The FIRST AMENDMENT is under attack in Kansas!
SB 92 – AN ACT concerning crimes, punishment and criminal procedure; relating to sexually violent crimes; law enforcement reports on the presence of pornographic materials.
As so frequently is the case, this bit of legislation might sound like it would be good. ... Unless one is concerned with the details.
As passed by the Senate, this bill was only ‘bad’. Now that it is in the Kansas House, it has been amended so that it is now draconian. The worst part of is that its full effects will not be felt for several years.
According to SB 92 ‘pornographic materials’ are much more than what most commonly expect. In addition to more graphic depictions, it encompasses pictures of simple nudity, stories that describe sexual behavior or even nudity itself. This would, include such seditious material as Playboy Magazine, art books with illustrations of classic paintings and sculptures, classic literature like Moby Dick, Huckleberry Finn, and Catch-22 and many video games. Interestingly, if the Sistine Chapel were in Kansas, its ceiling would be considered pornographic by this bill’s definition.
Although SB 92 does not criminalize this material, if someone is arrested for a “Sexually violent crime” law enforcement would be required to keep and report to KBI the total number of sexually violent crimes reported and the number of such crimes where pornographic materials are seized or documented.
Although SB 92 merely requires the collection of information, it is not difficult to see where this is going.
Earlier in this session, Libertarians teamed with others to defeat a bill designed to cripple the ‘adult entertainment’ industry. Supporters of this legislation like to point to so-called ‘secondary effects’ of such establishments. These secondary effects, they claim, include increased crime, lower property values, increased drug activity, etc. which are supported by similar statistics they had previously required law enforcement to collect. Sure enough, law enforcement found drug use and other criminal activity in the area of adult entertainment. Using these new statistics, they have succeeded in having restrictive laws imposed against the “sex” industry. These restrictions have found support in the Supreme Court.
Reducing crime sounds laudable until you realize this becomes a cum hoc propter hoc (with this, because of this) argument. In other words, just because two events are correlated does not mean one caused the other. In the adult entertainment issue we faced earlier in this session, opponents of the proposed law did their homework and presented studies actually conducted under controlled conditions to make them scientifically valid. These studies demonstrably showed that adult entertainment establishments do not have substantially more criminal behavior (ie. secondary effects) than any other legal business. In other words, law enforcement found drug use and other criminal activity in other areas of their jurisdiction.
In this instance, someone has decided there must be a connection between pornography and violent sex crimes. They just need to gather the statistics to ‘prove’ it.
We suspect this is where SB 92 is headed. Once the data are collected, someone will introduce a bill, supported by the evidence SB 92 requires be collected, that says:
1) we have statistics that show 75% of those convicted of sexually violent crimes possessed pornographic material when arrested.
2) we want to reduce sexually violent crimes in Kansas
3) therefore, we will outlaw or otherwise control access to pornographic material.
Statistics suggest as many as 76% of the adult population have viewed some sort of porn. With the very low threshold required to be classified as porn, it is not difficult to believe they will be able to get a statistical correlation at least as high as 75%.
However, just because someone has an art book in their home, or even Playboy or something else, does not necessarily mean they will become violent. In this data-collection effort, there is no control group as required to make the data scientifically valid.
Since we are talking about a violent crime, it would probably be more relevant to correlate it to gun ownership, rather than Playboy, Huckleberry Finn or other so-called ‘porn’.
The Libertarian Party of Kansas believes this is the first phase of a serious attack on our First Amendment rights. It is extremely important you contact your state representative NOW and urge them to vote against SB 92. It is bad legislation; it will be bad for Kansas.
You are one of about 1,400 Kansans who now know about this threat. We can become one of the most influential lobbying groups in the state if (and ONLY if) you call your legislator. Bills progress extremely quickly now. So, you must act quickly.
When you communicate with your state representative, either by phone or email, be respectful. Express your concern that this bill will not further any legitimate law enforcement purpose. Since there is no control group, any statistics it collects will not be scientifically valid and will only serve to obfuscate any future discussion on the matter. Since a future assault on the first amendment is NOT in this bill, do not bring that point up; it will only confuse the discussion.
You may read the bill as amended in the House here.
You can find a related Topeka Capital-Journal article here.
SB 92 – AN ACT concerning crimes, punishment and criminal procedure; relating to sexually violent crimes; law enforcement reports on the presence of pornographic materials.
As so frequently is the case, this bit of legislation might sound like it would be good. ... Unless one is concerned with the details.
As passed by the Senate, this bill was only ‘bad’. Now that it is in the Kansas House, it has been amended so that it is now draconian. The worst part of is that its full effects will not be felt for several years.
According to SB 92 ‘pornographic materials’ are much more than what most commonly expect. In addition to more graphic depictions, it encompasses pictures of simple nudity, stories that describe sexual behavior or even nudity itself. This would, include such seditious material as Playboy Magazine, art books with illustrations of classic paintings and sculptures, classic literature like Moby Dick, Huckleberry Finn, and Catch-22 and many video games. Interestingly, if the Sistine Chapel were in Kansas, its ceiling would be considered pornographic by this bill’s definition.
Although SB 92 does not criminalize this material, if someone is arrested for a “Sexually violent crime” law enforcement would be required to keep and report to KBI the total number of sexually violent crimes reported and the number of such crimes where pornographic materials are seized or documented.
Although SB 92 merely requires the collection of information, it is not difficult to see where this is going.
Earlier in this session, Libertarians teamed with others to defeat a bill designed to cripple the ‘adult entertainment’ industry. Supporters of this legislation like to point to so-called ‘secondary effects’ of such establishments. These secondary effects, they claim, include increased crime, lower property values, increased drug activity, etc. which are supported by similar statistics they had previously required law enforcement to collect. Sure enough, law enforcement found drug use and other criminal activity in the area of adult entertainment. Using these new statistics, they have succeeded in having restrictive laws imposed against the “sex” industry. These restrictions have found support in the Supreme Court.
Reducing crime sounds laudable until you realize this becomes a cum hoc propter hoc (with this, because of this) argument. In other words, just because two events are correlated does not mean one caused the other. In the adult entertainment issue we faced earlier in this session, opponents of the proposed law did their homework and presented studies actually conducted under controlled conditions to make them scientifically valid. These studies demonstrably showed that adult entertainment establishments do not have substantially more criminal behavior (ie. secondary effects) than any other legal business. In other words, law enforcement found drug use and other criminal activity in other areas of their jurisdiction.
In this instance, someone has decided there must be a connection between pornography and violent sex crimes. They just need to gather the statistics to ‘prove’ it.
We suspect this is where SB 92 is headed. Once the data are collected, someone will introduce a bill, supported by the evidence SB 92 requires be collected, that says:
1) we have statistics that show 75% of those convicted of sexually violent crimes possessed pornographic material when arrested.
2) we want to reduce sexually violent crimes in Kansas
3) therefore, we will outlaw or otherwise control access to pornographic material.
Statistics suggest as many as 76% of the adult population have viewed some sort of porn. With the very low threshold required to be classified as porn, it is not difficult to believe they will be able to get a statistical correlation at least as high as 75%.
However, just because someone has an art book in their home, or even Playboy or something else, does not necessarily mean they will become violent. In this data-collection effort, there is no control group as required to make the data scientifically valid.
Since we are talking about a violent crime, it would probably be more relevant to correlate it to gun ownership, rather than Playboy, Huckleberry Finn or other so-called ‘porn’.
The Libertarian Party of Kansas believes this is the first phase of a serious attack on our First Amendment rights. It is extremely important you contact your state representative NOW and urge them to vote against SB 92. It is bad legislation; it will be bad for Kansas.
You are one of about 1,400 Kansans who now know about this threat. We can become one of the most influential lobbying groups in the state if (and ONLY if) you call your legislator. Bills progress extremely quickly now. So, you must act quickly.
When you communicate with your state representative, either by phone or email, be respectful. Express your concern that this bill will not further any legitimate law enforcement purpose. Since there is no control group, any statistics it collects will not be scientifically valid and will only serve to obfuscate any future discussion on the matter. Since a future assault on the first amendment is NOT in this bill, do not bring that point up; it will only confuse the discussion.
You may read the bill as amended in the House here.
You can find a related Topeka Capital-Journal article here.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please leave a comment. All that we ask is that you keep it civil and clean. Thanks.