds having sex, we would not generally have a problem with that, though some of us might blanche a bit at explanations. If a child sees two people kissing passionately in public, some might be upset, but few people would advocate a ban on kissing because of it. And though nudity and/or sex presented to children might send people into shock, there is the ultimate question of why. After all, a child is confronted with his or her own nakedness on a regular basis. I expect some people will decry the loss of innocence, yet none should deny that all must lose innocence eventually–I would argue that innocence is actually ignorance in the clothing of youth. We might claim that children will not be able to understand, but who can rightfully claim to understand everything at first glance? I’m certainly not saying kids should be encouraged to have sex; to the contrary, but we would be well advised to educate rather than hide and mystify. One could argue that kids might be led to sexual activity before they are ready, but the same is said of violent images on TV without any definitive causative links.\< So, was that a yes? You see nothing wrong in a child walking into a public restroom and encountering a couple having sex? Let me put it another way. I don’t think I want a child of mine to encounter that, especially considering the caliber of people who would have sex in public restrooms anyway. ---
**Author:** ![mrblue92](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@mrblue92](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mrblue92)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2003, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-legitimately-enforce-decency/170580/28 "2003-04-25T04:16:31Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by His4ever_ > If you do, you’re infringing on the rights of people who don’t want to look at you without your clothes on. Just as the current law infringes on the right of people to wear what they want when they want. “For the law, in its true notion, is not so much the limitation as the direction of a free and intelligent agent to his proper interest, and prescribes no farther than is for the general good of those under that law. Could they be happier without it, the law, as a useless thing, would itself vanish; and that ill deserves the name of confinement which hedges us in only from bogs and precipices. So that however it may be mistaken, the end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom.” - John Locke, _Concerning Civil Government_ > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElJeffe \* > …And since the number of people who would like to have control over their kids’ encounters with the World’s Truths vastly outnumbers the number of people who would like to wander around naked and screw in public, us prudish folks win. Well, I’m not so naive as to think that the national policy will change any time soon, nor am I pretending that population is ready for such a paradigm shift. Still, I do think that some degree of freedom, at least in limited extents, could at some point in the **distant** future be implemented despite the current “prudish” attitude. (Though to be nit-picky, all that would be needed is a set of five particularly libertarian justices to turn the law on its head in this respect, even for a largely minority opinion.) > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Arcana_ > So, was that a yes? You see nothing wrong in a child walking into a public restroom and encountering a couple having sex? You _must_ recognize that’s a loaded question. Literally, the answer is yes–the event would be ethically neutral in my opinion unless there were other factors involved. Ironically, as it is with many things, I expect such an incident would traumatize the parents and their sensibilities more than it would the child. Little do you folks realize, though, that you have unintentionally made me answer one of the important questions in your stead. The most likely primary reason for existing indecency laws seems to be the inability of the American majority’s sensibilities to deal with sexual issues in an open, public context. In a more positive spin, this comes across as “community standards”. Whether or not community standards are really a “legitimate” basis from which to create laws remains open to debate in my mind–and this is not simply limited to indecency but other laws based on the same premises. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2003, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-legitimately-enforce-decency/170580/29 "2003-04-25T14:15:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by mrblue92 \* > IANAL, but I think technically what we could be talking about here is a Ninth Amendment claim, and I’m well aware that it’s shaky and precedent is most definitely against it. Well, this answers the question of whether we can legitimately enforce decency. A law prohibiting public nudity and sexual activity was survive judicial review. As for whether such a law is _proper,_ the answer again would come out to be yes. The fact of the matter is that you can legally be naked or have sex outdoors - all you have to do is make sure no one is around. The “right” that anti- public nudity and sex laws deprive people of is the “right” to make others watch you traipse around nude or boink. So, the minority wants the right to make you see it. The majority wants the right not to have to see it. Neither right strikes to the core of what it means to have liberty. Given the conflict of really picayune interests, it is proper to side with the majority. > [@](#): > > You are absolutely correct that it’s not an equal protection issue[sup]1[/sup], but that’s not at all what I was going for– > > [sup]1[/sup] Unless possibly if the law is enforced such that children running around naked in the park is allowed but adults doing the same are arrested… Still wouldn’t be a constitutional problem. The state may treat adults and children differently if the different treatment “rationally relates” to a governmental interest. In practice, everything rationally relates to a governmental interest. > [@](#): > > your assertion that it was the majority public’s “right to choose” not to view nudity. Similarly, the public could have a “right to choose” not to allow homosexual acts in a community, but I don’t think there’s a particularly good reason for that, either. Putting aside homosexual acts for the moment - your theme through this thread is that there aren’t particularly good reasons to prohibit public nudty and sexual activity. Without regard to whether your arguments on that issue are valid, what you **haven’t** done is put forth any, much less any “particularly good” reasons why public nudity and sexual activity should be allowed. Quite frankly, I can’t think of any - I don’t think that satisfying the fetishes of exhibitionists qualifies as a “particularly good” reason. Again, if neither side can come up with a compelling argument for their side, it is proper that the majority view prevail. Don’t get me wrong - I have no problem with public nudity or sex, and if the majority changes its mind and repeals the anti-nudity laws, more power to them. But when there are no great issues of philosophy or liberty at stake, simple discomfort is sufficient to make a law legitimate and proper. Sua ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2003, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-legitimately-enforce-decency/170580/30 "2003-04-25T18:28:05Z")
We discussed the public-nudity issue [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=175845&perpage=50&pagenumber=1). I agree that the rights of people who don’t want to see other people in the nude must be respected, but I have a problem with the fact that beaches, parks, and other locations where one can freely swim, sunbathe, or do other activities are so few and far between. I noted in the other thread how there’s not a single legal nude beach in L.A. County. And to that I say, “Can’t we even have one frigging beach?!” To the extent that we can’t, I think that the decency standards do represent tyranny of the majority. Or looking at it from a slightly different angle, must the rights of those who are offended by nudity be protected everywhere, at all times? Why can’t there not be designated beaches where nudity is officially sanctioned, and those who don’t want any part of it can simply decide to frequent other beaches? My issue is with the fact that places where one can swim, sunbathe, or do other activities in the nude are so few and far between. This is especially true with respect to beaches. ---
**Author:** ![mrblue92](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@mrblue92](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mrblue92)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2003, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-legitimately-enforce-decency/170580/31 "2003-04-25T18:33:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > Well, this answers the question of whether we can legitimately enforce decency. A law prohibiting public nudity and sexual activity was survive judicial review. At that point we turn to the opinion of what confers “legitimacy” to a law. A myriad of laws have survived judicial review at one point only to be overturned at later dates. I would draw an important distinction between legitimacy conferred by temporal law versus legitimacy conferred by reason. > [@](#): > > As for whether such a law is _proper,_ the answer again would come out to be yes. The fact of the matter is that you can legally be naked or have sex outdoors - all you have to do is make sure no one is around. Actually no, not necessarily. It clearly depends upon state and local statute, and even whether the act in question is public or private. Georgia state law, for example: > [@](#): > > 16-6-8. > (a) A person commits the offense of public indecency when he or she performs any of the following acts in a public place: > > (1) An act of sexual intercourse; > (2) A lewd exposure of the sexual organs; > (3) A lewd appearance in a state of partial or complete nudity; or > (4) A lewd caress or indecent fondling of the body of another person. So technically Georgia law would seem to prohibit two persons having sexual intercourse in any public place, regardless of whether or not anyone views the act. Compare Michigan state law: > [@](#): > > 750.335a Indecent exposure. Sec. 335a. > > Any person who shall knowingly make any open or indecent exposure of his or her person or of the person of another is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or by a fine of not more than $1,000.00, or if such person was at the time of the said offense a sexually delinquent person, may be punishable by imprisonment for an indeterminate term, the minimum of which shall be 1 day and the maximum of which shall be life: Provided, That any other provision of any other statute notwithstanding, said offense shall be triable only in a court of record. Here, the phrasing “make open or indecent exposure” implies there is a party to whom the act was exposed. (Although in this case, answering one’s door while naked could conceiveably be punished with life in prison!) > [@](#): > > The “right” that anti- public nudity and sex laws deprive people of is the “right” to make others watch you traipse around nude or boink. > > So, the minority wants the right to make you see it. The majority wants the right not to have to see it. Neither right strikes to the core of what it means to have liberty. Given the conflict of really picayune interests, it is proper to side with the majority. . . . > > Quite frankly, I can’t think of any [reason to side with the minority] - I don’t think that satisfying the fetishes of exhibitionists qualifies as a “particularly good”. . . . Again, if neither side can come up with a compelling argument for their side, it is proper that the majority view prevail Well, wouldn’t that depend on the specifics of the case brought to bear? My apologies if I haven’t put forth an “particularly good” reasons to strike down indecency laws, but you’re the first to ask. I’ve been thinking about the other potential Constitution arguments that might come up. So let me skip the admittedly general and weak Ninth Amendment on outright sexual acts and go to the First Amendment free speech scenarios that might arise regarding nudity in and of itself. Let us say you’ve got a group of anti-fur protestors who decide to march nude, or a photographer who takes nude photos on busy city streets with the intent to show contrast between man’s “natural and artificial states”, and these people were arrested under the Michigan statute. Do you think neither, either, or both would have grounds for a First Amendment protection claim? I did a little research and came up with some interesting tid-bits from the controversy over Carlin’s speech in the 5-4 SCOTUS decision of FCC v. Pacifica. Compare this quote from majority opinion: > [@](#): > > The Commission’s decision rested entirely on a nuisance rationale under which context is all-important. The concept requires consideration of a host of variables. The time of day was emphasized by the Commission. The content of the program in which the language is used will also affect the composition of the audience, FN29 and differences between radio, television, and perhaps closed-circuit transmissions, may also be relevant. As Mr. Justice Sutherland wrote, a “nuisance may be merely a right thing in the wrong place, – like a pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard.” Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 383. We simply hold that, when the Commission finds that a pig has entered the parlor, the exercise of its regulatory power does not depend on proof that the pig is obscene. To the counter-point of the dissent: > [@](#): > > Whatever the minimal discomfort suffered by a listener who inadvertently tunes into a program he finds offensive during the brief interval before he can simply extend his arm and switch stations or flick the “off” button, it is surely worth the candle to preserve the broadcaster’s right to send, and the right of those interested to receive, a message entitled to full First Amendment protection. To reach a contrary balance, as does the Court, is clearly to follow MR. JUSTICE STEVENS’ reliance on animal metaphors, ante at 750-751, “to burn the house to roast the pig.” Butler v. Michigan, 352 U.S. 380, 383 (1957). > > The Court’s balance, of necessity, fails to accord proper weight to the interests of listeners who wish to hear broadcasts the FCC deems offensive. It permits majoritarian tastes completely to preclude a protected message from entering the homes of a receptive, unoffended minority. No decision of this Court supports such a result. Where the individuals constituting the offended majority may freely choose to reject the material being offered, we have never found their privacy interests of such moment to warrant the suppression of speech on privacy grounds. If we have further extended freedom of speech to public flag-burning, then it is not so far-fetched to extend it to public nudity, provided there is a political or artistic value (Miller v. California)which supercedes the public’s right not to be offended. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2003, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-legitimately-enforce-decency/170580/32 "2003-04-25T19:18:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by mrblue92 \* > At that point we turn to the opinion of what confers “legitimacy” to a law. A myriad of laws have survived judicial review at one point only to be overturned at later dates. I would draw an important distinction between legitimacy conferred by temporal law versus legitimacy conferred by reason. There is a reason; it’s just one you won’t accept. Public nudity and sex would upset and bother a lot of people. This **is** a legitimate basis for a law. As examples, laws which prohibit planes landing at airports after midnight, laws prohibiting the use of your car horn or playing radios over X decibels, etc., are all “legitimate,” because they prohibit others from interfering with the majority’s right to enjoy their lives. You can sue your neighbor for being a nuisance. I’ve been thinking about the other potential Constitution arguments that might come up. So let me skip the admittedly general and weak Ninth Amendment on outright sexual acts and go to the First Amendment free speech scenarios that might arise regarding nudity in and of itself. Let us say you’ve got a group of anti-fur protestors who decide to march nude, or a photographer who takes nude photos on busy city streets with the intent to show contrast between man’s “natural and artificial states”, and these people were arrested under the Michigan statute. Do you think neither, either, or both would have grounds for a First Amendment protection claim? [/QUOTE] Nope, the First Amendment argument doesn’t wash, either. Laws may regulate the time, place, and manner of speech, so long as those laws are viewpoint- and content-neutral. So long as the nudity laws provide a blanket prohibition on public nudity and sex, and do not single out nudity as a form of political speech and/or a particular point of view, such laws pass consistutional muster - and the protestors and photographer are in the clink. [QUOET]To the counter-point of the dissent:If we have further extended freedom of speech to public flag-burning, then it is not so far-fetched to extend it to public nudity, provided there is a political or artistic value (Miller v. California)which supercedes the public’s right not to be offended. [/QUOTE] Flag-burning and public nudity are apples and oranges. The flag-burning statute was content- and viewpoint-biased - it barred the burning of the _American_ flag. You were allowed, under the law, to torch the Canadian, British, Swazi, etc., flags. Quite frankly, it should not have been a 5-4 decision - it should have been unanimous. A content-neutral law could have permissibly prohibited flag-burning - a law that prohibited **all** burning of any object in a public space would have passed muster, for example. Sua ---
**Author:** ![mrblue92](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@mrblue92](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mrblue92)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2003, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-legitimately-enforce-decency/170580/33 "2003-04-25T20:33:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > There is a reason; it’s just one you won’t accept. Public nudity and sex would upset and bother a lot of people. This **is** a legitimate basis for a law. As examples, laws which prohibit planes landing at airports after midnight, laws prohibiting the use of your car horn or playing radios over X decibels, etc., are all “legitimate,” because they prohibit others from interfering with the majority’s right to enjoy their lives. You can sue your neighbor for being a nuisance. Well, if I’m using apples and oranges with the flag-burning comparison, so are you here. From MADSEN v. WOMEN’S HEALTH CTR., INC.: > [@](#): > > Clearly, threats to patients or their families, however communicated, are proscribable under the First Amendment. But rather than prohibiting the display of signs that could be interpreted as threats or veiled threats, the state court issued a blanket ban on all “images observable.” This broad prohibition on all “images observable” burdens more speech than necessary to achieve the purpose of limiting threats to clinic patients or their families. _Similarly, if the blanket ban on “images observable” was intended to reduce the level of anxiety and hypertension suffered by the patients inside the clinic, it would still fail. The only plausible reason a patient would be bothered by “images observable” inside the clinic would be if the patient found the expression contained in such images disagreeable. But it is much easier for the clinic to pull its curtains than for a patient to stop up her ears, and no more is required to avoid seeing placards through the windows of the clinic. This provision of the injunction violates the First Amendment._ And as the rest of the law was upheld, it must be noted there was nothing non-neutral regarding either view-point or content in the statute. Mere “images observable” were apparently not enough of a nuisance to override free speech in this case. ---
**Author:** ![mrblue92](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@mrblue92](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mrblue92)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2003, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-legitimately-enforce-decency/170580/34 "2003-04-25T20:52:01Z")
Oops, I misspoke… that was an injunction, not a statute. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-legitimately-enforce-decency/170580.md?page=1)