10-25-65 Council Meeting Minutes

Home Browse Search

� __REGULAR MEETING OCT-OBBR 29, 790 Be it remembered that the Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indian#imet in Regular Session in the Council Chambers in the City Hall on Monday, October 25, 1965, at 10 :12 -P.M., with all members present except Councilman Glass. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Councilmen Hunter, Allen, Palmer, Wise, Geib, Szymkowiak, Smith and Muszynski ABSENT: Councilman Glass REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON MINUTES To the Common Council of the City of South Bend: Your Committee on the inspection and supervision of the minutes, would respectfully report that they have inspected the minutes of the previous meeting of the Council and found them correct. They therefore recommend that the same be approved. /s/ John L. Hunter, Jr /s/ Janet S. Allen /s/ Richard G. Geib Meeting of October 11, 1965 The repottswas,-acceptediwdnd< placed '.on:Dfile. COMMUNICATION October 25, 1965 TO: The Common Council of the City of South Bend FROM: The South Bend Jaycees, Inc. SUBJECT: Obscene Literature For some time now we have been concerned with the degree and type of publications being disseminated in South Bend. We have decided to look into the matter and, if possible, recommend to you, our local legislators, possible legislation. However, before this we should like to set forth some of the facts that have surrounded attempts to legislate in this area. The problem of what to do with dissemination of obscenity is certainly not a new one. In fact, Congress in 1865 acted to permit refusal.of such material by the United States Postal System. Since then, numerous judicial proceedings have interpreted that obscene material legislation is within the area of responsibility of legislative bodies such as yours. The only caution to such action, as we see it, is in the anomaly presented by the courts in the definition of obscene. In the court's opinion, obscene "has nothing to do with corrupting or depraving susceptible people.' Rather, they-hold that "it is used to describe things which are offensive to current standards of decency and not things which may induce sinful thoughts. Thus, the United States Supreme Court has laid down the test that to be obscene, the book, picture, film or whatever must, in the opinion of an average person in a community, create lustful desires and do so in an obvious, offensive manner. Thus, in order to even present a colorable indictment in the case now pending in South Bend, the prosecutor's office.created a committee of people from all walks of life. Any decision from such a committee would, therefore, reflect the moral standard of the community in which they live. This would preclude, on appeal, a question of law as to whether the conscious of the locality was considered, However, as you may well know,, to be guilty of the crime of perpetuating obscenity under Indiana Law (Burns Indiana Statutes 10 -2803) recently amended to read so by court ruling, one must knowingly sell or provide it to the public. In selling merchandise, one can be held on the implication that the merchandise would be.harmful to human consumption. However, this would be quite difficult to apply to criminal actions such as those based on our state criminal code for obscene literature, as the law definitely states one must know- ingly sell or offer such for public consumption. This, we believe, will provide you with the problems involved in dealing with legislation on obscenity. We wish to petition your body to consider this problem on the basis of the facts presented herein. More particularly, as the State Laws permit investigative commissions by the Council, we would like to see the Common Council of South Bend set up a perpetual committee appointed by the Council to review all the aspects of obscenity. This committee should recommend to the Grand Jury, upon approval of the Council if need be, all violations of the State Criminal Code on Obscene Literature, But, prior to that, they,sh6yld notify the person or persons responsible for selling or offering same that such action is being taken on the basis of the fact that the committee ruled what he is selling is obscene. If the dissemination of said obscene material continues, even after official notice, the person selling the obscene material can then be considered in violation of the State Law and proper action may be begun. An alternative we have discussed would be to restrict the use of obscene literature to adults only. It has long been rationalized that, until maturity persons are not permitted the use of alcoholic beverages in the State of Indiana. If it is permissable to legislate that the human mind is not capable of coping with the effects of alcohol until it is conditioned by age, we see a simile in preventing the use of certain literature and art on an untutored basis.