Page:Bedtelyon v. State (2022).pdf/8

 testimony that any character exhibited their genitals, it is too great a deductive leap to determine that this testimony describes the sexual conduct the Obscenity Statute was intended to reach. Tr. Vol. II, pp. 14, 25.

The third video, I am the Seventh of Sextuplet Girls and I Am a Boy, stars sextuplets, the seventh of which identifies as a boy. By the end of the video, two of his sisters fall in love with him. "They are feeling his bulgy muscles. They are continuously all over their brother to the point where they make him feel uneasy about the situation. They end up sleeping in his room … And I think at the very end of the video, the brother wakes up and actually finds his two sisters in bed with him. And, you know … they are sitting there smiling."

Tr. Vol. II, p. 27. This video, too, fails to depict or describe anything more than implied sexual intercourse. That the sisters were “all over” their brother and “in bed with him” alone is not “sexual conduct” as defined by statute. Ind. Code § 35-49-1-9. The content is certainly suggestive, but suggestion of sexual conduct alone cannot constitute obscenity. See Miller, 413 U.S. at 24 (“[W]e now confine the permissible scope of [obscenity] regulation to works which depict or describe sexual conduct.”); see also ''T.V. ex rel. B.V. v. Smith-Green Comty. Sch. Corp.'', 807 F.Supp.2d 767, 778 (N.D. Ind. 2011) (holding that sexually suggestive photographs were not unprotected obscenity because they did not