Select Page

Don't Tread On My Site

Yes, the First Amendment Protects “I Eat Ass” Bumper Stickers

Load WordPress Sites in as fast as 37ms!

First, the statute under which Dillon is being charged, Fla. Stat. § 847.011(2), provides in relevant part:

[A] person who knowingly has in his or her possession, custody, or control any obscene … writing … [or] any sticker, decal, emblem or other device attached to a motor vehicle containing obscene descriptions, photographs, or depictions … commits a misdemeanor of the second degree ….

But this covers mere home possession of obscenity, which is constitutionally protected under Stanley v. Georgia (1969); this entire provision is therefore unconstitutionally overbroad and thus invalid on its face, and thus can’t be applied even to possession of obscenity in public.

Now maybe the charges will instead be changed to a violation of § 847.011(1), which covers “show[ing]” such obscene material.  “Obscene” is defined in an earlier provision using the Supreme-Court-approved definition of obscenity:

(10) “Obscene” means the status of material which:
(a) The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
(b) Depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct as specifically defined herein; and
(c) Taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

That statute, then, would be facially constitutional. But it couldn’t constitutionally apply to Dillon’s speech, because to be obscene, expression “must be, in some significant way, erotic,” and must tend to arouse “lustful thoughts” or “sexual responses” and not just refer to sexual acts. Hard-core pornography might be obscene, especially if displayed in public; but this sort of vulgar verbal reference to a sexual act is far from hard-core pornography.

Dillon thus can’t be prosecuted for possessing or displaying obscenity, and he also can’t be prosecuted for resisting an officer, a charge that appears to be based solely on Dillon’s refusal to redact the sticker.

The Georgia Supreme Court, by the way, struck down a ban on “profane or lewd” words on bumper stickers, see Cunningham v. State (Ga. 1991), in a case involving a man who was displaying a “Shit Happens” sticker; that’s not quite the same issue as here, though.

Thanks to The Smoking Gun for the arrest report.


This post has been republished with permission from a publicly-available RSS feed found on Reason. The views expressed by the original author(s) do not necessarily reflect the opinions or views of The Libertarian Hub, its owners or administrators. Any images included in the original article belong to and are the sole responsibility of the original author/website. The Libertarian Hub makes no claims of ownership of any imported photos/images and shall not be held liable for any unintended copyright infringement. Submit a DCMA takedown request.

Read the original article.

Advertise on Libertarian Hub

About The Author

Eugene Volokh

Founded in 1968, Reason is the magazine of free minds and free markets. We produce hard-hitting independent journalism on civil liberties, politics, technology, culture, policy, and commerce. Reason exists outside of the left/right echo chamber. Our goal is to deliver fresh, unbiased information and insights to our readers, viewers, and listeners every day. Visit https://reason.com

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.