|
|
Article: TALK BACK Most important facts omitted from store case; Dear Ms. Prager: On the contrary, the editorial writer did note that the store had been the scene of illegal activity sexual activity and patronage by minors. But District Attorney Paul Bucher cautioned and you note this in your letter that a court-ordered closure under a nuisance proceeding would have meant that the store could have reopened in one year. We detest pornography, as do you. But the reality is that First Amendment guarantees protect much of the material these merchants sell. We feel that under these circumstances, strict regulations lasting far longer than a year are a better approach than seeing the same store with the same problems reopening in 12 months for the momentary satisfaction that closure might bring. ------------ On Sundays, the Journal Sentinel will respond to selected letters.
- Article from:
- The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (Milwaukee, WI)
- Article date:
- December 1, 1996
CopyrightCopyright 1996 The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Provided by ProQuest LLC. (Hide copyright information)
|
The Nov. 18 editorial "Prudent compromise on adult bookstore"
showed the tunnel vision of those who focus on the First Amendment
rights of pornography sellers. Waukesha County District Attorney
Paul Bucher made it very clear, more than once, this was not a First
Amendment issue.
The editorial writer failed to bring out some important facts in
the case. The Waukesha store was charged by Bucher with being a
nuisance under state statute Chapter 823. People had been arrested
in the store for indecent exposure, sexual assault on a clerk, other
lewd behavior and for allowing minors on the premises.
Statute Chapter 823 says that "the conviction of any person of
the offense of lewdness committed ...