• 
• CLASS
• JOBS
• AUTO
• HOMES

Vote upholds Constitution: Lawyer

JANESVILLE — The local attorney for Spencer’s Gifts said the city council would have targeted material protected under the First Amendment if it had passed an ordinance requiring his client to shield minors from “harmful material.”

“I think the ordinance was overbroad, and I thank the members of the council for giving this important issue a thorough evaluation,” Marc McCrory, an attorney at Carney Davies & Thorpe, said in an interview Wednesday.

The council Monday voted 4-3 to reject the ordinance proposed by Russ Steeber. Steeber asked that stores be required to isolate or cover material deemed “harmful” to minors.

The First Amendment protects that material, and Spencer’s has challenged similar ordinances in other places and prevailed in court, Mc Crory said.

City staff said the proposed ordinance mirrored a state statute that defined harmful material.

Council members who voted against the ordinance wondered who would define the materials as harmful. They said items sold at Spencer’s are sold all over the city. Those in favor said the city has a responsibility to protect minors.

Yuri Rashkin asked who would decide whether material is harmful.

“I lived in the Soviet Union,” he said. “I’m not interested in having government involved to this extent in issues that can, frankly, be addressed by adequate parenting.”

“I just feel that this is an issue where the government has no interest being a part of.”

Rashkin said he was aware of no problem at Spencer’s. He said it isn’t clear what other stores would be affected.

Tom McDonald said he liked the ordinance because it was proactive and kept the material from children rather being punitive after the fact.

“When governments (act) proactively, I get very nervous,” Rashkin said.

Councilman Frank Perrotto said the ordinance was excessive and appeared to be regulating the pornography industry rather than the material at Spencer’s, which doesn’t come close.

“I think (the ordinance will) open up a can of worms we are going to regret doing,” he said.

Councilman Bill Truman said he was opposed because he could see the ordinance applying even to get-well cards.

Councilman George Brunner supported the ordinance because it followed state statutes and because he believed the council has an obligation to protect minors.

Steeber said his proposal was not an attack on Spencer’s and that he isn’t a prude.

“I was concerned only for the fact that, as much as they may try in this particular store to police it, I just didn’t see this happening,” he said.

“Sometimes, the government has a duty and responsibility to ensure we look out for those who can’t look out for themselves.”

Perrotto, Rashkin, Kathy Voskuil and Truman voted against the ordinance. Voting yes were Brunner, Steeber and McDonald.