Clark seeks to crack down on ‘violent’ pornography

An anti-pornography bill authored by state Sen. Tarryl Clark, DFL-St. Cloud, and scheduled to be heard this week by a Senate committee earned a lot of attention today — both locally and nationally.

The legislation, SF 2861, would forbid all state employees, constitutional officers and legislators from using state money to pay for lodging, training or “any other use” of a facility that “makes pornographic images or performances available to its patrons.”

A “pornographic image or performance” is further defined as one that objectifies or exploits its subjects by “eroticizing domination, degradation or violence.”

According to Gary Hill, communications director for the Senate DFL Caucus, the legislation was prompted by a request made of Cragun’s, a popular Brainerd resort. A group wanted to hold an event there, but first wanted to be sure that the resort adhered to so-called “clean hotel standards,” as espoused on CleanHotels.com.

“[The group] wanted to bring [its] business to a resort that didn’t carry pay-per-view, violent pornography,” Hill said this afternoon.

Dutch Cragun, who owns the resort, wasn’t familiar with the “clean hotel standards,” but he asked his cable provider if he could drop the pay-per-view option, and was able to do so. Cragun contacted the group again and told its members that he was in compliance with the standards, and booked the event.

“All this does is redirect some state business to [businesses] that meet those standards,” Hill said.

Hill noted, however, that Clark’s bill was “changing under our feet” and that the legislation might change further before Wednesday’s hearing of the Senate State and Local Government Operations and Oversight Committee, which has the bill on its calendar.

After the story was picked up today by The Associated Press, it found its way onto some national websites, including USA Today, which got some of the details incorrect, according to Hill: “It’s the hotels themselves that would decide the content that they didn’t want carried on their systems anymore,” he said. “The state wouldn’t have to create ‘porn police’ [as the USA Today story posited] or screen any videos.”

The proposed legislation calls for the state Department of Administration to maintain a list of hotels and meeting spaces that do not offer violent pornography, Hill said.

A companion bill in the House, HF 3287, authored by Rep. Larry Haws, DFL-St. Cloud, has been referred to the House State and Local Government Operations Reform, Technology and Elections Committee, but has not been set for a hearing before that committee.

5 Responses to “Clark seeks to crack down on ‘violent’ pornography”

1. Dan Says:
   March 9th, 2010 at 9:25 am

   Either this bill is retarded, Gary isn’t very good at communicating, or Betsy is a bad writer. This article or this bill makes no sense at all.

   From the article:
   “It’s the hotels themselves that would decide the content that they didn’t want carried on their systems anymore,”

   From the example given, it sounds like this is already the case. And who defines what is “degrading to women”? I might say that all porn is. Who maintains the list? Who views all the expense reimbursements to check for this? Who follows up to make sure hotels that say they don’t have porn, actually don’t?

   What a mess. Tarryl Clark can’t even serve her constituents in St. Cloud in a proper manner.

2. abyss2hope Says:
   March 9th, 2010 at 12:01 pm

   I support this legislation on hotel booking policies which is not in any way censorship. The legislative committees will have the opportunity to discuss any potential messiness in how this idea is applied. This is why we have these committees.

   Those who don’t understand what this legislation actually does can’t accurately make an assessment about this legislation. Confusion should be a signal to do additional research not a signal to declare the legislation bad. The state legislature has a website where more information on the house and senate versions of this legislation can be found. You can find this website by Googling Minnesota legislature bill.

3. Dan Says:
   March 9th, 2010 at 2:07 pm

   Thanks, Abyss. I just read the bill. I’m no longer confused about the bill language, and I can certainly say it’s a pointless mess.

   This bill is a solution to a problem nobody had (like most legislation). State money is not paying for any porn. so the point must be to strong-arm hotels to drop skinemax and showtime. What business is that of state government? And even if that were a legitimate interest, has Senator Clark ever heard of the INTERNET?

   What is the practical impact of this bill? More government red tape, wasted staff-hours, and ZERO public benefit. I guess in that respect, its model legislation.

   Oh, and watch an episode of Sopranos, because it would fall into the definition Sen. Clark uses in the bill.

4. abyss2hope Says:
   March 9th, 2010 at 5:39 pm

   Dan, I disagree with you about this bill. You make the incorrect claim that Showtime is covered under this legislation. It is not. Sexual violence is an issue for the state of Minnesota because of the impact this violence has on citizens and because of the cost to taxpayers related to sexual violence. There are many contributors to sexual violence and I want my state legislators to consider these contributors and then to act based on the best evidence available.

5. LuckyLockhart Says:
   March 12th, 2010 at 6:06 am

   I work in the hotel industry. While the issue of sexual violence may be one of importance and note for our state, the way to change public opinion is not in my mind to harm Minnesota’s hotels. Like drunk driving, obesity, or any number of other personal behaviors or choices, the discussion between when state government should intervene and when the marketplace ought to be allowed to work is an energetic one. I feel this legislation is in appropriate. Like it or not, porn is legal in this country. If we want to begin education the world about the relationship between violent porn and behavior, we first need to make sure the research is solid, and then we need to begin a broad education campaign. Let the hotel owners decide when to take these out as the market shifts and consumer demands change. Hotels have long term contracts with these TV providers and cannot simply shut them off without facing substantial damages legally. This bill would force them to do so or be unable to take state business. That’s a direct economic impact to an industry hit very hard by the recession. That means jobs. I suggest we begin a dialog with the hotel community about the issue first and let the smart people that operate our hotels make intelligent decisions moving forward.