Minnehaha Taking Eliason to Court over Smut Shop Proximity to Park

Sioux Falls smut-peddler and subject of restraining orders David Eliason may be headed for court again. Eliason, whose life calling appears to be the sale of sex toys and similar offensive materials, owns the Love Shack (and thereby sullies one of the best songs of my youth) on 41st Street and runs the most atrocious ads I've heard on Sioux Falls Top 40 radio.

Deputy States Attorney Justin DeBoer says Eliason's perversion palace violates state law that prohibits "adult-oriented" businesses from setting up shop within a quarter mile of schools, parks, churches, or pools. DeBoer points to nearby Jefferson Park as cause for the complaint. Eliason insists his shop operates "100 percent in compliance with the law," but if I'm reading Google Maps right, his clinic for the sexually inadequate is just a tenth of a mile from the nearby ball diamond. (Note to Eliason: yes, 1/10 really is less than 1/4.)

The smut shop's neighbors don't seem to mind Eliason's wares. A worker at a neighboring shop calls the Love Shack a "good neighbor" and the clientele "normal, everyday people" (none of whom apparently stopped with their plain paper sacks to talk to the press).

Quote of the week goes to Curt Colter, neighboring Oreck vacumm cleaner store owner, who says he has no problem with the nearby smut shop. "Their customers might be my customers. Everybody needs a good, quality vacuum."

Now that's cross-marketing.

Madison Erects Zoning Barriers to Strippers and Smut

I read in Wednesday's print MDL that, among the changes coming in Madison's comprehensive update of its zoning laws, the city seeks to make things harder on "adult businesses"—an inaccurate euphemism for the smut shops and strip clubs that cater to horndogs too immature to manage their sexual urges in healthier, more reasonable ways with their loved ones in the privacy of their own homes (or at least in the back seats of their cars on a quiet, starry night... but I digress!). The city would insulate its existing regulations from legal challenges with formal zoning rules that would ban porn peddlers from setting up their destructive shops within 1000 feet of parks, schools, churches, or each other.

According to MDL's Chuck Clement, that would limit such businesses to four lots in Madison: three on the south side, one out by the airport. I suppose a strip club out by the airport could attract some high rollers in their private jets... if we had enough runway to land them. But quick, let's declare the bike trail a park, before someone decides we could promote economic development by adding an Olivia's between the new Heartland and James River facilities!

Argus Peddles More Smut!

The leading Sioux Falls newspaper (which would remain nameless if I weren't trying to reach the search engines) must be seeking synergy with one of its major online sponsors, Annabelle's Adult Superstore (i.e., the porn shop). While my wife was scrolling through an Argus Leader online forum on a letter to the editor about transportation for drunk bar patrons, she found an offensive avatar next to one of the posts. (See the forum thread here, but click at your own peril.) The avatar consists of a bare-breasted Betty Boop. We thought maybe some wise-acre hacker had found a way to sneak some porn onto South Dakota's flagship newspaper. But as we read through the post (from an individual of apparently good sense maintaining that people should be responsible enough to get themselves home from the bar in one piece without getting drunk and expecting our tax dollars to provide them with a way home), we found the following postscript:

Do you like my avatar, kids? I found it in the Argus Leader forum gallery. Don't you think my bare breasts are sexy and appropriate for the readers of these forums?? Way to go, Argus!!

Sure enough, when readers register to participate in the forum, the Argus offers a gallery of avatar images, including the Betty Boop and a few other cartoon images of women ill-dressed for South Dakota's winter.

Now I thought my earlier post on the Argus peddling smut might be considered a bit of an exaggeration. The Argus was advertising a porn shop, but at least doing so semi-discreetly. But now here's the Argus posting pornographic images on its own website and encouraging its forum members to use them next to their discussions of the great issues of the day. Now I'm really ready for a boycott. Nobody offers as much South Dakota news as the Argus, but I just don't want pornography coming uninvited into my house (and I won't be issuing any invitations). I don't dare recommend that my fellow teachers or students in my classroom look up articles online in the Argus. I go the Argus for education, not titillation. If the Argus is going to push the latter, I'll have to seek the former somewhere else.

Argus Peddles Smut, Drives Blogger to Irrational Behavior

Four weeks ago, I submitted a complaint to the Argus about its advertising for an "adult superstore" -- i.e., an establishment that sells sex toys and other degrading items. The ads appeared on the same page as regular news stories. I suggested to the Argus that if it couldn't bring itself to pass on the sex store's advertising dollars, the paper could at least restrict the ads to a separate section of its website requiring a login and certification that viewers are adults. The Argus has not responded, not even with a simple, "Thanks for your concern, but our advertising is our business, so tough cookies."

I hate to call for a boycott -- I like reading the Argus, and I have found it to be te best source for substantive online South Dakota news articles. But for what it's worth, I'm going to remove my link to the Argus here, and I will try my best to refrain from referring you, gentle reader, to articles in that paper, at least for a little while... until my desire to fight quixotic battles gives way to the practical need to know what the heck is going on!