Suggestive billboards: Should they be tamed?

Shari L. Peterson is a Las Vegas resident. She and her husband have four children.

As I drive with my young children along our streets and highways, we are forced to observe and subject ourselves to billboards with sexually explicit and revealing content. My family has lived in Las Vegas for more than 10 years, and over those years the adult entertainment billboards have become less and less interested in keeping at bay the sexual content of the businesses being advertised.

I, as well as all of the individuals I have spoken to regarding these billboards, am extremely concerned about the sexually suggestive and subliminal messages that are so totally displayed. Our children have the absolute right to be protected from viewing adult entertainment billboards, including advertisements on taxis, that are not suitable for the general public.

Recent comments have been made in the media to "just look away" or "Well, we live in Sin City, what do you expect?" It's true that Sin City is Las Vegas' nickname, from an entertainment or visitors point of view, but it's certainly not true of families who live and raise their children here.

We residents do all of the same types of things as people in other cities, i.e., go to school, PTA meetings, basketball games, church and so forth. The only difference is that we have some casinos, strip clubs and escort service businesses that concentrate on visitor interests instead of community interests.

The concentration on visitors' sexual interests has had a negative impact on my extended family and on friends who visit me. They do not want their children to view these sexually explicit advertisements, but the ads are thrown in their faces before they can even get to my home.

Might I also add that these blatantly sexual advertisements are making gaming the second reason to visit Las Vegas, with sex being the first. Perhaps the city's new slogan might be, "Come for the sex, and oh yeah, stay for a little gaming." It's just wrong to portray the Las Vegas community in this way.

Advertising in the adult entertainment industry has now reached an all-time low; we need all who care about this great city to help fix it.

There is an awareness in society today of the ill-effects on children when they are exposed to sexually explicit materials, both verbal and non-verbal. This is supported by the fact that ratings have been placed on television programs viewed in the home and at public movie theaters. (Ratings have yet to be placed on billboard and taxicab advertisements that our children are subjected to, and even accosted by, without warning or choice.)

Furthermore, the placement of ratings in television shows and theater movies promotes "parental discretion," which allows parents the right to decide what their children will view. This right of discretionary viewing for our children isn't possible on billboards, traveling billboards and taxicab advertisements.

Children's innocence should be of the utmost concern, not only to parents, but also to our elected officials. We need to assure freedom and protection to those who are unable to have a voice in our society.

Although the argument for free speech is often used as the rationale for this kind of advertising, our children are also equally deserving of similar protection under the law. I am confident that our forefathers did not intend for "free speech" to be at the moral expense of our children viewing, on our open highways and streets, billboards or taxicabs advertising sexually explicit subject matters.

By allowing sexually explicit advertising, we are prematurely robbing children of their innocence. Additionally, parents are being robbed of their rights to keep their children free from what they consider to be inappropriate viewing material.

I urge Las Vegans to help protect our precious children. Take the necessary steps to change the law(s) with respect to what is allowable for general public viewing. In other words, force billboards and taxicab advertisements to contain only "G-rated" material.

We should act with urgency so that we may help bring about the demise of what seems to be a continuing decay of innocence and moral values in our youth.

By Gary Peck and Allen Lichtenstein

Gary Peck is executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada and Allen Lichtenstein is general counsel of the organization.

Recently, there has been much controversy regarding Las Vegas billboards featuring what some consider "racy" advertisements for hotel-casinos and gentlemen's clubs. Protesters have publicly urged the Nevada Gaming Commission to censor certain of these billboards they believe do not convey "the right image" to children or adults. There have also been rumblings about lobbying local governments to pass ordinances entailing the same sort of censorship.

Setting aside the obvious point that hotel-casino and gentlemen's club ads aren't aimed at or considered by most to be suitable for children, the calls for censorship of those containing sexual innuendo should raise concerns among those who take free speech seriously. After all, the First Amendment means nothing if it merely protects expression that is inoffensive to the majority of people and is deemed by them to be appropriate for minors. That's why the protesters, no matter how well intentioned, are on the wrong side of constitutional principles and the law in this dispute.

It's important to understand that the ads in question are not illegal. They aren't obscene under Nevada law, nor do they fit within Nevada's legal definition of material that is "harmful to minors." Nevada laws properly prohibit only material that depicts explicit sexual conduct, while the protested ads are just suggestive.

Nevada's laws were crafted to ensure against the unconstitutional imposition of restrictions that trample free speech by permitting the majority to impose its values on everyone. They were written in a manner consistent with the leading decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, which has stated that "the Constitution does not permit government to decide what types of otherwise protected speech are sufficiently offensive to require protection for the unwilling listener or viewer."

The Supreme Court has also established that the presence of children doesn't justify banning sexually suggestive expression in public venues. The Court is cognizant of parents' desire to shield their youngsters from certain imagery and messages, but has held that the standards for what is allowable in public can't be set according to what is suitable for children. The Court has stated that speech that's not obscene or otherwise illegal "cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable."

Some billboard protesters believe that because the contested ads are commercial, they aren't entitled to the same level of protection as non-commercial speech set forth in the aforesaid Supreme Court rulings. They are right that there's a distinction between the two kinds of expression, but wrong to think that the type of censorship they want can be defended constitutionally.

Indeed, the Supreme Court has addressed the issue of commercial speech straightforwardly. The Court has held that advertisements that are false, inherently misleading, or promote goods or services that are illegal aren't entitled to First Amendment protection. No one claims the ads in dispute fall into any of these categories. The complaints are about their sexual suggestiveness, which may offend many, but which is constitutionally protected.

Nor does it matter that hotel-casinos and gentlemen's clubs where alcohol is sold (only those where alcohol is sold) are privileged industries. The Supreme Court has determined that although privileged activities like gaming or alcohol sales may be prohibited entirely, the government hasn't the enhanced right to suppress truthful, non-misleading advertising involving such conduct once it's allowed. That principle applies regardless of majority opinion.

There's good reason why the Constitution and Supreme Court don't permit government to censor sexually suggestive or other materials simply because some or even most of a community's members consider them offensive. In our richly diverse society, where different people have differing views of offensiveness, First Amendment protections cannot depend upon majority approval.

Political, artistic, literary and even purely commercial ads often evoke strong responses. Hot-button issues like gun control, abortion, gay marriage, school prayer and taxes frequently spark fierce antipathies. Atheists, for instance, sometimes find religious billboards offensive. Anti-abortion advocates at times feel the same about Planned Parenthood signs. Alcohol is unsuitable for children and ads promoting its consumption are intensely off-putting to many adults. Gambling, Nevada's economic linchpin, is likewise inappropriate for children and commercials touting its pleasures are deeply disfavored by millions. That doesn't give government the right to censor.

By preventing the state from suppressing speech deemed odious, the First Amendment allows those with divergent views to express themselves even when their messages are repugnant to others. This freedom is the cornerstone of our constitutional system. There is a price to be paid for it, however. Free speech is messy. We must put up with plenty we don't like. That is the burden -- and the beauty -- of real democracy.

Sure, sexually suggestive billboards offend some people's sensibilities. Thankfully, they have the right to do exactly what they have already done -- stand up and speak out about their concerns. What they cannot and should not be allowed to do is dictate that government censor what they don't like.

Here, the best antidote to objectionable messages has always been more rather than less speech. And that's precisely how it should be, if we want to preserve what is finest -- and sometimes most annoying -- about America.

archive