Even in Branson if it contains sex like pornography, offends like porography…

At the Jun. 26 meeting of the Branson Board of Aldermen, Branson City Administrator, Terry Dody made a report to the board regarding the issue of pornography coming to the Hilton Hotels at Branson Landing. In that report Dody said, “So I want to make it clear that we are not talking about pornography because pornography is illegal.” To an Ole Seagull that statement makes about as much sense as saying we are not talking about speeding because the car was going 65 miles per hour in a 45 mile per hour zone and speeding is illegal.



At the outset, let’s make one thing clear, very clear, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Miller v. California said that obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment and that such material can be regulated by the States. The court said, “In our view, to equate the free and robust exchange of ideas and political debate with commercial exploitation of obscene material demeans the grand conception of the First Amendment and its high purposes in the historic struggle for freedom.”



It should also be stressed the issue is with the commercial exploitation of obscene material not with the morality of any individual or what they do with pornography for their own private use. The issue facing Branson is the growth of the commercial exploitation of obscene materials within the community and the potential impact of such growth on the character of our community.



What was the basis of Dody’s statement? According to Dody it was that movies containing content similar to the content contained in the movies that Hilton Hotels wants to bring into Branson Landing, adult movies rated for mature audiences, are found in a number of pay for view type things in a number of our hotels here in town and that “you can also get it off your cable TV if you want.”



What an interesting legal concept, the Hilton hotels are not showing pornography because a number of other places in town are also showing movies with the same type of content. Using that logic, could someone traveling at 65 miles an hour, in a 45 mile per hour speed zone, that is being passed by other cars traveling faster, be charged with speeding if it was the car that the police pulled over for speeding? Would it be a defense at trial to say that other cars were also speeding?



The good news is that Dody has gone on record as acknowledging that pornography is illegal. In fact he used the same language earlier in his presentation in discussing the alleged suggestion “that the city council, both the elected and the non elected officials, have allowed the creation or existence pornography” in Branson Landing. He said, “First of all that the city can’t do that wouldn’t do that. Pornography is illegal and were we aware of any such thing we would have to take the appropriate legal action or notify the appropriate legal authorities to take care of that.”



If one can take Mr. Dody at his word, all that has to be done is make him aware that the movies the Hilton Hotels wants to bring to Branson Landing are pornographic and the city will “take the appropriate legal action or notify the appropriate legal authorities to take care of that.” Here’s a simple test that could resolve the issue.



Have the management of the Hiltons of Branson set up a special showing of any of the current movies, chosen at random, from the “Adult Collection” of the LodgeNet pay for view service that Hilton Hotels currently offers. Invite Dody, his City Attorney, the Branson Board of Aldermen, the Mayor, the President of the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce, the Chairman of the Branson Theatre Association, the Chairman of the Lodging Association, a couple of our areas pastors, the principals from our areas elementary schools, Rick Huffman, anyone else they wants to invite AND, here’s the most important part of all, their families, except for minor children, to a night of family fun at the movies.



Show the movies and after each one, or as people leave during the movie, have a simple three question questionnaire filled in by answering either “Yes” or “No” to the following three questions, (1) The movie is inordinately interested in sex, (2) The movie depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and (3) The movie lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. Legally precise, probably not but from a community standard point of view, if it contains sex like pornography, offends like pornography, and has as much social value as pornography, it is pornography.

About Gary Groman aka The Ole Seagull

Editor of The Branson Courier
This entry was posted in Editorials. Bookmark the permalink.