Sexy Hair, Vulgar Thinking: What?s in a Word?
Ron DeYoung
December 05, 2005
According to the big, green book I refer to on an almost daily basis to clarify, dispute or define what is really meant by a word, ?sexy? is not ?vulgar.? Vulgar is the word that Spring Hill, Tennessee Mayor Danny Leverette used to explain why the word sexy had to be removed from a sign advertising hair care products by a local business. Although Mayor Leverette told me his quote was taken out of context by the media, he still feels the word sexy is in violation of the city?s sign ordinance. According to Leverette, the ordinance bans signs with ?blinky lights, animatronics, sexually explicit or vulgar language.?
For the record, according to the Tenth Collegiate Edition of Merriam Webster?s Deluxe Dictionary, the following definitions apply:
Sexy sek-sE 1: sexually suggestive or stimulating : EROTIC
2: generally attractive or interesting : APPEALING
Vulgar vul-ger 4 a : lacking in cultivation, perception, or taste : COARSE b : morally crude, undeveloped, or unregenerate : GROSS c : ostentatious or excessive in expenditure or display : PRETENTIOUS
5 a : offensive in language : EARTHY b : lewdly or profanely indecent
Based on the above definitions, it appears to this writer that the word vulgar applies more to anyone objecting to the word sexy than it does to a sign that advertises a hair care product. The individuals objecting are, in my opinion, lacking in cultivation, perception or taste; possibly all three. My opinion however would be irrelevant if it weren?t supported by mountains of legal opinions and laws addressing the issues of obscenity and indecency.
Although obscenity has been addressed in The United States courts since the early 19th century, the law used by the courts today was decided in 1973 when the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case of Miller v. California. In defining obscenity, the court applied what is known as the three part Miller Test:
An average person, applying contemporary local community standards, finds that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.
The work depicts in a patently offensive way sexual conduct specifically defined by state law.
The work in question lacks serious literary artistic, political or scientific value.
In order to be declared obscene an item must pass all three parts of the test. There have since been clarifications made regarding ?average person,? ?community standards,? ?patent offensiveness? and what constitutes ?serious value,? but overall, The Miller Test continues to be considered the barometer of what is and isn?t obscene. One clarification that applies to this situation is what constitutes ?local community standards.? In most jurisdictions ?local standards? translates to ?state standards,? therefore Tennessee Law would apply. Another is what constitutes an ?average person.? With regard to the word ?sexy? on a sign in Spring Hill, Tennessee, two people have supposedly complained about the sign, according to Spring Hill?s Director of Codes and Inspections, Ferrell White. Those complaints were telephoned in, according to Mayor Leverette, and there were no formal complaints filed.
The owner of the targeted Studio 4 Hair & More, Cindy Landis, wonders when two people became representative of a community with a population of nearly 20,000 people. In an attempt to answer Landis? question I defer to former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger. In 1974 he wrote, ?The community includes all adults who comprise it, and a jury can consider them all in determining relevant community standards.?
I feel that it is only fair to alert readers that the above mentioned law applies to adult bookstores, pornographic movie theaters, strip clubs and sellers of magazines depicting sexually explicit behavior and nudity. Nowhere in my studies or through my research have I found how this law applies to hair styling salons. Noting the name of the ?offending? establishment included the vague ?& More,? I asked Landis to clarify what ?More? referred to. She has assured me that her business is not involved in the promotion or distribution of anything that involves nudity, pornography or anything else that is considered by most reasonable people obscene or sexually explicit. According to Landis, it encompasses faux fingernails, facials, manicures and cosmetics, all activities in which her customers and employees remain fully clothed at all times. Furthermore, in a Spring Hill Best of 2005 poll being conducted on the internet, Landis says Studio 4 Hair & More leads the Best Hair Care category.
Now that I feel confident the word sexy is not obscene, vulgar or indecent, I?m forced by my personal code of journalistic ethics to explore other possible reasons, such as zoning ordinances, for the political leadership of Spring Hill?s possibly unconstitutional behavior. I use the word unconstitutional because it seems to me that the First, Fourth and Seventh Amendments to the United States Constitution are being violated. I?ll explain my suspicions after a brief history of the sign in question.
When the sign that ultimately pulsated with the lewdness of the word sexy was first erected advertising several businesses, the City of Spring Hill said the lights on the sign went against sign ordinances. That justification was successfully challenged based on the fact that there were no local guidelines in place. Since then, ordinances have been instituted that would prohibit future similar signs in Spring Hill, but the sign in question was grandfathered in and allowed to stand. Bobby Joslin, Owner of Joslin Sign Company in Nashville had requested permits for an identical sign to be erected in Spring Hill 30 to 45 days prior to the new ordinance going into effect. It was eventually declined and Joslin suspects a decision on the request was deliberately delayed until the new ordinance was on the books. He feels his First Amendment rights have been violated and is seeking legal advice.
Is it possible that someone in Spring Hill government got angry that the original condemnation of the sign was contested and overruled? That assertion would be difficult to prove, but may be the only sane explanation for the city?s objection to the word sexy. Why else would the Mayor and Director of Codes and Inspections submit themselves to local and national scrutiny and possible constitutional legal challenges? When I asked Mayor Leverette about the possibility of constitutional violations, he said that would be an issue for the courts to decide. If pursued, I suspect the courts would find in favor of Landis, Joslin and the Constitution.
The First Amendment provides us with freedom of speech, the Fourth Amendment ensures due process, and the Seventh Amendment states that we may be judged by a jury in issues of common law prior to imposing sentence. By ordering that the word sexy be removed from Landis? advertisement and threatening that failure to do so would result in the sign being shut off altogether, depriving all that use it of free speech, Spring Hill officials are skating on very thin legal ice.
This whole situation is indicative of the few attempting to mandate the many and goes against everything that America represents. Although I?ve frequently been accused of marching to the beat of a different drummer, even the band I dance with would see this as ignorance that should have been eliminated from society many years ago.
The next time you?re in the checkout aisle at the grocery store, look to the right or left at the tabloids prominently displayed, and I?ll bet at least one has the word sexy in a headline. Since that would be right in the open view of children, will the city of Spring Hill, Tennessee charge Kroger Grocers or the local Quik Mart with distributing pornography to children? Of course not! That would be just as silly as forcing a small business owner to remove the word sexy from an advertisement.
For the record, according to the Tenth Collegiate Edition of Merriam Webster?s Deluxe Dictionary, the following definitions apply:
Sexy sek-sE 1: sexually suggestive or stimulating : EROTIC
2: generally attractive or interesting : APPEALING
Vulgar vul-ger 4 a : lacking in cultivation, perception, or taste : COARSE b : morally crude, undeveloped, or unregenerate : GROSS c : ostentatious or excessive in expenditure or display : PRETENTIOUS
5 a : offensive in language : EARTHY b : lewdly or profanely indecent
Based on the above definitions, it appears to this writer that the word vulgar applies more to anyone objecting to the word sexy than it does to a sign that advertises a hair care product. The individuals objecting are, in my opinion, lacking in cultivation, perception or taste; possibly all three. My opinion however would be irrelevant if it weren?t supported by mountains of legal opinions and laws addressing the issues of obscenity and indecency.
Although obscenity has been addressed in The United States courts since the early 19th century, the law used by the courts today was decided in 1973 when the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case of Miller v. California. In defining obscenity, the court applied what is known as the three part Miller Test:
In order to be declared obscene an item must pass all three parts of the test. There have since been clarifications made regarding ?average person,? ?community standards,? ?patent offensiveness? and what constitutes ?serious value,? but overall, The Miller Test continues to be considered the barometer of what is and isn?t obscene. One clarification that applies to this situation is what constitutes ?local community standards.? In most jurisdictions ?local standards? translates to ?state standards,? therefore Tennessee Law would apply. Another is what constitutes an ?average person.? With regard to the word ?sexy? on a sign in Spring Hill, Tennessee, two people have supposedly complained about the sign, according to Spring Hill?s Director of Codes and Inspections, Ferrell White. Those complaints were telephoned in, according to Mayor Leverette, and there were no formal complaints filed.
The owner of the targeted Studio 4 Hair & More, Cindy Landis, wonders when two people became representative of a community with a population of nearly 20,000 people. In an attempt to answer Landis? question I defer to former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger. In 1974 he wrote, ?The community includes all adults who comprise it, and a jury can consider them all in determining relevant community standards.?
I feel that it is only fair to alert readers that the above mentioned law applies to adult bookstores, pornographic movie theaters, strip clubs and sellers of magazines depicting sexually explicit behavior and nudity. Nowhere in my studies or through my research have I found how this law applies to hair styling salons. Noting the name of the ?offending? establishment included the vague ?& More,? I asked Landis to clarify what ?More? referred to. She has assured me that her business is not involved in the promotion or distribution of anything that involves nudity, pornography or anything else that is considered by most reasonable people obscene or sexually explicit. According to Landis, it encompasses faux fingernails, facials, manicures and cosmetics, all activities in which her customers and employees remain fully clothed at all times. Furthermore, in a Spring Hill Best of 2005 poll being conducted on the internet, Landis says Studio 4 Hair & More leads the Best Hair Care category.
Now that I feel confident the word sexy is not obscene, vulgar or indecent, I?m forced by my personal code of journalistic ethics to explore other possible reasons, such as zoning ordinances, for the political leadership of Spring Hill?s possibly unconstitutional behavior. I use the word unconstitutional because it seems to me that the First, Fourth and Seventh Amendments to the United States Constitution are being violated. I?ll explain my suspicions after a brief history of the sign in question.
When the sign that ultimately pulsated with the lewdness of the word sexy was first erected advertising several businesses, the City of Spring Hill said the lights on the sign went against sign ordinances. That justification was successfully challenged based on the fact that there were no local guidelines in place. Since then, ordinances have been instituted that would prohibit future similar signs in Spring Hill, but the sign in question was grandfathered in and allowed to stand. Bobby Joslin, Owner of Joslin Sign Company in Nashville had requested permits for an identical sign to be erected in Spring Hill 30 to 45 days prior to the new ordinance going into effect. It was eventually declined and Joslin suspects a decision on the request was deliberately delayed until the new ordinance was on the books. He feels his First Amendment rights have been violated and is seeking legal advice.
Is it possible that someone in Spring Hill government got angry that the original condemnation of the sign was contested and overruled? That assertion would be difficult to prove, but may be the only sane explanation for the city?s objection to the word sexy. Why else would the Mayor and Director of Codes and Inspections submit themselves to local and national scrutiny and possible constitutional legal challenges? When I asked Mayor Leverette about the possibility of constitutional violations, he said that would be an issue for the courts to decide. If pursued, I suspect the courts would find in favor of Landis, Joslin and the Constitution.
The First Amendment provides us with freedom of speech, the Fourth Amendment ensures due process, and the Seventh Amendment states that we may be judged by a jury in issues of common law prior to imposing sentence. By ordering that the word sexy be removed from Landis? advertisement and threatening that failure to do so would result in the sign being shut off altogether, depriving all that use it of free speech, Spring Hill officials are skating on very thin legal ice.
This whole situation is indicative of the few attempting to mandate the many and goes against everything that America represents. Although I?ve frequently been accused of marching to the beat of a different drummer, even the band I dance with would see this as ignorance that should have been eliminated from society many years ago.
The next time you?re in the checkout aisle at the grocery store, look to the right or left at the tabloids prominently displayed, and I?ll bet at least one has the word sexy in a headline. Since that would be right in the open view of children, will the city of Spring Hill, Tennessee charge Kroger Grocers or the local Quik Mart with distributing pornography to children? Of course not! That would be just as silly as forcing a small business owner to remove the word sexy from an advertisement.
Print
Email
