Punning Penis Unprotected by First Amendment: Court

The Michigan Court of Appeals thinks a punning penis named Dick Smart isn't covered by the First Amendment and should probably be covered, period. Even if he only showed up in the wee small hours of a Saturday morning.

The appeals court confirmed creator Timothy Huffman's indecent exposure conviction in a May 11 ruling, on grounds that "incidental restriction(s)" on the First Amendment are "no greater than is essential to the furtherance of the governmental interest in promoting public morality by prohibiting public nudity."

"I'm truly trying to stand up for the Constitution. It's a matter of principle," said Huffman to the Detroit Free Press after the ruling, which involved the case of the jokester joint's 2000 appearances on his public access television show, Tim's Area of Control. The show normally addresses adult humor and music.

Huffman was convicted in Kent County when Dick Smart turned up twice on the Grand Rapids public access GRTV channel, the Free Press said. He was sentenced to a day in the cage, a year on probation, and $1,035 in fines and court costs.

Dick Smart's routine reportedly included lines like, "Yeah, yeah, yeah. I was in the Army, ya know. I didn't do much, ya know what I mean? I just hung around."

"This is really not a First Amendment case," Kent County Assistant Prosecutor Tim McMorrow told the Free Press. "The First Amendment protects his right to an opinion, not the right to appear naked on TV."

Huffman, whose defense team was helped by the American Civil Liberties Union, maintains he's being made "the low-life scapegoat" who proves "what happens when you put this stuff on Grand Rapids TV." He also compared Dick Smart to Schindler's List, the epic Oscar-winner that has been shown on network television as well as cable.

"We asked them in court, 'Why don't you prosecute 'Schindler's List'? It has nudity,' " he told the Free Press. "And they said to me, 'You're no Steven Spielberg.'"

Huffman's troubles with the law are not exactly over. For one thing, he plans to appeal the appeals court ruling to the state Supreme Court. For another thing, he has another jail date, on another indecent exposure conviction, that one involving not a Dick Smart routine but a dispute from a neighbor.