Legislating what?

In March, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels signed into law House Act 1042, which deals with registration for selling pornography. The act requires that new stores selling adult materials register with the Indiana Secretary of State, and pay a $250 fee when the law takes effect July 1. Under the law, current booksellers will not have to register with the state unless they begin offering material deemed “sexually explicit” after June 30 or if they relocate. \nAn argument many of the act’s supporters are likely to make is that the fine is too small to pose any real threat to successful businesses, and therefore is nothing to worry about. However, we recognize the danger of the “slippery slope” effect this legislation allows. After the law is in place, it would be much easier for legislators to vote for significant increases to existing law than it currently is for them to slap vendors of sexually explicit materials with significant fines. The true power of the law is in allowing the state to make judgements about what pornography is, and how it should be dealt with. \nEven members of the legislature acknowledge that monetary fines are not the act’s true power. State Representative Brent Steele, a Republican from Bedford, mentioned that the bill was designed to assist counties lacking zoning ordinances in tracking local businesses selling sexually explicit materials. The Indiana Secretary of State is soon to distribute lists of such businesses across the state.\nBut why should the state have any interest whatsoever in regulating the responsible vending and consumption of explicit materials?\nSome would say a tax of sorts on porn is comparable to a tax on tobacco or alcohol. But unlike the taxes on tobacco and alcohol, a tax on porn does not correct for negative effects on society. While alcohol causes Americans to drive under the influence at disturbingly high rates and secondhand smoke is a carcinogen affecting everyone around a smoker, sexually explicit materials do not generate this sort of practical harm to society. Only by adopting a specific set of moral values can we even say there is any sort of harmful societal side-effect to an individual viewing pornography.\nAnd though it is not the business of the General Assembly to do so, it seems our state legislature has adopted a specific set of values in passing this law, or at least has made their existing views obvious. As of late, the legislature’s hobby seems to be passing impotent legislation in order to send a message to their constituents. We share your moral views, so vote for us again. Earlier this year, legislators tried to play the same game by introducing bills to ban same-sex marriage, though it was already prohibited.\nHoosiers should let their state representatives know that the job of elected officials is to draft meaningful legislation designed to better the state, not make ivory-tower proclamations solely designed to ingratiate officials to their potential electorate.