[Nota bene: Following some the links from this essay is probably not a good idea in a shared work environment. And if for no other reason than not being a boor, it's probably not a good idea to discuss the topic of this post with your co-workers ... unless your co-workers happen to produce a "morning zoo" genre radio program. ;-) Please exercise discretion.]

Let's talk about sex.

Independence Day 2006 marked the launch of Calling Out, a novel with a Utah twist; the main character works at an escort agency in Salt Lake City. Author Rae Meadows is also a University of Utah graduate.

Calling Out is the latest in a growing genre of literature -- which includes Real Live Nude Girl: Chronicles of Sex-Positive Culture and Live Sex Acts: Women Performing Erotic Labor -- that examine the good and the bad of the erotica industry, the people who labor in it, and the people who consume what the industry produces. [Disclosure: I am honored to have worked with fellow Libertarian Andrew McCullough to provide legal representation to people who work in this industry.]

As the following examples show, however, the people who work in the erotica industry often risk criminal prosecution and other restrictions on the right to make a living.

1. The owner and employees of Bikini Cuts face challenges from local government officials in their efforts to open new salons along the Wasatch Front.

2. The owner of Dr. John’s Lingerie and Novelty Boutique spent 30 days in the Salt Lake County Jail after being convicted of selling a sexually explicit video to the daughter of Midvale’s assistant chief of police, who instructed his 17-year-old daughter to purchase the video.
3. A married couple faces federal and state prostitution charges after a Salt Lake City vice officer contacted the husband to arrange a meeting with his wife in a hotel room.

"Prostitution is a combination of sex and free enterprise. Which one are you against?"
--Michael Cloud

People who use their erotic labor to earn a living should enjoy the same rights that all Americans do.

A common argument for outlawing or restricting erotic services and erotic media is that they negatively impact married couples and families (PDF file).

As I mentioned in a previous post, evolutionary psychology drives women and men to use sexual strategies, including legislation, to restrict sexual competition.

Similarly, cultural and economic concerns encourage efforts to restrict the "low-cost substitutes" (PDF file) offered by the erotica industry that can undermine the value of sexual intimacy offered only in the context of marriage.

Such concerns deserve to be taken seriously, but excessive taxes, monetary inflation, and wars of aggression pose a far greater threat to marriages and families.

In Stanley v. Georgia, Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote for a unanimous Supreme Court of the United States that “if the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch.”

However, some on the Left and others on the Right believe it should be the State’s business to censor erotic media.

For example, earlier this year a representative from the Legacy Law Foundation appeared on KUTV's Sunday morning public affairs program "Take Two" to argue for a controversial proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

During the discussion with constitutional law professor Ed Firmage and host Rod Decker, LLF's representative claimed that "live and let live doesn't work."

In other words, LLF echoes the view of some social conservatives that State intervention is required to maintain a virtuous society, which seems to run counter to the main message of the center-right's Leave Us Alone Coalition.

And restricting the accessibility of erotic media through the internet would interfere with the surfing preferences of many Salt Lake City residents.

Here's a thought experiment: If keeping marriages intact is the goal of sexual censors, why not propose laws restricting the possession or viewing of erotica by married individuals?

After all, bachelor/ette parties operate under the assumption that the betrothed will soon commit to marital exclusivity and fidelity.

People with a driver license agree to restrictions on driving imposed by the State, such as having no measurable controlled substance in their body while driving. If erotica is so harmful to the institution of marriage, impose restrictions on access to erotica to people who have a marriage license.

Of course, with such restrictions in place, couples who have successfully used erotica to strengthen the bonds of their marriage would be out of luck.

”But it’s for the children!”

Fellow Utah Libertarian and accomplished mother Joye Henrie wrote the following in a letter to the editor published in the May 19, 2006 edition of The Salt Lake Tribune:

After reading about the hopes to cover up racy magazine covers in Provo and the campaign to remove The Joy of Sex from the library in Nampa, Idaho, I can't help but think of how twisted our society's views of sexuality are! To be offended and appalled by the human body shows a level of mental instability, as well as insecurity and immaturity.

Stop raising children in the greenhouse of sexual dysfunction! Doing so is creating a breeding ground for sexual deviance.

And as writer Heather Wokusch has observed:

Numerous studies have documented that "no sex" societies are often plagued by acts of rage. A cross-cultural investigation by American psychologist J.M. Prescott, for example, found that societies which punished premarital sex tended to have higher rates of crime and violence. Prescott also linked sexual repression to aggression, insensitivity, criminal behavior, and a greater likelihood of killing and torturing enemies.

To avoid this awful state of affairs, the Libertarian Party’s national platform advocates the following:

From the Statement of Principles:

"the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form"

From the Freedom and Responsibility section:

The Issue: Personal responsibility is discouraged by government denying individuals the opportunity to exercise it. In fact, the denial of freedom fosters irresponsibility.

The Principle: Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. We must accept the right of others to choose for themselves if we are to have the same right. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices. We believe people must accept personal responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

Solutions: Libertarian policies will promote a society where people are free to make and learn from their own decisions.

Transitional Action: Repeal all laws that presume government knows better than the individual how to run that person’s life. Encourage private sector dissemination of information to help consumers make informed decisions on products and services. Enforce laws against fraud and misrepresentation.

From the Freedom of Communication section:

The Issue: We oppose any abridgment of the freedom of speech through government censorship, regulation or control of communications media, including, but not limited to, laws concerning:
a) Obscenity, including "pornography", as we hold this to be an abridgment of liberty of expression despite claims that it instigates rape or assault, or demeans and slanders women;
...
The Principle: We defend the rights of individuals to unrestricted freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the right of individuals to dissent from government itself. We recognize that full freedom of expression is possible only as part of a system of full property rights. The freedom to use one's own voice; the freedom to hire a hall; the freedom to own a printing press, a broadcasting station, or a transmission cable; the freedom to host and publish information on the Internet; the freedom to wave or burn one's own flag; and similar property-based freedoms are precisely what constitute freedom of communication. At the same time, we recognize that freedom of communication does not extend to the use of other people's property to promote one's ideas without the voluntary consent of the owners.

From the Sexuality and Gender section:

The Issue: Politicians use popular fears and taboos to legally impose a particular code of moral and social values. Government regularly denies rights and privileges on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

The Principle: Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have legitimate authority to define or license personal relationships. Sexuality or gender should have no impact on the rights of individuals.

Solutions: Culture wars, social friction and prejudice will fade when marriage and other personal relationships are treated as private contracts, solely defined by the individuals involved, and government discrimination is not allowed.

And from the Crime and Victimless Crime section:

The Issue: Violent crime and fraud threaten the lives, happiness and belongings of Americans. Government's ability to protect the rights and property of individuals from crimes of violence and fraud is compromised because resources are focused on vice rather than on real crimes. Laws that codify "victimless crimes" turn those who simply conduct voluntary transactions and exercise free choice into criminals. This results in the United States having one of the highest percentages of the population in prison of any country in the world; yet real crime remains prevalent in many parts of the country.

Principle: Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves in the exercise of free choice.

Parents rightfully want to raise their children in a sexually healthy way. But what is a sexually healthy way to raise one’s child varies from family to family.

South Park Republicans who reject state-enforced Puritanism, and Democrats who aren’t pandering erotophobes, are invited to join the Libertarian Party and support our candidates.

Although many claim that the family is the fundamental unit of society, the individual is the foundation of a free and virtuous society.

And in a free and virtuous society, you decide.

Yours in liberty,

Rob Latham, Chairman

Libertarian Party of Utah