PeterDavid.net

I've always said and thought that.

Obscenity can only be judged on a person-by-person basis...

I agree with that also. (In fact, I said that obscenity shouldn't be a legal category when I articulated the gobstopper argument.) My point was that this case is no less legitimate than any other obscenity prosecution in this nation's history. It hit closer to home this time, because for some unfathomable reason the visitors to this site seem to have some attachment to the comic book industry, but it's no more unjust than any other such case. I don't like the standard any more now than I did in law school, but the case was decided legally correctly. (I would like to remind folks that there is a difference between "the judge/jury didn't agree with me on the artistic merits of the work" and "the judge/jury was wrong." Maybe the jury was right and the experts were full of it. Not having seen the work, I can't tell.)

I think the real obscenity is when a consenting adult is told what he or she can or cannot be allowed to see by order of the government.

That's the same kind of restrictions we Americans objected to in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the grounds for liberating the people of both countries.

Do we need "liberating" now too?

This has a slippery slope going either way actually. To do away with the obscenity laws would bring this all back to a purely libertarian model in which the marketplace rules what is published and what isn't. This would allow a great deal of freedom. And of course, freedom is what the American system is supposedly about. However, there are people who want the obscenity laws. People who don't trust the marketplace to make those kinds of decisions because of the fear that it will cause material they see as obscene to outpace material they see as suitable. They want to be protected. It's that eternal balancing act between freedom and security. People want both at the same time, despite how the idea contradicts itself. I'm afraid I don't have any answers or views for you, but it sure gets you thinking.

I wish I could tell my Mass Media Communications teacher, Prof. Stoner, about this discussion. He'd absolutely love it. (by the way, yes, that is his real last name).

Mr. David... a-FREAKING-men! The fact that the Castillo case may or may not have been won based on legal nitpicking has never been my concern. What upsets me about all of this is the precedent being set (or rather set AGAIN) that it's perfectly acceptable for one adult, or group of adults, to dictate what another adult or group of adults is allowed to enjoy.

The moral majority and conservative right can suck my puckered ass!

(Was that obscene?)

If PAD was preacher, wouldn't we have an altar call at this point?

That is absolutely true. I'm sure Agatha Christie would eventually get banned, since a case could be made she has instructions on how to commit murders.

Once one particular form of art (or as PAD was talking about, entertainmet), the rest can fall quickly. I may not like much of this art (or entertainment) and being religously consevative, I find more offensive than most people seem to - but I sure as hell don't agree with censorship over arguments of obscenity. Too much can get banned after that falls. (Now, I do think communities have some limited rights to zone sexually oriented businesses so that they aren't situated between an elementary school and a Church, but not to ban it outright).

The moral majority and conservative right can suck my puckered ass! (Was that obscene?)

Only if you draw a picture of it and include a tree root.

Well, zoning and banning are two different things. To zone an elementary school near anything but a residential area seems foolish, to me.

As long as the creation of a work of art does not involve doing anything grossly illegal (child porn, for example, should be illegal), I have to agree with Peter. How can anyone say they have the right to tell me what to read or think?

With that in mind, can anyone provide a reasonable argument promoting the "community standard" idea? Why keep it around at all?

Eric

All I can say on this is, well said. We Americans are such hypocrites aren't we?

As long as the creation of a work of art does not involve doing anything grossly illegal (child porn, for example, should be illegal)

There's the rub. You're qualifying what you will accept already, whih is exactly what the "puritanical moralists" are doing. A great deal of this argument appears to be anger that someone else has drawn the line in a place you wouldn't.

(And before anyone gets hopping mad, this is not a personal attack on Eric.)

I don't think that's Eric qualifying what he'll accept -- or rather, not doing so without reason.

Child porn, assuming we're talking photography and not stories and/or digitally created stuff, involves the sexual use of a child who's not old enough to consent to the activity. You can make very easy legal and moral arguments there that actual harm is being done.

Now, that means that "virtual" child porn would be exempt from this -- and frankly, I'm inclined to agree with that. To do otherwise is again limiting someone's expression because of what you think it might kinda possibly maybe influence someone to do in the future, which falls under the "Bad Idea" category in my book.

TWL

Child porn, assuming we're talking photography and not stories and/or digitally created stuff, involves the sexual use of a child who's not old enough to consent to the activity. You can make very easy legal and moral arguments there that actual harm is being done.

Yes, exactly. I figure this should be clarified early on before it sends things off the rails. Free expression is one set of laws. Laws governing the age of sexual consent and/or child abuse are an entirely separate arena.

It's an instructive point to bring up, though, in showing just how far prosecutors will go to harass comic book stores. A prosecutor in Oklahoma City endeavored to charge some comic book store owners with selling child pornography. The evidence? A graphic novel by Frank Thorne which showed--if I'm recalling this correctly--artwork of a demon character who happened to look like a child having sex with a tree or something equally out there. Despite the fact that the on-the-books law specifically stated child pornography had to feature actual models, the prosecutor tried to make that fly. It didn't work. Although, who knows? In Texas, it might have stuck.

PAD

As long as the creation of a work of art does not involve doing anything grossly illegal (child porn, for example, should be illegal), I have to agree with Peter.

I fully agree with Peter on this, too. As long as there's no law prohibting the content, there should be no grounds for this lawsuit.

Now, please excsue me, I must make a trip down to the nudie store. My new issue of "Girl on Girl on Girl on Guy on Sheep" is in. ;-)

It's an instructive point to bring up, though, in showing just how far prosecutors will go to harass comic book stores.

I used to work in a comic store here in Ohio for about 7 years. We had a group called CCCAP (Clark County Citizens Against Pornography). Every week, and I mean every week, they would have one of their kids come in and try and buy one of the adult comics (which were behind the counter). You could see the kids run out to the car and tell daddy and mommy all about his experience. We were always a big target for these fools but my friend at a video store down the street with a back XXX room never saw these guys show up.

As a side note, the county sherrif was a member of this group. You can bet your tighty-whities that if they found anyone who broke protocol, tickets and court hearings would ensue.

These same people also made several stops every week to peruse the "mature comics" section. They were hard pressed in finding a breast shot in an issue of Sandman. They didn't get that just because it said "mature readers" didn't mean it *had* to be porn.

We started calling them out in public by aying things like "Sir, if you're looking for the adult books, we keep them safely behind the counter but you'll need to show proof of age to see them if that's what you're looking for."

Man, those fanatics hated being shown as *trying* to find those types of books. We had a lot of fun with them. They never learned, though.

All right. Let's make consent not an issue. Let's take beastiality instead. We don' seek animal's consent (cows don't want to be hamburger, lizards don't want to be belts, etc).

I think we can agree depictions of beatiality would be obscene. How comfortable are you with someone desplaying that--even if it is in the adult section?

Well, see, there's another problem.

I'm REALLY not comfortable with beastiality, but MY personal comfort level with it shouldn't be an issue. I wouldn't wanna look at it, but maybe Freaky Joe from down the street does. Who're we, or ANYONE, to say he can't?

I think the big problem we'll always run into on this is the morality issue. Maybe we can separate ourselves from it when making a desicion, but there are others who can't, or in a lot of cases, won't.

It seems to me, and most others posting, that obscenity is in the eyes of the beholder. And like everything else, you can find it if you're looking for it.

A comic book store is "supposed" to be a kid-friendly place. The adult bookstore is "supposed" to be for adults only. If there was a huge disclaimer poster on the front door of the comic shop saying "WARNING: Some of the materials available in this store are for adults only, and may be viewed and purchased only by adults", would that have stopped this law suit? After all, the adult bookstore has such signs, and often huge XXX signs outside.

It still irks me that the buyer had to go into the store, and into the adults only section to purchase the comic he found so objectionable. It's people like that that make GE put labels on hair dryers that say "Do not use in the shower", or McDonalds to post warnings that "Coffee is hot".

I think we have to divide such an anti-obscenity law into two aspects: What should be available for adults? What is suitable for children, and if so, for what age group?

Here in Britain and to a lesser degree also in Germany certain episodes are cut. In Germany it often happens so that there is more room for advertising available (which is very annoying indeed) but in Britain there is an obsession sometimes to cut bits that contain strong violence, sex and something that would never be cut in Germany: so-called bad language. The problem with this is, in order to protect children the people responsible for this are also denying adults to be able to see episodes unmutilated. I find that unacceptable. What should be done is showing such episodes later in the evening but putting that aside, because I usually know what the uncut version looks like as well I often wonder, was that bit really so bad and some choices are really strange.

I don`t know what adult comic has been sold to this adult in question but if the owner of this shop was indeed keeping them at least out of reach of children and made sure only adults can buy them, there shouldn`t have been a case. But I have heard often enough about the "let`s sue" mentality that seems to prosper in America combined with "free speech" laws that are often very contradictory indeed so that I can`t say I am surprised something like that took place in the USA.

What is suitable for what age is really a question every parent must answer for himself. It depends on individual values and attitudes of the parent and of course also on the maturity and nature of the child involved. But what everyone should also keep in mind is that any classification can only work if parents co-operate. The best classification doesn`t work if adult material is openly lying around at home so that children can read and watch them when the parents are not at home or be able to do so somewhere else with friends.

I think instead of people panicking because children might look at naked facts on the Internet or watch bits of sex and violence on TV, parents should talk to their children about it and give them guidance. Especially sex is still treated as a taboo in Britain and I am not surprised that we have the highest rate of teenage pregnancies in Europe in this country. There is also still a law here that forbids the "promotion of homosexuality" in schools. This is not about protecting children, it is about keeping them ignorant and that is definitely not a good thing! Children also have to learn that sex is a broad subject that has many faces, good and bad. Children should also learn to understand violence, that it is bad but sometimes it is a necessary evil in order to defend yourself or others. There are comics, books and movies that are violent but teach very good lessons to children and make them think, especially when parents talk to them about it afterwards.

Me as an adult I don`t want to be dictated by anyone what I may or may not read or watch. Concerning the news, there may be security reasons not to tell everything. And of course it goes without saying that material that is obviously illegal like child porn has to be forbidden. But that`s it!

The international perception of the "land of the free" and defenders of justice called USA suffered considerably after Bush started his so-called war against terror. This is only adding to it.

"The international perception of the "land of the free" and defenders of justice called USA suffered considerably after Bush started his so-called war against terror. This is only adding to it. "

Yes, I'm amazed that anyone shows any surprise when we hear stories about how other nations hate Americans as bullys and hypocrites.

Just watching American news broadcasts or reading our newspapers shows the lie of "Land of the Free"....

Ah, such sweeping generalizations. It does a body good.

I'm a member of the conservative right, a (what some would consider) fundamentalist Christian. So by the stereotypes presented here, I must be in favor of obscenity laws.

But I'm not. Free speech is free speech.

And I guess it's your right to make derogatory sweeping generalizations that bash a group because you want to demonize them.

Also, for the record, the Puritans were NOT intolerant. You're perpetuating another stereotype just for the fun of bashing them.

Okay Rob, you've piqued my interest. Care to elaborate on your comment about Puritans not being intolerant? And I agree with you that there are often sweeping generalizations made (by both sides) in discussions on topics such as this, and that's a shame. I've done it myself, though I try my best to be conscious of it and avoid it whenever possible. But I'm curious what YOUR stance on this issue is, in your role as token "conservative right fundamentalist Christian".

Posted by MikePB:

Well, see, there's another problem.

I'm REALLY not comfortable with beastiality, but MY personal comfort level with it shouldn't be an issue. I wouldn't wanna look at it, but maybe Freaky Joe from down the street does. Who're we, or ANYONE, to say he can't?

I think the big problem we'll always run into on this is the morality issue. Maybe we can separate ourselves from it when making a desicion, but there are others who can't, or in a lot of cases, won't.

At the risk of invoking a somewhat absurd tangent, I'll point out that even those who have an expansive view of what should be permitted might not have any problem regarding beastiality as something to be prohibited, just as child pornography should be prohibited.

If one standard is that the participants should be able to give informed consent as to their participation (one of the most compelling arguments against pornography involving children) then it's not too hard to understand why you might have problems claiming to confirm the consent of an animal, absent any Dr. Doolittle-like communicative ability...

I think instead of people panicking because children might look at naked facts on the Internet or watch bits of sex and violence on TV, parents should talk to their children about it and give them guidance.

Wait a minute, you're not suggesting that parents decide what is acceptable for their kids to view? Don't you know that it's the government's job to raise our kids?? :)

Ya know, the whole thing about the tree root... um... has anyone sued Sam Raimi for Evil Dead yet?

That's one disturbing scene.

Travis

Despite the fact that the on-the-books law specifically stated child pornography had to feature actual models, the prosecutor tried to make that fly. It didn't work. Although, who knows? In Texas, it might have stuck.

The Supreme Court did rule about a year or two ago that "virtual child pornography" was protected because no actual minors were abused in its creation.

This of course brings up the whole fallacy of the "community standards" test for obscenity. I personally find "virtual" kiddie porn to be every bit as obscene as the real thing, but how do you argue that anyone is being harmed just by looking at the virtual stuff?

The Supreme Court adopted the community standards test for obscenity because none of those nine wise men (all men at that time) could come up with a legal definition of "obscene" that worked other than "I know it when I see it." The Meese report of the 80's used the kind of logic that would've made Frederick Wertham proud: Sex offenders view pornography, therefore, pornography causes sex offenders. This is same logic that was used to blame music on the Collumbine shootings. Anyone ever consider that sex offenders like to watch porn or violent individuals like violent music and movies because their personality types are just attracted to that kind of entertainment?

However, there are people who want the obscenity laws. People who don't trust the marketplace to make those kinds of decisions because of the fear that it will cause material they see as obscene to outpace material they see as suitable. They want to be protected.

Well, that's just too darn bad for those people. As PAD observed, the First Amendment wasn't drafted to protect the kind of speech that everyone likes. If these people want the world to be nothing but Barney and the Teletubbies, let them put their money into promoting those forms of entertainment. They should not and do not have the right to tell other adults what they can read.

AMEN DEN!

This country wasn't founded so the government could be everyone's mother and tell them what to do. t's up to parents to protect their kids from what they find objectionable and don't want their kids to see.

Too damn much of the world is so pathetically kidified and dumbed-down these days that the stuff that isn't stands out and is targetted by these people who refuse to take responsibility for raising their kids...

You don't want your kids watching "dirty" movies on cable? Either don't get cable in your house, or use the parental locking codes available on most modern cable systems and televisions to block out the channels. Monitor what your kids are doing, don't expect everyone else to alter their lives just because you had a kid...

PAD said:

Every time people discuss the Castillo case or any case with comics on trial, the everlasting gobstopper seems to be, "Well, it was obscene and therefore not protected by the First Amendment."

Here's a nutty thought:

That should not be the case.

This is the correct "analysis" if one objects the the Castillo case.

The Court's decision was arguably correct under the law as it exists, so the best route to avoid such events is to change the law. But that doesn't mean one should not bemoan the result in Castillo, because the proposition that obscenity is unprotected by the 1st Amendment is common law, and so the Courts have the power and responsibility to make that change.

PAD said:

(And no, I'm not lumping in how-to manuals about bomb construction and the like. I'm focusing on entertainment, not material specifically designed to deprive others of life and/or property, okay?)

But why do you draw that line? If "Obscenity is an expression of thoughts and ideas" then why aren't "how-to manuals," whatever their specific intention?

If it is "grossly unfair to elevate one person's perceptions above the other in an attempt to disenfranchise one person or person's artistic tastes," why is it not "grossly unfair" to place one person's views on what sorts of information (how-to books) should or shouldn't be available over another's desire for information? Why does it matter if Author intended reader to use his book to commit a crime, if Reader simply desires knowledge?

More generally, if we take the fact that the First Amendment does not explicitly deny protection to obscenity as indicating that obscenity is protected, then should we not also take the fact that it does not explicitly protection to various other forms of expression including child pornography to indicate that they are also protected?

PAD said:

I figure this should be clarified early on before it sends things off the rails. Free expression is one set of laws. Laws governing the age of sexual consent and/or child abuse are an entirely separate arena.

I can see how this supports a ban on the underlying acts involved in creating child pornography, but how does it apply to bans on the possession/sale/etc? Once the underlying illegal act is over, you're left with "an expression of thoughts and ideas" that someone might find entertaining. Why should that potential audience be denied the right to enjoy this entertainment?

At the end of the day, I'm on pretty close to the same page as PAD on this issue. I think the denial of 1st Amendment protection to "obscenity" is a disgrace. Likewise, I don't believe that child pornography should be protected. But what makes that belief anything more than choosing to draw the line in a different place?

I also would probly be called a conservative, however in this case I agree with PAD completely. What I find disheartining is that with a minimal of modification PADs argument could be used to protect the Second Amendment as well, and the reason this is disheartening is given the general dislike liberals have for Firearms I doubt PAD would make an argument for the Second Amendment (which ironically IMO is the best protector of the First Amendment).

**Once the underlying illegal act is over, you're left with "an expression of thoughts and ideas" that someone might find entertaining. Why should that potential audience be denied the right to enjoy this entertainment?

**

You don't mind exploiting children who've been used in an illegal act for the satisfaction of someone who likes child pornography?

*This* sort of thing is why I am glad there are still "puritanical moralists" trying to hold the line against moralistic anarchy.

Jamie said:

You don't mind exploiting children who've been used in an illegal act for the satisfaction of someone who likes child pornography?

No, I do mind that. Which is why I said, in the post immediately above yours "Likewise, I don't believe that child pornography should be protected."

Once the underlying illegal act is over, you're left with "an expression of thoughts and ideas" that someone might find entertaining. Why should that potential audience be denied the right to enjoy this entertainment?

Well, the argument could certainly be made that, as the material is the result of an illegal act, the material itself is, by extension, illegal. This is similar to possession of stolen property being a crime, even if the person in possession is not the person who stole that property in the first place. The individual in possession of the stolen goods did not commit the crime, but is likewise not permitted to retain the stolen property.

Nytwyng said

Well, the argument could certainly be made that, as the material is the result of an illegal act, the material itself is, by extension, illegal. This is similar to possession of stolen property being a crime, even if the person in possession is not the person who stole that property in the first place.

That's really a pretty good justification. Though rather than saying "the material itself is, by extension, illegal," I'd probably say "the material itself, by extension, may be made illegal." I don't like the idea that anything that is the result of an illegal act is per se illegal -- but if the legislature chooses to make such a result illegal, I don't have as great a problem with that.

What I like about this argument, though, is that property ownership, like speech, enjoys consistitutional protections, so it's not too great a stretch in analogy. The protections for property ownership are not identical to the protections for speech, but the Constitution is at least arguably implicated in both arenas.

I think we can agree depictions of beatiality would be obscene. How comfortable are you with someone desplaying that--even if it is in the adult section?

There are laws governing animal cruelty. If the material in question violates those laws, then again it's not a First Amendment question.

If the material does not violate those laws but is simply appalling, no, it wouldn't make me comfortable. But you know what? That's one of the prices of living in a free society. Sometimes you have to endure being uncomfortable.

Proponents of censorship don't comprehend that. They want it all. They want freedom of speech and thought...for themselves. But something that they personally find upsetting...that they want to go away. It's selfish and it's hypocritical.

PAD

Exactly. There's a world of difference between using actual children or dogs or whatever to make a video, and drawing pictures of the same thing. Virtual porn is really just complicated DRAWN porn.

And, as PAD said, no matter how uncomfortable the subject matter might be, if it is a product of imagination alone (as opposed to using actual physical actors or something), it should be protected. If ANY depiction of bestiality and/or child pornography should be banned on the grounds that it is obscene, then shouldn't ANY depiction of rape be banned on the same grounds? Certainly the issue with bestiality and kiddie porn is not SEX itself, but the LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT.

BTW, Publius, love your posts. Thank you for taking the time to explore the intricacies (sp?) of the wording and details. It is too often overlooked, seriously.

Eric

Folks:

A small point of clarification. The Supreme Court setting up the three-part obscenity test (in the case of Miller v. California) was not a unanimous verdict. In dissent, Potter Stewart (famously) said something to the effect that he couldn't define what obscenity was, but that "he knew it when he saw it."

George Guay

Ah, such sweeping generalizations. It does a body good.

I'm a member of the conservative right, a (what some would consider) fundamentalist Christian. So by the stereotypes presented here, I must be in favor of obscenity laws.

Your claim itself is a sweeping generalization. Exactly two postings made a comment about the "conservative right," and no one said anything about fundamentalist Christians.

In point of fact, I've found left wing liberals to be among the most aggressive proponents of censorship. Usually it's in order to protect the delicate sensibilities of some other group (oftentimes a group that wasn't asking to be protected, thanks ever so) but it's censorship nevertheless.

But I'm not. Free speech is free speech.

Good for you.

And I guess it's your right to make derogatory sweeping generalizations that bash a group because you want to demonize them.

I suppose. Just as it's your right to making sweeping generalizations demonizing what I said in order to bash it, even if it doesn't relate.

Also, for the record, the Puritans were NOT intolerant. You're perpetuating another stereotype just for the fun of bashing them.

For the record, I said nothing about Puritans. I used the word "puritanical" (lower case) which means "rigidly moral."

PAD

What I find disheartining is that with a minimal of modification PADs argument could be used to protect the Second Amendment as well, and the reason this is disheartening is given the general dislike liberals have for Firearms I doubt PAD would make an argument for the Second Amendment (which ironically IMO is the best protector of the First Amendment).

That argument works as soon as it's possible to blow someone's brains out by saying the word "BANG!" real loud.

PAD

Hmm.

I also don't particularly like the "obscenity" prosecution, certainly not in this case... good point about Evil Dead, by the way... that IS a disturbing scene.

Interesting how "obscenity" can be applied to sexual acts, but appears not to apply so often to depictions of acts of violence.

Some might consider Evil Dead itself obscene, for a number of reasons, or the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, or indeed a movie describing what a serial killer has done. If you've seen "Hannibal", there are some scenes in it that are VERY disturbing. Pan frying... um, yeah. For that matter, "Silence of the Lambs" too.

...

There are some things in porn that I consider distasteful, and some things that just shouldn't be allowed to be produced: child porn and actual snuff porn (as in the moview "8MM"... which I didn't see), to name two.

These should unquestionably be stamped out when found... and I'd prefer the materials be destroyed.

...

Bestiality... I don't know. This'll probably be a bit controversial...

I've done some... ah... research, yeah, that's the ticket! ... into porn, and some of the bestiality pics just seem a bit... silly.

Think along the lines of the rumors about Katherine the Great, having sex with horses...

Ehm... so? I hardly think the horse has actually been violated by doing that, unless it physically harms the animal.

I've been told that some animals are physically hurt by sexual activity from humans, while some are not. That's probably where I'd draw that particular line... none of them can consent, but if it doesn't actually harm the animal... I don't know that I have as much of a problem with it.

Doesn't make me want to run out and find a sheep, and I wouldn't want to *encourage* such activity... but it probably shouldn't be a hangin' offense either.

People have been doing sexual things with animals for centuries, regardless of whether it is "right" or "good". Welcome to reality.

Not my cuppa, but...

...

"Free speech" doesn't include the freedom to prevent other people from reading things which make you uncomfortable.

PAD said:

(And no, I'm not lumping in how-to manuals about bomb construction and the like. I'm focusing on entertainment, not material specifically designed to deprive others of life and/or property, okay?)

But why do you draw that line? If "Obscenity is an expression of thoughts and ideas" then why aren't "how-to manuals," whatever their specific intention?

WHY? Because attempting to deprive someone of life and/or property, or facilitating that attempt, violates an entire set of laws.

PAD

Reading the Anarchists Cookbook - free, depending on where you get it.

Writing a story about someone using the Anarchists Cookbook - also free.

Actually using the 'recipes' in the Anarchists Cookbook, to cause loss of life or property damage... THIS will get you jail time if caught.

Funny thing though... you can get such 'recipes' from many, many sources.

Do we blame the source for making the recipe available to the criminal, or do we blame the criminal for doing something, well, criminal?

Sorry, I can't go along with no obscenity laws. Those laws are the way a society regulates its popular culture. Take them away and the only thing governing popular culture is the free market and I'm not enough of a fanatic captialist to be comfortable with that.

It's the old problem of the lowest common denominator. A bad movie, book or comic with graphic sex and violence in it will be more successful than equally bad movie, book or comic without those things. That leads to an increase in that sort of material and that ends up changing the marketplace. Which leads to the sort of thing that I believe Kurt Busiek complained about when he left the Avengers.

Mike

Wow Peter, a political thought you and I actually agree on. I always thought that was the case, but ... wow.

Now that you have shared your love for the first amendment, we'll have to start working on the second one ...

Those laws are the way a society regulates its popular culture.

And therein lies the fundamental point of difference. I don't believe that the government should be regulating popular culture through laws any more than I think they should be regulating the sale of fatty foods. With a $300 million box office take, it seems to me that "Finding Nemo" did fine in the capitalist market place, so there is always a place for kid-friendly entertainment.

PAD said:

WHY? Because attempting to deprive someone of life and/or property, or facilitating that attempt, violates an entire set of laws.

Yes, and the First Amendment wouldn't be offended by a prosecution for attempting to do any one of those things, so we have no problem prosecuting the author for the act of authorship to the degree that it is such an attempt.

But if someone has an interest in that knowledge for a reason that is in and of itself legal -- simple desire for knowledge, why shouldn't he be allowed to buy that book?

And if a bookseller is selling that book without the intent to facillitate an attempt (which intent could be proved, but lets assume it doesn't exist in this example), then why shouldn't he be allowed to sell that book?

My point is that by saying that obscenity should be protected, but "how-to be a criminal" handbooks should not, you're undertaking the same calculus undertaken by those who believe that obscenity should not be protected and nonobscene materials should -- you're just arriving at a different solution.

In point of fact, I've found left wing liberals to be among the most aggressive proponents of censorship.

Probably my biggest reason for voting against Gore/Lieberman.

"That argument works as soon as it's possible to blow someone's brains out by saying the word "BANG!" real loud."

It's already possible to blow someone's *eardrums* out by saying the word "BANG!" really loud. Possibly with the use of enloundening equipment, but if you've got someone talented enough...

davidh

**That argument works as soon as it's possible to blow someone's brains out by saying the word "BANG!" real loud.

PAD **

I disagree, I would say that speech has been the underlying cause of many more deaths thruoughout history than firearms have. Free speech, much like weaponry and anything else important in our world, must be handled with respect and responsibility if it isn't then it is easily just as dangerous.

back to the topic at hand I do strongly agree that this is a frivolous and moronic case on the part of the state.

Yeesh.

Obscenity laws don't regulate social values. We do. The world won't fall apart if you actually respect the First Amendment.

Stinger: What I find disheartining is that with a minimal of modification PADs argument could be used to protect the Second Amendment as well, and the reason this is disheartening is given the general dislike liberals have for Firearms I doubt PAD would make an argument for the Second Amendment (which ironically IMO is the best protector of the First Amendment).

Peter David: That argument works as soon as it's possible to blow someone's brains out by saying the word "BANG!" real loud.

Black Bolt, King of the Inhumans: So, uh, what’s your point, Peter?

Funky Blue: I used to work in a comic store here in Ohio for about 7 years. We had a group called CCCAP (Clark County Citizens Against Pornography).

Luigi Novi: Interesting that except for the letter “A,” the abbreviation of that organization is the same as the Russian abbreviation for the former Soviet Union.

Nytwyng: Well, the argument could certainly be made that, as the material is the result of an illegal act, the material itself is, by extension, illegal.

Luigi Novi: No, buying and possessing it is illegal. Not the material itself. If I steal a TV, and you buy it knowing it was stolen, you and I both committed a crime. But TV itself is not an illegal item in itself the way cocaine or kiddie porn is.

Nytwyng: This is similar to possession of stolen property being a crime, even if the person in possession is not the person who stole that property in the first place. The individual in possession of the stolen goods did not commit the crime…

Luigi Novi: They did if they bought it, or took it into possession knowing it was stolen when they did so.

Nytwyng: …but is likewise not permitted to retain the stolen property

Luigi Novi: Only because it needs to be taken into police custody as evidence, and/or returned to its rightful owner. Not because the stolen material itself is illegal.

Peter David: And no, I'm not lumping in how-to manuals about bomb construction and the like. I'm focusing on entertainment, not material specifically designed to deprive others of life and/or property, okay?

Publius: But why do you draw that line? If "Obscenity is an expression of thoughts and ideas" then why aren't "how-to manuals," whatever their specific intention?

Peter David: WHY? Because attempting to deprive someone of life and/or property, or facilitating that attempt, violates an entire set of laws.

Luigi Novi: Except that we’re not talking about the attempt to do so, but simply information that shows how bombs are made. Some forms of destructive devices are kept classified by the government, like how to make the switches for nuclear bombs, etc. But the construction of gunpowder, bombs, firearms, flamethrowers, etc. is in the public domain. That genie has been out of the bottle for centuries. How then, can you ban me telling someone how a bomb is made, particularly if one is simply curious to know, like I am? I’ve been curious as to how those things are made. Why shouldn’t I buy a book on it, if I no intention of ever using it to hurt someone?

Stinger: I disagree, I would say that speech has been the underlying cause of many more deaths thruoughout history than firearms have.

Luigi Novi: How so? Could you elaborate on this with examples? How has speech, in of itself, caused deaths? It would seem to me that has caused more murder and death by neglect is not speech, but rather power, and how people respond it to the speech of those who hold it. When has merely speaking an opinion, painting an offensive picture, or producing a movie caused deaths? Yeah, you could make the argument that the reaction to Birth of a Nation by Woodrow Wilson and other white supremacists led to the creation of the KKK’s second incarnation, which led to deaths, but to me, it seems a tenuous connection to say that the movie is what caused them.

Luigi Novi: How so? Could you elaborate on this with examples? How has speech, in of itself, caused deaths? It would seem to me that has caused more murder and death by neglect is not speech, but rather power, and how people respond it to the speech of those who hold it. When has merely speaking an opinion, painting an offensive picture, or producing a movie caused deaths? Yeah, you could make the argument that the reaction to Birth of a Nation by Woodrow Wilson and other white supremacists led to the creation of the KKK’s second incarnation, which led to deaths, but to me, it seems a tenuous connection to say that the movie is what caused them.

True. It is not the speech itself that caused death, but the people who agreed with the speech that caused death.

To put it another way: Speech doesn't kill people, people kill people.

Yes, and the First Amendment wouldn't be offended by a prosecution for attempting to do any one of those things, so we have no problem prosecuting the author for the act of authorship to the degree that it is such an attempt. But if someone has an interest in that knowledge for a reason that is in and of itself legal -- simple desire for knowledge, why shouldn't he be allowed to buy that book?

He should. But if he then uses it to blow up buildings, I think it's possible to make the argument that the bookseller bears some measure of responsibility for that. I'm not sure if it would fly, but it'd be interesting to see.

PAD

Sorry, I can't go along with no obscenity laws. Those laws are the way a society regulates its popular culture.

And society should be able to regulate that...why?

Pop culture extends from precisely that: What's popular. Society either supports or doesn't support particular types of entertainment. But it's got no business regulating it.

PAD

In point of fact, I've found left wing liberals to be among the most aggressive proponents of censorship.

Probably my biggest reason for voting against Gore/Lieberman.

Oh, yeah, because Bush/Cheney is just *so* open minded about freedom of expression...

PAD

PAD said:

He should. But if he then uses it to blow up buildings, I think it's possible to make the argument that the bookseller bears some measure of responsibility for that. I'm not sure if it would fly, but it'd be interesting to see.

I can't remember the details, but I believe something similar came close to happening a few years ago. The book in that case was "The Hitman Handbook" or something of that nature, and it was published by a group called Paladin Press.

Someone killed or tried to kill another person, had the book, and the publisher was sued. According to the publisher's FAQ at http://www.paladin-press.com/faq.aspx the case apparently settled.

I studied this a few years back, but the details elude me at the moment.

PAD said:

Oh, yeah, because Bush/Cheney is just *so* open minded about freedom of expression...

In 2000 Gore/Lieberman had a proven track record as opponents of free expression.

Peter,

If a bookseller bears responsibility for selling "how-to" books, then couldn't the argument be made that if he sold a book that gave me an idea that he bears responsibility for that?

For example: Let's say I'm a pro-life person who has never thought about hurting another person in my life. Then I go and read this Hulk comic that gives me the idea that doing three specific things will really bring attention to my cause: 1) throw a brick through a window, 2) start some fires, and 3) shoot a gun off. Does the comic book seller bear responsibility for giving me those ideas? Does the author?

Of course not. Those ideas were not created by the author of that comic book, and they can be seen elsewhere. But the author and seller provided me with them.

Diagrams/notes/how-to's for bombs and all kinds of things are readily available in all kinds of places. Think about the murder-mystery how-to books that are out there to help authors make their murderer's fictional crimes as realistic as possible. If I use those books to help me commit the "perfect" murder, who is responsible for my knowledge? Is it reasonable to think that such knowledge could ever completely be wiped away or banned?

I realize that you're not out-and-out saying that the bookseller would be responsible, but I'm not sure how you can say that the argument might fly.

Eric

Of course, I just followed the link to the Paladin Press site and found out that "Senate Bill S606... criminalizes the distribution of information on explosives under certain circumstances." So what the heck do I know?

Evidently nothing.

Eric

RE censorship and bomb-making:

There was a situation, back in the late 70s, where a magazine was going to publish details about how to make an H-bomb. I believe that the Feds sought an injunction prohibiting the publication of the magazine. The trial court judge denied the request for the injunction, for, among others things, an H-bomb (at least then) was triggered by exploding an A-bomb. And while the plans for making an A-bomb were already known then, the difficulty in getting the materials to make a working A-bomb were so great (cf. WMD and Iraq), that the trial judge concluded that publishing the H-bomb plans didn't pose so extreme a threat as to justify prohibiting the publication of materials.

As a general rule, censorship has been viewed with great scepticism by the Supreme Court. Back in World War I, the Court agreed that the schedules for trans-Atlantic shipping could have been censored, since it was the kind of stuff that would have been useful for saboteurs. And, that was a declared war, under the terms of the Constitution... there hasn't been one of those in over a half century.

(PAD)

In point of fact, I've found left wing liberals to be among the most aggressive proponents of censorship.

(ME)

Probably my biggest reason for voting against Gore/Lieberman.

(PAD)

Oh, yeah, because Bush/Cheney is just *so* open minded about freedom of expression...

It's illogical to say that Bush & Cheney are open minded simply because... oh wait... saracsm... :p

Actually, I was just pointing out an example of a left-winger being a promoter of censorhip in support of your claim by showing that at least one existed. I specifically remember a news spot during those exciting election times concerning Mr. and Mrs. Liberman's avid stance on censoring various rap songs.

(I still have my signed "Brad" Pitt card. Thanks for all the stories and keep writing!!)

A few points as reply to what I have read after my first posting in this thread:

I think there is a difference between providing a handbook showing how to plant bombs or do chemical warfare or the fear that some unstable person thinks that after reading superhero comics he is Superman and jumps from a building. Or is inspired by something he read or watched how to execute a murder.

The first is giving dangerous knowledge to people, nothing else. There is no other purpose behind it. The second can only be seen as a trigger. People who react like this have been disturbed for a long time and there are other main reasons than watching TV or reading books. Movies, TV and books are also created as entertainment, a handbook for terrorism is only a manual for destruction.

Blaming book sellers or authors for the actions of extremists or mentally ill people is absurd. Next time a person who saves someone else`s life but this guy becomes a serial killer afterwards is blamed for having saved him and accused of being guilty as well.

To me, child porn is wrong and has to be kept illegal. It doesn`t matter to me if it is real life footage or computer generated. Murder mysteries and cimes (including rapes) have always been part of entertainment. But offering child porn as entertainment is simply not acceptable to me. It goes too far. Even bestiality and sick people who enjoy having sex with corpses (forgot the name for that) is more acceptable than this!

Words don`t harm anybody? Let me tell you what happened not so long ago in Britain: A girl was murdered and after he was caught it was revealed that he lived in the neighborhood and had been convicted before. Many people demanded that the identity of all pedophiles is revealed to people living nearby. This movement grew and one day one paper published the identity of several men from such lists. An ugly witchhunt began. Mobs moved through streets, targeting men who looked like them, who were for other reasons suspicious, many of them innocent. One of them was a pediatrician!

Free speech is a nice thing but it stops there where is harms the rights of others. At least in Germany you can be arrested for inciting racial hatred and violence. And rightly so!

Okay Rob, you've piqued my interest. Care to elaborate on your comment about Puritans not being intolerant?

Well, for one thing they invented the concept of freedom of religion. Cromwell's republic was the first modern government to incorporate that into its constitution (for that matter it was the first to have a constitution).

Yeah, Catholicism was excepted due to the political climate, but it was a start...

Baerbel Haddrell: But the concept of child pornography makes you uncomfortable. As long as it's virtual, how is it any more or less inherently harmful than bestiality, necrophilia, or serial murder? It is not discomfort that Freedom of Speech seeks to avoid; that discomfort is often a necessary price for Freedom of Speech.

Personal discomfort is NEVER sufficient reason to call for censorship, IMO. The concept of censorship in any form makes me uncomfortable in a way that virtual ANYTHING does not, but I would be wrong to try to keep people from talking about censorship, wouldn't I?

BTW, the US Supreme Court has pretty clearly stated that things like shouting "fire!" in a public place or inciting violence are not protected speech.

Eric

PAD: But if he then uses it to blow up buildings, I think it's possible to make the argument that the bookseller bears some measure of responsibility for that. I'm not sure if it would fly, but it'd be interesting to see.

I think that would actually be pretty appalling. Remember the Dixie Chicks thread from a few months back? Censorship doesn't become any less onerous because it's economic rather than punitive. And if you're referring to criminal as well as civil penalties, then it defeats the whole point of free speech. Castillo, after all, was the bookseller rather than the author. Logically I don't see any difference between holding the hypothetical bookseller responsible for the content of what he sold and holding Castillo responsible for the content of his comic book. If results are the only difference (i.e. nobody actually got sodomized with a tree root after reading Castillo's book), why punish the actual seller of the Anarchist's Handbook, when dozens of other booksellers engaged in indentical behavior, but luckily didn't have a member of the Weather Underground in their neighborhoods? The only fair thing would be to punish everybody equally for communicating the same ideas.

It's tempting to steer clear of this topic, especially as I'm probably in a minority. But I think there should be obscenity laws, there should be a line that isn't crossed even if year by year society pushes that line further and further. I think there is something wrong with getting enjoyment from the kind of comic described in this case. I'm particularly worried about the idea that child porn might be ok if it's an illustration not a real child. I'd like to live in a world where violence to women is not acceptable in any shape or form and so yes I'm in favour of any laws that might help bring that about. I'm not political, not religious but I have a wife and daughter that I'd never want to see come to harm and so I'm opposed to anything written, drawn, photographed that shows explicit violence, rape and child porn. So if at some point censorship results in me having to give up something I do like then it's a price I'm willing to pay. Just my view.

If one standard is that the participants should be able to give informed consent as to their participation (one of the most compelling arguments against pornography involving children) then it's not too hard to understand why you might have problems claiming to confirm the consent of an animal, absent any Dr. Doolittle-like communicative ability...

Well, we live in a culture which kills animals en masse for our dining pleasure (which I'm OK with, BTW), so it is rather silly to argue against beastiality out of some respect for the wishes of the animal. Arguments of outright animal cruelty may apply, depending on WHAT one does, but a lot of routine farm work might be construed as sexual contact, if you were enjoying it in that way.

Actually using the 'recipes' in the Anarchists Cookbook, to cause loss of life or property damage... THIS will get you jail time if caught.

They'll get you blown up before they get you caught. Most of the recipes are incomplete or outright wrong, fueling rumors that the book was engineered byt the government to eliminate possible terrorists.

Paul: I'd like to live in a world where violence to women is not acceptable in any shape or form and so yes I'm in favour of any laws that might help bring that about.

I feel for you, seriously. Because legislation will never, under any circumstances, create the world you want to live in. There is no authority (no MORTAL authority at least, but that's another argument entirely) that can pass a law capable of actually CHANGING what any person enjoys. You may not understand it, you may not LIKE it, but there are 5 billion human beings on this planet and it's conceivable there are at LEAST 5 billion different tastes. 5 billion different personal preferences. 5 billion different ideas of what is pleasurable, tasteful or obscene.

The Texas lawmakers are CERTAINLY not in any position to dictate to me (OR you, or ANYONE) what they are allowed to find pleasant. That's part of the charm of being an individual, autonomous human being; the blessing (and/or curse) of free will and self determination.

Like it or not, LEGISLATE it or not, so-called "obscenity" is here to stay. If it's castigated, demonized and shut away it will only be more fascinating and appealing to children.

About the child porn discussion: I am the mother of a 10 months old baby girl. I don`t deny that this plays a strong part in my views but I don`t apologize for it. To me, child porn in any form is unacceptable.

As some people already said, bestiality could be seen as cruelty to animals. This is bad but to me, cruelty to children is worse.

PAD,

Actually, after I wrote and posted that, it occurred to me that you might think I was talking to you, when in fact I was talking to the poster who used the conservative right tag. Peace.

As for the "puritanical intolerance" you lumped my two favorite pet peeve words together. "Puritanical" came from a misconsception about the Puritans (who were moral, but not into enforcing it on anyone outside their denomination). This group has some of the BEST sermons on God, man and their responsibilities to each other. The stereotyping of the Puritans has limited a truly amazing literary yield.

Haunt,

My take is personal responsibility in all things, as few laws as possible to maintain order. We should not set up a false morality with the law. If it harms someone, consider legislating it. If it harms by choice, don't (possible exception to drugs since addiction removes it from choice).

If Castillo wants to sell it, and someone wants to buy it, it should be up to each of their morality to do so. My preference is that they would adopt God's principles of living and forego the 'pleasure'. But that's for them to decide, not me, and certainly not the Government. (My idea of a wonderful day would be the ability to wipe out whatever laws I wanted to in a twenty-four hour period.)

Believe it or not, there are conservative christians who are opposed to censorship. I was raised in one of the more conservative branches--Pentecostal--and I recall a time walking around town with our minister past the local 7-11. This was when many churches were organizing and picketing to force Southland to stop selling girly books.

I asked our minister if our church was going to participate--figuring we surely would.

He surprised me when he stated that he was against it. His argument was that as soon as one group could wield enough control to restrict any form of publication deemed offensive by them, it set the stage for other groups to remove other publications from circulation--in his example, Bibles from school libraries.

That was one of my first steps on the road to truly understanding tolerance and the First Amendment, I think.

He should. But if he then uses it to blow up buildings, I think it's possible to make the argument that the bookseller bears some measure of responsibility for that. I'm not sure if it would fly, but it'd be interesting to see. -- PAD

This parallels the concept being bandied about regarding legally sold firearms which are then used in an illegal fashion. In fact, some people look past the seller and go straight toward holding the manufacturer responsible.

Which is somewhat akin to the writer and artist of Human Torch being held responsible, along with the local comics dealer, because a purchaser decides to light himself and a bunch of others on fire. A scary concept.

(BTW, Peter, the Thorne book you were thinking of is LANN. The demon presents himself as a male child throughout, and--in the issue I possess--doesn't screw knotholes but female humans... all drawn in pen and ink, of course.)

Or, to take the Human Torch analogy a little bit closer to home, lets use a title like... oh, let's just call it "Tripped Cherub" to pick a title... And let's have that title make a wink-and-a-nod oblique reference to some fellating. And let's not mark the book or the solicitation in any way.

Writer sells to publisher, publisher sells to retailer, retailer sells to kid, kid's parents read the book (this is mythology, of course--parents don't actually take part in their child's reading and viewing habits), parent raises a stink, and the retailer pays the price. (The stuff flows downhill rapidly enough, but doesn't have quite the inertia to flow back uphill all the way.)

So do the progenetors of the fictional chain of events bear any responsibility? Should they?

regarding the Marketplace deciding=Economic censorship.

The concept is that in a free market society, What the people will tolerate will be available, and what they won't..won't.

An example....people won't tolerate Ben Afflec/JLO movies...thus Gigli bombed..thus new ones won't be made (yes, Kevin Smith has already made one...and is spinning like crazy to make people not think it sucks)...

You don't need laws to determine community standards...the community by their actions..voting with their wallets..do that...

The Ecomomic Censorship comes in with Boycotts...which is a group of people deciding what they like is the only thing that should be availalbe (or what they don't like, shouldn't be).

Thank you, Mr. David.

You have stated most eloquently that which I have been saying for years. As a case in point, I have never been a fan of Eminem. What he produces is not what I would call music. However, if I do not like it, I should not listen to it. Problem solved. Simply because I don't like it is not reason enough to declare it invalid. The First Amendment must protect everyone. Otherwise it protects no one at all. I would hope that more people would agree with you stand on this issue. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Again, thank you. And never let those with narrow or non-existant minds change that which you have so thoroughly thought out.

Here's a look at what OTHER important issues the Powers That Be in Texas are struggling with right now...

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33896

The problem (well, a problem) with the "community standards" test is that it punishes people whose tastes are different from their neighbors -- the very people, as the cliche goes, whom the First was written to protect. If everyone is supposed to think like their neighbors, why do we need to guarantee free expression.