Letter to the Editor: Letter citing legalities of ad was misleading

Dear Editor,

A recent letter regarding the Persian Peacock ads were misleading, at best.

The letter insinuated that the Statesman staff would be wrong, if not legally prohibited, to refuse to publish those ads, and that pornography is protected free speech.

Before I address the problems with that letter, let me say that I think the Persian Peacock ads are racy, perhaps, but not pornography. Having said that, the author of the letter in question used federal court cases to prove her point, but neglected to mention that the two cases upon which she built hercase are not binding on any Utah Court. First, she called “carefully reasoned” a decision holding that pornography is protected free speech. What the author did not mention is that the case is from the Southern District of Indiana. For those not familiar with legal precedent, the only court in the entire United States that has to follow that judge’s decision is that verycourt. In other words, the decision is legally irrelevant.

Second, she says that the Statesman might not be legally allowed to deny the Persian Peacock advertising space, and cites a case from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, again without mentioning that we live in the jurisdiction of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, so the case she cited is mostly irrelevant to courts in Utah. In fact, no other Circuit have followed the decision she cited but two other Circuits, the 8th and the 1st have specifically declined to follow the 7th Circuit. If you’re keeping track, that’s 2 to 1 against the author’s assertion.

The author ends the letter with a rather smug insinuation that those who are opposed to the ads are immature, and I’m sure she thought she was very clever, but it’s hard to take someone seriously whose arguments are so filled with holes.

Jeremy Kidd