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
• 
This just stinks on ice.
This is the comic store I go to. In the decade-plus I’ve been a customer, I can’t think of a more efficient & professional manager than Jesus has been. This case is what finally got me off my duff to get a CBLDF membership.
As a board member of the CBLDF, suggestions on what the best way for us customers supporting the store to voice our disapproval of this latest development? Should we be concentrating correspondence at the local, state or – now that the US Supreme Court has declined to hear the case – federal level? Or maybe all of the above?
Times like this, I am absolutely ashamed to live here.
I have not been following this as closely as I should have. How much attention has this received from groups that fight for First Amendment in general? How much coverage has this gotten in even the alternative press? (I think the mainstream media wouldn’t pay attention to this.)
This is a bad thing, but I don’t think that it’s likely to lead to an avalanche of such cases. Rather, I think it will only harm the comics industry as retailers will be more worried than ever about carrying anything even remotely adult.
The thing that really did this guy in was those obscenity laws. Once it becomes an issue of obscenity all first ammendment protection goes out the window. My Mass Media Communications professor should be following this case because he was all over this type of stuff when he was teaching my class.
Even more disheartening, news.google.com doesn’t find one reference to this case. So I guess it just doens’t matter to a single non-comics media outlet. After all, it’s only comics, it couldn’t possible have any impact on the rest of publishing, right?
I think this stems from the continuing assumption that comic books are for kids only. I don’t know all the facts of this case (if anyone has a link to the CBLDF’s summary, please post it), but if a comic book made for adults was kept in an adults-only section and then sold to adults, there’s no crime. Alas, it sounds like the prosecution’s case is “comics for kids only.” And the fact that it’s across from a school makes it sound like they’re making the entire comic store out to be a pornn warehouse.
Definitely an outrageous case. I can’t understand why the verdict wasn’t set aside at some point. Everyone, be sure to renew your CBLDF membership.
http://www.cbldf.org/
Neil
For a truly perverse read on these events, check out the discussion thread on this topic over at … you guessed it … the Byrne board. The person who brings it up says that this verdict is a “GOOD thing”(!!!!) and the prevalent view from those discussing it actually seems to be that the *comic book industry* is at fault for this travesty.
Maybe Kevin Smith could ask Ben and J.Lo to visit the store and buy an adult comic book. Then, half the magazines in America would be falling all over themselves to find out what the story is.
But gah, this is terrible news. I always thought this case was an obvious win, but I guess this shows the value of the CBLDF.
With so many cartoons on TV, I’m afraid that I will soon lose my late night skin flicks too!!
It’s like a told someone about mature cartoons–it’s the subject that dictates the audience and not the medium.
Crap. I suppose I shouldn’t be that surprised, given the state in question and the current Supreme Court, but you’d think someone along the way might’ve said, “you know, we’re doing a heavily stupid thing here.”
Rotten, rotten precedent.
Bah.
TWL
There’s also coverage on this at http://www.icv2.com including an interview with Castillo.
This should have been a no-brainer to the jury.
My WALDENBOOKS carries comics in a spinner rack. If I stand and look at it, then do a 180, my nose is 3 feet away from the latest PLAYBOY and PENTHOUSE covers. But that’s okay, I suppose, because Waldenbooks caters to more than “just children.”
Are there enough of us over-30 comic book readers to organize a “Million Geek March” on Washington? Or Dallas?
It really comes as no suprise that the Supreme Court failed to hear this case, unfortunately. To a casual observer, this case isn’t such a big deal. How does the fate of one comic book dealer compare to the “danger to children” such comics present? Who cares about the details (such as adult comics were kept seperate from others, and the sale was to an adult). However, it does strike deep at the First Ammendment.
Now, I’m wondering when some over zealous DA with further political goals on his mind is going to go after Barnes and Noble. After all, I bought my trade paperback collections of Marvel’s ‘Alias’ there. And the trade paperbacks are not seperated based on content. And I’ve never seen a B&N employee watching who’s thumbing thru the trade paperbacks. And anyone who’s seen tht first story, where Luke Cage is with Jessica, has to know this book is NOT for children.
My first inclination is to say: Screw CBLDF. The store was selling smut in violation of TX (state?) law across the street from an elementary school. Castillo was not “a clerk,” he was the manager. The PTA didn’t like it. So they did something about it-within the law. Problem solved.
Not that I expect much agreement here.
So who said Castillo was a clerk? No one here referred to him as anything but a manager. Spare us the straw man arguments, please.
Now all we need next is for one of the Dixie Chicks to say “I’m ashamed to be from Texas, the same place they put a man in jail for selling comic books.”
🙂
(TX resident here and appalled comics fan fyi)
It is days like this that I am glad to be a Canadian.
you know a lesser known historical fact is that Texas citizens weren’t even sure they wanted to be in America way back in the day.
With every passing day i regret their decision.
so then a convienence store across the street from an elementary school that carries Playboy or Hustler or Jugs is just as guilty?? is the local bookstore going to have to worrycause they sell both Harry Potter and Black Lace erotica??
the state obscenity laws probably cover selling obscene material to children. in this case an adult comic was sold to an ADULT. i mean really, WTF.
the problem here is the stupid, head up their ášš idea that comics isn’t a medium like television or film but just kiddy fare.
oh well, guess i’ll be donating the CBLDF again . . .
Addenum- in Arlington (west of Dallas), a Hooters opened up in the “nice” southwestern part of town. Whoa- there was a hue and cry raised. They (you know who they are) blocked the restaurant’s liquor license, and to this day, they’re unable to serve beer or other alcoholic beverages.
(Got milk? sorry couldn’t resist).
The Hooters restaurant managed to get the last laugh on their grand opening day. They served free beer. (They were prohibited from SELLING beer… but no restrictions on giving away a plastic cup of beer.) Should’ve seen the line!
I hate this Castillo case since it highlights the vulnerablity of the comic book industry. One person said “it was selling smut in violation of laws” but as mentioned in the main post- other adult stores were in the area. BUT the adult (store, clubs etc.) industry has more money and a thicker hide than the comic book industry.
eddie
“So who said Castillo was a clerk? No one here referred to him as anything but a manager. Spare us the straw man arguments, please.”
From the icv2 article;
“Castillo Supreme Court Appeal Denied
Retail Clerk Serving Obscenity Sentence”
They refer to him as a “Clerk” in the article too.
Far Sider, the Jesus/Keith’s Comics bust is known to have been politically motivated. Dallas’s mayor pro tem was trying to help a constituent who was upset over the price of Pokemon cards. The elementary school is right of two of Dallas’s main drags, so parents of elementary school age kids have more important worries than “smutty” books.
And if, after all of that, you still believe they were worried about the children, why hasn’t Priscilla’s, a sextoy store just a couple blocks further down, been targeted yet?
You’re right; the article does refer to him as a clerk. Which still seems irrelevant to the merits of the case.
Peter David: 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.
Luigi Novi: We’re all moralists, Peter, in that we believe in morals. It would be more accurate to call these censors pseudo-moralists.
I’d like to take that prosecutor in that case and all his like-minded ilk and have them hanged. The problem with this jerk is that in condemning an entire medium as not being allowed to tell mature stories, he is once again confusing form with content.
This šhìŧ just fûçkìņg STINKS.
This case is certainly disgusting and unfair, but keep in mind that Texas is a legally uber-conservative state. It is quite possibly the -most- conservative states in regards to the law. There are just as many (if not more) liberal states that would never follow this lead. I do not think this “precedent” will overflow in to very many other forums. Keep in mind it was the decision of a lower court of Texas (I believe) and is thus only -binding- law to the courts below it. The Texas Supreme Court is not bound, nor are any other state’s courts, or federal courts (unless the federal courts are bound by Texas law because of circumstances).
Having said all that, I am interested in doing some research on this case and the topic. I am looking for a reliable source of information for the demographics of comic book purchasers (i.e. what percentages are adults, children, age breakdowns, etc.). Can anyone help with this? Thank you!
The injustice of this case is just mind-boggling. The case should never have even reached a hearing do to the lack of evidence that Castillo did anything wrong. I really fear the current political climate here in the U.S. There seems to be such a strong movement to censor everything and tell people what to read and think that I never thought I would see in this country again. Everything seemed to be so progressive until about 4 years ago and now we are going backwards with liberties and civil rights being thrown out the window faster than I would have ever thought possible.
J Veitch- If the community has made no effort (or makes no effort in the future) to restrict pornography sales by other businesses in close proximity to the school then I might agree that the action was hypocritical. They now appear to have established a precedence to take further action. As a former city official (not in TX), I generally support any community’s efforts to try to limit the sale of pornography in their community.
The only local media attention that I’m aware of the case receiving was in this story in the local weekly alternative paper:
http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues/2001-01-04/news.html
Far-Sider…
The store was hardly selling “smut,” as two experts’ (ignored) testimony bore out. Additionally, this did indeed all begin, as near as anyone can tell, from a mother who, at the height of the Pokemon boom, was upset at the prices the store was charging for after-market imported Pokemon singles. The cards being at the front of the store, and the adult section being at the rear in its own separate section, she was never anywhere near the books that “the children need to be protected from,” and thus could not know of their existence. Feeling the cards were overpriced, rather than simply taking her business elsewhere, she made a scene about her “friends on the city council” who would “put the store out of business.”
Meanwhile, as pointed out elsewhere, just around the corner from the store’s location are a short string of sex toy/lingerie shops, a major bar area notorious for the patrons’ lack of respect for the residents of the area and parking/trespassing/loitering/etc. laws, and – just another mile or so down the street – at least two adult book stores.
Also keep in mind…the book in question was initially a special order for a customer who either didn’t return for the book or chose not to purchase it after the store acquired it (and, as I’m sure you know, given the nature of comics distributors, particularly with imports like the book in question, once the store gets it, it’s theirs until they sell it…they can’t return it). It was kept in the separated adult section, clearly labeled “For Adults Only!” (with the exclamation mark), and sold by an adult to an adult.
So let’s not delude ourselves or others…this wasn’t about “protecting the children from obscenity.” The store’s still around and doing well. Yes, it’s moved a couple blocks down…because the shopping center it was in was torn down for a Walgreen’s, not because of this issue. The only possibly negative effect on the store itself was that, upon its move, they instituted a “general audiences” section of the store (very small, very little goods available) and an “over 18” section, with the bulk of the store’s stock, on the off chance that someone might take offense. And, of course, Jesus now has a conviction on his record, which has closed many a future door for him, never to be re-opened.
And all because someone got in a snit about the price of cards that was determined by supply and demand.
Addenum- in Arlington (west of Dallas), a Hooters opened up in the “nice” southwestern part of town. Whoa- there was a hue and cry raised. They (you know who they are) blocked the restaurant’s liquor license, and to this day, they’re unable to serve beer or other alcoholic beverages.
This is not entirely correct, the Hooters in Southwest Arlington currently sells alcohol. I was there last week.
JasonP: For a truly perverse read on these events, check out the discussion thread on this topic over at … you guessed it … the Byrne board. The person who brings it up says that this verdict is a “GOOD thing”(!!!!) and the prevalent view from those discussing it actually seems to be that the *comic book industry* is at fault for this travesty.
Luigi Novi: One or two did, but I noticed that the majority of them there indicated they thought it was a bad thing.
>>It is days like this that I am glad to be a Canadian.
Unfortunately, we can’t be too proud of that in citing a case like this. Customs Canada has routinely seized materials it deems “obscene” when entering Canada. That includes some comics, which certain publishers won’t even bother to try and ship into Canada. CC will just grab it at the boarder.
The most obvious case of CC’s behaviour is the running battle they’ve had with a gay and lesbian bookstore in Vancouver. CC has seized shipments of books, saying they were obscene. Some of it was actually fairly tame stuff, if memory serves.
The courts in Canada have ruled against CC from doing this, but I believe the bookstore is still having problems.
Having said all of that, the court decision in Texas still frightens me. The US is becoming a very dark place these days.
Thanks Stinger, I appreciate the correction. I haven’t gotten around to checking out that Hooters. I’m not really a fan of Hooters food after all LOL
eddie
Does anyone know if the briefs or the courts’ rulings are available on-line anywhere? I’d like to see for myself what happened, rather than relying on the Comic Books side of things and the Public Opinion side of things.
davidh
Why is everybody so shocked? This is fûçkìgņ TEXAS we’re tlaking about here! People get life sentences for stealing a SINGLE CAN OF BEER! It’s former governor and our current “President” *wink wink* once mocked a death row by imitating and laughing at her pleas for mercy in a Talk magazine interview and no one called him on it! In either 96 0r 97, they passed a law which forbid any state institutions from “owning stock in companies that pedal immoral materials.” This waste of taxpayer dollars was to pressure the heads of a Texas university (I forget which one) into dropping their shares of Seagram’s liquor which owned MCA, which owned Interscope, the record label that carries your friend and mine, Marilyn Manson!
So if CBLDF can’t win a case that, by their very own press releases, should have been a slam-dunk, why should anyone donate to them?
Kind of hard to believe a good attorney couldn’t overcome prejudicial statements supported by insufficient evidence.
davidh: I’d like to see for myself what happened, rather than relying on the Comic Books side of things and the Public Opinion side of things.
Good luck finding anything other than information dispensed by CBLDF which, though it might be accurate from their point of view, is very biased.
Luigi Novi: One or two did, but I noticed that the majority of them there indicated they thought it was a bad thing.
But did you notice who the biggest cheerleader for censorship was?
” So if CBLDF can’t win a case that, by their very own press releases, should have been a slam-dunk, why should anyone donate to them?
Kind of hard to believe a good attorney couldn’t overcome prejudicial statements supported by insufficient evidence. “
It’s been known to happen. Japanese American internment, etc.
Also, three members of the current court would certainly vote the ideological line in areas that are MUCH more cut and dried than obscenity (creation over evolution). If a court can vote that way on a matter that’s objectively based, then it would be no stretch of the imagination to see a court vote on ideological hot buttons like this.
This is asked of curiousity, has CBLDF ever had a victory? I ask this because every case that I have seen information on were losses for CBLDF.
As an aside, Roger Tang, obscenity is alot more cut and dried than creation over evolution in the legal arena.
Does anyone know if the briefs or the courts’ rulings are available on-line anywhere?
For the appeal to the Texas 5th District Court of Appeals, here is the majority opinion:
http://www.5thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/as_web.exe?c05_02.ask+D+11251151
And the dissenting opinion:
http://www.5thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/as_web.exe?c05_02.ask+D+11240861
If those links don’t work search for Jesus Castillo on this page:
http://www.5thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/search_o.html
Corey, not too proud to be a Texan today
“So if CBLDF can’t win a case that, by their very own press releases, should have been a slam-dunk, why should anyone donate to them?”
They can’t win every fight, but they’ve won a few. From what i’ve seen most of their victories follow this pattern:
1)Store owner gets visit from someone (police officer sometimes) who is irate over a scantily-clad woman on a poster or cover or hentai visit and threatens to shut them down.
2)Owner Calls CBLDF help line.
3)CBLDF lawyer calls would be censor, explains the law and that the CBLDF is willing to sue over this.
4) Censor realizes that there are legal consequences to their threat and apologize to store owner to avoid a lawsuit.
This doesn’t get much attention.
“This is asked of curiousity, has CBLDF ever had a victory?”
They won the Kieron Dwyer vs. Starbucks case (there was a settlement.) The Elfquest case was dismissed, IIRC. Even in this case they managed to get one of the charges dropped. They’ve won a few. Check out http://www.cbldf.org for more info.
I’ve let my membership lapse for a time, but now I’ve renewed. i suggest that more people join up and check out their catalog as well. I’ve had fun chatting with Chriss Oar and Charles Brownstein at their booths at conventions (as well as comic book celebritied at their booth and members parties at conventions. Frank Miller, Diana Schutz, Bob Shreck, Matt Wagner can be really gracious) and i suggest that also.
I’m taking a mass communications class that requires a research paper. looks like I’ve found my topic.
Jon Roth: They won the Kieron Dwyer vs. Starbucks case (there was a settlement.)
Actually, Dwyer is only allowed to use his parody logo for non-commercial websites and is not allowed to make money off of his image. So I wouldn’t consider this a victory.
“As an aside, Roger Tang, obscenity is alot more cut and dried than creation over evolution in the legal arena. “
Really? I don’t think so.
But I merely point out that three justices are willing to overlook the evidence (which is unanimously on the side of evolution; how much more do you want than reproducible results in the lab?) in order to force ideology into the scientific curriculum. I find THAT to be scary, let alone what their probable stance would be in a much grayer area.
He is able to sell versions of it in his comics (website http://members.tripod.com/~LowestComicD/)
Starbucks was trying to get him to pay their lawyers for their legal bills and they tried to block any parody style image. If the CBLDF hadn’t gotten involved, I think that he would have been financially ruined.
The law being what it is, many settlements are neither complete victories or failures.
More case info (wins and losses at http://www.cbldf.org/casefiles/index.shtml
Luigi Novi: One or two did, but I noticed that the majority of them there indicated they thought it was a bad thing.
When I read the thread, only a few people had posted. And, as someone above hinted at, Byrne himself was one who seemed to be saying that the industry has itself to blame. Meanwhile, the poster who started the thread said that if it forces a return to more all-ages superhero books, then, “This is a GOOD thing,” which just makes my stomach turn.
Yeah, if censorship has one *possible* positive side effect for me personally, then it’s good! What an attitude.
To paraphrase an old But I Digress column, the problem with cheering people who censor something you don’t like is that eventually, those same people get around to censoring the stuff you DO like.
Peter:
A small point of clarification.
The decision by the Supreme Court not to hear this case does not create precedent, in that the Court will never examine this issue. Instead, for reasons great and sundry, the Court has declined to use this case to examine the issue. So the Court can look at this point at a later date.
The precedent is only binding in Texas. Other states’ courts can thumb their noses at this…
IMHO, it’s clear this is Stupid with a capital “s”. Consider a case nearly twenty years ago, where a protester outside of a convention center in Houston (where the Republicans just happened to be holding their national convention), lit a flag on fire. It’s real obvious that the protester was going to get convicted in Texas for violating the law prohibiting flag burning. The Supreme Court (in a 5-4 decision) said that the protester’s right to free speech under the First Amendment would be abridged by such a prosecution.
This, of course, is no comfort in the Castillo case. There may yet come a time when a similar (and, if possible to conceive, even more ridiculous prosecution) brings this issue back to the Supreme Court for review. Then, the Court might see the need to step in and clear up such a clear abridgement of First Amendment rights.
Okay… I went to the links that were given earlier that has both the majority and dissenting opinions on this case. It was a little tedious, but I was able to make sense of most of it (who knew attending law school would pay off?). This is truly a strange and weird case….
The main issue here seems to surround the idea of what can be construed to be obscene. The Majority argues that the comic in question (Demon Beast Invasion) falls into this category because of a three part test set forth in an earlier case. The Dissenting opinion, rather than try to address the issue of whether or not the comic is obscene, only has qualms with the foreknowledge of the manager of the store (Castillo). So the issue at bear here for the Dissenting is whether Castillo knew that he was peddling in obscene books.
Okay… now I’m pretty sure most of you have scrolled past my comments as legal claptrap can be tediously boring, but for those of you still here…
What I’m wondering is this- how do the Adult Bookstores, etc. get away with this? The Dissenting brings up the case of BURDEN v STATE (2001) in which an undercover officer got áhøld of a pørņø from an adult videostore… so I’m thinking, “DUH! That’s what is normally sold at an Adult Videostore!” The point I’m making here is how can the State of Texas issue a Business License to people if they are going to traffic in goods that are construed to be illegal by the State of Texas?? Just what did you think would be in an Adult Bookstore? Copies of “Fishing & Reel” or “Brides Today?” Yeesh!!
But nonetheless… I can see how Castillo lost this case- according to the very liberal wording of the three-part obscenity test virtually anything can be deemed to fall under its gloomy wing. So the deck was pretty much stacked against Keith’s Comics to begin with… they weren’t really concerned with the location near a school or kids in general, they were mainly focusing on whether the book was obscene or not- which it was according to the test.
All in all this is leaving me (and I’m sure the rest of you) with mixed emotions… I’m sad at the thought of censoring artistic expression, angry at the thought that this was all politically motivated (because of Pokemon cards?), and absolutely freakin’ confused that the State of Texas can allow Adult businesses to operate within it’s confines when it’s own laws mandate that the very wares those selfsame businesses are dealing in are illegal!! What is wrong with Texas?!!
Okay… that’s it from me folks… sorry for the long-winded rant! *haha*
My first inclination is to say: Screw CBLDF. The store was selling smut in violation of TX (state?) law across the street from an elementary school. Castillo was not “a clerk,” he was the manager. The PTA didn’t like it. So they did something about it-within the law. Problem solved. Not that I expect much agreement here.
Well, when everything you say is wrong, you’re not going to get much agreement, no.
1) The action was set into motion not because of the PTA, but an angry mother who vowed revenge on the store because she didn’t like how much they were charging for Pokemon cards.
2) Adult bookstores selling far more explicit material than the comic shop are within the same neighborhood, thereby establishing a community standard and tolerance. So the store was well within the law.
3) The PTA never came and spoke to the store owner, ignoring every possible opportunity to address the matter without resorting to legal action.
4) The judge stated that the proximity to the school could not be a factor in the jury’s deliberation, as per the law. The jury ignored that.
5) Expert testimony was offered as to why the comics did not fulfill the Supereme Court standard of “smut.” How the material was not without redeeming social value. The expert testimony was not refuted. The law would indicate that this alone should have required the jury to find a verdict of not guilty. They ignored the unrefuted expert testimony.
6) The jury decision was predicated on one simple argument made by the prosecution that flew in the fact of the 1st Amendment: Comic books are not eligible for protection under the First Amendment. The prosecutor asked that protection under the Constitution of the United States be set aside. The jury did so.
This was not under the law. This was a travesty of the law.
PAD
And just to add to what I posted just a few minutes ago…
Why haven’t they hauled in every manager and employee of every gas station and bookstore that carries copies of Playboy, Hustler, etc.? Those would almost certainly fall under that same category! For that matter, why stop there? Why not just haul in Maxim magazine for it’s suggestive pictures and explicit articles… or every automotive magazine that sports buxom chicks in small bikinis next to cars? Where do you draw the line? And why can’t the Court see that this entire case stinks of political agenda?
This is making me angrier the more I dwell on it…
Another reason to hide the fact that I’m an American… at least I’m not from Texas…
America, land of the free (unless those in power decide they don’t like you)