By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
Idaho Liquor Licensees who show movies have been served with notice demanding that they not show the blockbuster Hollywood hit “Fifty Shades of Grey” while serving alcoholic beverages. The agency claims that doing so violates Idaho law prohibiting the display of sexually explicit movies while serving alcohol.
Many are wondering why the ABC singled out Fifty Shades of Grey and not various other R-Rated movies having sexual situations that dominate the movie industry.
We previously wrote of past prudishness by the Idaho ABC. In 2012 we covered how the ABC prohibited Utah based Ogden’s Own Distillery from selling their Five Wives Vodka in the state–alleging that it was “Offensive to Mormons” (Click HERE, HERE, and HERE. for further reading.) Note for full disclosure, in reaction to this censorship your author assisted Ogden’s Own move into Washington State and sold their products)
In an interview with the Idaho Statesman, Michele Williams stated:
I was not drinking or wanting to drink. I just found it odd that this movie was singled out. I just thought, ‘what year am I living in here? Women can’t control themselves when they drink during this movie’ I don’t know what the message was.
Last month the State Police’s Alcohol Beverage Control agency contacted the Village Cinema and informed them that if the theater shows Fifty Shades of Grey, they would be breaking state law if they also served alcohol.
Theresa Baker, the ABC’s spokeswoman said they began their investigation when they received a complaint of the showing of Fifty Shades by Village Cinema. Other theaters reportedly were then given notice to censor this movie if they intend to serve alcohol. One complaint and the entire state is affected. So much for discretion in the eyes of enforcement bureaucrats.
Here is the statute cited by the ABC:
TITLE 23
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGESCHAPTER 6
PENAL PROVISIONS23-614. Prohibited acts — Misdemeanors — Penalties. (1) No person, partnership, association or corporation shall conduct, permit, or encourage any of the following acts or activities in or upon premises licensed pursuant to title 23, Idaho Code:
(a) Employment or use of any person, including allowing any person on the premises, while such person is unclothed or in such attire, costume or clothing as to expose to view any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola or of any portion of the pubic hair, anus, cleft of the buttocks, vulva or genitals.(b) Employment or use of any person who touches, caresses or fondles the breast, buttocks, anus or genitals of any other person, or who is so touched, caressed or fondled by another person.
(c) Employment or use of any person to wear or use any device or covering, exposed to view, which simulates the breast, genitals, anus, pubic hair or any portion thereof.
(d) Employment or use of any person to perform acts of or acts which simulate sexual intercourse, masturbation, sodomy, bestiality, oral copulation, flagellation or any sexual acts which are prohibited by law.
(e) The showing of films, still pictures, electronic reproductions, or other visual reproductions depicting:
(i) Acts or simulated acts of sexual intercourse, masturbation, sodomy, bestiality, oral copulation, flagellation or any sexual acts which are prohibited by law.
(ii) Any person being touched, caressed or fondled on the breast, buttocks, anus or genitals.
(iii) Scenes wherein a person displays the vulva or the anus or the genitals.
(iv) Scenes wherein artificial devices or inanimate objects are employed to portray any of the prohibited activities described in this section.
(2) A violation of any of the provisions of this section by any agent, employee, or other person in any way acting on behalf of a licensee shall constitute a misdemeanor, and upon conviction such person shall be fined not less than the sum of one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than the sum of three hundred dollars ($300), or be imprisoned in the county jail for not less than thirty (30) days nor more than six (6) months, or both such fine and imprisonment. Any court in which a judgment of conviction is entered shall certify a copy thereof to the director, and the director shall thereupon commence administrative proceedings. The director shall review the circumstances and may take action he considers appropriate against the licensee including suspension of the license for not to exceed six (6) months, a fine, or both such suspension and fine or may revoke the license.
(3) In addition to misdemeanor violations or other criminal proceedings instituted under this section, upon sufficient proof to the director, the director shall take administrative action as provided in subsection (2) of this section against any licensee in the event any person is found to have committed any of the above proscribed acts. The proceedings shall be in accordance with provisions of the administrative procedure act.
One has to question why all PG-13 and above rated movies are not in violation of this statute or at least it is certainly odd that a seventeen-year-old may go into a theater and watch Fifty Shades of Grey but a senior citizen may not when shown this in a movie bar.
It probably goes that the state legislature wanted to curtail nude dancing and peep shows of XXX rated type of displays in furtherance of selling alcoholic beverages. British Columbia on Idaho’s northern border allows this and does not however seem to have descended into debauchery as a result. Nevertheless while the state can argue its ability to regulate explicit displays for commercial purposes. (as overseen by the courts) But, it could prove a difficult case to win in the case of Fifty Shades since this movie is ubiquitous in open society in general.
By Darren Smith
Sources:
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
Actually that line is in the movie and it refers to the guy’s penis.
It is an S&M movie after all.
How about don’t open a chicken restaurant unless you are a committed Christian like the Chick fl a guy..
He has Jesus on his side in the chicken game.
Everyone knows that the phrase “you have to know when to hold ’em and when to fold ’em” originated with Emily Post in her discussion of how to handle dinner napkins.
Trooper, He loves asterisks more than Ford Frick.
It’s a well known fact that Obama is behind all this, him and Holder and thousands of Democrats, rich Democrats, rich commie Democrats. It couldn’t have anything to do with the tight a**ed Republicans, pining for the good old days when, well, you know.
Mr. Rogers you have to know when to fold them.
Whoa. That’s *heavy*, trooperyork. Do *you* know when to fold them? If so, do you have any pearls of wisdom you’d like to share?
Ken Rogers
Whoa. That’s *heavy*, trooperyork. Do *you* know when to fold them? If so, do you have any pearls of wisdom you’d like to share?
Trooperyork I have mentioned more than once that Ken Rogers has a Prurient imagination
trooperyork
Actually that line is in the movie and it refers to the guy’s penis.
It is an S&M movie after all.
And he has referred to himself as a “super sadist” just so you know how wound he probably is now.
I thought that Utah was home to the Ladder Day Seints. How did Idaho get so close to being a pirate territory? They need to outlaw liquor in any venue in Idaho. They are not fit to drink. And why is the state shaped so funny? Inquiring minds want to know.
@Tom Nash
“I have learned a good deal about this lawsuit, and some of the more ‘unusual’ aspects of Idaho LE’s notion of ‘serving and protecting’.
“To single out one item, I was not previously aware that pulling into a rest area and coming to a dead stop was an effective eluding/avoiding tactic when an officer is tailing you. All of the ‘reality TV’ footage I’ve ever seen involved a bit more speed and drama.”
Well, Tom, that reality TV footage probably didn’t involve a diabolically sly 70-year-old drug smuggler who knew the trooper would be thrown off the scent, if not have his mind totally blown, by his pulling over and stopping at a rest stop. I’m afraid that reality TV car chases don’t afford much insight into the criminal mind.
No, for that, you need street-wise criminologists such as the Idaho LE worthies in question. They are acutely aware, as you are obviously not, of the pertinent question, “Why would in the world would anyone come to Idaho who didn’t have to, unless it was to pollute the minds and bodies of Stepford Idahoans who are simply trying to live out their days as obediently and blithely unaware as possible?”
If entering Idaho isn’t probable cause for suspecting criminal intent, what, I ask you, could be?
The irony here, of course, is that *had* they strip searched the luciferically cunning Roseen, they would no doubt have been rewarded with evidence aplenty, whether of secreted drug(s) or of digested truffles.
Speaking of which, would you be interested in investing in a company producing truffle-flavored doughnuts?
I just received an email from the Idaho Department of Redundancy Department about Darren’s post and thought I would pass along the substance of that email. . Darren’s interesting post has two “last month”s in the paragraph beginning with “Last month…”
While I’m sure that there are plenty of libertarians in Idaho, Idaho is also home to a large number of members of the LDS Church who walk the walk when it comes to Church doctrine and culture. That doctrine and culture is not friendly to movies such as this one or to alcoholic beverages.
Ken Rogers…..It’s hard to tell from the postings/comments by Idahoans if there is really a consensus among them that the Roseen incident involved over-reach by law enforcement. Some are critical of Idaho law enforcement’s “fishing expedition ” involving drivers from the “wrong” states and wish Mr.Roseen luck in his lawsuit. Others seem “grateful” for the Inspector Clouseau officers in Idaho imagining that there’s merit in flimsy pretext “traffic stops” that immediately turn into interrogations/accusations about “illegal substances”
Mr. Roseen stopped at a “Welcome to Idaho” rest area inside the Idaho border. The ISP trooper who tore out after Mr. Roseen immediately after he crossed into Idaho followed Roseen to the rest area, accusing Mr. Roseen of pulling into the rest area to “avoid him”…. he rejectedr. Roseen’s explanation that he stopped there to use the restroom, and denied his later request to use the restroom after he was “detained”.
He was later allowed to use a restroom, under supervision, while “detained” at the nearby Payette Co. Sheriff Dept. Numerous officers (some are named as defendants in the lawsuit) then spent hours pawing through Mr. Roseen vehicle and its contents.
I have learned a good deal about thus lawsuit, and some of the more “unusual” aspects of Idaho LE’s notion of “serving and protecting”.
To single out one item, I was not previously aware that pulling into a rest area and coming to a dead stop was an effective eluding/avoiding tactic when an officer is tailing you. All of the “reality TV” footage I’ve ever seen involved a bit more speed and drama.
” Saltpeter can cause relaxation of involuntary muscle fiber (for which reason it’s used to treat asthma) and it’s occasionally prescribed to lower body temperature in cases of fever. From there it’s not much of a leap to think that “niter,” as it was called in the old days, might cure “sexual fever,” and in fact a few doctors urged it for that purpose centuries ago.”
***************************
http://youtu.be/JGb5IweiYG8
@Tom Nash
“Mr. Roseen, an obvious threat to Idahoans because his States of residence (WA. and CO.) have legalized recreational pot use, was ‘detained’ for hours while numerous officers searched his vehicle.”
Searched his *vehicle*?! If they didn’t *strip* search him, they obviously aren’t taking seriously their responsibility to serve and protect from evildoers their fellow Idahoans.
I know it’s a cliche, but it really IS hard to get good help these days.
@DS
Well, if *this* isn’t a fine kettle of fishy legislation.
On the other hand, *something* has to be done about all this unbridled lust gurgling around in American women, although I’m sure “50 Shades of Grey” isn’t the only thing that can trigger it.
I know it has somewhat fallen out of favor, but back in the day when women stayed at home and before there was all this sexing around in every nook and cranny of the nation, the authorities put saltpeter in the cafeteria food of everybody under their control:
“Dear Cecil:
“As a lad I went to the same repressive boarding school that made George Bush what he is today. As a student I believed, as did we all, that the school authorities were mixing potassium nitrate, or saltpeter, into our food to control our sexual appetites. (The food itself controlled our regular appetites.) Is this true? Was it legal? Would it have had any lasting effect on me? I shudder to think what happened to poor George.
“— John Daniel, Santa Barbara, California
“Cecil replies:
“The official word is that potassium nitrate (KNO3), more commonly employed as an ingredient in gunpowder, has no therapeutic value as an anaphrodisiac, contrary to legend. Cecil of course believes this. Still, when you look at what the stuff does do, you can see where the idea got started. Saltpeter can cause relaxation of involuntary muscle fiber (for which reason it’s used to treat asthma) and it’s occasionally prescribed to lower body temperature in cases of fever. From there it’s not much of a leap to think that “niter,” as it was called in the old days, might cure “sexual fever,” and in fact a few doctors urged it for that purpose centuries ago.”
I note that Cecil doesn’t address the other part of John’s question, could the saltpeter have adversely affected people like George Is-Our-Children-Learning Bush, but I, for one, don’t think it’s worth the risk.
So, if people just *have* to have porn with their booze in public, what about gender-segregated bars and restaurants? I believe they have those in Israel and Saudi Arabia, for example, and you don’t hear about any sex-crazed Idahoans in *those* places.
Rich Hollywood Democrats have homes there. Will they leave ?
BTW, I think the ROSEEN V. IDAHO lawsuit is scheduled to be heard later this month. Idaho has some “unique ” views on and enforcement of measures to “protect” its citizen. Mr. Roseen, an obvious threat to Idahoans because his States of residence (WA. and CO.) have legalized recreational pot use, was “detained” for hours while numerous officers searched his vehicle.
No “illegal substances” were found, and the 70 year old retired executive was finally allowed to leave….eventually, they even released his vehicle.
Really a nice “Welcome to Idaho” gesture, extended to Mr. Roseen and others when driving from the wrong state in the Land of Idaho.
Gotta start somewhere. Better late than never. The law is on the books, No?
Libertinism=Libertarianism
States rights guys? Move to Colorado or California 😉
Rafflaw:
Why allow the big government types to ruin a wonderful place?
Far better to send the big government types to a place that is already ruined – such as Chicago or Massachusetts.
Let them torture each other.
Once a bureaucracy has a power, it will exercise it – almost a law of nature.
That is why legislatures need to be so sparing in both passing laws and giving agencies power.
Unfortunately that lesson has to be relearned frequently.
Just one more reason to not live in Idaho.