The Chicagoist will be launching later but in the meantime please enjoy our archives.

Call The Police! I Saw Tee-Tees!!!

By Sam Bakken in News on Oct 14, 2005 6:30AM

10_2005_bettiepage.jpgOak Lawn (southwest of Chicago) Police Chief Bob Smith sent letters this week to five businesses within his jurisdiction telling them that they could be prosecuted for selling adult videos and magazines. In the letter, sent to one video store and four convenience stores, Smith notified the businesses' proprietors that he was working with prosecutors to determine whether the dirty mags and videos break local obscenity laws.

Oak Lawn's mayor told the Daily Southtown that he likes the initiative:

"From a community-values standpoint, I don't think you'll find any disagreement from people in Oak Lawn. We don't want children exposed to obscenity, and we'll do the best we can to protect them from that."

Hey dipshit! That's why it's illegal to sell porno mags to people under the age of 18. And by the by, you better send a letter to the Internet too. That dude gives porn to kids everyday—and he doesn't even charge them for it!

The whole letter-writing campaign began because an Oak Lawn resident complained to village officials that area stores were selling videos and magazines that violated obscenity laws. That resident is Mark Decker; the same guy that complained this past summer about the Oak Lawn Public Library carrying Playboy (which they still do—score for us perverts!). Decker is quite the crusader against depravity as you can see by this Google search (his phone number is at the top of the page, and we think you should probably call him and tell him you find his Illinois Family Institute buddies' anti-gay propaganda a bit depraved).

After Decker complained, a village trustee asked the police to investigate. And boy were the police willing! They went around to area stores and bought around $150 worth of pornography. Smith then wrote a detailed report on the various sexual acts performed in the magazines and videos from each store (talk about money for nuttin') and sent reports individualized for each store along with the letter.

The Southtown interviewed a law professor for the article who said that any sort of prosecution against the store owners would be difficult because:

--An obscenity case must establish that the average person applying "contemporary community standards" would find the material appealing to "prurient interest"
--It must be shown that the material depicts "in a patently offensive way" certain sexual acts, bodily functions or exhibition of the genitals
--It must be shown that the material has no literary, artistic, political or scientific value

We've always had trouble with the whole "prurient interest appeal". Isn't anything that turns you on appealing to your "prurient interests"? If you know about this kind of stuff, educate us in the comments.