The Oakland Press

June 2000

 

ACLU will put Pontiac’s feet to fire regarding obscenity law

 

Pontiac – The American Civil Liberties Union is planning a vigorous attack on Pontiac’s obscenity ordinance Wednesday when the case of a Rochester artist ticketed for a controversial exhibit goes to court.  Pontiac police issued artists Jef Bourgeau a citation for displaying obscene images for his exhibit titled, “Fear No Art,” of photographs of art work that have been censored throughout history. The exhibit, which ran at the Temporary Contemporary gallery on Saginaw Street for three weeks in March, included photographs of a 5^th century B.C. Greek plate, Renaissance nudes and contemporary works by artist Robert Mapplethorp.  One image included a racial epithet while another depicted Jesus in a bathtub wearing a condom.

 

ACLU legal director Michael J. Steinberg said his office decided to join the case after hearing about Bourgeau’s plight.  “Government censorship is always dangerous.  It’s our view that people should be permitted to decide for themselves what is worthy of viewing and not the government,” Steinberg said.  The collage is made of work from artists such as Picasso, Rembrandt and Rodin.  The photographs used were taken from art books purchased at the Detroit Institute of Arts and Borders, Steinberg said.  “It’s clear the collage does not meet the definition of obscenity.  It’s a no-brainer,” he said.  Bourgeau said taking the case to trail would be a waste of time.

 

“I want it dismissed…or, used to define art from obscenity once and for all,” Bourgeau said.  “The ordinance says ‘unless it shows some artist or educational merit,’…those qualifications were there.”  The ordinance says material is obscene if, among other tests, it “lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.”  The exhibit was designed to prompt discussions on censorship and was compiled as part of a symposium on censorship organized by several area gallery owners.  Bourgeau displayed the same exhibit at the DIA in November.  It was shut down by DIA officials in three days.  After an employee in the gallery building called the police to complain about the exhibit, Bourgeau installed curtains to block the view from Saginaw Street.

 

Inside the gallery building, he papered over the front walls to block a view from the hallway.  He added a warning label outside to keep minors out.  Two days after the exhibit opened police issued the ticket.  A conviction on the misdemeanor offense carries a $500 fine or 90 days in jail.  John C. Claya, acting Pontiac city attorney, did not return repeated calls to his office seeking comment on the case.  Pontiac Mayor Walter Moore’s office declined to comment “while the case is pending.”  The U.S. Supreme Court has struggled over the years to define obscenity, which is not protected by the First Amendment.  The court formulated guidelines for determining obscene material in its 1973 decision Miller v. California.

 

The three basic provisions are: whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work taken as a whole appeals to “lewd” interests; whether the work depicts or describes in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by state law; and whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.  Wayne State University Law Professor Robert Sedler said the third prong of the law, whether the work has artistic value, is the true Constitutional test.

 

“That protects everything,“ Sedler said.  “It’s unheard of to invoke an obscenity law against an art exhibit.  How can a painting be obscene?”  Although he has not viewed the exhibit but was familiar with some of its images, Sedler said there is no question the work is protected speech with artistic and political value.  Sedler also said the city ordinance is so broad it’s void.  “It can include everything,” he said.

 

Allan Rubin, a Southfield attorney who has represented several adult bookstores in Michigan, said he has not heard of a conviction in an obscenity case in more that 10 years.  “In all of the cases there is one clear message the jury seems to send whether you are in Grand Bend or Detroit – they don’t want the government telling them what they can read or look at,” Rubin said.