The URL can be used to link to this page

269166 (2) WMITE - CITV CLERK �� COIIIICll ��'"'ti�� PINK �; FINANCE � CITYA OF SAINT PAIJL ��`��-�4�' � CANARV- DEPARTMENT � � BLUE �- MAVOR _ Fll@ NO. � � � : - � - • • 1C�,31 � Ordin�nce Ordinance 1��. Presented By ' Z--� Referred To Committee: Date ` Out of Committee By Date An ordinance amending Chapter 476 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pro- hibiting the sale, promotion and production of obscene ma.terials and providing a penalty therefor. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. That Chapter 476 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby repealed by substituting in lieu thereof the following new Sections 476.01 to 476.04: 476. OBSCENITY 476.01 De�initions. (1) As used in this Chapter, the terms defined in this sectioaz shall have the following meanings ascribed to them: (a) "Obscene" is the descriptive word used to modify any material or performance which is an obscene work. (b) "Obscene work" means any work which when taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest in sex; whic h portrays sexual conduct in a patently offensive COUNCILMEI�T Requested by Department of: Yeas Nays Butler Hozza ' [n Favor — Hunt Roedler Against BY Sylvester Tedesco Form Appr ed by City rney Adopted by Council: Date ' � Certified Passed by Council Secretary BY ` � By . Approved by Mayor: Date Ap r e by Mayor for Sub io to �'vuncil By By . �� Page 2. way; and which, taken as a whole, does not have serious value. In determining whether or not a work is an obscene work the trier of fact must find: (1) that the average person, apply- ing contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient in- terests; and, (2) that the work depicts or describes in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined herein or authoritatively construed by the courts of this state as being a portrayal of patently offensive sexual conduct as that phrase is used in the definition of an obscene work; and, (3) that the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious value. (c) "Material" means anything tangible which is capable of being used or adapted to arouse interest, or to affect the huma.n senses, whether through the medium of reading, observation, sound or in any other manner. (d) "Performance" means any play, motion pic- ture, dance or other exhibition performed before an audience. (e) "Serious Value" means serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. : �'�'�� Page 3. (f) "Community Standards": In determining contemporary community standards, the trier of fact ma.y utilize the standards of the community or vicinage from which he comes, but the court, in its dis- cretion, may admit evidence of standards existing outside of such community or vicinage. (g) "Patently Offensive" means so offensive on its face as to affront current standards of decency. (h) "Standards of Decency" means Community Standards of Decency. (i) "Patently Offensive Sexual Conduct" shall be deemed to include any of the following described sexual conduct if depicted or described in a patently offensive way: (1) An act of sexual intercourse, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, in- cluding genital-genital, anal-genital, or oral-genital intercourse, whether between huma.n beings or between a huma.n being and an animal. (2) Sado-ma.sochistic abuse, meaning flagellation or torture by or upon a person who is nude or clad in undergarments or in a revealing costume, or the condition of being fetterd, bound or otherwise physically restrained on the part of one so clothed. (3) Masturbation, excretory functions and lewd exhibitions of the genitals including any explicit, close-up representation of a human genital organ or spread-eagle exposure of female genital organs. . - `�'�`�� Page 4. (4) Physical contact or simulated physical contact with the clothed or unclothed pubic areas or buttocks of a human person, or the breasts of the human fema.le, whether alone or between members of the same or opposite sex or between humans and animals in an act of apparent sexual stimulation or gratifi- cation. _.,�:r-�---- (5) A device designed and marketed as useful prima.rily for stimulation of the human geni:tal organs. (6) Male or fema.le genitals in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal. (7) Covered 'male genitals in a discernibly turgid state. (j) "Promote" means to manufacture, issue, sell, give, provide, lend, ma.il, deliver, transfer, transmit, publish, distribute, circulate, disseminate, present, exhibit or advertise, or to offer or agree to do the same. (k) "Wholesale promote" means to manufacture, issue, sell, provide, ma.il, deliver, transfer, transmit, publish, distribute, circulate, disseminate or to offer or agree to do the same for purposes of re-sale. 476.02. Severab_�ility. If any of the descriptions or depictions of sexuaL conduct described in Section 476.01 are declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be ;; unlawfully included therein because such descriptions or " depictions are constitutionally protected or for any other reason, such declaration shall not invalidate this Chapter as to other patently offensive sexual conduct included therein. . � � _ , �. ;��'� Page S. 476.03. ObscenitY Prohibited. ( 1) It shall be unlawful for any person when, knowing its content and character, he: (a) Wholesale promotes, or possesses with ititent to wholesale promote or promote, any obscene material; or (b) Produces, presents or directs an obscene performance or participates in a portion thereof which is obscene or which con- tributes to its obscenity. (2) Any person who shall violate the provisions of � this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. i 476.04. Aff irma.tive Defenses . (1) The provisions of Section 476.03 shall not apply to persons who may possess or distribute obscene ma.tter or participate in conduct otherwise proscribed by Section 476.03 when such possession, participation, distribution or conduct occurs in the course of law enforcement activi- ties, or in the course of bona fide scientific, educational, or comparable research or study, or like circumstances of justification. (2) "Bona fide research or study" shall not include showings of obscene matter to the public or to audiences or participants not regularly enrolled or engaged in such research or study. The fact that a fee is charged directly or indirectly for admission shall be, by itself, evidence of lack of bona fide research or study. WHITE — CITY CI.ERK � � ° K�d ■-y �� PINK — FINANCE COUI1C11 `, ,`��S �s CANARV��- DEPARTMENT � C I TY OF SA I NT PAZIL � BLUE � MAVOR � Fll@ NO. ,� �.-. � � .. . �" Ordin�nce Ordinance �10. `�v� � Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date Page 6. Section 2. This vrdinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after its passage, approval and publication. COUIVCILMEN Yeas Nays Requested by Department of: Butler Hozza [n Favor — Hunt Roedler � Against BY Sylvester Tedesco � � 9 �9� Form Approved by City Attorney Adopted by Council: Date Certifie ssed Council Secre�ary BY Ap by Mayor: Date 2�5 1977. Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council B BY UBLISHED �� 197� �, � ..�, . �;: � � � y/ . �� ;6�1t•��.,,; CITY OF SAINT PAUL � . .�. � OFFICF OF THE C1TY AT70RNEl( � �:�' o . „ +� :r:':: : �..';•... : � . - HarrieE l.ansing, City Attorney . -. .. .frS7 City Ftalt,Saint Paul,Minnesota 55102 . - -George Latimer : . _ - " - . .. '...., Mayor : . ' �.. . . ___ , � - • - _ - __ 6i2 29&5'!21 . ` - • - � . .. _ . ... M�Y �t, 1g77 : �. . . _ _ . . . . - - . . . . _ �: ;�� M E M 0 R A N D LT-.M� � . - : � � - -. . . _ . _- .. _ _ .... � � .... _. ._._.._._ _ . .. _ . . . , V Y�w ..:- , ...� . ...� . . '. -.:. . • . .� ' . ' - . . _ � .. - _ . _.: �.. �. '.�. �� :..• - . . . . . ' ... . - .. . . .... - .. ' .• ... ... . ... . . _ ' ' _ ' � " . � .�-TO: :.. Mrs��:Rosalie Butler . � � . . , . - - . �` ' - Member of the City Council ` .� ' FROM� Phf Iip B.. Byrne�� : _ .- _ : . �_ : . : Deputy_City Attorney- - - _ _ � -_ - - You have .requested. a brief inemorandum from a legal standpoint : . �' on the or:�inances dea].ing with obscenity and cnassage parlors . which are to be introduced this week. - _ . � . : . . . . � A11 of the ordinances have been reviewed. Nane of them appear � � : to conflict with the United States or Minnesota Constztutions, � or with any provision of state law, although some of the � , . legislative principles ha��e not as yet been definitively tested � : � in court. : . - . - � . � " � The ordinance wnich enacts an extensive Chapter 476�(in place : - - of the simgle section now in force} ys in effect a codifica- : : � � tion in ordinance form of Minn. Stat. § 617.241 and Section . . �. ' 476.Q1 of � the Saint PauI. Legislative Codei as these sections have been judicially amended by the Minnesota Supreme Court � . in State v. Welke, 298 Minn. 402, 216 N.W.2d 641 (1974) ; and _ - by t e United States Supreme Court in Mil.ler v. California, , - . G.I3 U.S. 15, .93 S. Ct. 2607, 37 L. Ed. , an Hamlin v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 94 S. Ct. 2887, 41 � . _ . . _ . . - _ . - - . - The ordinance which enacts an extens:i.ve Chapte�r 475 (in pl.ace _ � of the single section now in force) is modeled after Minn. . Stat. �§ 617.291-.296, and in many places the ��ording is identical.: The state statute is similar in a�.most every � , . - , " � • 7. � �- b � I �, � - Councilwoman Butler - . . Page �cvo .._ _ , : _ . - . - � , � May 31, 1977 . , : � � � respect to a New York statute upheld by �he United Sta�es - Supreme Court a.n Ginsber v. New York� 390 U.S. 629, $8 ' S. Ct. 1274, 20 L. , . �I�'$�'- . - � Z'wo ordinances, one amending_ Section 308.23 c�ealing �vith - : . � : into�icating. liquor licenses and one amending Section 314.19 - �- . .. which deals with non-intox.�.cating l�:quor licenses, xemove the � � . exemption for the display of certai.n portions of the anatomy : � if covered by a "transparent or opaque covering." }3oth _ : . : � sections; with or without. the change proposed in your ordi- . - nances, are well within the Constitutional aut�ority for such - - . legislation set forth in California v. LaRv.e, _ 409 U.S. 109, - .. . . : . _ . � 34 L. Ed. 2d 342 (1972) . . . � .. . . ., - - . -- _ --. _ � - . _� The ordinance enacting a ne�c� SectiQn 438.09 forbids tY�e display . , . . _ to public view, in business places _open to _minors, of certain sexually ex�licit ma.terials. Even though such materials might � .- be neither 'obscene" within the meaning of the We1ke decision or the proposed Chapter 476, nor ."harmful to rninors within � the meaning of the newly proposed Chapter 475, this ordinance . _ would prevent their display to view. It would not, however, � . . prevent the sale of such ma.terials if otherc�ise l.awful. -:I arn' - - not aware' of any Minnesota decisions or U.S. S�.prene Court � _ � � - ..� . decisions upl�.olding such an ordinance. A .sup�rior court de- � _ cision in Rhode Tsland has upheld such an ordir�ance. Given � the present direction of the case Iaw, it appears ��at this � . � ordinance is a minimal and reasonable intrusion upon the _ dis- � semination of materials protected by the First Amendment. . : . . - ` " The U.S. Supreme Court in Youn v. American Mini Theatres Inc. , � � - . 44 .U.S. Law. Weelc 4999 (197 , a.n icate t at governmenta odies � • ' could use the content of materials as the basis for different � � regulations, stating: - - � . _ . . . _ - " . .. (E)ven tYzough we recognize that the First - � - - Amendment will not tolerate the total suppression . - � � of erotic materials that have some arguably artis- - �� tic value, i.t is a marrifest that society`s interest in protecting this type of .expression is of a tvho].ly - different, and lesser, ma.gnitude than the interest in uritrammeled political debate. . . . � � � . . . . . ,. .. .. " .. � , ., , � �� Councilwoman Butler ' Page T�ree � � . ,. _ �.. Ma.y 31, 1977 � Even though the First .Amendment protects �- � - � _ ` � . � � : =eommunication in �his area from ��otal suppres- - ` � :. _ . ... .: � _. . ; sion, we hold tha:t:�the�� State may Iegiti�tely . �- . � use the- content of these ma.terials as ��e basis � - for p�.acing them in a differenL classifica.tion. . . ." . - . The ordinance- making several change� to Chapter_ 378, dealing with - . : sauna and ma.ssage parlors, principally requir�s that masseurs � - - and masseuses nieet cer�ain educational requirements in their - � business} and be examined as to their. competer�ce and skill by the � - - � `. Division of Publ.ic Health;. prior to licensing_ There are a number of deczsions upholding the imposition of educ�tional and tes�.ing . � requirements upon masseurs and masseuses. - - _ :.... - - - � .. . _ .. . _ . . .. . � . , . - _- _ _ : - � PBB:j r ' � . . ,: . . .. cc: Ma.yor George Latimer _ - - - - � - ._ � Members of the Council - - • : ' . : . �.i : - _ � - - . ' � _ ir , .. �1 � �, ,�}'` ,;_�� . � r�� -:�. � . '`�'�.� ►`'+'!�A T f�: (�I+� ;1 I I \ :t 1�:�()'P11 " ` Governor's Commissian on Crime Prevention& Cnnirol � � �� 6sh Floor, 444 LuFo ette Rond � �� Y � ST. AAU� SSifll July 15, 1977 Councilman Dave Hozza Room 704 City Hall St. Paul, MN 55101 Dear CounciZman Hozza: In response to our conversation of 3uly 12, Community Grime Prevention Pro�ect of the Governor's Colmnission an Crime Prevention and Control is interested in participa�ing with the city of St. Paul in an analysis of adult entertairli�ent and crime. As was discussed, the process for developin� the study can be divided into two stages: the design and th� irsplementation. 2fie �or�plexity of the design and the [ir.ie needed to develop the design depend upon the questions which the city would like to hava answered. In our deliberatians here, we have develaped a neunber of questions which might be of interest to you and the city. These questions and their implications for the complexity of tne design and stud}• are attached. You and the planning staff, of course, may have other questions which you consider of greater importance. ?.s a first step, you should identify the question(s) you would like to have answered. Based on this, we can determine the ti�ue and cost re- quired to develop r.he design and the cos[ of the s[udy. You initially may want to have design(s} developed for severa� ques[iuns, selecting ffnal questions once you have seen the detailed design and cost esti- u►�tes. We, of course, are available to participate in yaur delibera- tions if you desire. Qnce the initiaZ questions are determined, we could begin the design d2vel.op�ent within a week. The time needed to actually develop the de- sign(s) would, of course, be determined by the questions to be answered. Z would envision that the development of the design �,ould involve a discussion of the questions to be answered by the study, and the data • to be used and,its availability. The final design would also include any sampling procedures, statistical methods, time frame cost and staff assigned to the project. Of course, review and deter�ination of the �inal design would be the city's decision. ...,,��:.. . ,; . � � v l I b � T0: Robert Sylvester, Council President FROiYi: Rosal ie Butler Tne persons listed below i�ave requested an opportunity ta speak at the Public Hearing scheduled for 7hursday, July 7 at 7:30 p.m. If you have no objections, I would suggest they be heard as follows : r,,,�'. Phi 1 i p Byrne, Deputy Ci ty Attorney /l. . . ��artS'��,�'�/` /� 3. Morton Hill , President of the idational Obscenity Legal Center and member of the President's Commission on Obscenity and Pornography %4. Gene Conway, President, Minnesota Morality in Media (Knights of Columbus� � Anos P4artin, Executive Vice President, Saint Pau1 Area Chamber of Commerce � CHURCHtS: Ur. Angwin, Temple Baptist Church� Pastor Duddingston, Central Presbyterian Church � Rabbi Asher Zeilingold, Adath Israel Synagogue� Rev. Carl son, Fai th Bapti st Church -�-�` Rev. LeRoy Gardner, t�dorti� Central Baptist Church/ C�►��. �� . 7. COP�NlilidITY COUNCILS � Uavid Thune, West Seventh Federation Ron Paul.ine, , District 8 Planning Council Ted Tobler, residen�, District 7 . _ = G. � � �� 8. CIVIC, �USINESS, PAREi�T GRUUPS Louise La�tto, Parents Coalition of Mi � nnesota � Tory �owlin, Chairperson, Young Parents Alert A. E. P4cCormick, Director, P4idway Civic & Commerce Association� Marlene Reid, State Chairwoman, GJomen for Respansible Legislation / Charles Cermak, Sr. , American Legion � Fslancne Johnson, Rice Area Citizens Organization � Joanne VanPopperin, Concerned Taxpayers � Charles Rauschnot for Norti� End, Rice District, Association of Commercial Clubs, Citizens Coordinating Council r Narold Nelson, Ramsey County American Party � _ 9. Alice i�lurphy, Mayor/Council Complaint Office � 10. Jonn P�arkert, attorney � 11 . INUiViUUALS Scot N. Feyen� Jerry Holman, attorney officing on University Avenue .� Bud Winer, Larry's Auto Glass, University Avenue -� 'J Joe Latuff, businessman, University Avenue � Iggy Theisen, Lend►vay's Bar, University Avenue� Bill Sands, Western State 8ank.� Robert Larson, realtor on Universfty Avertue� !�i ci�ard h1arzol f � � ouis Schmitt, 1117 E. Orange St.�- � - ack I��;oruby � ��` Piark Peterson v 0. C. Lee �. ; . � , • o� f r lst � 2nd � 3rd Adopted 1 9 ' Yeas Nays BUTLER ' HOZZA , . xuNr ��'��s . LEVINE ROEDLER TEDESCO ; (PRESIDENT SYLVESTER) ' \ �- �_ � . ? . � � � � � � Remarks of Rev. Morton A. Hill , S .J. , Member former Presidential Co�nission on Obscenity and Pornography, before the City Counca.l, City of Saint Paul, � r4innesota, July 7 , 1977 . My name is Father Morton A. Hill, S .J . I was a �ember of the former Presidential Cor�ission on Obscenity and Pornog- raphy and co-author of the Hi11-Link Report of that Commission. It is an honor to be here, and I would like to thank you, ladies and gentlemen� for giving me this opportunity to present my views . First, I would like to congratulate you for considering the obscenity and related ordinances before you, and predict that if all are adopted and then vigorously enforced, the problem of pornography and related sex businesses will most certain2 y be al- leviated in the City of Saint Paul . The traffic in pornography has reached epidemic pro- portions in the country. It is everywhere . It has spread like a rotting cancer to every part of the American body. There isn' t a city, a toc,m, a village in the country that hasn' t been hit b y it . And as shocking as hard-core pornography is - and the examples the Supreme Court gave us are patently offensive �,b � � � � -2- scenes of intercourse, actual or simulated, nor�tal or perverted; excretion, masturbation and lewd exhibition of the genitals - as shockinb as it is - it gets worse and worse, more and more depraved each year . About two years ago, for exanple, a wave of sado- masochistic material washed into the hard-core market, and then into sex ma�azines that are sold on newsstands . On 8 mm film there are now scenes of intercourse with animals and - you have been hearing a lot abou-t this - scenes of intercourse with and between children. And where do we �o from there? God alone knows what despicable perversions the mind of man can conjure up . Those people who insist erroneously that pornography � is protected by the First Amendment lceep telling us that a glut of pornography on the market will simply result in boredom on the part of the consumer . . .that if you let it flow absolutely freely it will go away . Well, all you have to do is look around you in any urban area and you can see how nonsensical that theory . � � � i � � . -3- is . Pdo . People who are hooked on pornography never say, "I 'm bored. This is ny satiation point ." On the contrary, they go deeper and deeper into more and more bizarre forms of it. It becomes a self-reinforcing neurosis . And who feeds on that neurosis? Organized crime . Two grand jury investigations - one in New York in 1972 and one in Bexar County, Texas in 1973 found that 90a/o of the hard-core pornography traffic is controlled by organized crime . GJhy7 Profit. The mark-up on a piece of pornography is absolutely pheno�enal . Here are some figures from a law- enforcement official in Phoenix. Film laboratories on the West Coast that supply Phoenix can produce twenty-five thousand eight-millimeter films daily. That film can be packaged, con- tainerized, shrink-sealed in plastic ready to sell to the re- tailer for about two dollars . They' ll sell it for anywhere from ten to twenty-f ive dollars . The performers in the f ilri are dra�aing from: seventy-five to eighty dollars a day for eight z� � 1b � -4- , to ten hours work. In that eight to ten hours, they shoot an avera�e of five films . During the filming of the motion picture, they are also taking thirty-five millimeter stills for m.agazines . One or the other becomes a clear profit item. The hard-core magazines cost from $1 . 25 to 52 . 75 to groduce and distribute . The adult bookstore charges S10 for the magazine . Sixteen mil- limeter films for theaters cost �ore to produce, but admission at the box office is $4 or $5 per person, and again - as with the 8 millimeter films - stills are being shot for magazines . Last Fall a writer ;tiho says he has "churned" out porn � books for $1, 000 (one week' s ��lork) - put do�rn some figures in the New York. Times that he got from a porn publisher . The firm publishes 24 titles a month, or 288 titles a year, with a press run of 25, 000 copies per title . Each copy is priced at $2 .25 . Thus , each title, if all copies are sold in the adult book stores , can bring in $56, 250 . r7ultiplied by 288 titles a year, there is a potential annual gross of 516 , 200, 000 . �'.etailers keep 40% of the cover price (90 cents) . That leaves the publisher with $9 , 720, 000 . . �-�� ) � � . -5- Now, with profit like that, the traffic in pornog- raphy is not going to go away. And while the everything-goes dupes cry First Amendment (Actor Anthony Perkins in a speech at a Times Square rally called them First Amendment junkies) - while these dupes kee� up their cry, organized crime is laugh- ing all the way to the bank. And believe me. Obscenity is rdOT protected by the First Amendment. The United States Supreme Court has always held that obscenity is not protected expression. It is a crime . And no matter what sort of propaganda is disseminated, the Supreme Court in Miller 1973 and companion decisions gave us a workable defin- ition of obscenity. Now, c��hy has this situation gotten so out of hand? There are several reasons . A major reason has been the silence of the people. Until this past year . I have been working in this area for some 15 years . In the past year I have traveled the country back and forth, from East Coast to West - fror� Alaska to Texas , and let r.ie tell you I have never seen such public outrage as I . �- b � l � � -6- have this year. People are fed up . They are expressing their outrage. They are turning up by the thousands at protest meetings . Even in sophisticated New York, 8000 people jammed into three city blocks to protest pornography. Broadway show casts led their matinee audiences to the rally. Actors and actresses addressed the throngs . All urged action against pornography. �iThy? Be- cause they have to work in Ti�es Square and pornography has made a cesspool of Times Square. The visible effects of pornography are now all too visible. For, when one porn outlet opens, it is quickly iollowed by another . Then the prostitutes , pimps , pushers and muggers move in. Pornography has destroyed entire areas of American cities . And the people have had it. 2�11 over the country they are pro- testing to law enforcement officials to enforce existing Iaws ; and to legislators to write laws where they do not exist. Since the Supreme Court decisions of 1973 , 21 states have passed obscenity laws based on t•liller . Many others , by judicial process, have had their laws construed so as to incor- porate the rule laid down in :•iiller . (Niinnesota is one of the latter . ) . �. �� b � -�- In the past year, a proliferation of cities and counties , not wanting to wait for the often slower legislative process of the states , have been considering ordinances of one sort or another . To my knowledge, no city as yet has come up with as sound and comprehensive a package of Iegislation as that which is before this distinguished body for consideration. I would like to comment on four of them briefly and urge the adoption of all by the City Council of Saint Paul for in my opinion their adoption would make Saint Paul a model city on which other cities could pattern themselves . Ordinance No . 1, consisting oi proposed new sections 476 . 01 to 476 .04 of the Saint Paul Legislative code are general obscenity provisions . They proscribe the wholesale promotion of obscenity or production or presentation of an obscene performance � or participation in such a performance. These 1�liller provisions are patterned after statutory provisions which have been held constitutional in Heller v. New York, 1973 , 33 N.Y. 2d 214, 418 , U. S . 944. � � � i � � � -$- Ordinance No . 2, proposed sections 475 .01 to 475 . 04 - dissemination of indecent materials to minors, is also patterned after a statute declared constitutional in the Iandmark case of Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U. S . 629 (1958) . Ordinance No . 3 deals with a pressing and growino prob- lern - the display of offensive materials on newsstands or in business establishments where children are part of the general public . l�any family stores such as drug stores are displaying so-called adult magazines in full view of children and where children can browse through them. Let me point out that this ordinance is a display ordin- ance, not an obscenity ordinance, and should in no way be consid- ered a substitute for a general obscenity ordinance. It is sup- plementary to obscenity legislation. The aim of this ordinance is to prevent children from broU�sing through publications that are harmful to them. It does not prohibit their sale to adults, but prohibits their display in places where children are part of the general public . It is patterned after a Rhode Island statute, upheld by �� 1 � � -9- the Superior Court of Rhode Island (State v. Norm.an Joseph Cardin, Ind. No . 72-269) and State v. Joseph P�Zarkovitz (Ind. No . 72-2£�I) . A second decision supporting a public display sta- tute of this type is found in an Arkansas case , Conners v. Riley, 395 F. Supp . 12��4 (�J.D . Arkansas 1975) . In this case the court quotes Ginsberg v. New York, 39Q U.S . 629 , 88 S . Ct. 1274, 20 L. Ed. 195) : "The Ginsberg doctrine . . .applies not only in the context of an actual sale of material in question ta a minor but is eq_ually viable in the situation where the material is either displayed publicly or displayed in an area to which children have access . . ." In another decision on this type of public display or- dinance in the Chancery Court of Davidson County (Nashville) , Tennessee, the Court said: " . . . the Court declares that Ordinarice 72-2b6 of the 2•Tetropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County is constitutional . " Ordinance No . 4, proposed section 308 .23 , prohibits �� « � � -��- certain sexual conduct in prenises licensed to sell intoxicating liquor. These provisions are �odeled after Arizona aleohol beverage control regulations . By way of legal bac':�round for this type of legzslation, in the 1972 case of Californzz v. LaRue, 409 U.S . 109, the United States Supreme Court solidifieC. the state' s right to prohibit of- fensive sexual conduct or eni.�rtain.�ent on preinises where alcoholic beverages are sold. This ri�^t derives from the broad power given the states by the 21st Amend�ent to regulate intoxicating liquors . Evidence in LaRue establishe� that a coLnoination of liquor-drink- ing patrons and wholly or par=ially nude entertainers was respon- sible for undesirable sexual conduct and acts of violence in and around Iicensed premises . Yo-.�. nay also be interested in knowing that the Supreme Court of Arizona has upheld an o�dinance which like the proposed ordinance bGns topless entertainaent, Yauch v. State 514 P2d, 709 Supreme Court of Arizona (1973) . Other im- portant cases banning topless and bottomless entertainment are: Paladino v. Omaha 471 f2d 812 8th Circuit Court of Appeals (1972) ; MidtoUm Palace v. Cit-r of Omaha 229 I1.Z�J. 2d 56 Nebraska Supreme Court (1975) ; Seattle L. Hinkley, 517 P2d ;•7ashington Supreme Court (1973) . .�� -11- Ordinance No . 5 - proposed section 3I0 . 19 is the same as No . 4, is identical to Ordinance No . 4 except that it places restrictions on businesses that se11 non-intoxicating liquors . This ordinance does n.ot come under either the 18th or 21st Amendments . I am not, ho��ever , familiar with any precedents in this case . The conduct itself, apart from the sale of malt liquor concoction, is in violation of indecent exposure statutes . Ordinance No . 6 to amend Chapter 378 . I am not familiar with licensing ordinances, but I understand this will be effective . At the risk of sounding repetitious , I must say again that pornography outlets and the other crime they breed and at- tract, are killing our cities . I don' t have to tell you that . Pornography outlets open. The other crine folloUrs . Legitim�.te businesses move out. Jobs are lost. The area deteriorates to- tally and the public safety itself in these areas is endangered. With the legislative package you have before you for consideration, this problem can be solved in Saint Paul . Other cities , groping for solution at this very moment, will look to Saint Paul as an example . � �� i � � _12_ TTiank you for graciously granting me this time to address you on this urgent problem - this blight that pornopraphy is spreading in our urban areas . � �� ` b � • � _ C � � �- �_-� T0: The Saint Paul City Council RE: Rosalie Butler's "6" Pornography Ordinances � We, the members of the District 8 Planning Council, and residents of Sub-district "A" boundaries (South IIniversity � • _ Avenue to St. Anthony Avenue and West Dale St. to East Lexington Pkwy.) are very much concerned about the destiny � of our youth. Our constructive concerns entail all matters that may infringe upon a youth positive direction and exgosure. � We commend Mrs. Rosalie L. Butler for her efforts in controiling immorality az�d are :looking forward to working closer with her in her endeavors. We feel her ordinances� have very good and substantial substance; however, we cannot support, in total, :her: 6 obscenity ordinances. � We are all in favor of: � 1. AI1 existing laws and ordinances that naw exist,being strictly enforced; � 2. The stoppage of any more pornography related establish- ments in District 8; � 3. The continued efforts of Mrs. Butler along with District • 8 and all other concerned bodies so as to make St. Paul a more constructive and wholesome place to live. � ` �G!/G�� /� •�/� V Walter L. Robinson, Chairperson � � � � � ' Ron Pauline, Representative � � � • Walter Robin�� Choirperson 1 O1 O University, St. Paul 5 5104 - Ph; 298 -59�1 � • .� �� , � • � • ��-e-� � .� �� :.�'� . �� -• i • ,�� ti � � �� . • � - "•. �� . �C/?7,,� � �vi��.�v ,�!t� ��=e-v�., � � � -;,�fi�� e.u�� ,�� I� � _ �j, � F rt ! � � -� ;��. � ,�� • � • �-� " ��( � �� "� -- • __ '-�. • _ _ _ . :��c- . � � � - � � � -��- , • � • , -- / !_ ,w-e Z��,-�'��,,e��t �°�_� — (��. �-�c.�� : _ _ • ��i�, � ��.�1 . _ �- _ • ,a��'' � • � _ __ • _ _ --- _ � � _ _ _ __ _ • � ! : • ' - � • . __ _ _ i__ ; _ _ _ _ f-- __. -- - , - _ � . - _ _ ! ': . - _ __ _ _ • -- - _ . ---_ • • , _i t --- — � • - -- - � - � — - --- — — • � • `�-� � 1 � � � 1- 7 ��; No. 75-1439 Jerry Lee Smith, Petitioner, On SVrit of Certiorari to the v United States Court of Ap- United States. peals for the Eighth Circuit. [May 23, 1977] Syllabua Petitioner, who hud been indicted in the Southern District oF Iowa for msiling obacene materiala in violation of 18 U.S.C.§1461,unavailingly sought to propound questions to the jury panel on voir dere relating to the panel members' knowledee of the contemporary community stand. ards in that Di�irict wit6 regard to the depiction of sex and nudity. The case proceeded to trial and at the close of the Covernmeat's case snd later, petitioner unsucceasfutly moved tor a directed verdict of acquittal on the grounds, inter clio, that the Iowa obscenity statute in etfect aE the time of petitioner's conduct, which pr+oscribed only the dis..emination ot obscene material� to minors, set forth the applicable community standard,and that the prosecution had not proved that the mate�ials at issue had offended that atandarcl. Petitioner was convicted. The Court of Appeals affirmed,concl�ding(1)that petitioner's proposed community standards questions were itnpermisaibk aince they concerned the ultimate question of guilt or innceence rather than juror qualifica+ tions, and (2) that the issue of oSense to contemporaiy community standarda was a federal question and was aot to be determined on the � basis of the state obscenitg Iaw. Held: 1.State law cannot define the contemporary rnmmunity atandards for api�l to the prurient interest and patent oHenaiveness that under D1iUer v. CaliJornia, 413 U. S. I5, are appGed in determining whether or not materisl is obscene, and the Iowa obscenity statute is thetefore not concluive as to those standards. In federal prosecutions,such aa this for violation of§1461,those issuee are fact questions for the jury, t� be judged in light of its understanding of contemporary community standards. (a) Though state legislatures are not completely foreclosed from setting sub:tantive limitations for obscenity cases, they canaot declsre what community gtandards shall be, any more than they could under- take to de6ne reasonableness. Cf.Hamling v. United Statea,418 U.3. 87, 10�103. (b) The community standards aspscts of �1461 implicate federal, not state, law. It is not material that the mailinga here were solely intmstate, since §1461 was enacted under Congress' constitutional postal poa•er,not the commerce power. Pp.12-13. (c) Obsceaity convictions remain reviewable on various ground.s. (d) This Court's holding that the Iowa statute(which was propedy admitted into evidence) ia not conclusive on the isave of mntemporary community standards does not nulGfy atate law,but a State's right not to regulate in the obscenity field cannot correlatively eompe!the Federal Government to allow the mails to be used to send obscene materials into that State. 2. The Dutrict Court did not abuse its discretion ia refusing to ask tne questions tendered by petitioner for voir dire about the jurore' , understanding of community standards,which were no more appropriate than a reque3t for a description of the meaning of "reasonuMenpe" would hsve been. 3. Section 1461 i� not unconatitutionally vague a�applied here since the type of conduct covered by the statute can be aacertained with sufficient r�e to avoid due proceas piLfalls. Cf. Xamlinq v. United. C States,aupra. —F.2d—,affirmed. �Z�� 21 CrL 3051 � �� c� � b � • Bti�cxKVx, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Bvrsc:ex, On July 1, 19i4, La«•s of Io«•a 1974, C. 1267 and C. 1268 C. J., and �VtttTe, YOWELL� and Rexc.vv,sT, JJ., janed. Pow•ECC, J., became effecti�•e. These specifically repealed ti§725.3, 725.5, filed a concurring opinion. BRehx�x, J., filed a d;�rnting opinion, in �t�di25.6ofthe1973Code. Inaddition,how•ever,c.1267(there- ��'hIC}1 STER'ANT dIl(1 AIA63HALL�J.l.�fOtllEf�. STEVEN�3�.1.�f112(�a di�enting after cociified as the first l0�sections of c. 725 of the 1975 Iowa Qpinion. Code) defined, among other things, "obscene material," and' � made it "a public offense" to disseminate obscene material to Mx.Jcs�zce Bt,ncxhtux delivered the opinion of the Court. mi>zors (defined as persons "under the age of eighteen"). In Mi�ler v. Cali/ornia, 413 U. S. 15 (1973), this Court Dia�emination of obscene material to adults was not made tejected a plea for a uniform national standard as to what criminal or even proscribed. Section 9= of c. 1267 (now ;i2a.9 of the 1975 Code) insured that the law would be appeals to the prurient interest and as to what is patently applied wiiformly throughout the State, and that no lesser offensive; the Court held, instead, that these essentialiy ccere governmental unit would impose more stringent regulations questions of fact to be measured by contem�orary standards of the community. Id., at 30-34. The instant case presents on obscene material. the issue of the constitutional effect of state law, that lear•es In 1976, the Iotica Legiclature enacted a "colnplete revi� unregula,ted tfie distribution of obscene material to adults, on sion" of the State's "substantive criminal ]aw•s." This is the determination of contemporary community standards in a entitled the "Ion•a Criminal Code" and is geiierally effective prosecution under 18 U, S. C. § 1461 for a mailing that is January 1, 1978. The existiiig definition of "obsceue mate,. wholly intrastate. The case also raises the question whether rial" remains unchanged, but a new provision, §2804 of the �1461 is unconstitutionalIy vague as appIied in these circum- Crimiiial Code,although limited in scope,applies by its terms stances, and the question whether the trial court, during the to adults. It reads: voir dire of prospective jurors, correctIy refused to ask prof- �:�ny person Rho kuowingly sells or offers for sale mate- fered questions relating to community standards, rial depicting a sex act involving sado-masochistic abuse, I excretory functions, a child, or bestiality which the aver- Between Febru and October 1974 flg'e adult taking the material as a whole in applying ary petitioner, Jerry Lee contemporary community standards would find that it Smith, knowingly caused to be mailed vaxious materisls from appeals to the prurient interest and is patently offensive;� Des 114oines, Iowa, to post o�ce box addresses in :�iount Ayr and the material, taken as a ahole, lacks setious litera.ry; and Guthrie Center,two communities in southern Iowa. This �ientific,political,or artistic value shall,upon conviction• �vas done at the written request of postai inspectors using „ ri�'titious names, The tnaterisls sp mailed were delivered be guilty of a simple misdemeanor. through the United Statea postal system to the respecti�•e In summary, therefore, we have in Iowa (1) until 1973 postmasters serving the addresses. The mailings consisted of state statutes that proscribed generally the dissemination of (1) issues of "Intrigue" magazine, depicting nude males and obscene aTitings and pictures; (2) the judicial nullification of � females engaged in masturbation, fellatio, cunnilingus, and some of those statutory provisions in that year for reasons of sexual intercourse; (2) a film entitled "Lovelace," depicting overbreadth and vagueness; (3) the enaetment, effective a nude male and a nude female engaged in masturbation and July 1, 1974, af replacement obscenity statutes restricted in simulated acts of fellatio,cunnilingus,and sexual intercourse; their agplication to dissemination to minors; and (4) the and (3) a film entitled "Terrorized Virgin," depicting t�ro enactment in 19'76 of a new Code, effective in 1978, with nude males and a nude female engaged in fellatio,cunnilingus, obscenity provisions, somewhat limited in scope, but not and sexual intercourse, restricted in application to dissemination to minors. II Petitioner's mailings,described above and forming the basis For many years prior to 1974 the statutes of Io«•a made of his federal prosecution, took place in 1974,after the there- it a misdemeanor to sell or offer to sell or to give a��•ay "any tofore existing Iowa statutes relating to obscene material had obscene, le�cd, indecent, lascivious, or filthy book, pamplilet, been nullified by TVedelstedt, but obviously before the 1976 a�er, . . . icture hoto ra h, writin legislation imposing misdemeanor liability with respect to P I P , P g P g . . . ." or to deposit �ertain transactions with adults becomes effective. Because in any post office within Iowa any article of that kiud. Ioa�a Code �S 725.5 and 725.6 (1973). there is no contention that the materials petitioner mailed In 1973, how•ever, the Supreme Court of Io«•a, iu re- ��ent to any minor, the 1974 legislation has no application to sponse to the standards enunciated in Miller v. Cali/or,riQ, his case. And the 1976 legislation,of eourse,has no effect on supra, unanituously held that a related and companion Io«•a Petitioner's criminal liability. Cf. Marks v. United Statea, statute, ;72i.3 of the 1973 Code,prohibiting the presentation —"L'.S.—(1977). of any obsceiie or immoral drama, play, exhibition, or enter- Thus, a•hat petitioner did clearly was not a violation of taiument,w•as unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. State state law at the time he did it. It is ta be observed, also, v. TVedelstedt, 213 N. �V. 2d 652.' jti'edelstedt, at least by implication—and we so assume—inv8lidated jj 72�.� 8ud ="8ection 9. In order to pro�•ide for the uniform npplication of the 725.6 As n•ell, pro�iion� of thu act relating to obscene mlteriai applicable to minors atithin this�tste,it u intended thst the�le and only regulation of obscene• material shall be under the provisiona of this Act, and no munici�lity, — county or other goeernmentul unit within thi� state shall mnke any law, 'See al:o Stute ex rel.Fnrhrx v.N.D.D.,luc.,2?S N.1t'.?d 191 (Io�cn ordin�nce or mgiilation reL•uing to the acailabilit}• of obacene materisl�. 19i5) (.rnte cnnnot cnjoin the:Lotivirtg of cert,iin mo��ies under a �r,iture All ;uch laa•�, ordinance� or mgulations, ahether enacted before or after• n�l:�ting to d�c u.r of prnmi;e� "Por the purpoae ot leti��dnr.•-;' a�1�cKr thi+ �ct,shall be or become�•oid, unenforceable and of no eRect upon the. -Hr�cdm�<"is not .:�:�tutoril�•df•finecj). e$ecti�•e d:ate of thi4�et°(J�yl�•1,19Z4),. ��. �1 CrL 3052 5-25-77 . z� � lb �, that there is no suggestion that petitioner's mailings a•ent to accepted in the community as a whole. In making that deter- any nonconsenting adult or that they were interstate. mination, the jumrs were entitled to draw on their own knowledge of the views of the average person in the com- III munity as w�ell as the evidence pre�ented as to the state law Petitioner K•as indicted on seven counts of violating 18 on obscenity and as to materials available for purchase. App. � U. S. C. § 1461, which prohibits the mailing of obscene mate- 22-23. rials.' He pleaded not guilty. At the start of his trial peti- The jury found petitioner guilty on a11 seven counts. He tioner proposed and submitted six questions for voir dire.* R•as sentenced to concurrent three-year terms of imprison- The court accepted in substance and utilized the Srst ques- ment, all but three months of which were suspended, and tion; this was designed to reveal whether any juror aas con- three years' probation. nected with an organization devoted to regulating or banning In his motion for a new trial,petitioner again asserted that obscene materials. The court declined to ask the other five. Io�ra law defined the community standard in a § 1461 pros- One of the questions made inquiry as to whether the jurors ecution. In denyine this motion, the District Court held ha�? any knowledge of contemporary community standards in that � 1461 �cas"a federal law which neither incorporates nor the Southern District of Iowa with regard to Lhe depiction depends upon the laa•s of the states," App. 33; the federaI of sex and nudity. Two sought to isolate the source of the policy �cas simply differeiit in this area. Furthermore, the jurors'knowledge and their understanding of those standards. court observed, Iowa's decision not to regulate distribution The remaining two would have explored the jurors' knowl- of obscene material did not mean that the people of Iowa nec- edge of Iowa law on the subject. essarily "approved of the permitted conduct" ibid.; whether At the trial the Government introduced into evidence the they did �cas a question of fact for the jury. The court re- actual materials covered by the indictment. It offered noth- jected petitioner's argument that it was error not to ask the ing else on the issue of obscenity vel non. Petitioner did not jurors the question about the extent of their knowledge of testify. Instead,in defense,he introduced numerous sexually contemporary community standards. It held that the jurors explicit materials that wei�e available for purchase at"adult" Were entitled to draw on their own knowledge; voir dire on bookstores in Des Moines and Davenpott, Iowa, several ad- community standards would be no more appropriate than vertisements from the Des Moines Register and Tribune, and voir dire on the jurors' concept of "reasonableness." The a copy of what was then c.725 of the Iowa Code,prohibiting court refused to hold that the Government a�as required to the dissemination of "obscene material" only to minors. At introduce evidence on a community standnrd in order to , sustain its burden of proof. The materials introduced can the close of the Government s case, and again at the close of and do speak for themselves." Id.,at 34. The court did not ' e11 the evidence, petitioner moved for a directed verdict of acquittal on,the grounds, inter alia, that the Iowa obscenity �dress petitioner's vagueness point° statute, proscribing only the dissemination of obscene mate- The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, rials to minors, set forth the applicable community standard, by per curia�n opinion, agreed with the District Coutt that � the questions submitted by petitioner on community stand- and that the prosecution had not proved that the materials at ards, except for the first, were impermissible, since they con- issue offended that standard. cerned the ultimate question of guilt or innocence rather than The District Court denied those motions and submitted the juror qualification. The court noted, however, that it was case to the jury. The court instructed the jury that con- noL holding that no questions whatsoever could be asked in temporary community standards were set by what is in fact that area. �'ith respect to the effect of state law, the court held that the issue of offense to contemporary community standards was a federal question,and was to be determined by g Section 1461 pro��ides,;n retevant part: the jury in a federal prosecution. The court noted the admis- "Every ob�cene, lewd,lascivious,indecent,Slthy or vile article,matter, sion of Iow•a's obscenity statute into evidence but stated that thing:de�zce,or substance;— . e , this was designed to give the jury knowledge of the State's "Is declared to be nonmailable matter and shall not be con��e}•ed in the policy on obscenity when it determined the contemporary com- mail�or delirered from any post office or by any letter carrier. munity StandaTd. The state pOlicy was nOt Controlling,31nCe "Whoeeer knowingly nses the mails for the mailing, carriage in the the determination tcas for the jury. The conviCtion, there- mails, or deli�•ery of an}•thing declared by this section . . . to be non- fol'e, was af�irmed. — F. 2d — (1976). mailnble, or ]:now�ngly causes to be delivered by mail according to the direction thereon . . . shall be fined not more than i5,000 or impriaoned R'e granted certiorari in order to review the relationship not more than fice years,or both, for the first such offiense,and shall be betR'een state legislation regulating or refusing to regulate fined not more than 510,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or the distribution of obscene material,and the determination of both,for each�uch offense thereafter." contemporary community standards in a federai prosecution. �Petitioner's proposed questions were: 426 U. S. 946 (1976). "1. Are any members of the panel 3 member of or are in s�-mpathy � with any organization which has for its purpose the regiilating or banning ot atleged obscene ma.teriais? The "basic guidelines" for the trier of fact in a state ob• "2. �Vill those jurors rxise their hands who have any know•ledge of the gcenity proseEUtion w•ere set out in 1lfiller v.California in the contempornn�community stnndards existing in this federal judicial di:trict relati�•e to the depiction of sex and nudity in magazines and bool:s? form of a three-part test: "(The folloa-ing individual questions nre requested for each juror who "(s) whether `the average person, spplying Contem- an��ers the above question in the uffirmative.) porary Community standards' a•ould find that the work, "3. Where did you acquire such information? "4. State what your under�tanding of those contemporary community standacd�are? °5. in arriving at this undetstanding, did you take into conideration s Despite the Di�trict Court's failure to discusa this point, we are � the law-s of the State of Iow•a which regulate obECenity? =atufied that petitioner adequatelp preser�•ed it for appellate review. See "6. State what your understanding of those luws are?" App. 8. r 7 of his \fot on far a New Triat. App. 30, 5-25�77 21 CrL 3053 �.-� � � � � • taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest . . , ; weli. The kinds of conduct that a jury would be permitted (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently to labei as "patently o�ensive" in a § 1461 prosecution are offensive way, sexual conduct specifically definecl by the the "hard core" types of conduct suggested by the examples applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as given in Miller.' See Hamling v. United States, 418 U. S., a whole,lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scien- at 114;cf.Jenkins v.Georgia,418 U.S.,at 160-161. Literary, tific value." �13 U. S., at 24 (cita.tions omitted). artistic, political, or scientific value, on the other hand, is � In tRO companion cases,the Court held that the 1f:7ler stand- not diseussed in hliller in terms of contemporary community ards w-ere equally applicable to federat legislation. United standards. See generally F. Schauer, The Law of Obscenity States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Filnz, 413 U. S. 123, 129-130 12�124 {1976). (1973) (importation of obscene material, 19 U. S. C. � 1305 The issue ae must resolve is a•hether the jury's discretion (a)); United States v. Orito, 413 U. S. 139, 145 (1973) � determine what appeals to the prurient interest and what (movement of obscene material in interstate commerce, 18 �s patently offensive is circumscribed in any way by a state U. S. C. $ 1462). In Aa�ling v. United SEates, 418 U. S. Statute such as c. ?25 of the Iowa Code. Put another way, 87 (1974), it held, specifically, that the Miller sta.ndards ap, we must decide ahether the jury is entitled to rely on its plied in a § 1461 prosecution. own knowledge of community standards, or whether a state The phrasing of Lhe Mz�ler test makes clear that contem- legislature (or a smaller legislative body) may deciare what porary community standards take on meaning only when the community standards shall be, and, if such a declaration ,they are considered with reference to the underlying questions h�been mede, whether it is binding in a federal prosecation of fact that must be resolved in an obscenity case.e The test under §1461. itself shows that appeal to the prurient interest is one such Obviously, s state legislature would not be able to define question of fact for the jury to resoive. The MzZler opinion �ntemporary community standards in a vacuum. Rather, indictates that patent offensiveness is to be treated in the ��►unity standards simply provide the measure against same v�ay. 413 U. S., at 26, 30. See Hamling v. United Rhich the jury decides the questions of appeal to prurient in- States, 418 U. S., at 10�105.' The fact that the jury must ��t and patent offensiveness. In Harniing v.United States, measure patent offensiveneas against contemporary commu- the Court recognized the close analogy between the function nity standards dces not mean,however,that juror discretion in of "contemporary community standards" in obscenity cases this atea is to go unchecked. Both in Hamling and in Jenkins and"reasonableness" in other casess v. Georgia, 418 U. S. 153 (1974), the Court noted that part "A juror is entitled to draw on his own knowledge of Lhe (b) of the Mz�ler test contained a substantive component as views of the average person in the community or vicinage from which he comes for making the required determi- nation, just as he is entitled to draw on his knowledge of . the propensities of a`reasonable' person in other areas of the law." 418 U. S., at 104-105. °The phtase "contemporary community standards" was Srat used in It a•ould be just as inappropriate for a legislature to attempt � Roth v. United States, 354 U. 3.476 (1957). See generally F. Schauer, �freeze a jury to ane definition of reasonableness as it would The Law of Obscenitp llfr135 (1976). The Roth Court exp4nined the be for 8 legislature to try to define the contemporary com- derivation and importance of tlie community standards t�t as follows: "The enrly leading standard of obscenity allowed material to be judged munity standsrd of sppesl to prurient interest or pateRt of- mernly by the effect of an isolated excerpt upon particularty susceptible fensiveness,if it were even possible for such a definition to be uQrsouy. Regina v. Nicklin, [38fi8� L. �..3 Q. $.360. Sp�pe AinFrjcasl formulated. courts adopted this stnndard but tater decisions have rejected;t and sub- This is not to say that state legislatures are completely fore- stituted this test: whether to the average person,applying contemporary closed from enacting laws setting substantive limitations for community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient iaterest. The Hicklin test, judging ob.cenity ObSCCn1Ey CSSes. �n the COntiBry, Re h8ve indicated OII by the effect of uolated passages upon the most eusceptible persons,might several oceasions that legislation of this kind is permissible. well encompasa material legitimately treating with sex,and so it muat be See Hamling v. United States, 418 U. S., at 114; Miller v. rejected as uaconstitutionally restrictive of the freedoms of speech and Californfa,413 U.S.,at 25. State legislation must still define preai. On the other hand, the subetituted standard provides safeguards :uiequate to withstand the chnrge of coustitutional infirmity.° 354 U.3., the kinds of conduct thst a•ill be regulated by the State. For st�89(footnotes omitted). example, the Iowa law in effect at the time this prosecution Although expressions in opinions vacillated somewhat before coming to the WSS instltuted ass to the effect that no conduct Simed st position t.hat a nationul coaununity staadard was not constitutionall}- aduTts was regulated° At the other extreme, a State might mandated, compnre Manual E�rte.rprisea,Iru. v.Day, 370 U.S. 478,485, �k to regulate al1 the hard core pornography that it con- and n.30 (1962) (opinion of Harlan,J.),und Jacobellu v.Ohio,378 U.S. 1s�, 195 (1964) (opinion of BRexx�x,,T.),with Milte.v. Cati/orn�a,413 gtitutionally could. The new Iowa law, Rhich will regulate U.S,at 30,the Coun has never varied from the lioth pos;tion that the• only material "depicting s sex act involving sado-masochistic - community as a whole should be the judge ot obscenity,and not a smnll, atypical subset of the community. The only exceptioa to this rule that hns been recogniaed is for material aimed at a detirly de8ned deviant 'The Court in Efiller qave two"pIain examples"of what a state statute se�ua! group. Nfishkin v. New York, 383 U. S. 50?, 508 (1966). See• eould dPfine for mgul.�tion: Paris Adult Theatre I v.Slaton,413 U.S. 49,56 n.6 (1973). °(a) Patently otfensice representation or descriptions of ultitnate T See Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U. S., at 191-192 (opinion of BaExxes, setnal ncts,normal or pen•erteci,actuat or simulated. •• dJ; Roth v. United Statea, 354 U. 3., at 487 n. 20; United Statea v. "(b) PatenHy o$en.�icr repre.rentations or descriptions of masturbation, Kennerley,209 F. 119, 121 (SDNY 1913) (L.Hand,J.) (obscenity should Pzeretory functioes,and lex-d eshibition of the genitals." 413 U.S.,at 25, be determined in accordance with the "present critical point in the com- •�ee atso Paris Adult Theatrt 1 v.Sfaton,413 U.8.,at 64 (the States promise between candor and shsme at which the community may hace are free to adopt a '9ai:�ez-faire" policy°snd drop all controls on com- attived here nnd now"). Cf.Manual Enterpriaea,Ine,v.Day,370 U.S., mercisGzed obrcenit}•, if that i ahat thep prefei'); United Statu v. /' at 986 (opinion of Hsrlan, J.) (usually the elements of prurient interest Reidel, 402 U. S. 351,357 (19i1) (nonregulation of obscenity for aduIts � xnd patent o6ensivenesa w�l coalesce foz thia kind of materisi), "m3r prove W be tfia desirable and eceatml IeSisLltive cot¢�e'�_ 21 CrL 3054 5-25-77 . �� t I b� abuse, excretory functions, a child, or bestiality," provides The fact that the mailings in this case were wholly intra- an example of an intermediate approach. Iowa Criminal state is immaterial for a prosecution under § 1461. That Code, �2804. statute«•as one enacted under Coiigress'postal power,granted If a State wishecl to adopt a slightly different approach to in Art. I, �8, cl. 7, of the Constitution,and the postaI power obscenity regulation, it might impose a geogruphic limit on clause does not distinguish between intersta.te and intrastate � the determination of community standards by defining the matters. This Court consistently has upheld Congress' exer- area from which the jury couid be selected in an obscenity cise of that power to exclude from the mails materials that case, or by legislating with respect to the instructions that are judged to be obscene. See, e. g., Ex parte Jac�:son, �J6 must be given to the jurors in such cases. In addition, the U. S. 727, 736 (1877); Public Clearing House v. Coyne, 194 State nught add a geogra•phic dimension to its regulation of U. S. 497, 507-508 (1904) (power to exclude from the maiI obscenity through the device of zoning law-s. Cf. Young "information of a character calculated to debauch the public v. American 1�1ini Theatres, Inc., 427 U. S. 50 (1976). It is morality"); Roth v. United States, supra; United States v. evident that ample rooin is left for state legislation even Reidel,402 U.S.351 (1971). See also In re Rapier,143 U.S. though the question of the community standard to apply, 110 (1892).12 when appeal to prurient interest and patent offensiveness are Our decision that contemporary community standards�must considered, is not one that can be deSned legislatively. be applied by juries in accordance with their oan understand- An even stronger reason for holding that a state Iaw regu- ing of the tolerance of the average person in their community lating distribution of obscene materiai cannot define contem- dces not mean, as has been suggested, that obscenity convic- porary community standards in the case before us is the tions will be virtually unreviewable. �Ve have stressed before simple fact that this is a federal prosecution under § 1461. that juries must be instructed properly, so that they consider The Court already has held, in Ha�nling,that the substantive the entire community and not simply their own subjective conduct encompassed by § 1461 is confined to "the sort of reactions, or the reactions of a sensitive or of a callous minor- `patently offensive representations or descriptions of that spe- ity. See Miller v. Cqlifornia,413 LT. S.,at 30. The type af cific "hard core" sexual conduct given as examples in �tiiiller conduct depicted must fall within the substantive limitations v.Caiifornia:" 418 U.S.,at 114. The community standards Suggested in Miller and adopteil in Aa�riling with respect�to aspects of §1461 likewise present issues of federal la�r, � 1461. Cf. Jenkins v. Georgia, sugrra. The work also must upon which a state sta.tute such as Iowa's cannot have con- lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scienti$c value�be- clusive effect.'" The kinds of instructions that should be giveii fore a conviction a�ill be uphe'ld; this determination is partia to the jury are likewise a federal question. For example, the ularly amenable to appellate review. Finally, it is always Court has held that � 1461 embodies a requirement that local appropriate for the appellate court to review the su�'iciency rather than national standards shouid be applied" Hamlinq of the evidence. Cf. Ginzburg v. Tlnited States, 383 U. S. v. United States, supra. Similarly, obscenity is to be judged 463 (1966). according ta the average person in the community,rather than Petitioner argues that a decision to ignore the Iowa law � the mo�t prudish or the most tolerant. Ha�nling v. United will have the practical effect of nullifying that law. We do States, supra; Miller v. California, supra; Roth v. United not agree. In the �irst place, the significance of Iowa's de- States, 354 U. S. 476 (1957). Both of these substantive cision in 1974 not to regulate the iiistribution of obscene limitations are passed on to the jury in the form of materials to adults is open to question. Ioa•a may have instructions. decided that the resources of its prosecutors' o�ces should be devoted to matters deemed to have greater priority than the ��The langurige of §14Bi givee no indication that Congre�• intended to enforcement of obscenity statutes. Such a decision a•ouid :�dopi 9t:itQ I3R'3 relating to distribution of obscene materini for purposes »ot mesu that Io��•a affirmatively desired free distribution of of che feder:�l atntute, nor does its history. See n. 12, inJra. Further- those materials; on the co�itrary, it w•ould be cut�sistent ��•ith murn, none of the usual rexsons advanced in favor of svch adoption are a hope or espectation on the $tate's paTt that tlle Federal pre�ent here. The regulation of the mails is a matter of particular federal Government'8 prosecutions under ststutes suCh 1is � 14�I concern, and the nationw�de chnracter of the pwtal system argues in ��ould be sufficient for the State's purposes. The$tate might f:�vor of a nationatly uniform constrvction of §1�61. The Conscicution also vie�r• distribution over the counter as different from dis- it;elf recognizes thia fact, in the specific grant to Congrecs of pouer over ct�e patnl e�•stem. Art. I, §8, cl. 7. Obscenity in general has been a tribution through the mails. It might conclude that it is m�tcer of both nationai and local concem. To the e�tent chat locai easier to keep obseene materials out of the hatids uf minors roucern is rele�•nnt, howe�•cr, the jurore' applicntion of contemporary and unCOnsenting adults in retail establishments thsn it is eommunity standnrd� fulh• sati.fies that intere:t. Finally, to the extent ��•hen a letter or package arrives at a private resiclence. Fur- th:it. tl�e st:�te 1�«• and the federal law conNict, traditional principles of thermore, the history of the Io�r•a lan suggests that the State {ederal :uprem�cy require us to follow the federat policg. See Glearjiel� Trust Co.v. United States,318 U.8.363 (1943); United States v.Stand may have left distribution to consenting adults unreguIated ard Oil Co.. 332 U. S. 301 (1947); DeSglva v.BaUentine,351 L'.S.570 simply because it was not then able to arrive at a comproniise (1956); United Statea v. Little La1L•e Misere Land Co., 412 U. S. 580 statute for the regulation of obseenity. (1973). See generally Comment,Adopting State Law as the Federa!Rule of Decision: A Propwed Test, 43 U. Chi. L. Rev. 823 (1976). We therefore decline petitioner's invitation to adopt state law relating to distribution for purposes of the federal statute regulating use of the mails. 11 It• is to be noted that MiUer held only that the States could not bt 1z For a detailed summary of the history of§1461,see generaliy Munual compelled to adopt a national standard. 413 U. 3., at 30. If a state F,roterprises,Inc.v.Da�.370 i?.S.,at 50�511 (opinion of Beexxex,JJ; legislature decided that it wanted s national community standard far C,iirn�, Pnul, and \�'i;hner, Se� Censorship: The a�umptions of Anti- put7ioses of in?tructing stnte juries, or if Congre�s amended the federat Ob�cenit}• Lna-� ancl the F�npirical Evidence, � �Iinn. L. Rev. 1009, legislation in such 3 way na to require reference ta a nationat standard,a 101a-1011, n. 2 119�i2); Y;ud, The Post Office and \on-�Iailability ot ditTerent question would be presented. We ezpress no view upon ang �lb.cenity: an FIi<torical :�'ote, R L'. C. L. A. L. Rev. �S (]�J(il): F. ( such qnestimr. �rL,��r,suprt�.at t�'��3. � �'2�� 21 CrL 3055 _ _ � �--� � 1 �� :lrguinents siiiiilar to petitioner's "nullification" thesis standing of community standards would have been no more ��ere made in cases that follotved St¢nley v.Geor�ia,394 L�.S. eppropriate than a request for a description of the meaning of :ii7 (1969). In United States v. 12 200-�t. Reels of Fil�,a, "reasonableness." Neither term lends itself to precise defini- �ic7�ra, the question �r•as �r•hether the Uniteci States constitu- tion. This is not to preclude other more specific and les9 tionally might prohibit the importation of obscene material conctu�ory questions for voir dire. For exampte, it might be � that «•as intended solely for private, personal use and posses- heipful to know how long a juror has been a member of the �ion. See 19 U, S. C. 130b(a). Sta�rtey had upheld the community, how heavily the juror has been involved in the individual's right to possess obscene mnterial in the home, community, and with what organizations havtng an interest and the argument«•as made that this right�could be�•irttially in the regulation of obscenity the juror has 6een a�liated. :neaningless if the Government could preti•ent imnortation of, The propriety of a particular question ia a decision for�the a,�d hence access to, the obscene material. 413 L. S., at L6— trial court to make in the first instance. In this case how- 137. The Court held that Stanley had been based on the � ;�rivacy of the home, and that it represetited a considered line ever, ne cannot say that the District Court abused its discre. of demarca.tion in the obscenity area. Id., at I2i. Conse- tion in refusing to ask the specific questions tendered 6y quently, despite the incidental effect that the iuiportation Petitioner. prohibition had on the privacy right to possess obscene mate- B• �Teither do we find § 1461 unconstitutionally vague as rial in the homc, the Court upheld the statute. A similar applied here. Our construction of the statute flows directly result«'as reached, in the face of similar argument, in United from the decisions in Ha�nling,ll�iller,Reidel,and RoEh. As �4tates v. Orito, supra. There, 18 U. S. C. � 1462, the statute construed in Hamli�eg, the type of conduct wvered by the prohibiting kno«-ing transportation of obscene material in statute can be ascertained with suff'icient ease to avoid due interstate commerce, was at issue. The Court held that Process pitfalls. Similarly,the possibility that different juries ,Star�ley clid not create a right to receive, transport, or dis- might reach different conclusions as to the samE ma,terial does tribute obscene material, even though it had established the »ot render the statute unconstitutionai. Roth v. Unifed right to possess the material in the privacy of the home. 413 States,354 U.S.,at 492 n.30; Miller v. Cati�ornia,413 U$., U. S., at 141. See also United States v. Reidel, supra, at 26 n, 9. �'e find no vagueness defect in the statute In this case,petitioner argues that the Court has recognized attributable to the fact that federal policy with regard to the right of States to adopt a laissez-faire attitude toward distribution of obsceiie material through the mail was different regulation of pornography, and that a holding that §1461 from Iowa polic}• with regard to the intrastate sale of lj&¢ permits a federa.l prosecution will render the Statea' right "��tg�'�' meaningless. See Paris Adult Theatre I v. Sdaton,413�T. S. VI 49, 64 (1973); United States v. Reidel, 402 U. S., at 357. Since the Ioc�a law on obscenity was introduced into evi- Just as the individual's right to possess obscene materisl in dence, and the jurors were told that they could consider it as the privacy of his home,however, did not create a correlative evidence of the community standard, petitioner received right to receive, transport, or distribute the material, the everything to a•hich he was entitled. To go further, P,nd to � �tate's right to abolish all regulation of obscene material does make the state law conclusive on the issues of appeal to not create a correlative right to force the Federal Government p�rient interest and patent offensivenesa, in a federal proee- to allow the mails or the channels of interstate or foreign cution under �1461, would be inconsistent with our prior commerce to be used for the purpose of sending obscene ��, �ye hold that those issues are fact questions for the materiai into the permisaive State. � jury, to be judged in light of the jurors understanding of Even though the Sta.te's law is not conclusive with regard contemporary community standards. We also hold that to the attitudes of the local community on obscenity, nothing §1461 is not unconstitutionally vague as so applied,and that �e have sa.id is designed to imply that the Iowa statute should petitioner's proposed vair dire questions were not impcoperly not have been introduced into evidence at petitioner's trial. refused. On the contrary, the local statute on obscenity provides rele- �e judgment of the Court of Appesls is affirmed. vant evidence of the mores of the community whose legisla- tive body enacted the law. It is quite appropriate, therefore, It id so ordered. for the jury to be told of the law and to give such weight to the expression of the State's policy on distribution as the jury feels it deserves. We hold only that the Iowa statute is not conclusive as to the issue of contemporary community stand- Dfx. Jts�cs PowEr.L, concurring. ards for appeal to the prurient interest and patent offen- I join the Court's opinioii aad w�rite to express my under� siveness. Those are questions for the jury to decide, in its staudiug of the relative narro�cuess of the questions preseuted. traditional role as factfinder. United Statea v. Danley, 523 At the time petitioiier engaged i�i the conduct at issue here, F. 2d 369 (CA9 1�J75), cert. denied, 424 U. S. 929 (1976), Ion•a la«• placed no limits on the distribution of obscene V materials to adults. If Iok•a law governs in this federal prosecution, petitioner's conviction must be reversed. Our A. �t'e also reject petitioner's arguments that the prospea decision therefore turns on the:answ�ers to two questions, one tivP jurors shoulcl have been asked about their understaniiing requiring interpre�ation of a federal statute, the other calling of Iow•a's community standards and Iowa law,and that§ 1481 for application of the coi�stitutioual staudards sunounced in was unconstitutionally vague as applied to him. The par- ;�liller v. California, 413 LT. S. 15 (1973). ticular inquiries requested by petitioner would not have elic- The first question, easily answered, is a•hether Congress ited useful information about the jurors' qualifications to ;nteuded to iucorporate State obsceuity statutes into ls apply contemporary community standards in an ob}ective ti. S. C. : 1461. I agree with the Court's opinion, ante, at � �cay. A request for the jurors' description of their under. 12-13, aud n. 10, that no such intent existed. 21 CrL 3056 5,25,7� . �- � � I ��, The federal statute goes to the co�istitutional limit, reach- endeavor to identify certain weaknesses in�the Court's"offen- ing all por�iographic materials not protected under the First si�'eness" touchstone' and then to exptain why I believe �meudiueiit. See �blarks v. L'nited States, — U. S. — criminal prosecutions are an unacceptable method of abating (1977j (Slip op.,at 7). Under�Yliller local commuuity stand- a public nuisance �r•hich is entitled to at Ieast a modicum of � ards play an importaiit role in defining that liniit. The First Amendment protection. second question,therefore,is w•hether"community standards," as that concept is used in Milder, necessariiy folto�c changes y m a Sta,te's statutory la�v. Again, I agree with the Court's A federal statute defining a criminal offense should prescribe conclusion that they do ❑ot. A community may stiil judge a uniform standard applicable throughout the country. This that materials are patently offensive and that they appeal to proposition is so obvious that it was not even questioned dur- the ��rurieut interesL even though its legislatute has choset�, mg the first 90 years of enforcement of the Comstock Act for w•hatever reason, not to apply State criminal sauctious to under which petitioner was prosecuted.' R'hen the reach of those who distribute thein. The State statute is releva�it the statute is limited by a constitutional provision, it is even evidence of evolving community standards, and it w�as prop- more certain that national uniformity is appropriatz.° �'ever- erly brought to tl�e atteution of the jury here, But it is not theless, in 1963, Rhe:��'hief Justice `Vanen concluded that a cozitrolling in a prosecution under federal law. national standard for judging obscenity was not provable,he I emphasize, however, that this case presents no question suggested the substitution of community standards as an ac- coucerning the limits on a State's power to design its obscen- ceptable alternati��e" He thereby planted the seed which ity statutes as it sees fit or to define community standards as eventually blossomed into holdings such as Miller,'Ha�reiing,° it chooses for purposes of applying its own,laws. Within the and today's pronouncement that the relevant standard "is bouudaries staked out by Miller, the States retain broad lati- not one that can be defined legislatively." Ante, at 12. tude in this respect. MR. JUSTICE BRENNAAT, W1E}1 wllOril i�'IR. ,TliSTICE STEWART '��hou�h apl�c:il to Ihe "prurient" intereat and "patenUy otTensive" character are identified as seplrate parts of the legal standard for deter- and Ma.Juszzce M,+�sa,u.L join,di33elt.t111g, .�i��„�o µ•hethcr materiala are obscene, the two concepta overlap to some Petitioner wAS Convicted after a jury trisl in the United extent. But whether or not the two standards are different, se�ually States District Court for the Southeru District of Iowa of oriented material u constitutionally protected if it is not patently offensive. mailing obscene material in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1461. 'In i96?, �Ir. Justice Hartan wrote: The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed. "There mu�c 6rst be decided the rnlevant "community" in terms of w•hose standards of decency the i�ue must be judged. We think that the I wOUld Teverse, I h&ve pievioUSly Ststea my �Iew that nroper teat under this federal statute,reaching es it dces to all parts of the this statute is clearly overbroad and unconstitutional on its f;nited Stntes n•hox population reflects many different ethnic and cul- face," see, e. g., Milliccan v. United States,418 L�. S. 947, 948 tur�l backgrountL-,is a nationai standard of decency. .We need not decide � (1974), quoting United St¢tes V. Orito, 413 U. S. 139, 14$ ��'hether Congrese could constitutionally prescribe a lesser geographical �1873) (BRENNAN, J., dissenting�, fr:�meu•ork for judging thu isaue a•ttich would not have the intolerable ��on�equence of den}•ing �me sectiona of the countrq access to material, rhere deemed acceptable,�vhich in others might be considered offenaive to prevailing communit}• standards of decency." 11fan�uol Enterprisea v. nny,370 Lr.S.478,-kSS (Opinion of Harian,J.) (footnote omitted). MR. ,JUSTICE $TEVEN3, dissenting. 5?�y �fR. .TL"3TICE B��x�1e has written: . Petitioner has been sentenced to prison for violating a `Ir i. true that local communities thmughout the land are in fact federal statute enacted in 1873.' In response to a request,he d��'er�e, and that in cases such as thi� one the Court is confronted with mailed certain pictures and writings from one place in Iowa to �he ra.k of reconcil;ng the rights of such communitie� wich the righta of another. The transaction itself offended no one 2 and violated i°di�•iduals. Communities vary, howe�er, in many respecta ocher than T !heir toleration of alleged ob�cenity,and svch variances have never been no Iow•a law. l�eveitheless, beCause the materials proved ,.�n.idered to require or justify a varying standard for application of the "offensive"to third parties who were not intended to see them, Federal Constitution. The Court has regularty been compelled, in re- Et fedeTal Crime was Committed, ��e��-ing crimin�l concictions chnllenged under the Due Proce�s Ciause of Although the Court's af$rmattCe of this conviction repre- 'f:e Fourteenth �lmendment, to reconcile the con8icting rights of the sents a logical extension of recent developments in this area °�'�� communih- n•hich brought the prosecution and of the individual d� 'Pnd,inr Such a ta;k i�admittedly dif&cult and delicate,but it is inher�t of the law, it sharply points up the need for a principled �n the Court's dut�•of determining whether a particutar conviction worked re-examination of the premises on which it rests. Because so t depri�ation oF ri�hcs guarnnteed bp the Federsl Constitution. The ntuch has already been written in this area, I shall merely '�ourr has not shrunk from dischacging that duty in other areas, and n•e sPe no reason e•hc it should do so here. The Court has explicitly re- iu=ed to tolerate a re�ult n•hernby 'the constitutional limits of free ex- '17 Stat. 593, 18 U. 3. C. §1461. The statute". . .�rus �assed with Pre�ion in the\ation�soald�•ary w�th state lines;Pennekamp v.Ftorida, Iess thun an hour of Congressional debnte,and there was no objection to �Pra. 34R U. S., at 335; a•e see even less justification for allowing such its enactment in either the House or the Senate. Reflecting its origin, limits to��an• with toa•n or count}• lines. 47e thua reaffirm the pwition the law is stiq known as the Comstock Act." F. Schauer, The Iaw of ��ken in Roth to the effect that the constitutional statvs of an allegedly Obscenitt•13 (19i6). obacene n�ork must be determined on the basis of a national standard: 'It i., of coune, jwssible that the pa�tnl inspectors, who had used It i�,�iter all,a national Con.titution we are expounding." Jacobellis v. fictitiou� names to request the materia�,were oSended by them. There =�hio,3T3 U.S.1�,19-�-195(Opinion of Bne�rx�v,J.) (footnote omitted)_ «•ar, ho�cever, no such testimony. bIoreover,persons examining materials BJacobellis v.Ohio,37S li.S. 184,20Q-2p1. ot thi.� kind aa a part of their routine duties must surely develop an in- `dliller �•. CaliJornia. �13 L' S. 15. +eu�itivit}• to them. 'flamfireg � C'nited Statra, 4I8 U. S. 87. �. 5-25-77 21 CrL 3057 �-b � i b � The conclusion that a uniformly administered nationaI The question of offensiveness to community standards, sGandard is incapabte of`definition or administration is an ti��hether national or local, is not one that the average juror iiisufficient reason for authorizing the federal courts to engage can be expected to answer with evenhanded consistency. in ad hoc adjudication �of criminal cases. Quite the con- The a�•erage juror may well have one reaction to sexualty trary, it is a reasou for questioning the suitability of criminai oriented'materials i❑ a completely private setting and an en- � prosecuiion as the mechanism for regulating the distribution tirely dirTerent reaetion in a sociat context, Studies have of emtic materiaL shown that an opinion held by a large majority of a group The most significant reasons for the failure to define a concerning a neutral and objective subject has a significant nat.ional standard for obscenity apply with equal �orce to the impact in disforting the perceptions of group members who :.se o� local standards. Even the most articulate craftsman «'ould normally take s different position." Since obscenity is �:�?s it easier to rely on subjective reaction rather ihan con- by no means a neutral subject, and since the aseertainment of crete desriptive criteria as a primary definitional source e The �community standard is such a subjective task,the expression diversity within the nation �vhich mal:es a single �tandard of• �f individual jurors' sentiments will inevitably influence the offensiveness impossible to identify is also present within each Perceptions of other jurors, particularly those who would of the so-called local communities in which litigation of this normally be in the minority." Moreover,because the record kind is prosecuted.`° Indeed, in Miiler itself, the jury was never discloses the obscenity sta.ndards which the jurors asked to apply the contemporary community standard of actually apply, their decisions in these cuses are effectively California. A more culturally diverse state of the union unreviewable by an appellate court'* In the final analysis, hardly can exist, snd yet its standard for judgin� obscenity the guilL or innceence of a criminal defendant in an obscenity was ussumed to be more readily ascertainable than a national trial is determined primarily by individual jurots' subjective standard. reactions to the materials in question rather than by the Ir.deed, in some ways the community standard concept is Predictable application of rules of law. even more objectionable than a national standard. As we This conclusion is especially troubling because the same have seen in prior cases, the geographic boundaries of the �mage—whether created by words, sounds, or pictures—may relevant community are not easily defined,and sometimes ap- produce such a wide variety of reactions. As Mr. Jnstice pear to be subject to elastic adjustment to suit the needs of the Harlan noted, it is ". . . often true that one man's vulgarity prosecutor." Moreover, although a substantial body of evi- is another's lyric. Indeed, we think it ie largely because dence and decisionai law concerning the content of a national government officisls [or jurors] cannot make principled standard could have evolved through its consistent use, the distinctions in this area that the Constitution leaves matters derivation of the relevant community standard for each of our of taste and style so largely to the individual. Cohen v. Cadi/ornia, 403 U. S. 15, 25. In.my judgment, the line countless communities is necessarily dependent on the percep- between communications which "offend" and those which do tions of the individuals who happen to comprise the jury in not is too blurred to identify criminal conduct. It is also a given case. too bluned to delimit the protectiona of the First Amendment. � II e�IR. Jl;%'f10E S1'EWART� concttrring in Jacobellis v. Ohio,3�8 U.S. 184, Although the variable nature of a sta.ndard dependent on 'P7, u�rnre thui criminal prwiecution ia the o�cenity area is constitution local eommunity attitudes is critieally defective when used all�• limited to prosecution of "hard-core pornography." He went on to note: to define a federal crime, that very flexibility is a desirable 'I nhall not talay attempt further to define the kinds of material I under- :i�nd to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeecl in intelligiblp doing so. But I know it when I see ro Prior Re:traints, Community Standards and Judgment Preclusion, 7 ir xnd the motion picture involved in this case is not that." jeton Hall L. Re�•. 543, 566-571 (1976). 10 The opinion in 111iller,413 U.S.,at 30-31,assumes that jurors could �=�o,enblatt d Rosenblatt. Six hfember Juries in Criminal Cases: more easily "draw on the standards of their community"than some"hy- Le;ai and Psychological Considerations, 47 St. Jofin's L. Rev. 615, 631- pothetical and unaxertainable`national standardQ."' Yet,that assump- ,;;;�� (1973); asch. Effects of Group Pressure upon the:VIodificatioa and tion can only relate to isolated communities where jurors are weil enough r��tortion of .iud;ments, reprinted in D. Cartwright, Group D��namics r�equaintecl with membera of their community to know their private tastes •�g_�� lqfi��. �ud valuea. The assumption does not appl�• to mwt segments of our • ,n�r mi�ht weil find certain materials appealing and yet be un- d�cere, mobile, metropolitan socieh�. For surel}•, the atandard for a willing to say so. He may assume,without necxssarily being correct,that •uetmpolit�n�ren is just as"hcpothetical and im:xscertainable"as an}�na- hu reaction is aberrant and at odds with the prevailing community view, �wnal stxndard. For a juror,it would be almost as hard to determine the e,�ec�ally if the fir�-t members of the jury to speak indicate thst they con- �•ommwiit�•standard for any large urban area as it would be to determine a 3ider the msterial offensive. Perhaps one reasan thut the Comstcek Act n:�tional �tandard. lfetropolitln nreas t}�picall�• contain some commercial waa�ed unanimously,eee n. 1,aupro,is that it is much more popular :.ii;trict� dm•oted to the exploitation of sex, in book shopa,adult theaters, to be against =in than to be tolerant of it. ni�htcluba or burlesque ho�es; a juror might have seen respectable citi- �•�e introduction of evidence on the question of rnntemporary com- �en� freyuenting the entertainments of such areas and therefore conclude munity atandards will rarely enaMe an appellate judge to differentiate be- rhat the communit�•stnndard was one of"anything gces." Another juror tween the juror:-' own reactions to the materials in queation and the re- :ni�ht predicate his standard on residential enclaves which include nothing actions of the average resident of the mmmunity. For instxnce, in the rceu closet}• resembling an ad�dt bookstore, and decide thaE such an area present case, the defendant entered into evidence se exhibits materiale r••Be�r� the proper standard. Uuder that test,the juror would probably which were ireely and lawfully available at storc� in Iowa. These ex- �mclude that am• inagazine sold from under the local drugstore count�er hibits were more sa]acious, lewd and open in their treatment of ses than m�wt. be ot..rene becau�aits pre�ence on the magazine rack might offend were the materials upon which the defendanfa were convicted. Yet a .rom�ry. �1 third juror might tn�to spply a hybrid atandard. reviewing court could not use this evidence to overturn a jury vettlict , "SeP flamlin,q v. L'nited Statea, 418 U. S. 87, 142-145 (BREtiNAN, J., for the jun•'s vie«• ma}• qwte correctl}• 6ave been that these material9, di�entin;); United Statea v. 111cdfanus, a35 F.2d 460 (CA8 19i6),cert. although freet�� a�:iilable, ��ere appreciated only by a deviant minority o£ denied, — U. S. —, No. 75-1599 (3an. 11, 19i7). Edel�tein and th�rommunit�• �nd did not conform to the community standard. Teati- \Iott,Coll:iteral Problemv in Obseenity Regulation: A Uniform Approach �n��v of et�wrt� �c;�uld havP to br.similarly diacounted. �. 21 CrL 3058 5-25-77 �e � � U � feature of a civil rule designed to protect the individual's right ridicuIous to assume that no regulation of the display of sex- to select the kind of environment in which he wants to live. ually oriented material is permissible unless the sa,me regula- In his dissent in Jacobeilis v. Ohio, 378 U. S. 184, Chief tion could be applied to political comment18 On the other Justice Narren reminded us that obscene material "may be hand, I am not prepared to rely on either the average citizen's � proscribed in a number of ways," 378 ti. S., at 201, and LhaL understanding of an amorphous community standard or on . a lesser standard of revie�v is required in cicil cases than in My fello�r judges' appraisal of what has serious artistic merit criminal. A�foreover, he identified a third dimension in the as a basis for deciding what one citizen may communicate to obscenity determina.tion that is ignored in the Court's cur- another by appropriate means.19 rent formulation of the standard: I do not know whether the u 1 �O g y pictures in this record "In my opinion, the use to ahich carious mgterials are have any beneficial vaIue. The fact that there is a large put—not just the words and pictures themsel��es—must demand for comparable materials indicates that they do pro- be considered in determining whether or not the mate- vide amusement or information, or at least satisfy the curios- rials are obscene. A technical or legat treatise on por- ity of interested persons?' Moreover, there are serious well- nography may well be inoffensive under most circum- intentioned people who are persuaded that they serve a worth- stances but, at the same time, `obscene' in the extreme while purpose.=' Others believe they arouse passions that when sold or displayed to children." 378 U. S., at 201 lead to the commission of crimes; if that be true,surely there (footnote omitted). is a mountain of material just within the protected zone that The standard now applied by the Court focuses ita attention on the content of the materials and their impact on the 1tl This assumption mu.vt underlie Lhe suggestion in Miller that a na- average person in the community. �ut �hat impact is not tionxl standard would require that��the people of Maine or Missisaippi ac- S Constattt; it may vary widely with the use to whiCh the cept public depiction of conduct found tolerable in Las Vegas,or New York materials are put. As Mr. Justice Sutherland wrote in'a City." 413 L*.S.,at 32 (foo�nore om;tted). That suqgestion misreads the different context, a"nuisance may be merely a right thing in First Amendment in ac IeASt two wa�•s. The constitntionat protection of the wro�ig place—like a pig in the parlor instearl of the barn- the sp�ker's right to communicate doea not de�rive the local community oF yard."'s Whether a pig or a picture is Offensive is a question ��1 authorit�• to rcgulate the time, place, and manner of communication; \evada's approvnl of public displays would not necessarily require vlaine that cannot be answered in the abstract. or «iss;�sippi to approve use of identical mexns of expres�ion. More In Roth v. United $tatea, 354 U. $. 476, 485, the Court tundamentall}•, the constitutional inquiry is not confined to the question he[d"that obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally oE whac an un«,lling recipient must accept; rather, the critical First protected speech or press." That holding rest,s, in part, on �mendment question in this lond of case invotves the interested indi- the assumed premise that all communications within the pro. vidual's right of acce� to materials he desirea. 3ee the pusesge from Klei�+clienst ��. Mandel, 408 U. 3. 753, 762-763, quoted in Yergenia teeted area are equally immune from governmental restraint, phar�r:acy Board v. Virgirzia Consumer Council, 425 U. 8. 748, 757, whereas those outside that area sre utterly without soci&1 w•hicii recognizea thac the Fi,st. Amendment necessaaily protects the � value and, hence, deserving of no protection. Last Term the righi tu"recei�•e informution and ideas." Court expressly rejected that premise. Ym[nq v. American '�As Justice Douglaa once noted, "The First Amendment makes confi- Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U. S. 50, 66-71; V2rginia Pharmacy dence in the common aerue of our peopie and in the maturity of their judgment the great po�tulate of our democtary." Dennia v,United Statea, Board v. Virgin.ia Consumer Council, 425 U. S. 748, 771-773. :;gi II. S. #9-�, 590 (dia,enting opinion). The fact that speech is protected by the First AmendmenE �If First Amendment protection is propedy denied to materiats that dces not mean that it is wholly immune from State regulation. dre "pate�th• offensive" to the average citizen, I question whether t6e Although offensive or misleading statements in a political �'�ement of erotic appeal i�of critical importance. For the average persoa oration cannot be censored, offensive language in a court- n11Y find some portra�•ul� of violence, of disease, or of int;mate bodily room16 or mialeading representations in a seeurities prospeetus functions (,uch as the birth of a child) equaliy offenaive—at least when hey a.rn �tew�ed for the fin.t time. It ix noteworth that one of the ex- may surely be regulated. Nuisa.nces such as soundtrucks 7T ,I„p�� of �in im;,rotected representat;on identi6ed by the Court in its and erotic displays in a residential a,rea may be abated under foocnote�; ante,ut to,��urely would have no emtic appeal to the average appropriately flexible civil standards even though the FirsE �»�� Amendment pmvides a shield against criminal prosecution. _�As :�1r. Justice Hadan wrote ;n Cohen v. CatiJornia, 403 U. 3. 15, As long as the Government dces not totally suppress pra '''26` teeted speech and is faithful to its paramount obligstion of "Additionall}•, we cannot overlook the fact, . . .that much linguistic ex- complete neutrality with respect to the point of view ex- pression serves a dual communicative funetion: it conve}�s not only ideas capable of relatively preci�e,detnched explication,but othetwise inexpres- pressed in a pPOteCted Communlcstion, I see no ieesOn w}ly ;�ble emotions aa well. In fact,words are often chosen as much for their regulation of certain types of communication may not take emotive as their cognitive fome. We cannot sar,ction the view that tl,e into aceount obvious differences in subject matter. See Leh- ronscicution,nhite solicitous of the cognitive content of individual apeeeh, naan v. City of Shaker Heights,418 U.S.298. It seems to me has little or no regard for that emotive function which,practicaUy sPeaking, may often be the mote important element of the overall me9sage aought to ".F•'arli�'v.9mbl.vr Re�fty Co,272 U.3.365,388�. :.e communicsted." 18 In deciding what comments on litigation may be punished,the content Tu a similar affect,this Cwtrt wrote ia Winters v.New York,333 U.3. of the commeut,whether it is uttered ineide or outside the courtroom,and 507, 510: whether it concerns pending litigation,all have relevanee. See In re Little, ^We do not accede to appeIlee'a suggestion that the constitutional proteo- 40-�G.S.553; Pennekamp v.Florida,328 U.S.331; Bridges v.California, rion for a free press applies only to the expositioa of ideas. The line be- 314 U. S. 253. See also In re Dellinger,502 F.2d 513,815 (CA7 1974), eween the informing and the entertaining i�too elusive for the protectioa cert.drnied sub nom. Delliager v. United States,420 U.S.990; TheriavlE uf that basic ri�ht. Evetyune i� familiar wit6 instancee of propaganda �•. Cnited States,4S1 F.�d l 1;i3, 1196 (CAS 1973),cert.denied,414 U.S. rhrough fiction. What is one man's amusement,teachea another's dcetrine. l 114. Such factors are ahtia�•.< relevant in appl�•ing the clear and present 1'hough w•e can xe nothing of sny possible value to soeiety in these mag_ C dan��•r te�t: onl�• die� combiu:ition ot content (theµ•ord "fire") and place :�zines, the�• are as much entitled to the protection of free speech as the (a rrow•ded tl�eater) ullou•�proliibition in Justice Holmes'famous example, nest of literature." �he,�ck �•. U�eited States, "_49 U. S. 47, 5�. ��See The �nal Report of the PresidenYs Commission on Obscenity "�e�u%n��.Nem Y'e�k.8��U.S.5a8; Koyaka c,Cooper,338 U.S.7T. �nd Pornography. 5-25-77 21 CrL 3di9 r zU �IIb � is equally capable of motivaLing comparable conduct.=' More- In this case the petitioner's communications were intended over, the dire predictions about the baneful effects of these to offend no one. He could hardly anticipate that they would materials are disturbingly reminiscent of arguments formerly offend the person�c-ho requested them. And delivery in sealed made about the availability of what are now valued as works em�elopes pre��ented any offense to unwilling third parties. of art. In the end, I believe we must rely on the capacity of Since his acts did not even constitute a nuisance, it neces- � the free marketplace of ideas to distinguish that which is use- sarily follows, in my opinion, that they canno� provide th� ful or beautiful from that which is ugly or a•orthless.'* basis for a criminal prosecution, I respectfully dissen�. zi�nthom� Comstock, who i� given c:edit foz the enartment of the -�:�tute involred in this c�se,understood this point. He wmtz: "Yo em- '`[�t'Jhen men hace realized that time has upset many fighting faiths,they �ellishment of art can rob h�st of its po�er for evil upon the Luman may come to belie�•e even more than ther•believe the very foundations of n,�ture," J. Iiilpatrick, The Smut Peddlers 36-37 (1960). According to their own conduct that the ultimate goai desired u better reached by free :'rofe�•or Schauer "[a]mong the objects of Comsfock's scorn were light trade in ideas—that the best.test of truth is the power of the thought to ��rcrature, pool halL,, lotterie,, gambling dens, popular magazines, and ;et itself acceptrd in the cum�,etition of the market,and that truth is the �erkl�• new�papera Arti�tic motive was inelevant." F. Schauer, The onl}� groimd upon �cl�icl� tlieir �t�uhes safely can be carried out. That at •i pb.�rPnitv 13 n. bl (1976). xn}• rate i:the theory of our Con�titution." Abroma v.United Statet,250 ��DIr. Justice Holmes has written: C'. .�. Gifi, fi30 (Holu�, J, di�senting). , � �. ` 21 CrL 3060 5-25•77 � � `II � � DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES C`?�'4�3° �a'A� � , DIVISION OF PUBLIC HEALTH �� CI7Y OF SAINT PAUL I.NTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION J UL `% 1911 OFFICE OF ROSqL�E �, gUTLER July 6, 1977 To: Rosalie Butler Councilwoman From: Paul J. Cox, , Director of Environmental Health Margaret Christi �Sanitarian II Subject: Proposed Sauna Ordinance We have reviewed your proposed amendments to the Sauna Ordinance and find them acceptable. The proposed ordinance has been discussed with the Minnesota Physical Therapy Association, who indicated the amendments were consistent with their philosophy and objectives. It is the feeling of the Minnesota Physical Therapy Association that only graduates of the degree program in Physical Therapy and the associate degree program in Physical Therapy Assistant will qualify under the provisions of the proposed ordinance. These programs are offered in the local colleges and universities. Section 378.06 (M) requires the Director of the Division of Public Health to certify masseurs and masseuses. With the assistance of the Minnesota Physical Therapy Association we will be in a position to develop a comprehensive examina- tion including items one through four for the applicants. It has been suggested that a board of five individuals be formed. Members to consist of a representative of the Director of the Division of Public Health, a practicing physical therapist, a consumer, a representative of the faculty of a Physical Therapy Program at a university and a representative of the faculty of a Physical Therapy Assistant Program at a junior college. The board will be formed to evaluate the credentials of_prospective applicants. PJC/MC/kj cc: Thomas J. Kelley Edward R. Eberha.rdt ,. - � � 2� � � �, � Council�an Dave Hozza Page 2 � 3uly 15, 1977 I loolc forward to hearing from you. If yoti have any �uestions, �lease give me a cali. _ � Sincerely, �."" / y .�H � / �y , Dou as W. Frisbie, Director Cor.�unity Crime Prevention Project DWF/a;nc Encl. _ 1� � �/ STATEh1tPdT BY ROSALIE QUTLER ?0 CITY COUrJCIL - JULY 19, 1977 � � �i �� I H�ould like to ask the Council to vote against the Roedler resolution, as I feel sucn a committee as requested will only add �dditional confusion and is not necessary or even desired. Wnile the author has stated that it is not his intention to deiay or postpone the ordinances, that would be the effect -- and for what? Y�u have been told the ordinances are legal . You cannot question that a cross-section of Saint Paul citizenry � has given you input, not only at the public hearing but also by the ietters of support, resolutions of organized groups, and the signatures an the petitions. I have never seen sucn overwhelming support for a matter and from such a broad base of the citizens. To request the Minnesota Civil Liberties Union to be on a committee to review and recommend obs��nity ordinances for Saint Paul Paul is a little like asking the fox to watch the chicken coop. I ask you to vote against the comnittee because it is a negative approach. On one hand you pass strict ordinances, and on the other hand you say "Let's send it to a committee and study it for amendments, " -- almost as if �you do not beliEVe in the ordinances. Many corrr�nnunities are watching Saint Paul , Minnesota today, and only by passage of the ordinances witt�out a committee will you be saying "We recognize the damage pornography, obscenity and related activities are doing to our community. We recognize we have the l�gal authai°ity ta do something about it and are committed to do something `� � � � about it �vithout pussy-footing around with a committee approach.° r . ~ , `� J !� � . ��is� °"�� CITY OF' SAINT 1�AUL � � a OFFICE OF TFIE CITY COIINCIL � �'aie0�aee� y � aa _ q � ,.ro..o....o ti � �� r�te��t� N � *M PATRICK J. ROEDLER JOANNE SHOWALTER Councilman Legisiative Aide Ju1y 8, 1977 The Honorable George Latimer Mayor of the City of St. Paul Room 347, City Hall & Court House St. Paul, MN 55102 Dear Mayor Latimer: On June 2, 1977, the Council was presented six proposed ordivances pertaining to obscene materials and publication, sexual conduct and sauna regulations for review and tentative ratification. I personally feel, and have felt all along, that I could support much of what these ordinances are attempting to accomplish. And I believe there are ways to regulate hard-core pornography without the violating or taking of individual freedoms guaranteed by the U. S. Constitution. I am of£icially requesting today that you appoint a "riayoral Commi.ttee on Hard-Core Pornography" for the City of St. PauL I believe it should be a standing committee to review and make recommendations on legislation such as the six ordinances which are currently before us. � Subsequent to the passage of these or any other ordinances, this committee could monitor the on-going enforcement and effectiveness of such ordinances. I'm certain that the majority of the subject matter contained in these ordinances will become law in the City of St. Paul; however, I would feel much more comfortable and I believe other members of the Council would also, if these ordi.nances were reviewed by a committee such as I am suggesting. I also believe that in the area of hard-core pornography� we are constan.tly playing "catch up," and when this happens to be the case, a great deal of emotionalism enters into the legislative picture. While there have been many instances where the courts at virtually all levels have pre-empted legislative attempts to regulate hard- core pornography, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that communities have the right to adopt such ordinances if the ordinances reflect the standards of the community. I personally feel, as an elected official, that if such ordinances are to be adopted, a cross section of the St. Paul citizenry should have the opportuniCy to give input and help determine what the specific community standards of the City of St. Paul are. CITY HALL SEVENTH FLOOR SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 612/298-5289 � Mayor Latimer July 8, 1977 Page 2 My request that you appoint this committee is in no way an attempt to delay or postpone the ratification of any ordinances which are curreatly before the St. Paul City Council for consideration -- quite the contrary is the case. But, because of the potential complexities of these proposed ordinances, such as the whole question of First Amendment gua.rantees, individual rights and freedoms guaran- teed by the Constitution of� the iJnited States versus the question of one individual's �ights infring�ng upon the rights of others, I feel discussion on .the proposal should be removed temporarily from the sub3ective political and emotional arenas and should be objectively studied by a committee mare insulated from political and emotianal pressures. I further believe that any possibilities of political expediency for the sake of political expediency alone, could be greatly re- duced. This committee could give the proposals the kind of con- sideration they need and deserve. I would also hope that at the end of this .committee's studies and deliberation, it would make recommandations to the Council on alI of the ordinances previously mentioned and any ameadments the committee might feel are necessary to meet any and all consti- tutional tests, insure enforcibiYity and provide the greatest degree of protection to all citizens of our City. To give the committee the kind of broad-based support and scope I feel it should have, I respectfully recommend that membership on the committee include representatives from the religious commu- nity, legal community, media (both printed and electronic), Chamber - of Connnerce, Trades and Labor Assembly, Parent Teachers' Association, On-Sale Liquor Dealers Association, Hotel and Restaurant jdorkers Union, Minnesota Civil Liberties Union, and any other groups within the community which you feel should have input into the decision- making process. � S erely, PATRICK J. ID R Councilman PJR/rb _ . , � � ,�r� C. �- �� ',�' Testimony of Amos Martin before the City Council City Development Committee Regarding Six Proposed Ordinances to Control Pornography Introduced by Councilwoman Butler, July 7, 1977 MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE: MY NAME IS AMOS MARTIN AND I AM EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF TI� SAINT PAUL AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. TI� CHAMBER IS AN ORGANIZATION OF MORE THAN 2,300 BUSINESSES IN TI� SAINT PAUL AREA, MQST OF WHICH ARE LOCATED WITHIN TI� CITY LIMITS OF SAINT PAUL. I APPRECIATE T1� OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR BEFORE YOU TONIGHT. PORNOGRAPHY IS WITHOUT A DOUBT ONE OF THE MOST DIFFICULT AREAS TO EFFECTIVELY LEGISLATE. HOWEVER, WE BELIEVE IT IS AN ISSUE OF REAL CONCERN TO MANY PEOPLE AND ONE WHICH DESERVES YOUR ATTENTION. WE COMMEND MRS. BUTLER AND THE COUNCIL FOR RAISING THE ISSUE WITH THESE ORDINANCES AND WE CONIlHEND THE ENTIRE CITY COUNCIL FOR TAKING THE TIME TO CONSIDER THEM. IT IS NOT MY INTENTION AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CHAMBER TO DISCUSS EITHER THE MORAL, CONSTITUTIONAL OR TI� PRACTICAL ENFORCEMENT ISSUES INVOLVED WITH THESE PROPOSED ORDINANCES. WE DO HOPE, HOWEVER, THAT YOU WILL GIVE VERY SERIOUS STUDY TO EACH OF THESE ISSUES. WE SENSE THAT MOST PEOPLE FEEL THAT SOME THING MUST BE DONE ABOUT PORNOGRAPHY, YET IT SEEMS THAT MOST EFFORTS IN THE PAST HAVE BEEN EITHER IN VAIN OR COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE. IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT EVERY EFFORT HAS BEEN MADE IN TI� DRAFTING OF THESE ORDINANCES TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE BOTH ENFORCIBLE AND CONSTI_ TUTIONAL. WE ARE PLEASED THAT SUCH CAREFUL WORK HAS GONE INTO THE DRAFTING OF THESE PROPOSALS, BUT BELIEVE THAT SPECIAL ATTENTION IN THE HEARING PROCESS AND IN YOUR REVIEW CAN ONLY STRENGTHEN THE POSSIBILITIES THAT THESE ORDINANCES WILL PASS IN A FORM WHICH WILL BE BOTH CONSTITUTIONAL AND EFFECTIVE. � , PORNOGRAPHY TESTII�ONY � � � � � � -2- July 7, 1977 � I AM TESTIFYING TO DISCUSS SOME OF TAE ECONOMIC RAMIFICATIONS OF PORNOGRAPHY AS WE UNDERSTAND THEM. TEIERE HAS BEEN LITTLE RESEARCH DONE IN THIS AREA, SO WHAT I HAVE TO SAY IS BASED ON CONVERSATIONS WE HAVE HAD WITH RETAIL AND OTHER BUSINESS FIRM3 IN AFFECTED AREAS. IT IS OUR OPINION THAT THE HARDCORE PORNOGRAPHY SIi�PS AND THEATERS HAVE AN OVERALL NEGATIVE IMPACT ON TEIEIR IMMEDIATE SURROUNDING AREA AND ON Tf� CITY AS A WHOLE. TI�Y TEND TO LOCATE IN AREAS THAT ARE SUFFERING ECONOMIC DECLINE. THE IPIlNEDIATE REACTION OF BUSINESS PEOPLE LOCATED IN TEIESE AREAS SEEMS TO BE ONE OF ATTEMPTING TO FIND SOME WAY OF PRpTECTING THEIR NEIGHBORING AREA AND THEIR BUSINESSES. THEY ARE FOR THE HDST PART OFFENDED BY THE LOCATION OF SUCH SHOPS NEAR TI�IR BUSINESS AND FEARFUL OF TI� EFFECT IT CAN HAVE ON THEIR BUSINESSES. WE BELIEVE THE EXISTANCE OF THESE SHOPS CASTS A DOUBT IN THEIR MINDS AS TO THE DESIREABILITY OF THEIR LOCATION. IN SOME CASES, TEIEY MAY CHOOSE TO UNITE AND FIGHT BACK, TO WORK TOGETEIER TO STRENGTHEN TAEIR NEIGHBORHOOD AND HALT THE DECLINE THAT INVITES PORNOGRAPHY. IN OTHER AREAS, THEY SEEM LESS ABLE 1�0 DO S0. IT MAY BE ARGUED THAT TFIE REAL PROBLEM IS NOT SO MUCH PORNOGRAPHY, BUT A PROBLEM OF CONTROLLING THE DECLINE OF COrIlKERCIAL AREAS OF OUR CITY. CERTAINLY WE BELIEVE THAT WITHOUT DECLINING COrIlKERCIAL SECTIONS THERE WOULD BE FEWER PORNOGRAPHY SHOPS. HOWEVER, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE COMMLRCIAL AREAS OF VARYING STRENGTHS, AND AS SUCH, SOME WHICH WILL BE MURE INVITING TARGETS FOR THESE SHOPS. PORNOGRAPAY TESTIMONY �' v G( 1 � I�. July 7, 1977 _3_ THE MAJOR POINT, IT SEEMS 1�0 US, IS THAT PORNOGRAPHY DOES EXIST, IT IS OFFENSIVE TO MOST BUSINESSES AND TO I�ST CUSTOMERS, AND IT IS A PROBLEM WHICH IrDST PEOPLE BELIEVE SHOULD IN SOME WAY BE CONTROLLED. WE HOPE THAT IN YOUR C)ONSIDERATION OF THESE PROPOSED ORDINANCES THAT YOU WILL BE ABLE TO COME UP WITH SOME ANSWERS WHICH WILL BE BOTH CONSTITUTIONAL �4ND ENFORCIBLE. IN SUMMARY, WE CONCUR THAT PORNOGRAPHY IS A PROBLEM IN SAINT PAUL. WE COMMEND YOU FOR YOUR WILLINGNESS TO CONSIDER THIS IMPORTANT AND DIFFICULT PROBLEM AND WE PLEDGE OUR SUPPORT IN YOUR EFFORTS. �i � �� f � , � �4� � � � July 19, �g�� S A I N T P A U L AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SUITE THREE HUNDRED THE OSBOftN BUILDING SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 • PHONE: 222-5561 The Hon. Rosalie Butler Councilwoman City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55108 Dear Rosalie: I am writing to clarify what may be some confusion regarding the Chamber's position on the proposed pornography ordinances. There is only one Chamber position: That which I gave to you at the recent public hearing. For your reference, a copy is enclosed. A recent letter from a Chainber staff person to a Chamber member has evidently been circulated to members of the City Council. That letter may give the impression that Chamber policy has changed. That is not the case. The letter was not endorsed by our Executive Committee. It was the opinion of a staff person. It was not the intention of that staff person that the letter should be given to anyone other than the original recipient. It was not his intention that this letter should cause confusion regarding the Chamber position. He recognizes that he erred in sending the letter. If there has been any mis- understanding we apologize. Again, there is only one Chamber position and a copy of it is enclosed. incerel�y J AMOS MARTIN, C Executive Vice President Att. �� CITY OF SAINT PAUL �� ' k OFFICE OF THF. CITY COUNCIL ._--� �� .��e:.eo�e ,r"" . �^ � A �'� •�ieess�es�a �•�»,, q �'� ��;'� ■�u�� ROSALIE L. BUTLER Councilwoman July 19, 1977 MEMORANDUM T0: City Council Members FROP1: Rosal ie Butl er I vrant to ti�ank all members of the City Council for their patience during the past weeks of hearings and discussion on the six obscenity ordinances. I realize :you have been under a lot of pressure, and that many articulate people are presenting arguments against �hese ordinances. The purpose of this letter is to point out once again that all of the legal testimony by the City Attorney and other extremely competent experts that appeared, leaves little doubt as to the legality and enforceability of the ordinances. While some of you may {�ave experienced concerns, it would seem proper and appropriate to pass the ordinances and proceed to work out any problems as they arise. There can be little doubt in your minds that there is tremendous public support for passage of the ordinances. Since their introduction, there hare been hundreds of phone calls -- 196 yesteriiay alone, with only 18 not in support -- letters from 75 various groups and organizations representing thousands of people from all segments of Saint Paul 's population; and over 14,000 signatures on petition sheets and hundreds of letters from individuals. The Mayor and Council Complaint office has received 189 calls in favor and 38 against since last Friday morning. Attendance at the July 7th Public Hearing resulted in a large number of people being turned away for lack of space. This in my view indicates overwhelming support for passage of the ordinances, and I am optimistic that you will approve them. CITY HALL SEVENTH FLOOR SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 612/298-5679 O \\ � // . �TATEMENT BY ROSALIE BUTLER TO CITY COUPJCIL - JULY 19, 1977 �r �. � � �� I think all has been said at pu5lic hearings, in the press and otner places. i��ere is no reason for additional testimony from me other than to �hank you for your patience and ask for your vote on these ordinances. I would like to clarify one matter, however. There were comments in tf�e press recently that the public had been misled on these ordinances. I do not agree with this statement and in no way has it been� my intentian to mislead the public. I would like to read to you one paragraph from r►�y statemen� read to tnis Council on June 2nd, and made a part of the public record of this Council . I think this statement makes it very clear that I believe the battle is just beginning, and so stated from the beginning. This paragraph reads -- "I realize the passage of these ordinances is only the beginning of a real battle, but it is a battle We will win, because I 'm convinced these ordinances will give us the tools necessary for an all-out war on pornography and related activities. If we all work together -- the police, prosecuting attorney, the people and the public officials --, Saint Paul , Minnesota can say to the smut peddlers "You are not allowed here." I also stated from the beginning that public suppQrt a�ould be necessary for tne successful passage of these ordinances. ' There can be little question that public support has been overwnelming. The question of the legality of the ordinances is not in question, as our own City Attorney has told you in writing the ordinances are legal and the public testimony from recognized legal experts has told you the ordirrances are legal . 2• 7/19/77 Tne bottom line now is -- does the Council want to pass tnese ordinances? Unly you can answer that. I have prepared a recap for your information of the ietters and petitions in support of the or�inances. As you will note, these letters and signatures cover a wide range of interests and are from a broad city base. (Present additional letters and petitions} �,w�� ..� , � � ��. , THOMAS - DALEIDISTi�IGT � PLANNING CQUNCIL, INC. � 1010 University Avenue�St.Paul, Minnesota 55104�2JB - 506B � i � i • � July l9, 1977 St. Paul City Council 15 W. Kellog Boulevard St. Paul, Mn. 55102 � Dear City Council Members, The District 7 Planning Council would like to state its � opposition to the Code of Ethics inclusion of District Councils and their paid staff. We have often been reminded that we are not the final decision making body regarding development and other activities. We feel therefore, that it is unnecessary for the District representatives and staff to file letters of disclosure. If we were able to finalize any type of legislation or decisions on development the,re could be reason for this, but as things are • now we feel it could cause extra work unnecessarily and may influence interested citizens negatively with the red tape of government. Since 1�, �[��'�-�-2�y� William Johnson, P sident Thomas-Dale/District 7 Planning Council WJ:JN:sm . � �_ �� A � � �� ' HARTKE, ATKINS AND MONTPETIT ATTORNEYS AT LAW • sui.rE �oo 450 SOUTHVIEW BOULEVARD SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA SS075 E612) 451•2231 JERROLD M. HARTKE J u 1 y � �� 9 7 7 DENIS OPSAHL M. EUGENE ATKINS KEITH R. CONWWY JOEL A. MONTPETIT Honorable P1ayor and City Council City of Saint Paul 347 City Hall St. Paul , Minnesota 55102 Dear Mayor Latimer and Councilpersons : Our firm represents Titan Entertainment Agency , Inc. , the agent and representative of over 100 women who work in the adult entertainment field. Titan has been organized as an agent in the entertainment industry since 1972 and presently represents these women who are performing regularly in and about the seven county Metropolitan area - predominantly in the City of Saint Paul . As a personal note , Titan represents performers who per- form in my own communit�n of Inver Grove Heights . These women earn over $10 ,�00.00 per week in commissions and many of them are residents of the City of Saint Paul . The total num6er of performers in the industry in the seven county Metro- politan area is well over 20Q . My client ' s experience has been that 30% of these young ladies are married and all have a variety of backgrounds . A good number of them are young women earning money to put themselves through school . Titan has even had, as a client , the wife of an intern who was doing his residency at Hennepin County General Hospital . If any of you have had the opportunity to review the performances at some of the various sup,.p;e;r. clabs , night clubs and lounges in the City of Saint Paul , you anuS�t ag:ree .th'a�t the entertainment you have witnessed does not, in any way, s.hape or form , parallel the lewd conduct that the State v+f� Califolr:nia faund itself facing as outlined in the U. S. Supre�ie Court case of Cal � fornia vs . Robert :�r-� z� � � b �, 7�, 8�� 2 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Saint Paul LaRue , 409 U. S. 109, 34 L . Ed. 2d 342 , 93 S.Ct. 390. A headnote �Tiat case indicates that the conduct which the State of California was atempting to regulate was as follows : " . .sexual conduct (that) had taken place between customers and entertainers.. ..'" Performers represented by Titan are well aware of the requirements of the present Ordinance 308.23 . In the four years that that ordinance has been law, we do not know of a single incident in which a report or complaint was made concerning a violation of that ordinance insofar as these �ntertainers were concerned. The wom�n represented by Titan practice an art form which has long been re- cognized and enjoyed as an art form. It is neither lewd nor obscene and is done in good taste in some of the better supper clubs , night clubs and lounges in the City of Saint Paul . It is unfortunate that Ordinance 308. 23 and the proposed amendment became a part of the battle with respect to pornography in the hands of children and matters of that nature . The public hearing con- cerning Ordinance 308. 23 should have been a separate public hearing and should never have been included with the parnography ordinances . Now, many people believe that that amendment is needed as much as amendments to ordinances concerning pornography in the hands of children. The performances of Titan ' s clients have never been described as , nor complained of as , being pornographic or obscene . On the contrary, great care is taken to see that all performances which have any connection with Titan comply strictly with the spirit, as well as the letter of the law. In March , 1973, everyone involved believed that a viable piece of legislation had been drafted and approved which would allow for both control of lewd and obscene conduct at liquor establishments as well as provide sufficient liti.tude to allow an adult art form of entertainment to be exFiibited. � Relying on the passage of that � �� i � � 7/18/77 3 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Saint Paul ordinance by the City Cauncil of Saint Paul , club owners have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to remodel their estab- lishments to comply with the orclinance . Titan ' s client relied upon that effort and remained in this area . Why, then , should those reliances be undermined now? Is there a need to amend Ordinance 308. 23? From a legal stand- point, there is no requirement to change that ordinance because that ordinance , in its present form, was based upon the authority that cities had in the LaRue decision of 1972 . The state of the constitutional law concerning regulation of on-sale liquor estab- lisments is the same now as it was then . There have been no new and far-reaching Supreme Court decisions which would allow the City of Saint Paul greater authority to regulate their on-sale liquor establishments thatn was on the books in March , 1973 . In fact , the authoress of this amendment was a member of the City Council at that time and was a member of the License Committee. She gave her approval of the ordinance in its present form. The license holders in the City of Saint Paul have relied upon the city ' s legislation in its present farm. To change that legislation now and rebuke that reliance would , in fact, be to disregard an obligation that you , as City Council members , have to these people During the last four years since the inception of Ordinance 308. 23, I know of no proceeding that has been brought against the license holders for violation of that law. Quite obviously, the tool to regulate that industry has been in the City of Saint Paul since 1973 and if the conduct of the. performers in these liquor establish- ments is violative of the ordinance ; then the law enforcement agencies of the City of Saint Paul shoul.d perform their duties and bring the law breaking license holders �o task. The very absence of such a proceeding strongly suggests compliance with the ordinance and that compliance demands that no amendment be made to Ordinance 308.23. If there are any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to ca11 me at the above number. Thank you . Very truly yours , RTKE A AND MO TPETIT Jerr�' rt e JMH/cvh �>�� w a:a�n—..^��1� y , + *k". , : . . .. . �� / � � `, � 1 f 1 �l� 1 � � � � _ � ". , r� /i % ..• . � � ,�� .�� /� '� �� i/ . / � �� , � •= � �_ .e�% s � � , �, . � � � � �/ ! �� _ ,li � � �L_� , / ��''�•� •r � � .� � � i . /• i y i ,•� � . , i ' � , � ; � -,. � �i .��.. a� ,��I , / �/� � �i � � � ! �� •� � �!' ° �, , �G � � ��_ ./ '� � / ; � � ,. . �__ _ � .- � _a �� . �� - i - � I ��/� -) / I ��'o. , i, � �-....� i s- / �� ; , �. r . .�l� � � 1� '' '�' � r � ; �� - � � � �� fi 1� R ��.�� COMMTTTEE FOR A BETTER ST. PAUL l,�B� CO-CHAIRPERSONS PHONE: 774-037B WAYNE B. (SPIKE) HANSON.J. OSTERTAG �� 541 E. MINNEHAHA AVE.. APT. 6 1� /� 77 ST. PAUL. MN 55107 City Clerk Cit,y Council st. Paul, Mn. 55102 Dear Siras Havi�ag liater�ed to all the objeationm and read other proposala from other cour�cil membera, I :till believe Mre. Butler'e aix ordinu�cea ��,inst porrr�- ogr�.phy are the beat defence we havc at the present time. Hopefully, in the future we will be able to pa.as or ffi�e the cowacil pa,a.� ordinaxcea� of thie t,ype that will aa,tiafy the pla.xining depn.rtment, a,ll city councilmen �d th� men and women who profit from this type of buaixeaa. According to what I hs.ve he�,rd a.�ad re�,d I ca.n oxly suppose th9t those who would fi�ad ari ob�ction to th� letter of the ls,w �,re ix fa.ct oppoaed to legiela,tio�t �g�.ixst pornogr�,phy, �.nd aimil�r obacene a,cta. Respectively yours, /�/ 6; �G,�'.st,v :'��, �,d�.•a� �� Wa,yxie H�.n�on �� . � �� , THOMAS - DALEI�ISTFlICT 7 PLANNiNG COUNCIL, INC. '� 10'10 Ur�iversity Avenue�St.Paul, Minnesota 55104�29e - 5068 � � � i i . July 19, 1977 St. Paul City Council 15 W. Kellog Boulevard • St. . Paul, Mn. 55102 . Dear City Council Members, The residents of District 7 along with the District ? Planning Council, Inc. think that the six ordinances proposed by Mrs. Butler dealing with pornography are of tremendous importance. We feel very strongly in favor of the passage of these ordinances particularly because Thomas-Dale seems to have been invaded by this type of business. After reading Councilman Roedler's letter , we have to question the purpose of such a committee when so many people have already voiced their opinion on the subject. The ordinances were well publicized and the whole City had the oppor- tunity to voice its opinion, most of those who did where in favor of the resolutions, so why the delay in passage? If the Council deems it necessary to form such a committee we feel that each of the 17 Districts should be represented Ethey were excluded in Mr. Roedler's letter) . District 7 has n�uch at stake with these resolutions, and has muah first hand knowledge of the affect these establishments have on residential and commercial development. Sincerely, , �'L illiam Johnson, Pr ident Th�mas-Dale/District 7 Planning Council, Inc. � WJ:JN:sm �_ S" � . I 3 ! , � { �� • �.:y � � : ! � � �7�'� ?i�,��e i� ��`�� 1 ' ' J': � , � a .' ,�I 4 � � j � ` }� F _�'N�ky .. �t � '�' � 4r � , I 11 � > �Y'� t M .�P �� . .� �.,4�h��.t 4`"i � � ( � ' ` � � �ci V r' e { R i 1,{t `��'�.,.AA, � . . , . t ', ' t _ �� y ,.�� 1' 1 !. },rr" �' .> �SS � i s' � f � , . � ' '"� � , � �) � � , � ' � / � ' 0. � t� v �� ( �� . 1 �r' ..- s^ i{ � `^��k{,� � � �� 1 ` � ` � ��.d� ��'�` • ��' � >:' w�,,`# � ; — , , , � , , ,_ . ,.; > , � � � ,. i � . - ' ° • ' o > �" � . ' , � � � .�. � � � � �' � � a �� 'tr�� I.. . . � . � " 1 � '� ,_ . � i�, � � r tF'i�, �� < < t � i � � V ' � i � , � �., 'w �� . .. � � .�,' � � � � � � , 't' � F � ` � �� . . . . ,v i� 1 eFy , tx � . . � �. � • � _ � . t f'. ..j� r t - i � � '� '�'' ' f, �� ts� , � 1 , ? . � � �.� • K '�1y `� ��% � , ' / • .. � � . i. R�'` �� l:'L � Y �� .. � � 1 .. I i S l .� � t , �M�- � � . y� � �� ' � i ` �. , � ,�, 7• l I � �� , ' ,��':�:�!' , t � , � �° ' t. � + � d. ��a�� '�� i� �'� •.� . � � f t ;6��+a1 'i. y �� , i 1 .. � ~ ' � � _ t � f � . I ��, ! � ._ � , � ��;� v � � J � r ) � � �� i y ��i�. 4 "� c,z k� �k�F rf �t � . ,� , �' �� i � �r i � -��A ry,' Y yf�1 ,� �BeV .\ I i' _' r , i .., � .�4 i �� t i .� � . t y . . , � J, j � w � � . . , i ._ :1 � . � :� / �.�� 4` �� k 1 �`� 1 � '�,v: �' � �-.�.�.��I. ��, ,�� :.�1 �� - t�� a # .�• � "i�` � � t� � �� r� y ,�T'.�� 1 .�rve,t ,.v t�pt� .,s�� a �. �, �, ��c z � r ��iwi��i��' , ` x � ` , � �?� �� .�• ' ` ;`' � `� ,.. . _� . i i ,:�� 'A , �� .: i r. �� y`V.3 �� 3Y +y:. i i i 41 � � ti �. rt z �,�3� � {� , - �-; (��" � ��:�. � �� , +n� �'�� : t �s „`� .��. .r �l�� ?'�"�".,,� �� ,.��,, �.`J�„� ,¢,`k � +�.1 -- _ ♦ ��x 7 r .ir� '' ri „,�„F � ' ..��": � r. .a t '' 1 , k. } �i � { i �� ,.F �.�':# � �,� ir E, y �`�} � �� r' � � �r f;':. "I �;ir ti �,'i ��_ 'r 1 � � j,�( �} :,� � � x y�� .�� '�� T� �.Y `�,��Y� r�.. . �4 ��at :..�� t�� : � ,�i� � �^ti r�` � , �� d'�� 1 �( . � i � — � < "',��` a �3 � !'�; f , , �•ss � �. � �.��' 1�Ml�" "I�R� v� r ;'r} �,` �P F 31Y tl a �� 4 � .. � �r� �... ,.. '�� 1. �.3�xi � 4�• : .r t�� ., , '� '4 St zY,s ��t,� e�f;�xt�i. G '�.t ` t; �1�`�,t�R�� '� ,�i• 7 "1h r� - � �Rar,` 5 t - ' '��+ �"tM`;�� '` �`�..�'r} Ta , _ f �. '� `' ��' . , � ' � . -�i �"�i i ] , + .. �f�. �;-1 -1 t y p � 5:.�r ;�� a77�9i ,.. �_.,. k' � + :w`( _ t: J �'R � � . ,_. �" . _� � l ) ,i� 4Af�M7F � � , . �' � t `t - � �' . . - , > M � �� . � , . „ , � Q. y , i � r t }�� 1 �� . � ��.: � �� 1�� F��4 ��.:�• �; + 4 -J t�f`Tj� � � �'i^ �..,' ,17��1�� 7, t �* '� ,l1� t '+ :- S h � . -Y�,. . � i. t � ��; �{ �.,� � ` , � , , .. ��, � � �I-�� q `4 ��i f 1 �. • . .': � � " � . 1 �1,�� i ` n , � � �� ,�� ' �Y q �, �_' ��w �!�� °� . , .. � � T r �, `�� . ' ' � . � , � ,�` � �el�'"��i� .�it��.` �'� G t'� ' , , ' ' ��.� � ��iw�l�if�,,,, � �MI► �'��I �IuI��:� `� �� ' � , i ,� F��; i .y - . .. �� "' � ... � � � '��,.�!��, ' 'e � � . /� , _ 4 (V �� •I " .. n'' R'r A,� � • . 1 '.I . �� .. .. . . i .,. 1 . . � f' f.a].:ly'�.. d I' / - `•� ?� ��" : • ^�.�'��'.. �� I . ' � {��'.. , . ��:ry . . / � , 1 � � � • ( . � . . � . . �" 4,� }'� � . � i �- ' ��.. . 1 ,y P�t.. t.. • ' � I . � ., . �4 � '�• ' i/ ? f� !'� �{� f � � F r � '4� y f ) — , / . f e � �� , _ 1�' i �� t � �� M ��`�� , � � � � : � ��. , i < < - }a �� !I . . � , ! ` f k '9✓ 4�.� rt � .k f r�"�£AR�.Jn:]x'. .. .,. . . . � .. ... '1 .... �. S ._ � _��t � .. ., i ... .. ... . . . .> . . � .. ,. ...: � w .. .. ..�.. .. , , �, c ,, RECEtVED �� i � � . �� ' � � �`��,t* �.ti+ ��, 181�7 cITY OF SAINT PAUL e �; OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY �• �"`�'" �� OFFICE 0� ROSALtE L. BUTLER �.,, Harriet Lansing, City Attorney 647 City Hall,Saint Paul,Minnesota 55102 George Latimer Mayor 612 298-5121 July 15, 1977 M E M 0 R A N D U M T0: Mrs. Rosalie Butler Council Member ..{ FROM: Philip B. Byrne'�� Deputy City Attorney You have asked for my response to the letter of Earl Gray, attorney at law, written in behalf of his client, the Civic Center Sauna. Mr. Gray first states that since the Council has in the record no informa.tion or data on the incidence of any problems in saunas after the hour of 10:00 P.M. , and that since he indicates that the police reports disclose that no arrests for prostitution have been made after 10:00 P.M. in the past two years, the 10:00 P.M. closing is unreasonable. Assuming the total factual accuracy of his statements, there is still a presumption in favor of the validity of Council action. The Council, or any legislative body, is not re- quired to ma.ke f indings of fact or develop a factual record to support legislation, except in limited circumstances (of which ordinances impinging on activities protected by the First Amendment would be the most common) . The Council can rely on informa.tion it possesses both individually and as a corporate body from any source -- communications from indi- vidual citizens, from public meetings, hearings and proceed- ings on other Council business, from police officers whether forma.11y or informa.11y given, and informa.tion from personal knowledge. ti �J . �-� `� �� Mrs. Butler Page Two July 15, 1977 In this particular instance, however, the factual accuracy of the statements made is open to question. Just as one example, in April of this year, the License Committee held a hearing on the question of the revocation of the sauna license of the North Snelling Sauna. In that hearing the Committee received evidence of several acts of prostitution occurring after 10:00 P.M. Pursuant to that hearing, the Council revoked the license. The Council can rely, in addition, on its own knowledge of the situation in that the actual time of any arrests in the area of prostitution relates more to the schedule and working hours of the police officers than the incidence of acts of prostitution. It would, of course, always be helpful in meeting later challenges to the validity of legislation to be able to point to the remarks of Council members or the testimony of witnesses relating to the problem addressed in the legislation, the various solutions considered, and the reasonableness of the solution embodied in the legislation. Second, Mr. Gray indicates that there are no schools available for masseuses to meet the education requirements of the ordi- nance. The ordinance permits applicants to present evidence either of graduation from an accredited school as described, or the completion of 70 hours of course work in the specified areas from any school. In addition, existing licensed ma.sseuses are exempt from the educational requirements if they can pass the required tests. The informa.tion from Dr. Paul Cox, which is in the record, indicates that local colleges and universities offer course work (and even degree programs) in physical therapy and related areas. The Council ma.y well conclude that a licensed ma.sseuse, who has invested the time and money in an educational background, will be much more relnctant to jeopardize the license than would the masseuse who is in reality a prostitute. This would be a reasonable approach and there have been several cases � , r � b � l � b Mrs. Butler Page Three July 15, 1977 upholding the validity of such educational requirements. I would suggest tha.t my response be made a part of the record, together with Mr. Gray' s letter. PBB:jr cc: Mayor Latimer Council Members � � •. ._ ! - � O� � � + � 1 � � � • � r , , - �Q'r� �� -- - _ � __- �_ -_._�l__11_ �- 'i. �t�-t � ; zb � � � � : To: Cle '- - r�L cf Court � Ci�ty of St. P�:v,1 � � Councal Cal�,r.^bers Dat�:: o� Co�.?��ci� �,Teetin�, J;.:1;,- 7, I�:77 Plt�ce: Cit� �Io��_x•�c_;,l Char�bF x�s, �rc' . F�oor, City �Iall 5��. ; ". inne�c �< <; � � �,1U: �;'ith -rEfere,-r1c;�;; tp � � , 1 �� pro��os :c� ��dina.nc�:s I, should lil� — -i,o �nli�hte�i 'c�1:� :�i, �,�:::r�� of ��:;: Ci c;;' ��f �t. ..4._1 Cit�r C c, ' -�' � �.i�;h r ,, :c�_1 '- u �r;c� � `. =, L i,�� i.i . .� CU�� '-� - �;tate l�,ti•r:� �:_�_�.c�ec? by oL�r i _..: _ � f� ' - _ ,� ,.z t ' , n. _ _ , . , �-�.��,�_; � z ,•i.ic�a I t� � �r._k r., `,"d1�--�_ .� :'^•" , ° " - �,� ee �.rE ��,.'-�'�=�°i��r �c�� - � ,� Esse_�t3.�1?-- - ., _ " � ,r � ;.� „ U'_ � ti, c, — city ca�,:��:�c:., ; ��.-_r� . ,:.a.�t��ority ;o �. .:.�.c � ce:rt�.i�� j�F , , �.or.�; �.�; Lhe;,•- co _�fo�� . ..�_ �.� ,>± .te �' ,;�,�, m�� _, 1_ �_ __.; � �._ — � . , �i_ � . _ .�.�v c.11. I1�r1�� or r;..� - �+ .- .�+ ,. , � y-''L . �� li.).Ci.: l„t1 �Ila.iJSCi.�.'_t, � ��.1 �1,�1-• �IJ. C4 �.' ti ys �j ..� .�' - U ' l, .. i .._.A .i .�_.... 1 Ui�:l l� � . � f �.1�.�:: z _;. .,° -�1;e T q • c� _ �;_1Y1Y1_. ,J� --, ,,. � " J � ,.�� .._ ..� .=�i 19.�5 �-r,a a��,,� -�,o� �.; _ �o�r �:ny�nE ��L�i�r 1-� - �C i_. .�. -f;t : .`�7�c'3..�8 �C;_, U i .:C��C:�`.�. i�..�c`3,Ii?_111 E T'S �O 1,�._.:_'.E; i_1 C E.Y.!.`�:�`�;. il°..�,: ' ,'''d�.��:E: J ! " l,U ...:��i�:��i� ��' ?, ../'�C� ~ ��_�%� Dianne F�r��.leLl :_ i �;1_'? ��r��c-.�lph ��. � �. j-'�:,.L'�� -^1.i"r7.. ;5105 — � - „ -_- � � 'i � a ,, Y fi 7 1 pdM I! i �; . P: � - �I � I' � 4 1 � '. �� i ', � �I ��i __ _.____.._.__--______.._—'.—.____-_..._ _____..._ __._'—_ .____-___—---__.____."—._ —��_� --__'_'_--- ; i. �— �! 1: r — '—___—._ ___—_—__'—_`—_--__ '—_ �I� 4 t. !� ��, - -------------------------- ------ - -- - ------ � -- -- ------------------ ----- -- �� - t' - ------- ----__------ ----- - --------- : ' _-------------- _ ___ -�*--- _----._ ___ _ _ - -.______._ ._ --- --- i �' i ! --------- . _—._ __ _�_._ ..--- -- __ _�_._ _ ____ .___..__. ___..------.__.- ... ._..__ _.._— -.___. . _._.___. ._ _ ."_-.. _. _._ ._ __.____._-- - -.._ _._. ..__. ___..___._ �I l i. �F- I f� -}-i - �I i j ' �I I �� i l: � � �� , jl )� 14 � --- , ;i 3 �i'. �� ! �1 1�. I � ' i �N ri .._—..... ______' _'— ____—_ —_ ._ "—_—_" _ ` , . -�� ib � ,, � � ��. l 4 ,�� , , ��i/ t�/1�i9 � �C /� �.��r/ ; � ; ; � - � . ??C' : , � ! . � X' I � � � �� > ` , �. , , - � � , � , ; �' , � . ; �� ' � `^'' ' " � - �-�'��-- � - -- __ _---- —----.-- , ; . � � � . � , � � � c ! ,� � � j � � � � V � i . , ' � �- , ; ' � � i � � � � , i /"' �� i ' ;r"r` . i i � � �c9-�rcQ�' ; a.. , i ; ,; j � � ` ; � i ; i �r- _., .. ' i -------- ------------------_..-- -- --- --- ------ - ------- - �`-- __------ - , � ' i , � . . • I , . � I ----- ------ -- ----- -- ' r� - - -- ------- -' ' � i I � � � I! i i , � �, ' i - -- --- -------------�-�-- --- ! I � F—I 1 � � � � I � ' �j'" . , � i _ __-- - � I . ' :�'.. i . �;.. � . �rk . . . 5 � . i �. -.�l �'4 �I _ �.J � � .. . .. r _ _ . '� . �� ,{ ' • . ` , . I � , I I � I � , � ; � i , I �i 1 � 1 ' i � i I i _" _." ' � � "_"_ ' i i ' � I � y. i . , ., ., ,� ... . ., - _ s i :� .. � —____.._—_____—_--__— _ ' . .... . __...... "__—�...._ _—_._ '_'. � . � . . . .� . _'—' _—_._._ _' _. .__ _'-_ . ., . . . . � ....__.. ._. r '§. ' ' � 5 . .. . _ . � . . - � . .. � I � � ' �. . ' . . . . I � . . . � . __ � � . . . . � � . ' � . • . i , I . � � � � 1 I � � I ' I , I I � I I ; r ,/��Qx(SL �Z�r/Y�"� S,r`11EN1Ef'1T TO f!-iE CITY COUI'JCII � J tl j�n'`ml u e 2, 1977 t, �� l `-� (� ;� ,�.� ;� �� -�� .�- �� .�.� � :� �v � � These ordir�ances are before tne City Council today because of the dedicated concern of rnany people -- too numerous to mention. However, I do wan� to thank Attorney Don Wozniak and his associate �im Campbell for all their work. I also wan-c to thank the City Attorn�y's staff for the long hours of research, drafting and redrafting of these ordinances to insure they are in proper legal form_ t�dithout the dedicated efforts of these people, these ordinances ��ould not be. I a7so tf�ank the many organizations and individuals who have responded with a show of support for titese ordinances. I see many of these people here toda�v and I believe several want to say a few words, which I hope the Council �rill permit. While I wholeheartedly support these six ordinances, I consider myself mostly the vehicle upon which they come before you. Everyone of us has heard the people plead for la�vs to protect their children from pornography and rid their neighborhoods af sr;�ut. It is naw al � of us on Lhe City Council who must respond to the people and decide if the�e ordinances become law, and it is the people of Saint Paul v�ho must no�v let us know what their desire is. 2. �� If the support from the cor,7munity is strong we will rid our city of this filth and its darnaging influence. We have all heard over and over again about the rights of the smut peddlers under the First Amendment of the Constitution and many have gro,�Jn rich exercising these rights. As someone ��rrote in a 7etter to me this week, "It is a t�erversion of the intentions of our Founding Fathers for anyone who trades in pornoyraphy i,o take sP�elter behind the Constitution." The people have higher rights -- the rigF�t to live t�ith decency and morality and it is time these rights were asserted loud and clear. I realize the passage of these ordinances is only the beginning of a real battles but it is a battle we �vill win�because I 'm convinced these ordinances will give us the tools necessary for an all-out war on pornography and related activities. If we all vrork together -- the police, prosecuti��g attorney, the people and the public officials -- Saint Paul , Plinnesota can say to the smut peddler.s "You are not al1owed here. " The s i x ardi nances tri l l cio ti�e fol l oti�ii ny: 0�2��Ii!t��;C� i;0. 1 outla�Y��s i�ard core pornoyr�apl�y �nd gives t��e police and prosecuting attorrieys the tools to close up bookstores, movie nouses, rap parlars and otf�er places ��t�ere hard core pornography material is shown. Tf�i s ordi nance conforms �to �h� au�t�ori ty �i ven b� the Su�remL Court in 1973 -to set community standards. OZi)Iidtl�dC�S 2 « 3 v��ill forbid drug si.ores , super�j�arkets, or any other place 4�here minor children are a part o� the gen��,al publ i c from di spl ayi��g or se11 i n� any n�agazi�� or 1.i2.�.. ��,c��..� � o�t��r publications suci� a P'��to minors. Ti1L'S� ordinances not oniy protect minor�s but also address tr�e compl ai nt of �votnen ��ho feel ti�e volu�;�e � of nudi�y presently d�isplayed in dru�stores, tobacco . shops , etc. is offensive. \� �� `11b � UR�11'Cl1iJC�S 4 & 5 will forbid entertainers , emp7oyees ar pa-trons from � beinc� nude on tf�e premises of any business tnat has a liq�ro r license, including non-intoxicatirig malt liquor establishments. f �� O;DIi�,/1ivCE �d0. 6 fitrt� - is air��d at�ostitution ir1 saunas and ii�assac�e estaul ishi��ert�s. It 4�ii11 r�ar,clate a lO:OJ p.rn. c7 os i ny. �I-� �;i 11 manda�e inat em�1 oyees ;vr�o gi ve massa�;�s Furr�isii prooi o�� havi�� received 7� {�aurs` training in the art of nassac�e from a recognized schoal . I� �•rill rnanda-te tF�at all ►rno give massac�es be licensed after pass i ng an exan�i��ati oi� by the Sai r�t Paul Flea1 zi� Departr?:-;�t as to thei r qual ifications at;d co,�peiency in the prac�ice of massa;e. Tt 4��i11 manda�e ti�at a11 massages be c�i ven or� a 1 i cet?se�i premi se i��s�ead of i n a hot�l room, private dweiling, office, oi� the many otner pl aces ��mi ch are no;•a per��i�tec;. � � �:, � T � . . .. ' . . . . . . . 4 " ' . . � .. �- . . � � � �� ,.►�,'�'9 �� . , �. . ,y,h� • . . . � �� { Y ��i � � � t � ' I 1 1'HYSICIANS ANU SUNGLON5 § 147.171 ; '. fir.t conrirtion, nu��•, ❑n�l, upuu u ki�lr�equent cuttylCLiotl, HLnll, revuke Lhe � �ic��n•r ��f lhr ptv�o�i �o eot►�•icic�l. i ��u��n�lr�l b� I.��•.1:171i,c.'l'�Lt,4 dt,t�ff..iuly 1, ln7fi. . , � 1976 Amendment. T.nwa 197f,, c, 23:, �:�•��er:�l chnnqea 'st�cclfleQ In �ectlon � � , � ` „ � Irenernlby re��isFd the atatutor>• Ittw• re- '114.0U1 �t .eq."bbr ndditional �nformf�- . Y � . . �ntin� tc� Iicens►n�; �t occuPiitiunK. 'fhi� Non concerning l:aws 1976, a 'L8'l, aee , ;ection' ��'as moditied In line «'ith thc section ?1 L0111, noto. 147.16 Temporary certificate for graduate tralning '<�' The st:►te board of inedical ��s:tn�iners•mn�• gr:tnt, ln 9ts discrelion, n'ithout ' ' ' 1 �s:iminution, a te►npora►•}• certific�ite for qra�lus�te tr��ining in me�licine, �ur- . ' ' �ery :lnd oUstetricc, to tl�o�e :ipplic+u►ts ��•l�o fiirnish 5ntisf�ictory proof ttiat , . , �.i�e npjilic�nt: ��;r.� , , , � (1) I� ]8 ��enrs of :ige or o��er; � � . -_ _ . . (21 Is of Food moral ch:;r<ictcr; (3) II;►s succe�sfnlly completc�l si cow•sc iu medicine, surger� :►nd oUstetrics , I at. nnd li:is hocu �rtidn�ited fro►n, :t mt��licul ��r o5tcopt+thic �cl�ool l�rtated out- , � . ' � side of thc tinite�l �t:it�� :�nd ('unad:i :incl tLnt sucli medicnl or osteopathic ' � ;.,� . scLoul i� �ipE�ro�•cd U�• thc ltc��min�; :uitLor�t�c� of tlie country in ��htch such . . � � uiedic�l or o�teopnti�ic schuol i, lucz►tccl; , . ' (4) Is duly licemed to practice medicine iu :ill of its braucLes in tLe stute, , territory or foreign coiuitry in ��•hich Lc rr�i�lcti, or, not Ueinq so licensed, Lax . � • • passed an exatninitti�n or iti eligible tLe�refor :md ��•hicl� c�:uninatiun i5 in tLe judgment of the bonrd substiu�titill�• c��iii�•alent tu thc e�amination �;i�•cn hy it •« , ,� to applicants for u license to pr:ictice roedicine in all of ity br.mcl�eti in tLi� • n,,, - , stnte; ' , ' (5) Iiais b�en acce��trd :i� a re�i�lcnt ph�•sici:ui b�• a l�ospitul situ:�ted in thi� � state, the residenc�• tr:tiuing of ��•liich Las been approt�e�l li�� n �ppru�•al ugen- � � cy recognizeQ hy� tl�c Uoar<l; ��ro�-id��d, hm�•e�•c�r, that the st;tte board of n►ctli- � � ,. Cal esamincrs shtill l�nce tlw utitl�orit�', iipoti its own iti�•ewti�;:ttion, to uppco�'e . . other residencs trainin� progr�im� in medicine, surgery aind obstetrics aud ^ , . qualified npplicants ti�crefor. I�.ach �pplicant sl►all set forth the starting nnd . • � • , termination d�tes of ai Period for «•hicl� he l�ns Ueen accepted or apDointed to � , such resi�lencs traiiiiing progr:im; nlid '""'- � (6) Yossesscs :ill othcr nu.�lifications «•hich nre prescrihect L�� the rtiles and � �i ' Iregulntions of the Uonrd for the granting of sucl�tempornry nuthorizution. ��.� , , • Amended by i.a«•s 1973,c.i25,§ 13,eff.Junc 1, 1�73. _� +� 1973 Ame�dment. I.nwa 7973, a 725, and supervision of person ttcensed an� • generally reduced the age of majority reg�stered to practice medicine In state. , from 21 to 18. The reductlon was incor- to perform aithin hospital only ser��iceA � porated In this sectfon by I.aws 1973, c. prescribed by and requis�te to resident 725. § 13. phy�sician's training program does not .' ' � require continuous deta�ted supervision 1, in yeneral of resident while carrying out medical . � Under aection 147.17 providing that practicea for which he ls training. Wal- , . temporary certiticate for graduate train- stad c. University of :�Iinnesota Hoapi- �y . ; j ing ahall entitle holder, under direction tals, C.A.1371, 442 F.2d 634. . . ";i 147.1y Powers under tempora�y certiiicate . • . , � ' 1. In general prescribed by and requisite to resident , � Under aection 147.17 providing ihat physicin�'s trafnmg Urogram does not , .,• tempornry cerUficnte for graduute trnin-, require continuous detailed supervision • , . ing shall entitie holder, under d�rection ot resident while carrping out inedwal • and supervision o[ person licensed and pructices for which he is training. ��al- regtatered to Dractice medicine in etate, 9tad v. Univereity of Minneaota-Hoapt- � • to perform with(n hospital only services tals, C.A.1971, 442 F.2d 634. . .�w� : 147,171`�Licensipg°ot"persons practicing��massage .- Any percon ��ho a�as licensed tmdcr Lnws 1�J3:�, Chnpter 24�i mny npply to . .� tl�e Uonrd of tnedical examiners for a permanent license. The board shall _ ' � �. �rnnt the request if it ia antisfied that tlie applicant pre�iously held a license +- - - `:�under La��•e S;Y35, Chapter 245. • � � • �tilddcd by Ln��•s 1�J76,c.222,3 42,eff.July 1,1976. �"t:aws• 1976;we.-225.-genel'e11�"�e'v3"seil�pKAl� erences ' ;i"', ' the atatutory law relating to licenaing Licenaes(�il(1). � k�-;• . ot occuDations. For addtttonai informa- C.J.3. Licenaea 4 26 et seq: ;' tion concerning Lawa 1976, c. 222, see , : section Sll.001.note. . 11 ` • ' 11 MIim.S.A.-8 1 1 3 � m i 1977 P.P. e..: , � � ' . . � . . � -. . . .. � . . �y� - � , . � � . . . , . • �..,.:, � . � ,� . ' , ' ' � , r r- :a ' • . . , _._..,. ._�_,.._ _ _,. .. .._._...... ..�.. :. .. . , _..__,_- �- -. _ �. � .�,.. ,. : , ., .. .. . _ -s • _ . _ _ � _ . , . ' ' ' � ` , ' _ , • � �rf' . . .. . , � . . . �� I �`� , . � § 147.18 YHy ICiAN i AND SURCEONS 147.18 Renewal of temporary certlficate, fee tiu�•li t��m��ur:u•y c��rtiPicat�� n�ay M� i.�ucd for a �n�rial o[ nol tu exca�d oue �•�:ir �uui in Ih�� di.�•r�•ti�m uf tl�� l�o�iril, ui:�y iM rruew•��d annunll�' tor not �u��ro Ibau fnur ��dditiuu:il y�•ar.. '1'lu� f��• f�rr the irrrlific:�t�� :ind mt�etval th�•r��i�P�h,ill!a� Pixo�l 1�� fL��boiu•d. � Auu�u�b��l h�� I,:��ti 1!►71i,�•.'„':."',a�I:i,��ff..1111y I, 1l17(i. 19;6 AmenAment. I.n�vy 197f, �•. P?3. R�•ni•ra� �•hnnKe� r+peclfled In ncxNon F-�n��r:�lh• rocl��•d Iho .�tnU�fur�' ln��• r�- "I Lnul ��1 ��•�, I�or nddltl��nnl {nfor�un- Iniintr t�� lirenvinl: of qocap�iflon�. 'Phly U��n cuiirv•rn�n�; IJIN'H 1�7f. a 222. �eo �orii�ni �cns iuudil'1��1 In linc witl� thu xo�•ilon '114.b111. nole. I47.2C Rpsldent phyalcians In pe�ieral prcn��ribed by nnd re��ul:�ite to rertldent , t�n�lrr ;c•i�Uo!� 117.17 pr��•idln�: tluit phy�l�•inn'n trfilnlii�; pm�;rnm doee not . Iriuf�,r:�r� �•��rtifir•nt�• f��r i:raduute trniu- rv�yulre cunflnuou� det.wiled aupi�rvlslon � iu�: :;h:iil rnliUo h��l�:or, und�•r �Iire�cUou ��f r�•::i�l�•nt whil�� :�rry�iu�; out iu�Jicnl :��ni .uporriaiun nf pi�rtion Ilri•nn��il :u�d prri.rli�•ev fnr whlcli he f.v Lrnlnin�. Wnl- r,•Fri�t�•rrd to prnc•tirc mediciue in atale�, e�tad �•. lfnlveraity of MlnneAUla FioHpl- tu p��r[nr�u tvithin hoapltsil ouly 4��r�•Icca tulv, (`.A.1971. 442 1�'.'ld G34. I ! 147.22 Transier records, assets, and powers ' 'i'h�• r��vn•�1., a..hl., :inii ��u��•, uP�tLc� �l:�tc t►rmrd of o�tcK►pafhy nr� tr�uis- f�•rn•�I fn Ih��•t:�ti�lio:iril��f wi��lic•�il��x:imin��r�. .�iu�v�,li��l h�� L:��•, i!17�i, �.:S,§li:t, . ' 1Q76 AmPndment. l.:n�•� !976, c. S mferencFe und texL I.nws 197fi, a 2. � ��:i� :i r�•vi:�n'.. hill prnei�linF• fur th� f:t, direcled thnt the excrption at the c�u�,•�•ti�m of crroncu�i�, uml�i�;u��u�:, �n�l uf the section (vee maln voluroe) be • uinitlr:l, tuicunslitutionr.i :�n�i olr.iulete d��l��fed. • l47.?� Hnspital mcdical staff, membership \•�tliin�; �•uul:�int��l iu l.u�� 1!N�:i, ('h,�pt.i�r 4:�, vLa�ll 1N� di�o�nrd to {;r:�nt t.o :in� �ii�r.on Ih�� ri�lit. In b�� nrlmift��d tu ihe tn��dic:�l staff uf any 1►ocpiLil. IY n li�n:��ilai ��•ilhdr:i��. tlic riy;lit uf a ��:•,uu lti prucLicK+ meQicinc ur u�tcoputhy nt ih:it lio�:��il:�l, nr liuiit�.tli�• �i�r�;i�:il ��ro<Y�il�u•rs L�� inaiy� p�•rf��rm wiU►in tLttt Lu��it:il ��•hil�� rol:i�uluy; Uic jih��ic•i:in on Lhc�ir �t:�ff, thc Lospi(,�l shall ��rompt- 1�• inf��riu tlu� IH�,inl �if Ihi� ;i�•tinu. 1`"liru thc I�oard r��c��i��c5 u rc�wrt ptu•- .n:i��l, I�r tli�� c•tinn th��t� >,Iuili trv�;il if. in Ihi� �aw�� nstnucr :iti pmscritN�d Por n�•��i�v nf�•uni��L�inl. in ��•�•limi �'I•l.111,.iiLili�i.i��n 1. .1nu�i!;i il !��• L:��> 1:!'if, ,. _.''!, ;� 1!.ofL .liily 1, 1J71i. 11;;6 Amendn:ent. La�vs I:Iii;, o. 'L'l2. �;�'nrr�l ��h:in�;e�+ �pectfii-�1 tn �PCUon �:,,•�•r:ill� r�,�i:�� tln� �t:itutur;: la�� re- ::ILUiII �•t tie��. Pbr •idditlonal in(ormn- !aiii.Et i�� lii��i:::in� uY ucru��;itions. '1'his lian coucernin� I.!t�+a 197fi, a 'L22, �ee >c•�•teun ��,�, n�u�lillyd in liuc ��ill� the ni�ctiou 214.0111, note. 14�;.2G Amount of foan; coatract; repayment � . I S�'e n�ai�c a•olu.��c Jur 1��•t of xaibtl.I] �.�ih�i. :S. I?neh a��qrli�;int l�efnre h��iu;r t�r:urtc�d a lo:m ehull c�nt��r into a eon- � ti:i:•t ti�it►i th:, l��r.u•rl, �•:Lich �h;�ll Ir�� dc��nu��l :� �outr�ct: ��•i1L thc stntc of Blin- u��s��!a. :i�:r��in�� t�� tlu, li�rni, ,�nd coudirion� n�u�t� ��•Licl� iL�• l��:u� is �;rantcd . to liim. '1'h�• c•�mh:�ct ::liall iuclnde �n��h Li�rni, :wd pr��citiion� as tt�il] carr�� ••• ��nt ilu� ��iu��i�.��o-: uf ��cii��u� 1�i7.'.:-E l0 1-{:2'.1, :ui�l Utc forw t.h��roof �h�❑ be 1irc�,�:�r��it and :i��ru��d hy ttu� :�Uc�rn��• i;i�ni�r:tl oP thi5 state. '1'lic contract sli��li I�e �i�:uod I�� th�� {�r��.i�i�nf, of tlu� I�o:u•d, c•o�u�ler�i�;n��l b�• the �i�c•ret�tr�•- Yr��;�.nr��r, ;��d �h:�ll L�� si�;:u�d li}� tlu� ai��ilirint. I�or tlic ��nrl��sc� of sr�ction5 11;."! I�� 117.":1 flu� �li::;il�i;iti�w uf niiuurit;�• of all :ilq�lic^in�� ;runt��l Iu.u�ti h��ri iiui!��r �I�.�11 b�� ut�l th�� aiu:� :in� h��ri�l�� r��mm��il :�ntl Ili�� a��li+�,uitti are � il��l:u•��il t�� lic uf f��ll la��fiil a�;�� fur tht� pin•��o.i� oti ��nt��riu�; i��tu IL�� contr;ict � horriiuihm•�� ;�rn�-i�tcd f�r, ;iud tlu� i�u:itrac•t >:o ��c�cut��d 1��• any a�q�licanC is f h��rrlr�' �l<��l;ur�l to hc :i ��ufiil oui�l biu�lin}; �mitract the c:unc :tti tho��;h tlre :tf�- pli�uut L;�d �ilt�ii�mci th�� Rc of lfi �•ro�rs. 'CL�r b�rirQ may �uc, in the numc oP ! 17�c:h�t��,:ti��•u��i�licaut fnr ain5•Ualancc�luc on�ny such conCrnct. . .1nu��ulr�1 L�• I.;1��•�1�7:i,c.i2Ci, 5 7=�,i�ff. .l��nc�l, 1�73. � 1979 Amendment. I.1w•s 1973, c. ?26, porlted 3n thia scctlon Uy I.at�•s 1973, c. �;cuerally r��Quci•�l the agc uf inajority 7::5. � lA. frun ::i to lR. '1.`ne ri�Quction ��•ais incnr- 114 ` , � / � .�. U� ► �b ��.... . � , . ,,,, r�r�, �.�� . . . . , . _ �, <.•, , , � �� ,��, . . . � ,,,.,, � ,. 1 , . , , - a 3�t�d , : , . , . . f , � : , �.�., � � ` ,a � , 4' 4 � / ' 724 . LAWS ot M1NNE.SOTA for 1978 Ch 222 � - � � ,� ' � , � � . Subd�visions 3, 4, 5 and 6. � i�� . � BE IT ENACTE:D BY TNE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OE' MIN- ' ? _. t :� h•-'� _ � ' NESOTA: � } � ;;'� . Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 1974, Chapter 214, is amended by •�; , ' �� adding a section to read: �" ' x � � [214.001] OCCUPATIONS; LICENSFS AND REGULATION; PO4 r � �' � � ICY. Subdivision 1. The leQislature finds that the interests of the � : � '� � le of the_state are served � the reQUlation of Z�er�al�'Sccu�lons. 1 '' �; �� ' �,�,M ' The let�islature �rther finds: �that it is desirable for boards com- �'�, ' '^� posed primarilv of inembers of the occunations so reaulated to be �� ' char�ed with formulatin� the policies and standards �overninQ the oc- ''� � 1 � 4k � � cupation; � that economical and efficient administration of the reeu- :� ,z ,. , b lation activities can be achieved throuQh the nrovision of administra- +� �°� " " tive services � departments of state �overnment; and � that .• � ;' �� i :;�' �'� . procedural fairness in the disciplinin� of persons reQUlated � the ' ; � �,, ; boards re4uires a senaration of the investieativ� and prosecutorial � � ,k�.� ,_. . fu� n�ons from the board's judicial responsibilitv. , ; � . �. ,, r �,� , � ` ' �,,, ,�� Subd. 2. 7'he le�islature declares that no reaulation shall hereafter S�'' f � x � t be imnosed u on an occunation unless re4uired for the safet and ' w? �? �' --5-' — �Q e. "�,. �4�� well beinQ of the citizens of the state. In evaluatin� whether an occu- ,w ., , � ., * ; ap tion shali hereafter be reaulated, the fotlowinQ factors shall be con- � .t� '� sidered: � ��. � � . , x� '. ' a ;�` � � Whether the unregulated� ra,�.ctice of an occupation mav harm � or endan�er the health,safet�nd welfar'e of citizens of the state and �.: "z,.`� � whether the potential for harm is reco�nizable and not remote: , << � ,'' ��F � � � Whether the practice of an occupation reauires snecialized • �` skill or traininQ and whether the public needs and will benefit � as- ;> �� f surances of initial and continuinQ occuoational abilit • and �+ t. f �, � � Whether the citizens of this state are or ma be effectivelv protected �other means. "� ,� `" . .. h � _ Subd. 3. If the leQislature finds after evaluation of the factors �, � • '� identified in subdivision 2 tha[ it is necessarv to reQUlate an occuvation � : � "; not heretofore credentialed or reQUlated, then reQUlation should be im- �; nlemented consistent with the uolicv of this section, in modes in the j;� 1;, followint� ordcr: �; " �; � Creati�,n or extension of common law or statutorv causes of civil action, and the creation or extension of criminal �rohibitions: �:a � '�' �i� [mnosition �f inspection reauirernents and the abilit �to en- �� J,i ' force v_iolati��ns � iniunctive relief in the �ourts; !� ' r�� c� implementation of a svstem of reQistration where practition- i . ,° Changes or `addiUons indicated �by underiine deletions by slreke�eat �`� :r" �;, , �'.; _. . r�' " . . . . . . . . . � . ;� � . . �+` . s "t` • _ � . . . A� �l � �.:� � � � . . � . � � . `t � �� .:i� tC . . , , . . �`. . . = �� 1 r ,f x . � .... . . _. - � . . . . .. . • _. � . .� s�. .a '1 , . � � �Y�� „ _ .. . , ��y� � � r . � � � �r�df y �� ., f F ,. fiSr � } {� ,��Y� %'4,w �+ Y +: v�"�� . .. . � � ,. . • :A . . . •, . . . , 1 p ir��„M � . . . � . � . . .. 1r i. '� �:t .� �. .}�#, 1., . . . , � . � ... � . � , . �� . � � �� +��4�.1��;F i t �� r f ,�'°�r ► i, d d i�..m . *'i------'----:—� .�—•-.'^—'-•-T-- - � . , . . ' . �� . �. . , . � ��''a j;'r��, i��P'�•'��i;i.�t . � ^_. . ° . . , , . . ;. . ..,, . � �.;.y...., , �., , . . . -. �.. . —r— � ,� - � . . .. • � . ' .. .. . .. „ .. . .� � .... � . �. . ._. ._ .. ry n. . .. ' ..� , .. .. . � +1 ( ... .. � � ... . . . , Z . . . ' , • . � �' � , . . . . il , � � `�p , � , ',� a . �,; .;i!k �`y,�,�.` �� P' ..�`. �1 ��: .•� . , ..;1 � . i :�r g 'rtY� .. ii '%' . �� C �� `]''a� � � r� . . � r�,`� 'iR ��t, . . . I '.7+';� �c'�r. "�M�, � � . � � r + .°�'_. �'; `�G �� , . ,� �t,� �X� k = � � '�� .�.�..� _d+�.tl..,�e�YiS:{�.uAaCJf��.fflt��.yi�� na .�`.�t�(Y.:y.�...rv.ii.w.�.....lt...«s�..•n.:r+wrrr�.r...rrr.r..w.�ru��r►�it�.in� �Fg � ' .. . . .'' �� k " �t,� . . :q � 1': LAWS o�MiNNESO'iA for 197G 7'l:S ' � 4 �. 221 �'h. 222 ; r S� . ,,' ,�4 .�, ^"' . dent ; tur complaint review;granting licensing boards addition:�l Eiin�•ers rrlatin}; tu in�unc• ��. � . „ aires ' :n�e relief, subpoenas, cvntinuing education, and other matten; prescribin�;Juti<�s nf ;t � a rhe board of health relating to human services occupations, crcatin�:ad��son•coun- , `'_ '�, resi- ��1s; merging the licensed practical nursing board into the buard of nursin�;; makin�; ' '��";�' ,`_^'�. �sota �niscellaneous changes in practice acts for �.�rious /icenscd occupations; ad��pein�; *�, ,, ,dent '. thi� standard terms "/icensure" and "Iicense" for occupational licrnsing. huardr, � � �r 25 cransferring employees and moneys; amendin�; Minnesota Statutcs 1974. Scrtions •`� �� '�", " t�5.4J; 125.05; 125.06; 125.08; 115.09, Sutxiivision 1: 125.12, Subdi��ivon 1; 125.i3. , -X -a" L .,;' �utxlivision 1; 125.17, Subdivision T 1'15.i82, Subdi�•isi,pns 2 and 3; 125J83, by , ,�. tgent aJiiing a subdivision; 125.184, as amended; 125.185, as amended; 125.187; 14l.652; � 1�4.955; 144.959; 147.021, Subdivision 1; 147.035, by adding a subdi��sion; 147.06; �'�°•' nt of - 111 be N7.072; 147.073; 14�074: 147.13: 147.18; 147.23; 148.05: /48.06. Subdi�ision 1; � -�;.:,: plica- i�.4.07, as amended; 148./0; 148.211, Su6division 2; /48.241, Subdivision l; 198.291, "�'�� '� pon a �uhclivision 3; 148.32; 148.57,• 148.59; 148.90, as amended; 148.9i, Subdi�isions / , pre- ' ` .�nc13; 148.97, Subdivision 6; 148.98; 150A.04, Subdivision 5; 150A.06, Subdivision , : e ter- - �� A.08, Subdivision 4; 150A.09, Subdivisions 1 and 3; 151.06, Subdir�sion 4; � ;s,� � �te in 15I.I0; 151.101; 151.11; 151.12: ISIJ3; I51J4; 151J9; 151.25; I51.27; 151.37, Sub- ` � j-`• cpiYes ��sions 5 and 6; 151.40; 153.07,• /53.08; 1�3.09; 154.O4; 155.02, Subdivision 7a; ` -v�� , r. Tl. �nt of ��•03, Subdivision 2; 155.06, Subdivision 3; 155.09, Subdivisions l, 4 and 5; ►55.11, . �ubdivision 2; 155.14; 155.15; J55.16; I55.18, Subdivision i; 155.19; 155.20, Subdivi- . ' � � " '�?' state ' „��2, 156.01, Subdivision 5; ]56.02, Subdivision 2; 156.03; 156.07; 156.072, SuFxli- 't '� �'�sions 2 and 3; 156.081, Subdivision 1; 156J4; 214.01, Sufxlivision l; 214.06; 's' '170.47,•270.50; 270.51; 326.08, Subdiuision 1; 326.11, Subdivision 6; 326.15; 32G.19; I x ct�ust, 32ti.20; 326.21; 326.22, as amended; 32fi.23; 326.24i, as amended; 326.242, Suhdi��- ? ��' �s sioner ;>;� ,. _,r, sions 8 and 9; 326.33, SuFidi�isions 2 and 3; 326.331; 326.332, Subditiisiun 1; • � zed in ` .?26.333; 326.334, Subdivision 1; 3'16.54; 3'16.513; 3'16.544; 32G.S�iS: 326.5-l6; 341.05. •;s.�. n this as amended,• 341.Ofi; 341.07; 341.U8; 341.12; 341J3; 34JJ5; 38ti.(il, Sufxli�•isi�rn 2; $d ns un- ��+ � R•��.��.; le and :�'�, Subdivisions 2 and 3; 38f.64: 386.fi�, .Sutxli��sion 1: 3R(i.67: .?8(i.G9; 3K(i.72; x� v s ��.73; Chapter 214, by adding sections; Chapt�r 147, h�• adding a.s�ctinn; Minne- . ' rise or , sota Statutes, 1975 Supplement, Sections ]25.03, Sutxlivision 1; 125.11; 125.183, �jP . , � '��' � ,�utxiivision 3; 144.952, by adding a subdivision: 147.01: l47.02, Sut�ivision !: , .,� � '� � �47.05; 148.03; 148.181; 148.191; 148.211, Subdivision 1; 148.26t, Suhdi��sion l; ,+ •'� �mmis- ld8,29, Subdivision 2; 148.291, Subdivision 1; 148.299; 148.52; 148.54: 148.fi0; , � ' i0A.14, '� ' �;, K .�,,;: `ti �'�?+•67: 148.95; 750A.02, Subdivision 1; 150A.03, Sufxiivision 2; ]5/.03; J5/.Oli. Suh- mvnis- dntision 1; 151.07,• 153.02; 153.03; 153.04; 153.13; 153J5; 154.22; 154.23: 155.05; ` e' ° ertified , LS;;,Ofi, SutxJivision 1; 15.5.08; 156.01, Subdivision 1; 214.01, Subdivision 2; 2/4.0�f; ` • at his -i. . . :��" Y �� :;,�� " `'�a��. 2�4.09, Subdivision 3; 270.41; 270.42; 270.48; 326.03, 'Su6division 1; 326.04; � in this ;;;,�5.05� 32606� 326.08, Subdivision 2; 326.09; 326.10; 3'16.11, Subdivisions 1 and 5; '� �f upon izt�.12; R �r,°:};r 1 326.13; 326.14; 326.17; 326.IS; 326.33, Subdivision i; 326.541; 326.54'l; � . �j41.01; 39].Oq; 341.10; 34t.11; 386.62; 386.63, Subdivision !; 386.G6; 386.68; 3R6.70, ��I`; � `�'".' .� •�ubdivision 1; 386.71; repealing Minnesota Statutes 1974, Sec[ions I25.09, Subdi��- � " � ° ;� � _ �.�� ;',�. •ti�ons 2 and 3; 144.95G; 144.958; 144.9G; 144.91'i5; 145.861; 145.Sfi2; /45.8G3: 145.RG4; I'15.Ht�. Subdivision 3; 148.(X'i, Subdivision 2: 148.U8. Subdititision l; 148.231. Suhdi- . ' ; :f� ' �ision 2; , , _ :,:, e 148.55; 14l3.58: 148.�: 148.97, Subclivis�on 2: 148.99. Suhdi�ision 1; � ��' 1.�A.�4, Subdivisions 1, 2. 3 and 4; 150A.07; 150A.08. Subdi��sion 2; ISOA.09. Sub- � , c•"� ; ��sion 2; 151,pg; 153,10; 153./1; 154.065, Subdivision 6; 156.0I. Suhdivision 4; +* �s>'* � 'i25'�� Sabdivision 3; 326.11, Subdivision 3; 3Z6.16: 326.334, Subdivision 3; 386.ti3, � ".�; • • '� Subdivision 6,• 386.65, Subdivision 2; Minnesota Statutes, 1975 Supptement. Sec- ' � � r : � ie regula- �3 tiuns Iq5.g�5� Subdivision 1; 145.866; 198.211, Subdivision 3; 148.23i, Subdivision ��:a��"`"`4� ,�`.� g and ad- 3� �4 8.2 6 1, Subdivision 2; 148.291, Subdi��sion 4; J48.297, Subdivision 2; 14R55; ,.�•�' ��x ' procedure 326,1p S��y�on 4; 326.11, Subdivisions 2 and 4; 3t3�'i.695; 386.696; and 386.70, � '! � � � � � •�,�"� � � �, ` '. �� ;` C��g� or additions indicated by `underline deletions by seriieevet� , � i��{ `� . � .y�' �. `�• , . . . •�� . . (M� �97 �;�„ 1 f �` i ' , . . ! � i'�!'e.'t-� i „I�," �� y . � . . . . . . r� �,' c k;-. ^, v� :: .... � . . � . .. � •�. t�'4� +� yi � .:.�. � __..._"_"__.'_"_„"_._..._.� _.�_.__ .. . . ... � .. )14 "Y� F' . .r t� ""`';: .. , _ r.1- .�., -,�. ;.�.. �:., . ,T.. ._. �,______..�._,T ; • . ----�---------- , . . . .� . . � . . . . . , � . � ,�.�- �., . . . �:., �- . �" ._. . .,�. (y . . ti . . .1 . . . . . � . . . . . .�.:, . ... �W �._..� .�. . , .. ,. � . . . _ .. , . . , .. � . . . � . � � � � ... ., . . .. . � . . ,i� .. . . ' . �. � �� ' -_ � . � . .� �` - .. . �� , . . . • . � .. . . • � , - - ., �. ,' � . .. ..` . . . .. � . .. �. .. . . . _ . t�' . . , .� . . ' � • . ' . , � . . � ^ � � � . . . . ' �� , ..�. � ' �,. . � � . � . .. � . . . . , ; . � �. . � � , . - .. . . .. , � . . � . . . � , . � � . � ' . � ... . � � . � � � . - . � . � . � � _ . . ' 1� ' ' . "� ��{ ' �°� , , 74H LAWS of MiNNE507'A for 1978 Ch.222 � � [147.074] FiLiNG OF HOSPITALS SERVED. Each phvsician shall • file with the hoard a list of the in-natient and out-natient medical care facilities at which th� h<ive medical privile�es. 'The list shall be u� � dated when the ph sician�piies for license renewaL � ' � � .� Sec. 41. Minnesota Statutes 1974, Section 147.13, is amended ta J,; •i read: ' s �' � .147.13 REV(KATION OF LICENSE. In case a physician or sur• �;�� ;eon shall be convicted of violating any of the provisions of section , �, 147.11, the state board of inedical examiners, upon a first conviction, � may, and, upon'a subsequent conviction, shall, revoke the license of �i . �� the person so convicted ; #�E sneh reYeeaElen s#te�� e saHjeeE Ee {}� r�l3E e€t�e�ers��3ese�iee�rse#►a�s#�eer�se rev�eke�te e�ea}!e!he di9E�r�iet eet�rE e€t-Me�rc�er ee�+�tt�►eft q�+estiens e��aw�nd€aeE . . � Sec. 42. Minnesota Statutes 1974, Chapter 147, is amended by �, addin}; a section to rcad: 1j [147.171]„ LICENSING OF PERSONS PRAGTICING MASSAGE. ' �n� ��rsc�n who was licensed under l.aws 1935. Chanter 245 mav a� ��ly t� ther b�ard of inedica[ ex�miners for a permanent license. The • tx�arcl shall grant the request if its is satisfied that the annlicant revi- �; �� ous� held a license under Laws 1935. Chapter 245. `' . Scc. 43. Minnesota Statutes 1974, Section 147.18, is amended to . reud: t ' � . _ " �47.18 RENEWAL OF TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE, FEE. Such ," temporary certificate may be issued for a period o� not to exceed one -> year and in the discretion of the board, may be renewed annually for ��` not more than four additional years. T'he fee for sNeh--the certificate and renewal thereof shall be fixed by the board eE +�eE r�►ere E}t�n�6 . �r e�tr��+ er€rseE�+ t�eree€e�A�et►�et�rt!s�4 a�se be flsid#'er v' . , eeeh re�►ewct�Eheree€. , Sec. 44. Minnesota Statutes 1974, Section 147.23, is amended�to '' rend: ,� �I � 147.23 HOSPITAL MEDICAL STAFF, MEMBERS�P. Nothin� '�� • c��ntained in Laws 1963, Chapter 45, shall be deemed to grant to am Ex•rson the ri�;ht to be admitted to the medical staff of any hospital. If a h��sPital withdraws the riQht of a ep rson to practice medicine or oste�r • pathy at tha[ hoSpltal or limits the surQical procedures he mav �• � fc�rm w_ithin that hospital while retaininQ the phvsician on their stafl, '' the hospital shall promptiv inform the board of this action. When thr ,, = s,';' Ix,arc3 rc•ceives a renort pursuant to this section thev shall treat it m-�'!u ^ the� s�inc� manner as prescribed for recei� t of comnlaints in section '�, �'r{ suhdi��isinn 1, �f this act. � _ :�#, , ;� Sec. 45. Minnesota Statutes, 1975 Supplement, Section 14$.03;:i� ?' C:hanges or additions indicated by underline deletions;:by ,sh+�+"R • q �� ,�: , . 1�`7��? t ' ` ,� _ 4aj�x �•: � , r ' � d' ,��i � �,M��t:.� P + t � '� �,�� .'�lt��uy�'��,�,'�*.w � '�' „�' . ;, 'f;;�;�• , , ti . � � . . .r ,----,—�---^.---•_: , , , � . . , , ...,,. � . ., . , ;• -� ' - • ,��,� . � , , ��:- . �. . . . � . . . .. . . . . . � '�..r � .� .. . . . _ .. . . � ' � . � . � p� . � .. � . ' � . , .. . - .- ., a�• �� . . �. .. . � . , . . . . .. � � :. . � .. �.. � � ...� �. . . �. . . ' . . .. .. � � .' . . . �. � .. . . . .. .. ' . . .., �. � ... � . � .. . .. . _ , . . . _ � t ' ., . . � . �. . . � . . . . � . . . . _ � . • . .. ... � ,_ ._ ... . . . . .... . .� ,_ ._, .. �y. . � . . . . . . . - � ' � .. � . . . . «,, `. .. „ � � � � � � � � . . . . .,..;. . . .., , . . . . ..,. ..�... ' ' .;� .. .. � . -" � � -.. . . . ,. .. � � � . . �, . . .' �, . � �. � � �� . .. , � � •. -. � . . ... _ • . , � _'� . � . . �� . � . . � . � � � . .. . , , . . . � � . . �� .� . . .. . . .. � . - � . ., � � � � �. � . � . . � . . , " . .. � . . .. .�. �. � � , � .. �. .. �� ' li . . � . . ; . . � � � � . . . . . � � ' :'I :�.'� - . . � � - . f ! . . .. �.r� � . .. .. \ ,7• , 1, 1,f1 . �� ,q ' ' � \ t r � t.', ' `'~ �� , . i � . rl � , ; . ' ' 460 S�SSION LAWS � ��P• � � . - CHAPT�R 244—H. F. No. 311 � � �� ; ? � . r1�n act to le��n,l,izn c�rt�cin, ��rle,a of state land heretofore ;';a � �rcad,c. c:,i , ,;, ,p�� +�� L'e it enacted by the I,egialature of the St;tte of Minnesota: � ,� �� a .�� n: Sectiun 1. Cerlain sales of stale lan�l legali2ed.—Whenever � ` � the noLice of sale of S�<<tc l�inds, publication of which ia re- � 4,�.; � �?� , ��uir�;cl 1>>� N[�LSCni's Nli�ui��rotsti Statutes of 1927, Section 6280, ,.yk �� . , ;;, , ' h�is ��een ��ul�lished in fc�ur publieations of a legal weelcly news- � " ' papci•, ,publishecl �zt the county seat at which such, sale of ��; �,� �"{ state lands h�.s been held, ��ll such publications are hereby �;� ' made v�.lid and ef�ective to all intents and purposes, as against` f . ,'r� the oUjection th�t s�tid notice w�s not published for four con- '�'�? secutivc weeks or, where such puUlication �vas for four con- ; >,�`'�` • secutive weeks, thai� four full weeks hacl not elapsed between s��. the d�te of thc first publication and the date of the sale. >:'�: App�oved April 24, 1935. � A�1 � , �� . + . . �y.- � .. .. �'�' - .. "`", � . , ..: CHAPTER 245—H. F. No. 683 i', ��; ��''"� , � An act to ccmen�l Btasorr.'� �I�.�zr�e5nta St,ttt��tes of 1927, Sec- '� �`�, 'h ' t�ion ii81�-1fi', ?�elat,i�a�/ to /.l�c �isszcancc� uf l�.censes to practice ; .�'r '' . �. �nass�c/e. _ - �;.: 4 cr' : , � , Be it enacted bp the Legi:tlature of the State of Minnesota: �� .r: - ;� Section 1: Licenses to practice massage.—Mason's Min- "'� �iesota Statutes of 1927, Section 5789-16, is hereby amended ,�;�,; °�, so as to i•ead �s follo�vs: . . ''�'�� ' "�784-16. The �oai•�l sh=�11 issue licenses to practice mas- K r.p.. ' . . . . . . . �}.;.- sa�e.only to pet•sons qualified therefor under the provisions - . ��, of this �.�ct after e�:amiiiation as herein provided, upon appli- �.i;�,� ;�, b�=,-ti._ .. ,, cation in manner �nd form as prescribed by the Board and ;{'f. "l��,yment thereto of a fee of �2:5.00; provided however that ,��:?��; licenses m�iy be reiie�veci b3� the Poard without examination ' 9`�: uj�on ai�plicr�tion and p��-ment of. a rene�val fec o f T hree Do U , .,�� , ' laa•s; �nci liceiises issned ��ursulnt: to existing law and ou�. :'�� st�aidiit� at tlie tinie of the pass�ne of tl�is act are hereby ' ,k�:'• • continued in forc.e �in:l ct�'ect until tl�e same shall expire unless :�s.� � ' ��:� �4 ., soonc�• rc��c�l:ed b5� Llic Poarrl, as provicled for in �his act, and ',f ':�� shall ue renewed l�y tlie �o�,rd �vithout esamination�j upon }�� . i .,. ! �„;�°�4' �'�A�< applicatr�n �ncl p��•ment of• � renewal fee of Three Dollars, � �"� r �.;f'�.�' ��':; e�:cept �s in this act other�cise providecl for;.application for �. :s�. � � rene�val of license as herein provided for shall be ndade to the .�: 'c� �. " ; ' �, . ;. ;� ,+ , , '•. ��`'r •r:; -;; , ,,�i r �.�� . � � � .. . � . �p' �� . � . � . f �r"�� . , �'; , �,,,. �'��1�,:`' A �: � �� .r�ar�� t r P + y �1�J ., � '1 :. . �,�' �` '� : ��; '� n�:. i ,Te� , ', _ . r w � � ��., .,� � ��' % ;��," ' . . `: . �; :,, ,.., _----- i . , . . . ., _ , , , , -.---.. _.., . , , � ` • ��'r . � �j � ' , . .�o .. . ! � r . I ' . . ,� � : . � . .- � � � � - . , ,_ . r . . _ � . _. . � . � . . �. . �' � � . . � . � • . . � � . . . . .,, , . , "',� ^ . � .. . . . .-- .. .� rh, .. � . .. .. . � . � ... . . � . ' � �. . � . . . ' . . , . . ... � . . � � .� . � � , � �. � .. - . � . . ,,.. ' . • ' . �. . . . � , .\ ,� . . , .. � , ' � � .. ' � . � . � � '..I� � - . . . . . . . . , � ' . . . . , . . � . . . • . �.. . .` . . � , . . , . . ' . , �. . .. . , • . .. . � ,.. ' . ' � . . � ., � �. °ra,. . ' � �. ' . � � • . . � � . , ' . . .. . . � . . . .. ' . . . �, ,,; . . �. . . � . � . � � � ' . � . ' - . . ' � ' . . . . ��.i �., . ' ':\:' . , , .. .. . . . '��:.�:/ • ' � . . . � • � ' - �' . . SI:SSION LAWS [Chap. �� :;��- � � �, � . - CHAPTI�;R 244—Ii. F. No. 311 �1�1 �r�l fo 1��,�nfiz�� eri't�i.i►r :�Y(�'� �f :fatc� land heretofore . •�tt�c��c. l;r ii ��n:�rtecl l�.Y 11�e I,c�gisl�ltilPr ��f' tf►e St<ite �►f Mimiesota: ti��•1i<�n 1. Ccrt.tin �a1eS of statr lan�l legalized.-Whenever thc n��tic� ol' s<ll�� ►I' Sl��t.� l,iml�, ��uk�lic�ation of which is re- �ltiir��l 6��• l�i:l::��':: ��Iiiin��:',�>t.t �t:�L��t.es cif 1�1`.'J7, Section 6280, h<« l��ru ��ill�lisl�c�<i i►� I'�►tn• {��i�•atio��s of �lc��l weekly news- �,�i�,<<�•, l�ul�lisl�c��l :�t thc cu�nit>' scat at wliich such sale of :,t.it�� l.uuls h:is ��r��n hcl<l, <�ll such puUlications al•e hereby �ii.uir ��tili�� an�l eil'c�riive to all inteiits and purposes� as against` t},�. „�,jrrtion tl�.�i s�ii�l notice �va� not ��ui�lishecl for four con- srrtit i�� re�elts c�r, ��•l�erc :;ucii pul►lication �vas for four eon- � . ��cl�,l,itr of�tlic fi}rst p�n�licatio�i and the date of the saleWeen th� A��E�roved April 24, 19�i5. . C'HAYTI:R 245—H. F. No. 683 i � �t�z act to «a�+�•►1�1 Dln.�c,��'� :1I�».�r��tcc Si.at�rtes of 1927, Sec- ; � tin�t :;��`',-1(i. ri��nti3�!/ tn rlrc itisr�ni�,cc' of l�censes t,o practice I �ria�«t�/��. Re it c�nactFrl bp the I,e�i:�l�.ttn'e of t.he State of Minnesota: Section 1. I.icenses to practice massage.—Mason's Min- nesot� Statutes ��f' 1927, Secti�n ��78�1-16, is hereby amended , �o as to rc�ad .ls follmvs: • ' , ":,78�1-1i>. Tl�e Bo.�i'�l sh�ll issue licenses to prac�ovis ons ��i�c onl�• to persons crii<ilifie�l tllerefoi• under the P li- ol' il�i:; :ict after r�::lllllll<ition as l�ercin l�rovicled, upon app c�itioil iii nianuc�r .u��l fc,rn► .is��rescrij o��ed 1 owe er that . �ri�•m��►t tl:crc.t� ul' a fec. c�f .,..��.00; 1 lic�rnses m�l�' �� '�'1��'�''� �?�• the Loard «�ithout e�:amination u�um .��,1�1�c.�tic�n <�n�l �ri>•ment of � rc�ne�val fcc of Three Dol- 1,�,;,; an�1 lic��is^� i��i1C(� ��ill'Sll�lll�; t0 exist.i�lg law and out- st�;nclit» <<t. thc tin�c �rf thc pa�s��;'c �f tl�is act are }iereby cc,nt;nuc,l �y� f�»•cc .u�:l eft'ect until the s�me shall expire unless sorn�cr rr�`�a1:ed 1�5' the Po�ii��l, �s l�ro�'iclect for in this aet, and slilll l�e rene��ed l�y the Bo�rd �vithout e�amination upon ,:,�. . �1�,��lic�iti��n aiid pn��ment of � rene�val fee of Th,ree Dollars, ��;ct�pt ��.s in tlii5 act othei•«'ise proviclecl for;.�pl�lieation for �•c�i��ral of license as herein pi•ov�ded for shall be made to the • � ;�,�' �'� P . y 11 ' C � �r�� r�, ;. �� /' f . . . � �y0� (�� p�� ✓, �µ '. 111 � ye .�i � � � , � � �� R,d M � 24G] � OF MINN�SOTA FOR 1J3� 951 , r"� ' «��.} � �- �'.:: '�+ �� `t il.f�" � „� �,, � � � : � ,�sar�r;k � L�o�trd' on or before �fa�� 3Yst of. each ,yc��r and shall be aa � � ;� ' �` �� companied b�- the rene�ti•11 fcc� of TILre� DuJlcTrs; provicled, fur- ,,�� -, ' ,'�� ,��«`� ' �: ther that lh�� roard iii its cjiscretic�►i m�iy �Vlt.}1011t e�catliin�i- ' ' , .�, '',"�,,; � , _ ..'�yx" tiou upon the payme�it of � fe� o[' �i0A(1 iss�ic �i license to any • �� ' '�R�'�� ';�"'� � � �a 5 .,,�.�X� ,�_ •7�. ,, l�erson qualificcl to i�r,lcLice m�ltiS.l;�C ili �tny other state or <•, � ti: territ�r,y whasr. rec�t�iren�ents foT• surh. ��r�ctice are e�{tiivalent � '` �"r r`� ;� � . �� to the rec�uit•c�me�lts cif tlii� st:ite theref��r. I.ic�nses sh.ill be� '�� ' � ' ' �` Yi'�„�� ` � M�..��` ' in such fc�rm a� thr l;n.trcl �.h�ill 1�� rulr, rrescrihr., sh:�ll spec- ' , .� ; �C�" `;'�" " '�� i�fv tlie n:in�r, resi�icucc� .i�ul ini:iiir.ss l��c.�ti��n �rf ihe licr.nsce ;'u,,,��,� � "�d ,f��`'�",,_ � aiid stctite ih.tt he is ;iutl�oriircl t� practice m�t�s�i�e i�i thc . „• .' � � ��:,,',�; f�,�";�» . -, St:ltc of: A�ii�►nc��ota; lic�entirti �li;ill l�r.ir thr cl�itr of is'su.tnce , � 'l , •. ,� , '� �tiicl tlie �l.itc� ��f r.��ir:ii�imi tli��re�>f s�n�l sh�'tll l�e �i�*nr.�l bY the �'� , �,,�r��Y� s� .� `' �� - I'reside►tt :i�icl Srri��trirv-Tr��:��tirr,r �,�f tlte I,�aircl �tncl bear its ;: �� ; ,�.� �, " otiici�il sr�il. �ll licri�se;; ::li�til ext�ii�E, �n Dt��y 3].st iicxt and ; � ',�"r;�i;G',,±�u1 ��:,� � . �ftet• tlie issu�ince tiic�reof Lrnl��ss vooner revolcecl �,s herein `�, a, ;+�;f��.�r "�, �� `�` �� provided." . . , , .� , , ,_ : `: ` � �;1��(rF `Y � �' °..� APProved Api•il 24, 1J3�i. , ` .� r� '" �,� , �ty�'� �s�2, x, , y • . . '� . � '.:$.��f DFP . � � o>.� �A >`.5',q,. � l.i� iit Nr +. � � l' . , �;,sy��s� ;��:,, , , , �+ ; �, , � . � .. 1 r•'��li]( 7i`yr r ti,�� 'r� . .. � ' j��rw T�M��/ }i�,�3�� 5:, CHAYTER 246—H. F. No. 869 � . � 119'. 9 � �,;�l� Y yF�'- �} . � � i��MSti� a�!t��t � �"�,n"�,,,t A�i act. t.o a��z�yad Mason'� D7a.nnesnta St�tt2ttes of 1927, Sec- � '' ��'� a� "` t,ion 2150, �cs aartenderl b� I,a.�ns 192� C12,aptcr 2G6 relat,i,n� . ^ + �;x'a 1s(Y� � •" �' f ! . ` �1p.`jrF��w'ry,YL�r��.� �1 �.c. to the attc�clt»zent of re.nts cr,nd, ci•o� slza�•es of la�ad, i.n certain • �., _��', �:, -',:��;. ' c,ases o�z �vlt��h t.c�x�s h.�2�c b�en birl �i.n for t,hJ� sf2t,c, and pro- � ^' ��'�`� � �`t��' �,� �;'; �,,�� vidi.n� for t,li.e leasin� of snch. lands bi/ the coun�y aitdit,or 4.n - `�,' „ �� y�i�'�� ` �„�, certai�a cc�se.s and n�•ovirli�i� tlic 7net,hods th,ereof and powcrs '�� " ��:� t y4 �'i . ';� y�, , � �s;.x'° ' v ". �nd dzcties of t,he dist�•ict courC w�,th re�ard thereto and for ,, �� ' , ,�,; �t,y�,,;r� ;�' � .t ,�t ;; certain c.lr,rk Ttire t.yzerefor. Y .,�r ,= + �.,�* � � , ' � � , ,�`: � � " ::. Be it enactecl by the Legisl�ture of thc St�te of Mirinesota: � �� r•.,. ,, Y�f ,f '��` ,.� „a• �y,��, :��,,�. Section 1. Land bid in for the state.—Mason's Minnesota � �' ''" `.: '��;.� � '� Statutes of 1927, Section 2150, as amended by Laws 1929, � � � � � ' '�} � ;`�;� �` 5� �. > ��H �� `` Chapter 266, is hereby amen<led so as to read as follo�vs: t �'�' ti; '�"`' �� ; � � � ' � � � d1�lhl �� ..� iv ' ` "`L150. �'Vhen an�- p�,rcel of land is bicl in for the stat,e, ' '� ° , , ' ^��; 5; '�.,a`��'��',� � � uiitil its rigl�ts ue assi�ned or tl�c. larid be, redcemed, tlie sale � ,,, �: r ,�; t, �,{y�� {�ti �'�r ' sli:�ll ilot ol�c.r�te �s a ��ti,yment o:f th� �timotint f.or wliich the � u � r; �' � �;,�k. s�tnic is sold, l�ut .tit �tiv time .ifl,cr ��icli s.tilc thc c�,unty <<udi- " ' ?'� ` '' '��"� '4''� tor n��y nial:c :�iid file witii the cicy]c wiicrc thc ju�l�n�c�it is , ' * �,..� '�:��fi-�`�'� iv:� c�utered an afiid�vit stati►im tlte dRtC Uf t�l(! S�IIC, 1,lic .�mot�nt j' �� '': "��; ,"�'�` � �;� for �vhich such parcel w�.s bid i» foi• the st�tte, and the :tmotmt '�� "� �"'��' ��.�► � " '- 7��:,�1 +y ry� d Y . �*�.� . of nll siib�eque�it clelinque�it ta�es, ti��lt its riglit lias iiot ��een ,�. �,�;'.;,�; 'r 'r� �,>.� y'� , �,•, assigned, that there has been no redemution, and th�,t the land ' �';� c��r ":�`�' '. � � ° ` is rented in wholc ot• in p�rt� �111(1 j)l•oduces rent, and giving � . � .� �; ��A'':�a�'�r;`,�' *,; � ; t he names o f t he persons payiiig rent. Upon presentation of ' ��` i, tl 4 y,a y'� �r��;��' Y;' ;,:� � � � :, � � , ,,,��`��,�;� ,r i,, c 3�;, ` ��,��, ,�^x ��,, ,� �', . . . . . . , . , � � pi �t f � ' 'k a{�� t 4,�ip:�+�.�3n ��". . ,., '�u ,�;h,� � ryy�� , � '� .,. � � . �. . ' . . . . ' ��A�� f�a :�µ fi ..'� �i�, � Y��G ' . . ,. � .� � . .. ' � � •! .��i4t`.f� J�l:;�r+t ..� ;i. �- � . . . � � C �, dtf''� .' �' �I,�S- ,�� I .. . � . . . . ... � . � � � � e C�,�;� <.' .� . �. ' r . : . � ; . b � . . � . . . .:Y '�" ='y S � � {A2k�' ,.IJ�_: �11..� �Jr „��' 4 kr: t�. �r � � , �� . .r . .... .. , �. .. r�, � . . ... . _.. . ... ... . . . • � . � � . . . ' .ri::. . . � � � . . R Q .. � : � . �^. .... . . ., . . . . .. . �. . . .. . . . , . . . . . _ . . . . . � .� . . � . .� . -�- �. . .�' .. �. , . .:�.. . �. � . . . . .. � , . .M�.'� � . . � .:.� [- . . .,:. . �. . . . . ' . . . • h � ' . . '` . . � .. ,�.. ; . . . ... '� . . . . . . , ' . .. . . � � . . . � . . . -,: ' . � .. � . . . . . .. _ .r . . � � . � . . . , � � . . . , . �- 4 ., � . • � , . . , .:a • . . ., , •,., ti . _ . r :: . . : . . �. .. . � . -. . . .0 .� ... . . . . . . � . : � . . .� . � . .. . . .. • . . . . � . .�� . . . � . . . � . . .� a . . � . � � . _ � � , � � - . . . .. � .. . . , . � � � � . . . . � . � . .. ' , � ' ' .. . . . � � . . . .� . . ., , � � . . . . . � . �, . � . . . . . . .. . . � . . . ' . . � ,. . p,�.�. . � �. . ... _ . � . .. i �,� . ,;. � . ... � _. , __ � _ . �-..'r.r � , .�:=rw.b„ . � � � �' - -_�...___.�..--- -- � � �,,. � 1 , � w � �\ � , , � �' � , ' � 1 ~ � b � � � ,y ,,} , ►. ,. � � , � ,, , ;.;., , , � .ii' �" � , .. _ � ;,� r �� , . . �j �� 4w�. �ys -�, . •';1 � � .f: � � "�` � . . a" � �1 � � � ,� , � • � '.�i �� d�:1� "x.•f,`� �! _ . , � . . . �t � `� f ��.. / J. � �. � . , C . . �. . . . ' 'Yi:.''rl'& ��'7k .�.' F ��'' . � � �� : � , . . �. ,.�I .r.�-i . "i , i . . .. . . � . � i�::�`I�! 5v`� .1�i t . , . � � i� . � 1 }a .� ',1 � ' .. . ,� 'ti F�. � � L f •;�t / ' t'�;, . . , .. 'y J r I i � �: - 'r�..�r,,��J�t�`r,�n� ,a�� . . . � . � ! i ;,'�; �. ( �s K, • I �;' , . i� Z r�, . ,.,, Ch. 63 , LAWS of MINNESOTA for 1974 83 � . , 'r �ifi j to practice medicine, sur er dentistr , I � g Y� y, podiatry, osteopathy, chirop- • ' � l.;' ractic, t�a�sse� or barbering. This section shall not be construed to authorize any of the persons so exempted to wave the hair, or to color, ° tint, or bleach the hair, in any mannes. ' d n�' `� ' ' , '� � , _`_' y� �.;; Sec. 4. Minnesota Statutes 1971, Sections 148.33: 148.34; 148.35: � � 1 y_ 148.36: 148.41; 148.43; 148.46: 148.47: 148.48: 148.51: 148.511: and , , ie Minnesota Statutes. 1973 Su�plement. Sections 148.37 and 148.45 are ,�f ' repealed. '" ,r �� ^^` . • �, � �� ' Approved FebruaFy 21, 1974. " _ d ,= L, � � er , ---_ : �r CHAPTER 63—H.F.No.952 � es ii- "f [Coded] ce ��' . Or '• ' An act relaling to housing;requiring insta/lation of fire e.etinguishers in apart- �P ments. • <� 'r : � � ..._ ''' BE IT EIVACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MIN r � ;.,�, .. NESOTA: ,, . . is �; • I . Section 1. [299F.361] FIRE EXTINGUISHERS; INSTALLATION ! ' .OF FIRE EXTINGUISHERS IN MULTIPLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL i ' he :f pt BUILDINGS. [Subdivision l.] There shall be provided and installed in . i � each apartment of a multiple unit residence building containing four ar ' ' ' r � more apartments, at least one fire extinguisher complying with the � d�, standards prescribed by Minnesota Statutes, Section 299F.36 and with � � � a rating of not less than lA-IOBC, as defined by the National Fire Pro- ^''�'� � • tection Pamphlet No. 10, or there shall be �rovided and instalted within �a ; � 50 feet of each apartment entrance at least one fire extinguisher com- � P�Y�ng with the standards prescribed by Minnesota Statutes, Section � 299F.36 and with a rating of not less than 2A-IOBC as defined by the �,r National Fire Protection Pamphlet No. 10. � .r� :. , a- Sec. 2. [299F.361] [Subd. 2.] ,Owners of multiple unit residence ± buildings heretofore constructed shall have 180 days to comply with + � the provisions of section 1, except that those multiple unit residence � buildings providing 2A type fire extinguishers and meeting the stan- � dards prescribed by the National Fire Protection Pamphlet No. 10 shall 1 � �o , have three years to comply with the provisions of section 1. • ' , � � � . . Sec. 3. [299F.361] [Subd. 3.] Nothing in this act shall prohibit a � his �ocal unit of government from adopting standards more stringent than + � isa- those provided in section L • ` ` �� er- i :ate ' APP►'oved February 20, 1974. � ' y � �t �`hJOti�s o� additions indicated by underlirle deletions b . j�, , . Y;+'9fTi�teet+E ..i' I . � . ' � u �: �- . . .;: ''° � . � ... �., .,. :......._._ � . ,. , , I . ., . ..____,..._._._.____� { . - _ _ _ . �-- ^ _.._ � --. _._ .___ _._-. . __ _ _ ._._._— �_ � � e . • .. . • . , � WHI7E - CITV CLERK � COl1TIC11 . `�� PINK �y,FINANCE CANARY -DEPARTMENT GITY• OF SAINT PAiTL File NO. � � l ' �� BIUE a-MAVOR � �� - � "1 • � i " 0rclindnce ordinance N�. �� Presented By ' Referred To Committee: Date ` Out of Committee By Date An ordinance amending Chapter 476 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pro- hibiting the sale, promotion and production of obscene materials and providing a penalty therefor. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. That Chapter 476 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby repealed by substituting in lieu thereof the following new Sections 476.01 to 476.04: 476. OBSCENITY 476.01 Definitions. (1) As used in this Chapter, the terms defined in this sectiori shall have the following meanings ascribed to them: (a) "Obscene" is the descriptive word used to modify any ma.terial or performance which is an obscene work. (b) "Obscene work" means any work which when taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest in sex; whic h portrays sexual conduct in a patently offensive COUIVCILMEN Yeas Nays Requested by Department of: Butler Hozza � In Favor Hunt Levine Against BY Roedler Sylvester Tedesco Adopted by Council: Date Form Appr ed by City rney . Certified Passed by Council Secretary BY ` � By � Approved by Mayor: Date Ap r e by Mayor for Sub io to Cvuncil By BY ,. . � ��;�t'��.�� . � - Page 3. (f) "Commun�ity Standards"; In determining contempor�ry comcm�nity standar.ds�, the _ . trier of faet may utitize the standards ` ` ' of the co�nunity or vicinage from yvhich he comes, but the court, in its` dis- cretion, ma.y admit evidence of standards :. existing outside of such cdcfunt�riity^�`or ; , , vicinage. - � f g) "P�tently Off��sive" means so offe�sive ` � on its face� as to af�ront current ` '" . standards of decency. ., . .. (h) "Standards of Decenc�" ��ns `Cdt�ity .. �s' Stand�rds of Decency. , . - � � :: . (i) "Pat ent ly Of f ens ive Sexu.�],:Conc�uet'' � °. .,� ,; ;�,riv z�. � ; shail be deemed to in�Iuci�e' any af the �h� �'�-� : ' fol:ltpwing descr�t�ed sexual corr.�lu.et 'if depieted or des�ribed in a pate�tl '`° Y offensive way: (1) An act of s exual int��eourse� n��t�a.l � or perverted, actual or simulat�d�' in- � cluding genital-�enital,, anal-genital, . or oral-genital �.ntercou�se, wh�ther � between human being s or between a hucn�� being and an anirtna3.. - (2} Sado-masachi�tic abuse, meaning _ ; f lagel lation or to�ture by or upon: a . ; ; ` person who is nud� or clad in unt�ergar't�e��s :�.: or in a revealing costtma.�� br the �QtYtii��o�t of being fetterd, bound or otherwise ph:y�sicaliy � � restrained on the p�rt ofzone so clothed, ; : . . , ,:. r. � _� .... _ (3) Masturbation, ,excretory £unctions a�d ` � ` le�ad= �xhi1� t�.�n� ;Q�; ?t�e •:,g��:tals includin,g , �an� ��pli��t�=�,_- cios�-'v:p..,�sep��sentatiori of a`. human g�nital organ or spread-eagle .e�o�t�xe . of fet�ale.T�gerii�a;�.:o�gan�K, ,� _ � 4 �. r °' ��3��j �, � . .��^ �. � . . . � d .,a � -Y R' � . • }��' �- � .�, . r . . . . , ._ �..,.r , _ .. .. . .. � .. f. , . �, . ;'_: i . ' . . -_j.Z' , k ; -_ .'. . . . � .. . . . , . .. . . .. � .: - . L i . �. � � , . , . . . . : , . . . ,i .; � . � . . . . . �. � . . �, .. . . : � . ' . . ' . . 4 . � . . � . - . . . . . . . . ,t�: . ' ' . . .. � . � . n�• . . � . . . . . .. . .. . . ... .. i . ... .: ��w , � v . �� . . . ' ' :� . . . ,. � - _a . . .�. ... [ � ' .. �. . ..ri . � � . �i�. .. . � . .:� �.�� . ��; is..�� : .' . . . �. . . . � . .. . �, � Page 4. �_. (4) Physical contact or sim�lated ; ' � physic�:l contact with the clothed or , uricXothed pubic areas or buttocks of a . . `:human person, or the .breasts of �tl�.e �' �' � . human female, whe�her alone or- between � ` members of the same or opposite sex or bet�een humans and anima,ls in an act of :, ` ' aPpare�� sexual stimulation or g�atifi- � cation.. . __...�--- , , (5� A device designed and marketed .as � � useful primar�ily, fo'r° stimulation af the �_; : . human ger��:ta.:l or-�ans. - �f -_. �,. � _ ,_;: �>:: (6) Ma�e :or female genitals in a state . ,. of s�.xa�a�. stimulation or �arousal. . . . .. ,. � .:,:> (7� Co�rere� `maZe genftals iri a di�cerniblq , � tt�g3:d s�,a.te. (j'} - "Promate"`niea�s to manufacture,� issue, sell, give, pro�ide,. lend, ma.il, de�;iver, transfer, tr.$nsmit,' publish,, distribute, circulate, , , diss�mznate, present, exhibit. or advertise, ar� to of£er or agree to'�do 'the same. : . ., , _ : , (k) "Wholesale promote" means to ma.nufacture, - issue, se1.1, provide, ma.il, deliver, �ran�fer,' ' tra�smit, publish, distribute; circulate,, : disseminate or to offer or agree to do the ` � _same for purposes of re-sale. " 476.02. S�everab��.it> . If any of the descriptions or depictions of sexua con u.ct described in Sectior�. 476.01 � are declared b}r a cour�t of competent jurisdiction to be � _ ,7 uniawfully included therein becaus� such, descriptions or , � depietions axe �onstitutionally protected or for an�r other ` � reasan, such declaration sl�all not invalidate this ��hapter as to other patently affensi.ve sexual conduct included therein. : , ' � ��:�t��_� . : ._ Page 5�.. .,; 476.03. Obscenit� Prohib�ited. (1) It shall be unl�w�u�: for any p�r�on when, lalowing -�.t�s co�ten.t arid character, he: ; (a) Wholes�le promotes, or possesses with intent to wholesa�.e promote or promo�e, any obscene ma�er�.al; or � (b) ;,Produces T �are�e�t� o� dir�c�s an obscene ' : ° �:� �e�fo��ce� ar. pa�tici�ates in a por�ion thereof whi�.h is obscene or which` co�- . � �tri�iu�es ��°�i�� , ab��n�t�'�.., � , . 3 - �.=a . � � _ . , (2) Any ,person who shall violate the provisions of this se�tion �kia�7- be gi�;3.ty of`'a�,m�ctemeanor. . � � . � � . ; . , - .. .,. i - . _ _ - �._.; . - 476.04. Affirmati�`e Defenses. (1) The prov�.Sions` of Section 476.-03 shall not apply � to persons who may posses� or distribute obscene ma.tter _ . or participate in ,condu�t oth��rwise proscribed b� Section 476.03 when suGh posses5�on, p$rticipa.tion, distribution or conduct. occurs in� the course .of law enforcement activi- ties, or in` the course of bon.a fide scientific, educat3.onai, or comparabke research or study, or like circumstances o€ justi�ication. (2) "Bona f id� rese�rch or study" shal.l not include showings of obscen� ma.tte� ta the public or to audiences or part�cipants nest regularly ertrolled or engaged in such research or study. The fact that a fee is charged directly . or indirectly for admission shall be, by itself, evidence of lack of bona fide researc� or study.