Newsarama.com is covering the story that the US Supreme Court has decided not to hear the case of Jesus Castillo, a comic store manager who fell down the rabbit hole of Texas justice and found himself convicted of selling an adult comic book to–get this–an adult. The prosecutor managed to nullify unrefuted expert testimony as to the adult comic’s redeeming social value by winking at the jury, telling them that “Everyone knows comics are for kids,” and stating that the presence of such comics presented a hazard to local children. Granted, the comic store was across the street from a school. However, not only were the adult titles kept in a separate section away from younger readers, and not only are there adult bookstores within the same area, but the judge specifically told the jury the presence of a school could not enter into their deliberations. On the facts of law alone, there’s no way they could have found guilty. Yet they did, in no time flat.
The CBLDF knew that taking it to the USSC was a longshot at best, but sometimes you have to do everything you can.
A terrifyingly dangerous precedent has now been set. The Texas case essentially strips First Amendment protection from comics. There have been various instances in this country where titles as diverse as Spawn, Spider-Man and Elfquest have come under siege. None of those attacks ever went as far as this one. But with this law on the books, who knows how aggressive moralists can get in their pursuits to make sure that you won’t have the opportunity to buy whatever comics you want to buy.
PAD
• 
Hmmmm, I’m not entirely sure I agree with PAD on this one. The ‘comic’ in question is pretty obscene, it’s hard to deny that fact. It seems the only cultural relevance is that violence to women somehow makes the Japanese reader happier, that’s just sick. What if the comic dealt with Nazi concentration camps and similar activities would it be obscene enough for this case to be right. This isn’t a plea to be flamed, just my opinion. And just to clarify I am an adult and I do love comics, particularly PAD’s stuff, I just think maybe somethings shouldn’t be allowed.
Joe Average is a moron.
Ken claims to have inside knowledge about the Oklahoma case. I must ask that he provide sources for his information and for his “Opinion” that the CBLDF lied or bent the truth. Where in the media did CBLDF make their claims? How did the CBLDF force the media to only use “distorted” statements?
When somebody writes an article, their editor usually picks which comments made the final cut, and usually the cuts are made for space reasons, not clarity.
Thanks to the farsider it was worth the trip for the bumper sticker snicker.
WHAT WOULD JESUS DO???
Call CBLDF
I think Neil Gaiman and PAD are amazing writers and I respect their opinions immensely, that said, I tend to agree that some of the CBLDF info is a little biased (which is fine it’s supposed to be), I would be more interested in finding out their (Neil and PAD’s not so much CBLDF”S) opinions of what is obscene!
Let me first say that the first amendment is worth defending on all accounts. (At least you got it in writing) I am not quite clear on the part of whether freedom of speech includes things that are obscene or not but will carry on with my rant anyhow…
It seems to me that so many issues are being addressed by this single case that it gets distorted. The blatant revenge tactics of the pokemon parent show that it has nothing to do with a child actually being accosted by smut or anything obscene. (Which is something you should haul someone into court over – clerk, manager or bishop…)
Never mind the adult book/video stores, what about regular video stores, 711’s, and every music store that carries a CD with a parental advisory on it. Give me a break a parental advisory, you’d have to first point out to parents that there is such a thing let’s not even mention video games) (If pop music, slurpees and video games aren’t kids stuff.???)
Obviously as long as there is a demand, there will be a supply and I really don’t object to having laws that govern the way “obscene” material is distributed to protect those that shouldn’t or choose not to partake (including SPAM grrr). If the artists and writers are distributing material in a responsible manner then there shouldn’t be an issue yet here there seems to be some question on how the goods were distributed. Even though I have read some of the opinions about this particular comics content (wouldn’t be my choice although I’d still like to make it) they are still drawings not photos like Playboy etc…
Is there other material considered obscene right beside? Doesn’t Playboy have sexy comics inside? Are nude mags considered literature? Does the comic actually have an advisory on it? Too many issues touch on this case to make a fair precedent or even an educated judgment call.
In a way it is a shame that more adults don’t get the fact that comics aren’t just for kids, in fact I would wager to say that if I had kids there are very few comics I would let them read, but that’s beside the point. I like that most other adults don’t get it.
And to Joe Average, comics are aimed at kids and can be sold to kids, so it can more easily find it’s way into the hands of a kid.
Then, in this case, “Joe Average” must be illiterate, as the cover of the book in question clearly states that it is for adults only.
Ken,
If we are to take your being in the same area as the Oklahoma case and a one-time customer of that store as your being more in tune with the realities of that case, I must wonder why you choose to dismiss similar familiarity with this case as not being more in tune with the realities of this case.
It seems that some are missing the point of the repeated references to other nearby locations selling similarly explicit material. It’s not a matter of suggesting that two wrongs make a right. It’s a matter of pointing out that, if obscenity is defined based upon “community standards,” the community in question has established a standard of, if not acceptance, tolerance for sexually explicit material.
What makes a drawing of a demon raping a woman more “obscene” than photographs of a man in demon makeup “raping” a woman, (a description that can apply to at least one explicit pictorial in an issue of Penthouse…again, a magazine readily available and out in the general magazine section at the Borders just down the street from Keith’s former location)? Most likely answer: Because, as has been shown, the prosecution succeeded in convincing the jury that comics are intended for kids; this is a comic, so it must be aimed at kids, and that’s just sick. Despite, of course, that notice on the front cover.
As far as the book’s cultural and artistic merit. Well…at the risk of over-generalizing, the Japanese culture is a bit on the freaky side when it comes to sex. In fact, this was the topic of last week’s installment of TechTV’s Wired for Sex. Example: A popular tv show in Japan consists of participants coming on the show to partake in bondage and/or humiliation fantasies. For some reason, rape fantasies seem to be a bit more popular in Japan. As explained on the TechTV show, this may be, in part, due to the increasing independence of Japanese females, who had traditionally been more subservient; the society is still struggling to integrate modern values and practices with ages of tradition.
Going even further with the “community standards” application, given that the appellate judge alone upheld that the book met the definition of “obscenity,” I must wonder when a single person began to constitute a community. If we can apply the standard of a “community of one,” then who do I need to call to get the businesses I find “obscene” run into court?
Or do I first need to have a “friend on the city council” to set loose the hounds when I get upset that those businesses are charging more than I want to pay for collectibles?
Actually, he was found guilty of selling obscene(found to be obscene under the Miller test) material that was unprotected by the First Admendment.
No, he wasn’t. It was the “display”, not the sale, that he was convicted of.
As for material unprotected by the First Amendment, I don’t see any exceptions listed in the Amendment itself. Instead, this is material that has been left unprotected by court reinterpretation of the First Amendment… a tragic reinterpretation, particularly since the Miller test seems a clear violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Rulings that depend on “community standards” mean that the law is not being applied equally, but is rather discriminating on the basis of the individual community at hand.
This did no harm to the First Admendment protection of comics but rather took legally-deemed obscene material out of the market place.
No, it placed criminal charges on an individual, and its chilling effect took a wide range of material out of portions of the marketplace, as there is no way of telling what some crazed prosecutor and deliberately misinformed jury may rule to be “obscene”. This is a law that you cannot know whether you are breaking, as the “legality” is independent of the facts of the matter and your ability to avoid prosecution is based solely on your ability to predict some future perception of the matter.
“So I take it, then, that the appelate judge is an expert in Japanese culture, and thus qualified to make that determination?”
Why is it that I can already hear the monotone “Japanese culture is irrelevant”? And, I guess from a legal standpoint it may have been. But from a logical standpoint it shouldn’t be.
I doubt that I’d qualify as an ‘expert’ on the matter, but I have spent some time there and have gotten to know very well many people from different walks of life and different age groups, from jaded Tokyoites to old-fashioned farm country dwellers.
And one of the interesting thing here is that, while their standards about such things [sex/obscenity in comics] seem a lot more relaxed than ours, people there generally seem to feel a LOT safer than they do on the streets in North America. Women, in particular, don’t tend to worry a whole lot about being raped in some back alley, or mugged for their Louis Vuitton handbag. Contrast this with how many women carry mace in their purse in North America [or at least take self-defense classes] and one wonders who’s got it right as far as protecting the community goes?
But, as Judge Wapner (ret’d] once remarked, ” … you’re talking common sense. Unfortunately, the law has very little to do with ‘common sense’.”
Whining about an abuse of justice, when in fact the law was upheld, is useless.
Complain about the law, instead. Write your Congressman, Senator, et al.
Don’t whine about the system working exactly like it’s supposed to. Be a part of the system and get the law changed.
Not sure if anyone is reading these posts many days after it was started, but I just read about this latest development. Like the first post, I had my sub for years at the shop. Although I am disgusted with the comic they sold and feel they made a bad decision to sell it, it is absurd to convict Jesus of obscenity and imprison him for 180 days.
I shopped there for years. I knew there was an “adult” section, but nothing was ever displayed in a way that would catch your attention. As a 30 something adult, I did wander throughout the store looking for comics that might interest me, and never saw anything obscene. This was clearly vindictive on someone’s part. I am shocked the jury reached this decision and frankly do question his defense lawyers. I am a very conservative Christian with strong convictions, and as stated before, would protest them selling this comic. But they in no way endangered a child by doing so. I would be interested to find out more about the defense arguments to see how they convinced the jury.
I must admit, I have lived near that store for years and do not know of adult bookstores just blocks away — not that they don’t exist, but they are not lit up with neon signs like they are in other parts of Dallas. But I would have a much stronger objection to them then to Keith’s comics.
Bottom line, however, I could care less about the legal issues. I am concerned about Jesus. I have not yet read if he is at least being give “probation” or if they will be actually forcing him to stay behind bars for simply being a manager of the store. (And to answer earlier comments, it is accurate to call him a clerk because he was for years. The owner is very active in the store, so while Jesus did manage it, it is really just a matter of perspective.) Jesus is one of the most courteous and helpful employees I have ever met. It is sad that he is being punished for such a minor issue when others are not.
James
I went ahead and followed the link to the 5th Circuit of Appeals Court of Texas (http://www.5thcoa.courts.state.tx.us) above and read the opinion.
As best I can tell, the most serious problem isn’t the ruling itself: sometimes one’s “trouble with the law” is quite literally trouble WITH THE LAW. Here it is:
-=-=-=
A person commits an offense if, knowing its content and character, he promotes or possesses with intent to promote any obscene material or obscene device. Tex. Pen. Code Ann.
fbgfdhgfhxg