From the website of the American Bookseller’s Foundation for Free Expression comes this interesting item:

On March 25, the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression (ABFFE) condemned a new Indiana law that requires mainstream bookstores to register with the government if they sell “sexually explicit materials.” “Sexually explicit” is defined so broadly that the law could apply to bookstores that sell mainstream novels and other artistic works with sexual content as well as educational books about sexuality and sexual health. H.B. 1042 was signed into law last week by Governor Mitch Daniels. “It is un-American to force booksellers to register with the government based on the kinds of books they carry,” ABFFE President Chris Finan said. “It is also unconstitutional, and we intend to do everything we can to challenge this violation of the First Amendment rights of Indiana booksellers and their customers.”

That registration fee, by the way, is $250. Failure to register is a misdemeanor.

There are no guarantees that literary works and otherwise legitimate artistic expression will be exempt. Books on women’s health will almost certainly contain things that will offend the purveyors of this legislation. I have high hopes that eventually, this law will be bitch-slapped into the dustbin of history where it belongs, but you have to wonder what kind of lawmakers would even consent to draft, propose, argue, vote for, and sign a law that is so blatantly and obviously unconstitutional. Deep cynicism comes to mind, much like the cynicism revealed in the current administration’s “use” of the religious right. They gave plenty of lip service to the agenda of that segment of the citizenry, but never really intended to implement the more substantive parts of their agenda. Indiana might be doing likewise, making laws they know will be overturned rather than informing their supporters that the law is unconstitutional and telling them to go back to Mayberry and get an education.

An example from Iran of what people in Indiana might look forward to.

 If my faith is not misplaced, and things do go as they ought to, then one might say that “the system works”, but I’m not so sure. What laws like this do is tee-up a situation that needs only the wrong kind of activist judge like a Roberts or a Scalia to suddenly plunge us into a nightmare of absurdity.

Besides putting the standards of art, literature, and even science into the hands of those least qualified to set them, laws like this also create a climate of fear and chills the public debate. An artist will think twice before depicting a woman’s bare back. A doctor writing about women’s health or adolescence will consider leaving out important facts. Remember, we’re not talking about the local adult video store here, we’re talking about the very mention of sex and sexuality in even the most oblique contexts on the shelves of your local Borders or Barnes & Noble. This is about treating sex as the great taboo, forbidden to so much as mention, let alone describe even in the most chaste terms.

I sincerely hope that we start to see public readings from Lady Chatterley’s Lover taking place on the steps of the Indiana state capitol, or some other creative forms of civil disobedience. Some things are just too stupid not to mock.

But this change in the cultural landscape comes with hidden costs that the lawmakers of Indiana have probably not considered (the citizens who demanded this change certainly did not, and might even consider it a plus).

The first is the nature of our economy. Richard Florida has pointed out that our economy is deriving much, if not most of its strength from new products and services that now exist thanks to what he calls the “creative class”. These are the computer programmers, musicians, artists, filmmakers, research scientists… the innovators. People like this prefer to live in places that are friendly to broad-minded, creative, bold people. Dr. Florida made headlines a few months ago when he demonstrated that cities that are more “gay friendly” also have stronger, more vibrant economies. Having lived in the Bay Area for some time, I know from personal experience that cities and towns with a higher number of creative types are much more interesting and will always have more economic options, all other things being equal.

Let’s do a thought experiment. You are a talented artistic person, or someone who has lots of ideas and likes to think in an unfettered way. Are you going to enjoy living and working in a place that will turn the local bookstores into purveyors of the bland? I thought not.

 But let’s turn to the sciences for a moment. The practice of science is essentially that of taking the latest theories and hypotheses and subjecting them to continuous evaluation and re-evaluation, knocking off the corners that don’t fit until you have a model that satisfactorily explains nature. And that theory will last only as long as it takes for a better one to appear. The work of science involves constant effort to find a refutation of the current model. What does this have to do with Indiana’s law?

Indiana’s law puts constraints on public discourse. It restricts free speech. It opens the door for censoring any speech that enough people don’t like. Real scientific progress is only possible in an open and free society, with only the very few reasonable strictures on speech and expression. Criticism must be open and free, and ideas must be available for consideration by all concerned. If “sexuality”, broadly defined, becomes proscribed speech, will “evolution” be next? Will the fruits of the defining concept of modern biology be restricted to closed rooms and whispered conversation? Is it worth sacrificing our scientific, cultural, and artistic birthright just to keep a few prudish schoolmarm types happy–to the extent that someone who is so anti-sex can actually be happy?