Sex sells, and a lot of advertising uses it, even for products or services that are not sexually oriented. Why are lawmakers more concerned with sexually explicit ads on billboards than such ads in other media?
Imagine a young family driving to Disney World. Along the route, the children see billboards with Mickey, Donald, Kermit the Frog, and other Disney characters. Cinderella, Ariel, and the other princesses are so beautiful. Then come billboards with other beautiful women—only they are scantily clothed and in sexually suggestive poses. These are ads for businesses such as strip clubs, adult bookstores, and other seedy businesses. “There ought to be a law against that,” claims the horrified mother of the two young children in the car. In fact, several states have banned such billboards. But in Missouri, South Carolina, and Kansas, federal courts have overturned these laws. Cash-strapped states cannot afford the legal battles and seem to have little chance of winning because of First Amendment protection. The states are losing because they must prove that the purpose of their laws is to prevent “secondary effects,” which might include decreased property values or increased crime. Thus, a law recently introduced in Michigan is not attempting to ban the advertising but is instead attempting to restrict the content of ads to list only a business’s name, location, and hours of operation.