The previous thread on this topic seems to have gone hopelessly off the rails, so let’s try it again.
This is the thread for discussing developments in the “Funky Winkerbean” strip that parallel real life cases of a comics store owner/manager getting arrested for selling adult comics to an adult.
What’s interesting is that, within the context of the strip, the woman who alerted the police apparently had an ulterior motive…namely she wanted to torpedo the restaurant above the comic shop because she didn’t like that her daughter was going to have the wedding reception there.
If this sounds preposterous, let’s remember some stuff:
A real life comic book retailer wound up being arrested for selling adult comic books to adults because one woman felt that the store was charging too much for Pokemon cards and vowed revenge.
A real life second hand dealer of used comics was arrested after a complaint was filed against him by his ex-father-in-law (over an issue of “Elfquest,” of all things) because the dealer had custody of his son from the marriage and his ex-in-law wanted to get back at him.
You’d be amazed how often personal enmity or self-interest enters into these cases. Unfortunately, they often get left by the wayside once prosecutors get going on the “save the children!” angle.
PAD
• 
Rick Keating:
“Actually, those scenes are flashbacks, done to establish that this woman has challenged others’ right to expression in the past.”
Hi Rick,
It wouldn’t be the first time I missed subtlety.
In any case it does establish an interesting pattern of behavior.
Not really. Forcing them to publish or broadcast viewpoints that they don’t want to is a violation of their freedom of speech. If you own the mike or the printing press, your freedom of speech takes precedence over any third party’s.
Uh, I believe that was my point, partially. Don’t forget that radio and TV stations at least, don’t own the airwaves they broadcast on. They are licensed by the government because it is a limited resource. Their license can revoked at anytime for cause, or just not renewed. At any rate, they can’t claim a violation of their free speech rights.
They do, however own the mike ( or the printing press) as you have pointed out and the government can’t tell them what they must do with their private property. It is why I state that since Free Speech does not trump other rights you have, such as private property rights or the right to a fair trial, then Free Speech is not absolute.
Last time I checked, the NYT editorial board hadn’t been appointed to the federal bench. It’s for a judge to decide if a crime had been committed.
Actually, it’s not up to the judge. It’s up to the district attorney to decide if a crime has been commited. A judge decides matters of law based on established precedents and interpretations of the law.
Don’t forget that radio and TV stations at least, don’t own the airwaves they broadcast on. They are licensed by the government because it is a limited resource. Their license can revoked at anytime for cause, or just not renewed. At any rate, they can’t claim a violation of their free speech rights.
Don’t get me started on the FCC’s unconstitutional power grab on the so-called “public airwaves” again.
Actually, it’s not up to the judge. It’s up to the district attorney to decide if a crime has been commited. A judge decides matters of law based on established precedents and interpretations of the law.
Well, first of all, this is a federal case and district attorneys don’t prosecute federal cases, US attorneys do. Second, the prosecutor’s job is to present evidence against the defendent. True, if he feels he doesn’t have the enough evidence to convict, he can decline to prosecute, but that isn’t the same as deciding that crime has not been committed. The judge rules on what evidence is admissible and whether the prosecutor is applying the law correctly in bringing the case. In other words, the prosecutor can argue that a law has been broken, but if the judge disagrees, the case will get tossed.
Don’t get me started on the FCC’s unconstitutional power grab on the so-called “public airwaves” again.
We may have to if you keep call the FCC unconstitutional. They’re a regulatory commission created by Congress for the express purpose of imposing regulatory standards on the broadcast industry. Frankly, the EPA is far more draconian.
Okay, this is annoying. there’s no CBLDF plot. sure, its St Patrick’s Day, which is fine, but the “green” beer is yellow!
Been away for a while… Just caught up on the last week’s worth of “Funky Winkerbean”.
I know this “critique” isn’t very eloquent but…
… “Funky Winkerbean” really sucks.
After reading the last two weeks worth of Funky, I think that the story would have been better if it was being done with Crankshaft.
Prediction: all of these issues are going to get side-stepped in the actual trial.
The prosecutor could be expected to to ask two basic questions.
1) What is the financial health of the comic book store? Hm…seems to be a large dent. What was the money used for? Drugs? Something else? Oh…an expensive engagement ring.
2) Have you, the prioprietor, had previous contact with Councilwoman Blackburn? “Er…well..I used to date her daughter.”
And the legalities will be tossed out the window as the trial dissolves into farce. I expect it to be entertaining farce, I do rather like the strip, but I think it’s pretty clear which way this story is going to go.
Den:
“Don’t get me started on the FCC’s unconstitutional power grab on the so-called “public airwaves” again.”
eclark1849:
“We may have to if you keep call the FCC unconstitutional. They’re a regulatory commission created by Congress for the express purpose of imposing regulatory standards on the broadcast industry. Frankly, the EPA is far more draconian.”
The FCC was created to regulate the airwaves, correct. But NOT content. That came later. The FCC was created to regulate the magnetic spectrum broadcasters use, and the amount of power each station can use so not to interfere with other stations.
Posted by Den at March 15, 2005 04:07 PM
Don’t forget that radio and TV stations at least, don’t own the airwaves they broadcast on. They are licensed by the government because it is a limited resource. Their license can revoked at anytime for cause, or just not renewed. At any rate, they can’t claim a violation of their free speech rights.
Don’t get me started on the FCC’s unconstitutional power grab on the so-called “public airwaves” again.
I’ve recently been thinking that, whenever anyone starts raving about the iniquities of governmental regulation of broadcasting, i should just point to e-mail, which is rapidly becoming virtually useless due to spam. Does anyone actually honestly think that the broadcast spectrum would not have been totally choked by similar such junk if it wasn’t regulated?
Getting back to the main topic of the situation in “Funky Winkerbean”, the whole issue of the charges against the store owner appears to have been dropped from the storyline.
I find that… curious. If it was a syndicate fiat, it sends a disturbing message; and if Batiuk just decided to switch gears before the story’s conclusion, it’s also very odd. This is especially true since some readers of the strip, unfamiliar with the fact that comicbooks are more than just kids stuff, might come away from that storyline thinking the store owner was guilty and deserved to be punished.
I fully expected that the storyline would continue to a natural conclusion, which, based on some of the lawyer’s comments, would have involved education about the comics industry, the First Amendment, and things like that. In his other strip, “Crankshaft”, Batiuk sticks with a storyline to its natural conclusion. I wonder why he has apparently abandoned the comicbook shop story in “Funky Winkerbean.”
Rick
You can’t be 81234 serious?!?