Is Stick Figure Sex Obscene? Tennessee Man Sues To Keep Bumper Sticker

NASHVILLE, TN — Crass? Yes. Crude? For sure. Humorous? That's a matter of taste, of course. Obscene? That's a matter of law, and attorneys for Dustin Owens say his window sticker is anything but obscene.

In February, Owens, who lives in Hendersonville but works in Nashville, was pulled over on Briley Parkway and given a ticket for violating Tennessee's obscene bumper sticker prohibition, which, in the name of reducing distracted driving, bans "the display of obscene and patently offensive movies, bumper stickers, window signs or other markings on or in a motor vehicle that are visible to other drivers" and specifies a $50 fine.

The Metro officer who cited Owens gave him 45 days to remove the sticker, which is a parody of the common stick-figure family stickers. Under text reading "Making My Family," the sticker shows two figures — one male, one female — engaging in the act of, well, making a family. Click to see a photo of the sticker in question.

Instead of simply paying the fine or removing the sticker, Owens is suing MNPD, insisting that his sticker is protected by the First Amendment.

In a Chancery Court filing by Owens' attorneys Daniel Horwitz and David Hudson, a local First Amendment expert, argue that the sticker fails to meet the standards for obscenity laid out by the United States Supreme Court.

The standard set in the landmark case Miller v. California specifies that material can only be considered obscene and thus unprotected by the First Amendment if it "appeals to the prurient interest in sex, is patently offensive in light of community standards, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."

In a request for a temporary injunction, the attorneys say the sticker fails to meet any of those standards.

"[N]o reasonable factfinder—whether a jury or this court—could find that Mr. Owens’s stick-figure cartoon 'appeal[s] to the prurient interest in sex.' Although lewd, Mr. Owens’ sticker is not shameful. It also is not morbid," the argument reads. "And it certainly is not 'erotic.'"

The attorneys further argue that the sticker isn't patently offensive in that it is not "hard core" and is even less detailed and "vulgar" than some of the world's most celebrated paintings. Finally, they argue, the sticker does indeed have serious value because the Supreme Court has held that "Humor is an important part of social commentary" — the filing helpfully includes links to ribald stand-up routines from Amy Schumer and Louis C.K. — and that the sticker itself is a "humorous and effective parody" of the more G-rated stick-figure family stickers.

Horwitz told Patch the decision for the chancellor should be cut and dry.

"The First Amendment plainly protects Mr. Owens’ right to place a cartoon sticker on the back of his truck. He looks forward to vindicating his right to speak freely, and we have every expectation that his claim will prevail," he said.

A hearing on the injunction will be held before Chancellor Bill Young March 27, coincidentally the deadline the Metro officer set for Owens to remove the sticker.

Image via Shutterstock