WICHITA, KS — Given the fact that billboards are a blight on any roadway, it’s ironic that the only restriction Kansas seems interested in imposing on them concerns content. Adult content, naturally.Kansas Attorney General Stephen Six argued yesterday that banning billboards that advertise adult businesses is not a violation of the First Amendment, even though it singles out legal speech and businesses.

His defense came in response to a federal lawsuit filed by Ohio-based Abilene Retail No. 30 Inc, the parent company of the Lions Den Adult Superstore in Abiline. After learning that it would not be allowed to purchase billboard space due to a law set to go into effect on July 1st, the company filed for a temporary order preventing enforcement of the state statute, insisting that it is in conflict with both the First and Fourth Amendments.

Although the law does not make it impossible for adult businesses to promote themselves via billboard advertising, it does deny them the right to do so within a mile of what one must assume are otherwise spectacularly beautiful state highways.

Businesses that operate within a mile of state highways are permitted a total of two signs on their property. One may provide the shop’s name, address, phone number, hours of operation and a statement. It may be no larger than 40 square feet. The second sign must warn that minors are not permitted on the premises.

KansasCity.com indicates that Lions Den currently has several signs on its property and leases advertising space on three billboards along Interstate 70. If any of those billboards exist after July 1st, a fine of up to $500 and up to a month in county jail may await.

According to Six, the First Amendment has nothing to do with the issue since the billboards would promote activity that is not legal. No further information was provided about the provocative claim and a representative for Six refused to comment due to the pending litigation.

Six will be represented by outside attorneys during the June 4th hearing on the preliminary injunction. Although his legal council insists that the law “survives First Amendment scrutiny” due to the fact it allegedly advances substantial government interests, the lawsuit points out that similar state statues in Missouri, Georgia and South Carolina have all been struck down.