The bill’s author Terry Goodin said Barker “totally interpreted (the law) wrong” and that it was perfectly clear that the law targeted pornographic businesses.
Well, no, in fact that wasn’t “perfectly clear.” Judge Barker concluded:
Clearly, a vast array of merchants and materials is implicated by the reach of this statute as written. A romance novel sold at a drugstore, a magazine offering sex advice in a grocery store checkout line, an R-rated DVD sold by a video rental shop, a collection of old Playboy magazines sold by a widow at a garage sale â€“ all incidents of unquestionably lawful, nonobscene, nonpornographic materials being sold to adults â€“ would appear to necessitate registration under the statute. Such a broad reach is, without question, constitutionally disproportionate to the stated aim of the statute to provide a community â€œheads-upâ€ upon the opening of â€œadult bookstore-type businesses.â€