I’ve returned from Las Vegas, where the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund had a two day brainstorming board meeting to discuss the Fund’s future, the cases on our dockets, changes in by-laws, and pretty much everything else having to do with the past, present and future of the CBLDF.
Why Vegas? Lots of cheap airfares (since we paid our own way), lots of cheap hotel rooms, plus stuff to do in the evening after long days of work. Particularly entertaining was Thursday night when Neil arranged for the bunch of us to see his pals, Penn and Teller, performing in their new permanent theater. We went back stage and hung with them for a bit afterward, so that was cool.
With various states stepping up various laws ostensibly designed to “protect the children,” but which can be used to cripple comic book stores (not just comic book stores, but book stores, magazines, even 7-11s), we’re thinking that the next year (or four, if Ashcroft remains around) could potentially be a horror show of litigation. Check in with the CBLDF site for details, and watch for announcements as to future activities.
PAD
• 
PAD wrote: Currently, they’re not. I find that unfair. Furthermore, the notion that no seller or buyer knows whether a particular work is illegal or not until after they’ve sold or bought it…at which point they can then be prosecuted for it…is not only unfair, it’s insane.
The only reason the current situation is “insane” is because the most extreme free speech advocates contend that absolutely nothing written, aired or exhibited is off limits anymore. Nothing can be labeled “obscene,” because obscenity is subjective and merely in the eye of the beholder. It doesn’t matter how inflammatory, psychologically harmful or disgusting it may be, because all of those terms are subjective as well.
In the Castillo case, my real problem was not that the store contained obscene materials (contrary to what Scavenger asserted), it was that Castillo allegedly sold obscene material to a minor. Under the law, selling obscene material to a minor is no different than selling alcohol to a minor. However, what free speech advocates argue is that “Demon Beast Invasion” is not obscene at all — even though the book clearly meets the obscenity criteria as it is spelled out in the law. To me, that’s like the defense using an argument that alcohol is not alcohol at all. It’s one of endless combinations of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen — all of which are legal to own individually.
Nothing is apparently obscene to free speech advocates, and THAT’S what I have a problem with.
I have a creative friend who apparently has similar views as you about the definition of freedom of speech. He also thinks my rationale in this area is heretic. He’d probably die before he would label any “creative” work with the “o-word.” Yet this same person rants on and on about how the Cleveland Indians should dump their disgusting “Big Chief Wahoo” logo because of its racist overtones, blah, blah, blah. Personally, I agree with him that it is probably in the long-term best interests of the Indians to dump the logo. However, what my friend apparently does not realize is that his “Wahoo” stance is antithetical of his wide-open free speech stance.
I don’t think I am myopic regarding the free speech issue, so I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
The only reason the current situation is “insane” is because the most extreme free speech advocates contend that absolutely nothing written, aired or exhibited is off limits anymore.
I would agree with you, Russ, if you were right. But you’re not. The situation is insane because the Supreme Court endeavored to define obscenity without actually defining obscenity. If the court ruled that nothing was off limits anymore, then we wouldn’t have this problem. Instead we now have a situation where people literally have no clue they’re breaking the law because material they’re selling isn’t illegal until after the fact, at which point they’re tried and convicted for selling that which wasn’t criminal at the time. And the only thing more insane than that is that anyone could possibly think such an unfair system is preferable to simply saying, “Adults should be able to read whatever they want and adults should be able to sell it to them without threat of prosecution, The End.”
In the Castillo case, my real problem was not that the store contained obscene materials (contrary to what Scavenger asserted), it was that Castillo allegedly sold obscene material to a minor.
And that would be a real problem for me as well, had that occurred. It didn’t. You are completely misinformed. The entire, consistently reiterated point is that Castillo was prosecuted for taking a book which was ordered by an adult (which the adult then didn’t buy) and selling it to another adult. You have succumbed to exactly the angle that the DA used on the jury: Getting the facts so muddled that you believe children were involved when they really weren’t.
PAD
And that would be a real problem for me as well, had that occurred. It didn’t. You are completely misinformed.The entire, consistently reiterated point is that Castillo was prosecuted for taking a book which was ordered by an adult (which the adult then didn’t buy) and selling it to another adult. You have succumbed to exactly the angle that the DA used on the jury: Getting the facts so muddled that you believe children were involved when they really weren’t.
Well, you’re right about that. I read the court opinion in detail this time. My bad.
But keep in mind if I were a jurist in this case, and not skimming the opinion on the fly as I had to the other day, I wouldn’t have succumbed to any such sleight-of-hand.
As specified in Texas law, “Demon Beast Invasion” does appear to meet the criteria of “obscene.” That the local police ignore or selectively enforce the law, however, is not right and was unfair to Castillo.
That being said, the core of the issue still boils down to this: What is the definition of obscene?
Since there obviously will never be an agreement on that issue, we are now stuck with a situation where anything goes; where civility and good taste have ceased to exist. And that, in my opinion, is a shame.
Russ Maheras
But keep in mind if I were a jurist in this case, and not skimming the opinion on the fly as I had to the other day, I wouldn’t have succumbed to any such sleight-of-hand.
So you’re smarter than the jurors, is what you’re saying. Well, maybe you are and maybe you aren’t. But frankly, since you’ve apparently advocated amending the constitution to restrict the First Amendment, I’m somehow doubting it would have mattered one way or the other.
As specified in Texas law, “Demon Beast Invasion” does appear to meet the criteria of “obscene.” That the local police ignore or selectively enforce the law, however, is not right and was unfair to Castillo.
On that we agree, especially considering that their explicit *failure* to pursue other stores that *specialize* in selling obscene material implicitly established the community standard which Castillo thought he was within. That’s the horror show of obscenity prosecution: What the law will and will not allow is literally made up as they go along, and then applied after the fact.
That being said, the core of the issue still boils down to this: What is the definition of obscene?
And no one knows for sure, but lives are still being ruined over it.
Since there obviously will never be an agreement on that issue, we are now stuck with a situation where anything goes; where civility and good taste have ceased to exist. And that, in my opinion, is a shame.
They haven’t ceased to exist. They’re just rarer. Frankly, the argument could be made that the Internet is far more responsible for that than obscenity, with people routinely posting the most libelous things about other people while hiding behind fake names. If you’re ready to make the argument that the Internet should be shut down by the courts in order to make the world a more civil place, I’m eager to hear it.
PAD
Frankly, the argument could be made that the Internet is far more responsible for that than obscenity, with people routinely posting the most libelous things about other people while hiding behind fake names. If you’re ready to make the argument that the Internet should be shut down by the courts in order to make the world a more civil place, I’m eager to hear it.
I guess you’re assuming I’m some kind of radical extremist because I would dare question the apparent sacrosanct status of the First Amendment. But as I mentioned before, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution were designed to be living documents, so that’s my paradigm going into any argument involving either.
In any case, I’ve embraced the Internet since day one, and despite its potential for misuse, I would never advocate shutting it down. It, like most things (freedom of speech as some define it, alcohol, exercise, guns, eating Twinkies, etc.), can be harmful to people if discretion is not used. Do I advocate anonymity on the Internet? No, for the same reasons you cite. There are exceptions, but in most cases, I’d say that if a person does not want to take responsibility for what they are saying, then perhaps they shouldn’t be saying it in the first place.
I guess you’re assuming I’m some kind of radical extremist because I would dare question the apparent sacrosanct status of the First Amendment.
No, I assume nothing of the kind. Questioning is always good. If people don’t question things, it means they’re not thinking.
But as I mentioned before, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution were designed to be living documents, so that’s my paradigm going into any argument involving either.
As it is mine as well. The problem is that we’re coming at it from two angles. You apparently believe that it’s designed to be whittled down when encountering those things which the Founding Fathers didn’t anticipate, whereas I’m arguing that it was intended to be elastic enough to encompass those very same things.
But you see now how easy it is to turn the argument around. You say that obscenity isn’t entitled to First Amendment protection since the Founders couldn’t have anticipated it. But you show no inclination to deny FA protection to the Internet, even though the Founders not only could never have envisioned it, but might be personally offended by it, for everything from its pop up pørņ ads to people sniping from anonymity (remember, these were guys who signed their names to a document that could have gotten them hanged.)
PAD
But you see now how easy it is to turn the argument around. You say that obscenity isn’t entitled to First Amendment protection since the Founders couldn’t have anticipated it. But you show no inclination to deny FA protection to the Internet, even though the Founders not only could never have envisioned it, but might be personally offended by it, for everything from its pop up pørņ ads to people sniping from anonymity (remember, these were guys who signed their names to a document that could have gotten them hanged.)
That’s not really what I am saying. I think the Internet should have certain standards as well. For example, I think that sites which encourage people to kill other people, or teaches people how to make weapons of mass destruction should be shut down. Some would argue that this limits freedom of speech.
The WMD issue is a good example of a problem we face today that would have been incomprehensible to those who drafted the Constitution. All it will take is one slip-up by our state and federal agencies — a scary thought considering how slow-responding, and imperfect in general, our system of government is — and 228 years of U.S. history could be erased in one blinding flash. And I’m not talking a Russian ICBM launch, which was a scary enough possibility during the Cold War, I’m talking about an incident that could occur with no warning — say in DC during a state of the union address — that would destroy the very fabric of our society in an instant.
It’s realities like this that make me open to things like the Patriot Act — which the CLDF has stated it opposes. I think the day has passed where one can reasonably argue that there should be no limits on certain privacy issues. In colonial times, most people were pretty familiar with their neighbors. If there was a meeting, or a rally, the people in the town knew about it. Anyone could attend, walk in and could see who was there and listen to the discussion. It would have been impossible for an agent of a foreign adversary to research, plan, recruit agents and gather the materials necessary to carry out the destruction of an entire U.S. town under such circumstances. There were no “privacy issues” protecting potential adversaries back then. Townspeople knew exactly when a stranger was in town, and in what equated to a colonial version of today’s “neighborhood watch” programs, the town as a whole knew exactly what that stranger was doing. Today, almost no one knows their neighbors in a town of any size, and we have a growing WMD threat that no one back then could have ever anticipated. So I don’t have a problem with the Patriot Act if it is actually useful at nailing the bad guys. If it isn’t, then dump it and find something that is, in fact, effective.
Russ Maheras
So you see where we’ve gone, and how easy it is to muddy the issue. I’m talking about the victimless sale of an adult comic book to an adult…and you’re suddenly bringing in weapons of mass destruction and how the Patriot Act is a good thing and the founding fathers, once again, could never have anticipated such a thing.
I dunno. I think Founding Father Ben Franklin said it best: He who would exchange fundamental liberties to gain a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety.
You can, of course, try to brush that one off as out of context as well.
But it’s true.
PAD
It’s realities like this that make me open to things like the Patriot Act
And you’re ok with realities such as the gov’t being able to go to any library or book store with your name and get a list of the things you’ve bought?
If our Founding Fathers lived under our “Patriot” Act, they probably would have been rounded up and shot through the lungs.
PAD wrote: So you see where we’ve gone, and how easy it is to muddy the issue. I’m talking about the victimless sale of an adult comic book to an adult…and you’re suddenly bringing in weapons of mass destruction and how the Patriot Act is a good thing and the founding fathers, once again, could never have anticipated such a thing.
You’re exaggerating, of course. Actually, this discussion has evolved slowly over the course of a few days – there have been no “sudden” shifts. But I’m glad you bring that point up. Because, in a sense, everything we’ve discussed IS interrelated. In all cases, I’m arguing that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights – documents that were designed to be changed by the canny forethought of our Founding Fathers – should be changed to allow for new technological issues, if that’s what the majority of Americans believe is in their best interests. You, on the other hand, apparently don’t want anything to change – even if it means we’ll eventually have snuff films or child pørņ on network TV, or worse yet, one of our cities goes up in a puff of smoke. And do you honestly believe that free access to various hate sites on the Internet that advocate the deaths of various peoples is a victimless crime?
French leadership (God bless ‘em) prior to World War II were smugly living in the past when they hid from a growing German military threat behind their mighty Maginot Line. Technology, however, had passed the French by – as did the German armored units that just went around the 400,000 firmly entrenched French troops and easily captured Paris.
PAD added: I dunno. I think Founding Father Ben Franklin said it best: He who would exchange fundamental liberties to gain a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety.
Great quote, but as I said before, Franklin and all the rest could never had imagined the world we live in today. They did, however, give us a Constitution and Bill of Rights that was flexible enough to allow for change.
Craig wrote: And you’re ok with realities such as the gov’t being able to go to any library or book store with your name and get a list of the things you’ve bought?
When I was a paranoid 19-year-old, I might have cared. Today, I could honestly care less.
Russ Maheras
You, on the other hand, apparently don’t want anything to change – even if it means we’ll eventually have snuff films or child pørņ on network TV, or worse yet, one of our cities goes up in a puff of smoke. And do you honestly believe that free access to various hate sites on the Internet that advocate the deaths of various peoples is a victimless crime?
You know what, Russ? I’m done with this, because your arguments have wandered into the realm of pure idiocy. I emphasize over and over the victimless nature of obscene material, and that I give the Founding Fathers credit enough to foresee that objectionable speech of a sexual nature should be protected, and what do you come back with? That “apparently” I support snuff films (in which people are murdered, i.e. victims), child pornography (in which children are forced into engaging in sexual situations, i.e. victims) or entire cities exploding into dust (i.e., millions of victims). That I approve of websites that advocate murder (i.e. murder victims.)
This is a textbook example of the logical fallacy which is called (hope I’m spelling it correctly) reducto ad absurdum. You take a core premise, extend it to ludicrous extremes, and then try to say that the ridiculous extent to which you’ve taken it somehow undercuts the original notion.
If that’s the game, Russ, I’m done playing it.
PAD
PAD wrote: I emphasize over and over the victimless nature of obscene material, and that I give the Founding Fathers credit enough to foresee that objectionable speech of a sexual nature should be protected, and what do you come back with? That “apparently” I support snuff films (in which people are murdered, i.e. victims), child pornography (in which children are forced into engaging in sexual situations, i.e. victims) or entire cities exploding into dust (i.e., millions of victims).
If that’s the game, Russ, I’m done playing it.
These are serious issues. No rational person would think this is all a game. I sure don’t. We just look at the issue very differently. You apparently think the Constitution and Bill of Rights are set in stone, and the way they were originally written were crafted in such a way they gave future generations all the flexibility they needed to interpret changing freedom of speech issues in the courts. I, on the other hand, don’t agree. I’ve stated over and over again I think parts of the Constitution and Bill of rights are inadequate the way they are currently written to address such changes, especially in areas impacted by new technological. And I also say that the flexibility in these documents is there to allow for such change. Do you realize that there have been more than 2500 amendments proposed to the Constitution throughout U.S. history? If it was as sacrosanct as you apparently believe, why do you suppose that is? The good news is that only one of those very few amendments that has made it through the rigorous voting process for passage, laid an egg and had to be repealed. But my point is that the change process is there for a reason, and I think there are issues currently affecting the future of this country that scream to be at least looked at. I say look at ’em, let the people vote on it, and move on. But to do nothing at all and say that’s the way the folks who wrote the Constitution wanted it to be? I just don’t agree.
One final thing you wrote, which I wanted to address last: This is a textbook example of the logical fallacy which is called (hope I’m spelling it correctly) reducto ad absurdum. You take a core premise, extend it to ludicrous extremes, and then try to say that the ridiculous extent to which you’ve taken it somehow undercuts the original notion.
You say my points were extended to ludicrous extremes. You are wrong. None of my examples were far-fetched. A city going up in a terrorist nuclear blast? That could literally happen tomorrow. Snuff films on TV? A story broke nationwide just last week that there’s talk about putting live criminal executions on the tube. And “as-it-happens” war/disaster coverage these days is such that the TV networks will pretty much air anything – the video footage of the frantic people jumping more than a thousand feet to their deaths during the World Trade Center disaster proves that. Child pørņ on TV? It’s already on the Internet. Child pornographers are also starting to use the argument they are being discriminated against, and with the way the pørņ business has been growing by leaps and bounds in the past 10 years, don’t you think we’re only a lawsuit or two away from it being on pay-per-view? Bëšŧìálìŧÿ on TV? Ditto that it, like child pørņ, is already on the Internet. And how about the agonizingly long bëšŧìálìŧÿ “gag” in the recent film, “The Animal,” where Rob Schneider tries to seduce a goat? It should be on TV shortly. Try explaining that scene to a 10-year-old.
You see, the boundaries are constantly being pushed these days to cross that next shock and titillation hurdle, and the way I see it, there are just too many people on the side of the tracks going, “Hey! It’s the Freedom of Speech Train – get out of the way and let it keep on going!”
I just can’t, in good conscience, do that.
But I do concur that we are at a philosophical impasse, so let’s just drop the issue. You have your views and I have mine. I respect you as a writer, enjoy your CBG columns, and agree with your views on a fair range of topics – just not, I’m afraid, regarding the freedom of speech issue.
Russ Maheras