Obviously the complainers have never been to a museum. Can folks imagine what a museum would look like with candy bikinis and toy assault rifles. Gotta love the store owner..7-17-2010 Nebraska:
Incident sparks debate over legal definition of ‘obscene’
What began as a complaint about an exposed Mannequin in a store window is raising debate over what is considered obscene.
The Beatrice Police Department received a complaint from a citizen earlier this week about a mannequin in the window of Hannah’s Treasures, at 504 Court Street, who’s pants had fallen down around its ankles.
Police say they tried to contact the store’s owner, Kevin Kramer, about covering up the mannequin, but were unsuccessful.
Officers then taped paper over the area of the window where the mannequin was, to cover it up.
According to Kramer, officers violated several laws by covering up his store window. The store was not opened for business, as Kramer says he is in the process of moving his store to Lincoln.
“I had a phone call Wednesday from a lady who used to work for me saying there’s paper on the windows covering up the mannequin,” Kramer said. “(The police) have to find something to do, so they go pick on the guy with the naked mannequin.”
Kramer alleges that the officers violated multiple laws, including trespassing, destruction of property and littering.
When Kramer contacted officers about the issue, he claims he was informed to go to the police station, where he would be cited for disorderly conduct.
At this point, Kramer contacted a lawyer, Dustin Garrison, who insists that the police department broke the law in covering up the mannequin and threatened to take legal action against the city.
“Nothing about a naked mannequin constitutes obscenity,” Garrison said. “I think we’ve all gone into a department store and seen a naked mannequin at one point in our lives. In our opinion, nothing that Mr. Kramer did was obscene or criminal in nature. Officers did conduct themselves in a criminal manner.”
Kramer claims that when he threatened the Police Department with legal action, they then dropped all charges against him, though Kramer’s not sure if he’ll be returning the favor.
“We haven’t decided anything for sure yet,” Garrison said. “We believe the Beatrice Police Department violated statutes in that they sought to abate what they considered to be a nuisance in the wrong manner.”
Tobias Tempelmeyer, city attorney, said that the main issue in the debate is whether or not the display was obscene.
“We’re currently looking at whether or not it was obscene,” Tempelmeyer said Friday. “The U.S. Supreme Court and State of Nebraska have a system to determine if something is obscene. At this point, I’m not willing to say one way or another.”
The system for determining obscenity, known as the Miller Test, breaks the questioned display or gesture into three categories:
Whether “the average person, applying contemporary community standards,” would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, whether the work depicts or describes sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law in an offensive way, and whether the work lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
“If you look at the definition of ‘obscene’ in Nebraska law, there’s nothing about a naked mannequin that constitutes obscenity,” Garrison said. “Obscenity is reserved for a much more profound expression.”
Despite claims that the display was not obscene, as of Friday morning, Kramer had dressed the mannequin in a candy bikini along with a toy assault rifle. ..Source.. by Scott Koperski, Daily Sun staff writer
No comments:
Post a Comment