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
• 
While questioning Gaines, Seabrir Kefauver held aloft a comic book featuring a cover drawn by artist Johnny Craig for a comic titled Crime SuspenStories and remarked: “This seems to be a man with a bloody ax holding a woman’s head up which has been severed from her body. Do you think that is in good taste?” Having just said that he would publish anything he felt was in good taste, Gaines had no choice. He answered, “Yes, sir, I do, for the cover of a horror comic.”
Some things you just can’t defend–even when jacked up on diet pills, apparently.
Having said all of that, the court decision in Texas still frightens me. The US is becoming a very dark place these days.
Oddly, didn’t the U.S. Supreme Court recently come out with a hugely sweeping privacy decision? Seems like it came from some place in the southwest… maybe Texas?
This was very disheartening to read. I truly hope comics are not in for another 1950’s-1970’s era of censorship as a result of this action.
I have now, and will continue to be a member of, and donor to, the CBLDF.
Elie
I would think these nazis would be to busy burning books by Mark Twain, William Shakespear, and J.K. Rowling to be conserned with kids reading funny books. They shame us all!!!!
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?
Because if there weren’t a CBLDF there providing legal assistance, things would have been very worse, not only in this case but in many, many others. For one thing, the CBLDF did manage to get one count of obscenity dropped.
You aren’t going to win all the battles. You may not win any. But it’s sure as hëll better to go in fighting the good fight than to just stand there and let the bad guys roll all over your rights.
JSM
Since I usually play devil’s advocate (I’m a state prosecutor, so it’s nice that my job is also my hobby), I thought I’d wade in. It’s not altogether obvious that this case presents a problem.
Before anyone breaks out the torches and pitchforks, I’d like to preface my opinion by saying that I’m a free speech absolutist: if I were in charge, there wouldn’t be an obscenity exception to free speech. That said, here in the real world, “obscenity” is not and never has been protected by the Constitution. There is nothing new in this case. All of the judges reviewing the case agreed with the determination by the jury that the book was legally “obscene.” At some point we have to wonder if they were right. (Has anyone here read the thing? The court opinion was pretty graphic. The defense in this case was placed in the unenviable position of having to argue that a woman being screwed by a tree root was essential to the story…) Also, the fact that other things are being sold in North Texas may mean only that other people are violating the obscenity law, not that Castillo is innocent.
The expert testimony was not rebutted, but that doesn’t require the jury or the judges to agree with them, any more than a jury has to convict someone just because the defense doesn’t call any witnesses. It’s not true that the jury had to acquit Castillo simply because the expert testimony wasn’t refuted.
Finally, the medium (comics) didn’t seem to have anything to do with the appellate opinion. If the material is obscene, it doesn’t matter whether it’s a comic book or a leather-bound hardback: the First Amendment doesn’t apply. If it isn’t obscene, it doesn’t matter whether it’s a comic book, a leather-bound hardback, or a bumper sticker: the First Amendment does apply. It’s not at all clear that the medium or the school proximity played any effect on the verdict. They almost certainly did not in the appeal.
The upshot is, this case may stink, but it stinks in a way that the law has stunk for a century or more, so let’s not overreact.
You are assuming that the jury knew the whole story. I’ve been on a jury in Texas before and you do NOT get to hear everything because of the fear of bias. Did the jury know that there were other adult stores in the area? Did they know the extent (or lack thereof) that the PTA went to?
Chances are the jury heard that 1) there was a law, 2) the store violated the law. I doubt much more was presented to them. End of case.
Texas is typically loath to overturn a jury verdict as well without misconduct. In most situations, this is a good thing. Ignoring a judge’s instructions does not constitute misconduct though.
What it boils down to is that – in all liklihood – the original defense was poor, and the Texas Appeals System did their usual job.
Mark Lindsay: Chances are the jury heard that 1) there was a law, 2) the store violated the law.
That is all that the prosecutors need to present. What difference does it make that other adult stores in the area are violating the law?(And in this case, that was shown to the jury) It doesn’t change the fact that the store also was violating this law. Whether you agree with the law or not the jury’s only duty is to decide whether the law was violated by the defendant, not if the law was just or if others are violating the law.
I’m surprised there are so many mind-readers here, who know that the jury ignored those who testified that the material did have socially-redeeming value, in violation of the law, rather than weighing it against the testimony of the prosecution witness which said it did not and reaching a decision based on their perception of the witnesses and their respective testimony, which is what a jury is supposed to do.
And let’s not forget that the defense lawyer made no less than two legal mistakes which prevented two of their points from being considered. If the defense had objected to two things that the prosecutor introduced (that the store was near a school, and that the witness said it was obscene), then they would have been allowed to have those issues considered at appeal. But because they did not object, the jury was allowed to consider that information. The judge’s ruling about not introducing the proximity to a school came in a pre-trial motion, which the jury did not see or hear.
This is the defense’s mistake, and mistakes of this nature are not appealable, as I understand it, except in the case of ineffective assistance of counsel. And it’s certainly possible that Castillo could get a new lawyer and appeal again on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel, which would consider whether his lawyer’s lack of objection to those two issues warrants a new trial.
davidh
This proves without a doubt that as any group of people grows larger, then perhaps consequentially, their I.Q. will inevitably fall away to nil. With that said it still seems crazy to me that nobody even paused and thought,”Hey as long as we are holding a witch burning…did anyone remember the bratts? because what we’re doing–this is nuts!” I do love the idea of forcing this thing into the media spotlight and thereby giving it the attention it deserves. Perhaps that Kevin Smith idea isn’t a bad way to go considering how much pull he has lately and he loves causes. Not to mention that he is one of the best comic writers in the biz…next to our PAD of course. What a team they’d make…but I think that’s another post altogether.
From Tony…
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!!
I don’t know if it’s still current, but in North Carolina adult bookstores had to have a certain percentage of non-adult publications available for sale. So, in the bookstores, there would be stacks and stacks of old paperback novels, puzzle magazines, and those old 3 packs of comic books that were repackaged for convenience stores. Thus, the percentage of adult to general audience was achieved. I always found it ironic that old issues of “Betty and Veronica” and “Rom” could keep the adult bookstore in business.
Well, I certainly am ashamed of being from Texas. Both because Bush is from here(though technically his family is from Conneticut) and this atrocious legal action.
I can’t believe that in America of all places we should have to have a CBLDF. But I’m glad their here and if nothing else, this story got them my money.
Col
Ken: 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: In addition to the Dallas Observer link Nytwyng provided above, here’s another one: http://reason.com/0304/ci.bd.obscene.shtml
Luigi Novi: One or two did, but I noticed that the majority of them there indicated they thought it was a bad thing.
Den: But did you notice who the biggest cheerleader for censorship was?
Luigi Novi: The biggest cheerleader for censorship there appeared to me to be Linda, the one who started the thread with her first post. Byrne did argue that the industry bears part of the responsibility, and to a certain extent, I agree with him, based on the arguments he presented about educating the public on the medium, and keeping a company’s adult material clearly distinct from its kiddie or all-ages fair. But I don’t recall him saying that what happened was a good thing.
I just read this article on ComiX-Fan, and….
THIS IS FÙÇKÍNG BÙLLSHÍT!!!!!!!!!!
A guy sells an ADULT book to an ADULT, and this šhìŧ happens?!?!?!?! And their case against him is basically because comics are usually seen as a medium for kids, and this store just happened to be in a certain area?! What the fûçk is wrong with these fûçkìņg people?!?!?!?!?! They really have no fûçkìņg idea, do they?! Comics are not just trash for kids, they are another form of literature, which in itself is also a medium of free and creative expression. You find all kinds of books in shops. I think that’s also part of the problem; they don’t see comics as literature. I mean, Jesus Ker-rist!!!!!! And what about adult videos being sold in video rental shops along with videos for younger audiences. I mean, as with comics, they’re clearly rated for the appropriate audience! SO WHAT THE FÙÇK IS GOING ON HERE?!?!?!?! This poor bášŧárd has had to suffer jail time, a hefty fine, and a hëll of a lot of distress for him and his family, and FOR WHAT?!?!?!?! Jesus!
By the way, my repeated usage of the words “fûçk” and “Jesus” indicate that I am utterly appalled, upset, and disgusted. Gøddámņ the bášŧárdš. Now I’m going to go and recompose myself.
Disclaimers: I am not a Texas resident or in any way qualified as a political operator or comics creator.
That outta the way:
If the DA, judge or sheriff/chief of police (?) are elected positions, it might be sweet if someone with the appropriate talents and grudges prepared campaign materials in comics form for use by their opponents in the next election.
Satirical stuff, perhaps in the vein of Ted Rall or the “Mallard Fillmore” strip. The point would be to deploy the “kids’ medium” to give the culpable adults some encouragement to find new jobs.
And if they complained? “Gee, don’t see why you’re so upset…comics are just a kids’ medium.”
Just my $0.01 — I ain’t putting much value on my opinion here.
You know, I can’t say I like this either. But even so, I’m going to have to point out in all due fairness that if there’s any question that should really be asked about all this, it’s if the story itself was that neccasary to write in the first place.
If there’s anyone I suppose could be blamed, it’s whoever wrote the stupidity in the first place. Thanks to things like that, in their overbearing quest to show that comics are capable of displaying nightmares and worse, I’d say it only helps give a very bad impression of the industry as we know it. With the industry flagging as it has since 1995, does this really benefit the future of comics? The story practically reeks of sexism if you ask me. I don’t know just now who the idiot is who wrote that graphic novel(and how!) but I would like to respond to him by saying something like, “thanks for helping drive the image further home that comics are full of horrible horrors and giving outsiders the impression that they’re nothing but an excuse for the authors to wallow in utter filth, presumably to taunt the public moralists.” I’ll bet he did that as a dare to the moral bastions to come after them via legal action, because the industry is suposedly shielded tight.
Goodness me, what an amazing theory I came up with! And I suspect that even Grant Morrison must be going in that direction with his rightfully castigated series called The Filth at Vertigo. While it’s true that the writers have certain creative freedom, they could still be exactly what’s bringing down the industry as we know it. If the industry doesn’t start asking itself if this benefits itself on the long term, they could end up falling down because of it. But overall, it’s up to everyone else to be the judge.
What difference does it make that other adult stores in the area are violating the law?(And in this case, that was shown to the jury) It doesn’t change the fact that the store also was violating this law.
But that’s the point: obscenity is defined by community standards, and if no one had a problem with the adult bookstores, then clearly the community standard was pretty loose. (Also, laws are supposed to be enforced even-handedly or not at all; selective enforcement is a Bad Thing.)
I’ll bet he did that as a dare to the moral bastions to come after them via legal action, because the industry is suposedly shielded tight.
Avi, you should do some research before coming up with these theories. The comics in question were Japanese, and Japan has long accepted a continuum of content of all sorts. The creation of “Demon Beast Invasion” had nothing at all to do with the American comic book industry.
Was the law circumvented? If there is an obscenity law, and the book was found to be obscene (and such a use for a tree root seems to qualify) then the law was circumvented.
We may not like the outcome, but the system worked.
Supplier beware.
Luigi Novi: In addition to the Dallas Observer link Nytwyng provided above, here’s another one: http://reason.com/0304/ci.bd.obscene.shtml
This is an op-ed peice that only re-hashes information that was supplied by CBLDF.
The only thing that I have seen that was not the skewed version presented by CBLDF was the link to the actual court of appeals decision provided by Corey Tacker(BTW, Corey, thanks for that!).
Doug Atkinson: (Also, laws are supposed to be enforced even-handedly or not at all; selective enforcement is a Bad Thing.)
The thing here is that you don’t know that these other places are not being investigated or charged with selling obscene materials. We don’t have enough information to believe that this is a case of selective enforcement. CBLDF’s accusations of political motivations are not enough to prove that it is selective enforcement, especially with their record of being less than honest in their press releases.
This was not under the law. This was a travesty of the law.
Amen.
My dad, a journalist prof, has a bumper sticker which reads:
“Talk is cheap. Free Speech is not.”
The First Ammendment is getting shredded these days.
Travis
Assuming the facts presented above are accurate, then this case sounds as though there was vindictive prosecution.
As others have noted, why weren’t other retailers selling materials more likely to be considered osbcene prosecuted? If this is a crackdown on obscenity, where are those subsequent prosecutions, like of that adult bookstore that was a few doors down the street?
Another reason to suggest that what happened was vindictive prosecution is that the “sting” was of an adult buying adult material. If law enforcement was truly concerned about obscene materials getting into the hands of minors, then why didn’t they send in a minor to try and purchase the comic?
This prosecution amounted to bullying. This is indeed the kind of legal action that the CBLDF has to deal with. Because as others who’ve posted have noted, the entire issue of obscenity really wasn’t addressed in the court (there was no mention of the jury being instructed about the three-part test to determine whether something was obscene, as per the Supreme Court’s ruling in Miller v. California; and as others have pointed out, if the jury had tried to apply the Miller test in this case, the fact that there’s an adult bookstore a few doors down suggests that community standards wouldn’t be offended if “obscene” comic books were sold).
CBDLF is fighting the good fight. There are some (and clearly not all) law enforcement officers and police officers who abuse their discretion. CBLDF exists to fight these bullies.
George Guay
(Aside: Small irony. If indeed the instigator of this prosecution was a parent upset over the price of trading cards, does that mean that the parent would want government-established price controls over such items? Ignoring the issue of who decides what a fair price would be set and the entire notion of let the marketplace establish values, then how about price controls for the cost of oil…)
George Guay: As others have noted, why weren’t other retailers selling materials more likely to be considered osbcene prosecuted? If this is a crackdown on obscenity, where are those subsequent prosecutions, like of that adult bookstore that was a few doors down the street?
But as a customer at this comic book store stated at http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=ellis&msg=37914.21 (read post #34) states: Dallas’ handling of obscenity charges is becoming infamous around here.
So other stores are being prosecuted. This is not an isolated incident.
This isnt the first time that comic books have come under fire. I believe it was in the late 50’s or 60’s in any event “The moral majority” will always attempt to destroy that which they do not understand or fear. I don’t believe this will end the comic industry as we know it,but it is unfortunate that one man was made to suffer for some stupid Texan political agenda.
Regards:
WSJ3
Ken: Are other stores in the same neighborhood being targetted? (And I can’t prove they aren’t, for the obvious reason that you can’t prove a negative. The burden of proof is on you.)
Avi, you should do some research before coming up with these theories. The comics in question were Japanese, and Japan has long accepted a continuum of content of all sorts. The creation of “Demon Beast Invasion” had nothing at all to do with the American comic book industry.
Oops, thanks for pointing that out, Doug. Now we’re getting somewhere. Hmmm. I’m going to have to admit, as some others may too, that manga does have some things, if not all, that’ve made me blush in flabbergastness(?). One could wonder then if this could end up giving a bad impression to the public of manga as well as anything lurid produced in the US. Pay attention to the exact origin of the source material, everybody. It could help to get some better insight of what’s going on.
Doug AtkinsonAre other stores in the same neighborhood being targetted? (And I can’t prove they aren’t, for the obvious reason that you can’t prove a negative. The burden of proof is on you.)
No, the burden of proof is not on me. According to the Appealant Judge http://www.5thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/as_web.exe?c05_02.ask+D+11251151 :
Finally, we reject appellant’s argument that the book is not patently offensive when considered in light of contemporary community standards. In making this argument, appellant relies on the testimony of his private investigator, who presented other magazines purchased near Keith’s containing “more graphic” depictions than “Demon Beast Invasion.” Assuming all of the books admitted were comparable to the comic book at issue, the fact these books were available does not mean they were not likewise obscene; it could suggest that other persons are engaged in similar activity. See Burden, 55 S.W.3d at 616. We conclude the evidence was factually sufficient to establish that (1) appellant knew the sexually explicit content and character of the comic book, (2) the book lacked literary, artistic, scientific, or political value, and (3) was patently offensive. Accordingly, we overrule the third point of error.
So, what we can conclude is that the private investigators evidence was not strong enough to suggest unfair legal activity toward Keith’s Comics or that the book is not patently offensive when considered in light of contemporary community standards. We can conclude that others in the community may be breaking the law, but we cannot conclude that no legal actions are being taken against those others that are breaking the law.
PAD:found himself convicted of selling an adult comic book to–get this–an adult
Actually, he was found guilty of selling obscene(found to be obscene under the Miller test) material that was unprotected by the First Admendment. Quite different than just an adult comic book.
PAD: The Texas case essentially strips First Amendment protection from comics.
Only if it is obscene material. You can be a good writer with a flair for the dramatic extreme, but in this statement there is no truth to back it up. This did no harm to the First Admendment protection of comics but rather took legally-deemed obscene material out of the market place.
I’m gonna agree with Ken’s statement about the status of the First Amendment in lieu of this case. PAD said that, “The Texas case essentially strips First Amendment protection from comics.” This isn’t exactly true… Ken is right in pointing out that writers are able to use a wide variety of techniques to convey a story idea, etc. But that’s a debate for another time…
What I want to focus on is that the case isn’t stripping the First Amendment protection from comics (after all, this case only has binding in the State of Texas) it’s questioning the whole procedure and status of the “obscenity tests” that Texas uses to grade such material.
If there’s one thing that I learned from attending law school it’s this: Justice and the Law are not exactly the same thing.
This whole case reeks of political shortsightedness and manipulation- read the write-up the Dallas Observer gave it over here:
http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues/2001-01-04/news.html/1/index.html
I’m gonna still stick to my earlier comments about Texas’ obviously ineffectual and substandard dealings when it concerns dispensing with legal action. Their obscenity tests require a medium to be judged by a body of people in its value overall. So these people deem it to be acceptable to let the local Kwik-E-Mart guy sell Hustler, etc. (which they keep in stock all the time) but balk at the comics shop that happens to have a pørņø comic for sale in an adult section of the store (and they don’t normally carry stuff like that, it was a special order that was cancelled last minute… the adult section of their store is reserved for mature-themed and violent material).
So what I bring to the table is this: when you prosecute somebody for trafficking in obscene material because it violates a law, that’s legally legitimate (I may not like it, but it’s the law until voters say otherwise). But when you “pick and choose” certain individuals/businesses to attack, while leaving other, more obvious targets alone, that’s a travesty of justice. I know that it’s been pointed out earlier that Texas seems to be going on a rampage dealing with obscenity, but the Dallas Observer keenly points out that TWO cases were brought against Castillo but the later one was quickly dropped when allegations of “politcal agendas” were brought up.
To semi-quote the Bard, “Something smells rotten in the state of (Texas).”
I just read my earlier comment, and I fear I’ve embarrassed myself with the repeated swearing in my post. I wrote it as soon as I read this story, and I was initially very worked up by the unfairness and strangeness of the case. I felt the urge to swear. A lot. I would like to apologise for any offence caused to anyone. I’ll try to curb my tongue in future whilst posting.
The bášŧárdš.
By the way, I forgot to mention; the only obscenity is in the people who started this, the prosecutions, the jury, and the legal system.
(2) the book lacked literary, artistic, scientific, or political value,
This is the point that not one, but two experts’ testimony refuted. Their testimony put the specific book in question in its societal context of manga and its place in Japanese culture and the artistic merits deriving from those origins. In addition, Scott McCloud’s testimony put comics in general into context in American society and explained how the medium is not purely “kid stuff.”
The prosecution’s victory hinged completely on repeatedly insisting that comics are, indeed, intended as purely “kid stuff.”
As far as the other stores carrying equally or more graphic content only “proving that other stores are breaking the law,” I can’t agree. In the legal system, is not “obscenity” defined by “community standards?” That being the case, the material in other nearby stores establishes that the community’s standards would not consider the material “obscene.” And, if more graphic material is not obscene, it follows that this is not.
We can conclude that others in the community may be breaking the law, but we cannot conclude that no legal actions are being taken against those others that are breaking the law.
I’d say that we can make a reasonable conclusion to that effect. The Borders down the street from the store’s old location doesn’t appear to have any problems from carrying Penthouse (which they still do as of yesterday) or books such as Anne Rice’s “Sleeping Beauty” books. The Condom Sense and Condoms To Go stores across from Borders don’t appear to be in any trouble for selling sex toys. And, at least one of the adult book stores is doing well enough to have recently opened a large new location–probably difficult to do if fighting a legal battle like this one.
Of course, the one thing all these other stores have in common is that they didn’t sell after-market import Pokemon singles, making a friend of someone on the city council mad.
Regarding the comment on another board that “Dallas’ handling of obscenity charges is becoming infamous around here,” I’d wager that the poster in question was referring to the decade-plus battle between homeowners in the Bachman Lake area and a small string of topless bars. Last week, the homeowners finally won, with the three clubs shutting down (at least one of which reopened a short distance away the very next morning).
Nytwyng: This is the point that not one, but two experts’ testimony refuted. Their testimony put the specific book in question in its societal context of manga and its place in Japanese culture and the artistic merits deriving from those origins. In addition, Scott McCloud’s testimony put comics in general into context in American society and explained how the medium is not purely “kid stuff.”
But the appealant judge disagrees about the strength of these testimonies:
We recognize that appellant presented two experts to testify as to the literary, artistic, and political value of the comic book; however, the jury also had Reynerson’s opinion that the book was obscene because of the sexual content it depicted. In particular, he testified the comic book contained acts of sexual intercourse, oral sodomy, mášŧûrbáŧìøņ, excretory functions, sadism, masochism, and lewd exhibition of the genitals. Reynerson testified he looked at the book from front to back and believed the book appealed to the prurient interest in sex. Reynerson did not believe the book had any literary, scientific, artistic, or political value. The jury heard competing opinions and apparently found Reynerson’s opinion more compelling. Moreover, the jury had the comic book. The fact that the two defense experts did not find the material to be obscene would not prevent the jury from deciding it (1) lacked serious literary, artistic, scientific, or political value or (2) would be offensive to the average member of the community.
I’m curious… what exactly is Ken doing here? I mean, what is your point Ken? Why is it you find no cause for disgust (or even just mild frustration or annoyance) with this decision? And more to the point, why do you feel the need to come to a site that is, let’s face it, fairly predisposed to feel upset by this case and argue for the prosecution?
My fiance is an intellectual properties attorney who works off and on closely with certain comics creators. Her take on the matter at hand thus far, having read the depositions and documents linked to by others here (and elsewhere) is that the prosecution essentially won the case on the grounds of the material being obscene with little import placed on its point of sale. Now as others have already stated this is ridiculous because, presumably, all of the local businesses that sell so-called “obscene” material have at one time or another applied for (and I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and say received) a business license from the state of Texas. Which means, I believe, that the state is issuing licenses to vendors that it could reasonably suspect will be selling objectionable, “illegal” materials.
Does this seem retarded to anyone but me?
But I digress… I really am just curious why Ken (and one or two others) feel so strong a need to come here and plays devil’s advocate.
Haunt: I mean, what is your point Ken? Why is it you find no cause for disgust (or even just mild frustration or annoyance) with this decision? And more to the point, why do you feel the need to come to a site that is, let’s face it, fairly predisposed to feel upset by this case and argue for the prosecution?
I don’t understand why do I have to feel disgust, mild frustration, or annoyance at a decision that was made through legal means and doesn’t really have long-reaching effects? Why should I not post on this site when I am posting using factual evidence without being (intentionaly) insulting? If PAD wants me not to post, then I will not post. But, I do not see where my posts are out-of-line.
Sorry that I disagree with the urgency or the despair that others feel in this matter.
So I take it, then, that the appelate judge is an expert in Japanese culture, and thus qualified to make that determination?
By Reynerson’s definition of graphic sex equalling obscenity, then that Borders I mentioned needs to be hauled into court, as Penthouse contains such explicit content, as well, including the occasional fantasy/supernatural/science-fiction element. Of course, I’m sure we can agree that hauling Borders (or even one of their employees) into court is pretty darned unlikely.
Particularly given the origins of the situation, it seems pretty darned clear that nothing about the outcome of this case has anything to do with law. I guess the angry mother did indeed have friends in high places. I hope she’s happy with what she’s done to an innocent man’s life for no other reason that she thought the store had some high prices.
Haunt: And more to the point, why do you feel the need to come to a site that is, let’s face it, fairly predisposed to feel upset by this case and argue for the prosecution?
Also, with this line of reasoning, I would not be allowed to post to any comic related site because the knee-jerk reaction on most of those sites is to take CBLDF at face value and be upset at this case.
Nytwyng: So I take it, then, that the appelate judge is an expert in Japanese culture, and thus qualified to make that determination?
No, but he is an expert in Texas law and is qualified to make that determination within the law.
Well Ken, I suppose I had that coming didn’t I? I wasn’t calling into question your right to speak your mind, here or anywhere else (that would be for the concerned mothers with friends on the city council to decide). I was generally curious why you feel so strongly that we, the knee-jerk comics fans should not be concerned or even upset about this.
Clearly YOU aren’t upset with the situation… otherwise you’d be posting like mad, expressing your opinions for all to read.
Oh, wait a minute…..
As you were. Post away. Let not our paranoia upset your litigiously moderated world. The law is on your side, after all.
Well, I, for one, hope Ken and the others do stay. I’m sure others will argue this more eloquently than I but I think that PAD has made his feelings about censorship and attempts to silence opposing views pretty clear.
But more importantly, this brings to mind something I was thinking about, and which has been brought up before, when PAD had posted some of his political opinions. Some people said things to the effect that people can argue whatever they want but in the end, they’re not going to change anyone’s mind.
Well, I have to say that what Ken and others have said *has* changed my mind. When I first read about this, I reacted to it as emotionally as many others here have, but the more I read from those who approached this from the legal standpoint, the more I agree with the conclusion I think they reached: It’s unfortunate and not the decision I would like to have seen but the jury did the right thing based on the facts they were given and the decisions they were asked to make.
Yes, it’s unfair but the law frequently is. Will this unleash a backlash against comic books in general? Could be. This country has taken a turn toward conservatism that I would have sworn was impossible five years ago?
But if we wish to protect our beloved medium, I think we need to do it with cool heads and not adopt the policy that… ahem… *others* have adopted of, “You’re either with us or against us.”
So I take it, then, that the appelate judge is an expert in Japanese culture, and thus qualified to make that determination?
No, but he is an expert in Texas law and is qualified to make that determination within the law.
Please enlighten me as to how being an expert on Texas law can nullify the artistic merit, etc. of a work created within the context of another culture’s values. It would appear that the only way to do so would be to ignore that context.
Pack, I’m not suggesting that Ken leave, or not post his thoughts. I apologize that is seems that way. As I mentioned above my fiance is an attorney that works with writers, including comics writers, and so I fully understand (and appreciate) the fact that this case was won by “the letter of the law”. I’m marrying an attorney and I’ve been on a jury before. I get that the jury has a set of guidelines that they have to follow and they are required to turn in a verdict based solely on the letter of those guidelines (though that does not in any way guarantee that this works every time).
I, and I believe others, are not arguing that the jury “cheated”. That may or may not be true. The prosecution may or may not have bent the facts or misrepresented evidence or whatever. I’m sure the parties involved appreciate the fact that there are intelligent, informed people such as Ken that are willing to spread the word like he is. My concern is the unfortunate precedent set here, and the emotional impact of cases like this. I could care less if the minutiae of the litigation were followed to the finest detail. I’m reacting emotionally to the bigger picture.
So the prosecution (according to some) won fair and square. Bully for them. I’m still upset… and frankly just a touch scared.
The fact that the two defense experts did not find the material to be obscene would not prevent the jury from deciding it (1) lacked serious literary, artistic, scientific, or political value or (2) would be offensive to the average member of the community.
This is what the appelate judge used to make his decision. The cultural values of the comics origins were not his concern. His concern was whether the decision of the jury was arrived at legally and he determined that it was. He did his job.
BTW, Pack, thanks alot. That was quite a compliment.
Pack,
One of the “facts” presented to the jury in the initial case to keep in mind is this: that comics are solely intended for children. That was the axis around which the prosecution’s entire case revolved. I think it would be a fair statement to put forth that the vast majority of us on this particular board – given PAD’s primary work venue – realize that this “fact” is far from accurate. So, with that essential point being so flawed and incorrect from the get-go, simple logic suggests that the rest of the prosecution’s case is similarly flawed. That Jesus’ attorney appears to have done an inadquate job in countering necessary points obviously didn’t help matters. The jury was presented with evidence and testimony to the contrary, by Scott McCloud, no less.
If only juries could be given “required reading,” and made to read McCloud’s Understanding Comics. Of course, given the prosecution’s attitude on the matter, they probably would have countered with Seduction of the Innocent.
Nytwyng:That was the axis around which the prosecution’s entire case revolved.
That was just part of what the prosecution’s case revolved around. The center of their case is that the material purchased by Reynerson is obscene. In fact, reading the appelate judges assessment(the only thing we have to go by outside of CBLDF’s press releases) shows that “comics being for kids only” is not even a part of their case. Though, according to CBLDF it was part of the closing statement, there is little to no evidence proving that one statement swayed the jury’s decision.
What too many seem to fail to realise is that the general public (lets call them Joe Average) does not know/believe that comics is more then childrens entertainment.
And obviously, the experts who testified to present the jury with the “fact” that it is more then just entertainment for children did not manage to convince that jury.
They listen to the witnesses, they looked at the comic, and to them it was offensive.
End of story. All the rest??? Horseshit.
They were not there to decide if other stores were selling offensive material. They were there to decide if in that instance the material was offensive.
Saying that others are doing it to prove that what you are doing is not wrong is never a good argument.
Also aving a Pono store 2 blocks away makes no difference, to Joe Average, pørņø material is aimed at adults and it will be sold to adults only.
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.
Joe Average does not tell the difference between a Max or a Vertigo or a regular title or a comic from Japan. For Joe Average a comic is a comic period.
And it does not matter to Joe Average if in Japan there is comics or anime with rape, gáņg báņg, bëšŧìálìŧÿ or whatever, what matters to them is what is sold here and how it is percieved here.
And sadly, there is a lot more Joe Aeverages then there is comic readers. So no matter how comic experts thinks that comics can be for adults too, Joe Average does not know or believe what is seen as fact by the comic reader.
But comics “experts” and readers too often seem to forget that fact.
Ken; good posts, keep up the good work.
Hey Ken, I pseudo-sarcastically referred to myself and other comics fans that are upset by this decision as “paranoid” earlier. But I have to ask, why the continued references to the CBLDF reports being so suspect? Have you had evidence in the past that their data is apocryphal, or are you just… what’s that “p” word again…?
Haunt,
Yes, I do find their information to be suspect.
To give an example, here is a link to their information on the Planet Comics case in OKC http://www.cbldf.org/casefiles/planetcomics.shtml
Now,having lived in the area at the time and being a customer there for a short period I can say that all of the information presented by CBLDF is not accurate.
CBLDF says: Planet Comics was evicted from its location and the owners were forced to take a less visible and convenient location across town.
The truth: They were already three months past due on their rent when this happened and had received notice that they would be evicted if not paid in full.
CBLDF says:During the next few months, sales dropped as much as 80% as many customers assumed Planet Comics had closed, and many parents would not permit their children to patronize the store.
In March of 1996, the embattled store closed its doors for the last time.
This may or may not be true, but it is definitely an exaggeration.
The truth is that this arrest was not wide-knowledge outside of the comics community and very few parents probably stopped permitting their children to patronize the store.
Planet Comics was very much in debt when the arrest happened due to poor business decisions. Had the arrest not happened the store would have had the same problems.
One big ommision in the report was that Planet Comics did not have an Adult-Only area and the comics they were charged with selling were within reach of any kids that would enter the store.
They did violate the law.
So, yes I am skeptical when the only information available is from CBLDF. But I am skeptical when any organization with an agenda is the only source of information on any news.
And there you have it. See? Better informed than I am. I didn’t know the finer points of that case, thank you for filling in the details. It doesn’t change my feelings on the current topic, nor does it affect my view of the CBLDF as a whole. But in the immortal words of School House Rock, “Knowledge is Power.” So thanks.
Anyone else have information to add to Ken’s assessment of the Planet Comics scenario? Or any other examples of CBLDF apocrypha?
Thanks to Doug and Zhen Dil Oloth for backing me up on the clerk comment.
By the way, I think the outcry over this case is really starting to spread. I just saw a bumper sticker that said “Honk if you love Jesus.”
As to the question of whether nearby pørņ shops were selling things “more graphic” than the comic book, I submit respectfully that you will not find anything “more graphic” than “Demon Beast Invasion” in any mainstream pørņ, simply because of the limitations of real human anatomy. While I can’t say for sure if it has redeeming social value, it is certainly one of the most explicit things I have ever seen. For those not familiar, it involves tenticles. LOTS of tenticles.
I guess the question is whether it matters that they are DRAWINGS, rather than images of real people engaged in real sex acts. But it is hard to argue that the desire to see women raped by demons, even in the context of a narrative arc, constitutes more of a “a prurient interest in sex” than simply wanting to watch a pornie.
I don’t agree with this ruling, regardless, simply because I don’t think the prosecution proved their case under the law. I also personally think that an ADULT should have the right to read things devoid of social value if he wants, as long as nobody gets hurt in the process, but that isn’t how Texas law is written.
Unfortunately, the SCOTUS rarely hears this kind of individual criminal case unless it involves a major social issue. There is no real desire to revisit Miller, so they are not going to pay attention to a case in which every lower court agreed that the Miller test had been applied fairly.