Alabama House Bill HB401

Alabama 2023 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/27/23
• Refer: 4/27/23

Caption

Relating to crimes and offenses; to amend Sections 6-5-160, 6-5-160.1, and 13A-12-200.1, Code of Alabama 1975, to provide that the use of any premises to distribute material that is harmful to minors is a public nuisance; to further provide for the definition of "sexual conduct;" to make nonsubstantive, technical revisions to update the existing code language to current style; and in connection therewith would have as its purpose or effect the requirement of a new or increased expenditure of local funds within the meaning of Section 111.05 of the Constitution of Alabama of 2022.

Impact

The potential impact of HB401 is significant as it expands the scope of what is classified as a public nuisance regarding the sale and dissemination of obscenity. By providing a clear definition of 'harmful to minors,' the bill enforces stringent controls over adult entertainment venues and media distributors. This designation allows legal action to be taken against those operating spaces where such material is distributed, which could lead to more regulation of adult-oriented establishments in the state. Local governments can initiate lawsuits against these businesses to prevent or abate nuisances under the new standards.

Summary

House Bill 401 (HB401) aims to amend the existing law in Alabama concerning the distribution of materials deemed harmful to minors. It establishes that any premises used for the distribution of such materials would be classified as a public nuisance. The bill also seeks to clarify the definition of 'sexual conduct,' aiming to set clearer standards for what constitutes inappropriate materials in contexts involving minors. The legislation is positioned as a measure to protect children from exposure to obscenity and other content considered unsuitable for young audiences.

Contention

Despite its protective intentions, HB401 raises points of contention regarding free speech and local government authority. Critics may argue that the definitions established in the bill could infringe on the First Amendment rights of individuals and establishments by imposing strict barriers to the display and distribution of content that, while deemed inappropriate for children, may be legally permissible for adults. Furthermore, because it does not necessitate a two-thirds vote from local entities to enact changes involving local funds, some opponents might express concerns over the lack of local governance and autonomy in regulating community standards.