Letter to the Editor: Supreme Court ruling could prohibit pulling ad

Dear Editor:

Students at Utah State should be aware that there are certain legal standards that define what is acceptable (publishable) sexually-oriented material. There is a strong tendency here to throw about the words “pornography” and “obscenity”- usually to describe something that a single person doesn’t like. It’s not all that simple.

In fact, there is no real legal definition of pornography at all. As noted by Judge Sarah Barker in her carefully reasoned opinion in American Booksellers Association v. Hudnut (598 F. Supp. 1316), “pornography” is extremely difficult to define-and it is not the same as “obscenity”-which is defined (Miller v. California, 413 US 15). Judge Barker’s conclusion is that pornography falls outside of the restricted definition of obscenity and is therefore protected speech. On the other hand-even if protected-the Statesman has not, in my 22 years of experience reading it, ever approached anything close to either pornography or obscenity.

If one objects to the recent advertisement for a local boutique (an ad containing a 1940’s style pinup drawing), one is certainly entitled not to patronize the establishment. One is not, however, entitled to suggest that either he or the Statesman is qualified to make moral judgments that would restrict the publication of legally acceptable material. In fact, because the Statesman is a publicly-supported publication, its ability to reject any legally-submissable material may be severely restricted (Lee v. Board of Regents of State Colleges, 441 F.2d 1257 (7th. Cir 1971)). If a state-supported publication has created a limited public forum by opening its pages to commercial advertising, it might not be able to reject advertising based on its content.

So-please-do not throw around words without some concern for their meaning. Stick to language that reflects your real understanding of the issue-words like “slutty,” perhaps….

Penny M. Byrne