Remember how ludicrous it was when John Ashcroft draped cloths over the bare breasts of the statue of justice?
Well, Gordon Lee, a Georgia comics retailer, isn’t laughing. Because Gordon is being prosecuted under Georgia law that stems from the same “human body is evil” thinking. A law so sweeping that the following titles can get retailers arrested and charged with fines and jail time: “Watchmen.” “Contract With God.” “Sandman.”
Interested yet? Sit back, I’ll explain:
Every year, Gordon routinely distributes thousands of free comics on Halloween. This year he blew through over two thousand comics. One of the comics distributed was “Alternative Comics #2,” (provided by the publisher during Free Comics Day) in which there was a story called “The Salon.” The subject depicts the meeting of artists Georges Braque and Pablo Picasso.
It is an historically accurate depiction, right down to the fact that Picasso’s studio was brutally hot during that summer and Picasso would paint in the nude.
There is nothing sexual in the depiction. Picasso, shown fully nude, doesn’t have an erection or engage in sodomy with Braque. It is what was: A startled Braque meeting a blissfully immodest Picasso.
For the distribution of the comic (not even the sale, mind you) Gordon was busted on two charges. The first is “distributing obscene material to a minor,” even though the material doesn’t even begin to fit the Miller test for obscenity. And the second, even more insane, is “distributing material depicting nudity.”
Yes, that’s right. Any comic book in Georgia depicting nudity of any kind can get you busted. Remember Doctor Manhattan? He’ll get you one to three years in Georgia.
If these laws are able to withstand constitutional challenge, do you REALLY think there aren’t states who would love to adopt them?
Consider: If a comic book publisher produces a comic biography of the artist Michelangelo, and accurately depicts his statue of David or the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, any retailer in Georgia who sells it can be arrested. To say nothing of the publisher using the US mails to send out review copies. Distributing obscene material through the mails has some pretty stiff penalties.
Speaking of Michelangelo, here’s an interesting factoid: There was a chief censor in Rome who considered the master’s fresco atop the Chapel to be obscenity. After Michelangelo died, the censor converted others to his beliefs and hired one of Michelangelo’s students to paint cloths and drapes over the naughty bits of Adam et al.
Now…how many people, off the top of their head, remember the name of the censor? How many remember the name of the artist who aided the censor?
How many remember the name Michelangelo?
And yes, I know some smartguys will immediately claim Michelangelo is only remembered because of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Well, guess what: Except for sashes and masks, the Turtles are naked, so…
The CBLDF will naturally be undertaking this case. And the point of the foregoing is that censors may sometimes win their short term goals, but in the long term it is the art and the artists who survive and revered while the censors are relegated to laughing stocks and the dustbin of forgotten history. Aid the CBLDF in tossing these particular censors into the dustbin they so richly deserve.
PAD
• 
Man, why haven’t these zealots gone after Sears? Their annual catalogs, complete with photos of women in translucent bras, held quite a bit of my attention during my early pubescent years.
Anyone making predicitions on how or when this trend wil end?
Fred
And, concerning the Turtles, remember the way they were originally drawn…with larger tails. Which looked suspiciously like…
…gotta stop now. I’m starting to think like a censor.
While I wonder if this case will hold up in court (like the judge who posted the Ten Commandments at his courthouse, the case seems doomed to failure), it’s a truly scary precedent. Let’s hope that with the activism of those who believe in freedom of speech (notably the CBLDF here), this attempt at censorship is defeated. Let’s also hope Gordon Lee can stay in business when the whole thing is over: There have been cases where even winning winds up costing the defendant too much money to stay in business.
(And while we’re at it, let’s hope this gets more publicity than just on this site. Where are the news articles warning that this is happening?)
Oh, for the love of Jeebus…this law is utter nonsense. Nudity is not, in and of itself, sexual except to those who are already thinking about it that way. We’re not born with clothing, people.
JamesLynch made the most important point, even if Mr. Lee wins in court (as he should), he may end up a martyr from the cost of the case.
Yeah, America is the greatest country in the world, sure… blowing people up and killing them in all sorts of ways is cool, but god forbid someone take off their clothes…
So, when a baby is born naked, do you arrest the mother or the doctor?
‘For the distribution of the comic (not even the sale, mind you) Gordon was busted on two charges. The first is “distributing obscene material to a minor,” even though the material doesn’t even begin to fit the Miller test for obscenity. And the second, even more insane, is “distributing material depicting nudity.” ‘
A few questions come to mind. First, what was the age of the minor that received this free comic. Were they with a parent/adult guardian at the time? Was there even a minor, or were the authorities acting under the assumption that if there were free comics, they automatically went to minors? How did the shop distribute these comics? Were they given out by hand, or left on a table where people could take what they wanted? And finally, was Diamond (I’m assuming here they were the distributor) and the publisher named in the suit?
Just read the story over at Newsarama, answered most of my questions…
http://www.newsarama.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27048
“So, when a baby is born naked, do you arrest the mother or the doctor?”
Neither. However, a guy once sold second hand an issue of “Elfquest” depicting an elf birth, and he was promptly arrested for doing so. The CBLDF managed to get that case kicked pretty fast. Of course, if Gordon sold that comic, he could be arrested (again) for it.
PAD
Jeff,
To answer your questions: the age of the minor hasn’t been disclosed, so I’ve no idea if the minor was 2 or 17. It hasn’t been revealed if a parent/guardian was present at the time. The comics given out, over 2,200 of them, to anyone for halloween by hand. Diamond, nor the publisher, are mentioned in the suit as they’re not the ones on the frontline, I am.
Gordon Lee
I LIVE in Georgia, subscribe to comics, blog about comics, visit comics retailers and this is the FIRST I’ve heard about this case. Cliff Biggers, the man behind Comic Shop News, runs Dr. No’s in metro Atlanta and I don’t think he’s mentioned this either. Keep us posted, PAD.
I read the Newsarama story and there is one detail PAD left out: the comic book had a notice (on the back, oddly enough) that said it was for mature audiences only. I would agree that what is described being in the comic is clearly not “obscene.” But it was negligent of the comic shop to hand out the comic in the first place. If it was my kid who received such a comic, I would have also reported it.
Nudity is not, in and of itself, sexual except to those who are already thinking about it that way.
That may be true to some degree, but I sure would not agree with someone handing my kids nude pictures, regardless of whether they are of a “sexual” nature or not. I don’t consider the body to be evil, but I do think nudity is inappropriate in a “casual” context. It is something intimate, and by making it common, it cheapens it. Opposition to nude pictures being given to minors should be the right of a parent, whether you agree with the parent’s reasons or not.
There is a lot more to this case than simply “free speech.” This comic WAS given to a minor. Whether you agree with the parent or not, this case clearly has implications for parental rights.
Iowa Jim
Are either kids -that- sheltered or parents -that- selectively myopic that they feel that any and all nudity, regardless of context is deserving of prison time?
I remember a book called “In the Night Kitchen” by Maurice Sendak that my mom read to me as a child. Towards the end of the book, the protagonist, a young boy, ends up visibly naked.
Would the Georgia State law be trying to tell me that my saintly, greying-haired mother, one of the nicest, mildest, most harmless, church-goingest women on the planet has been reading me (*GASP*) kiddie pørņ?
At the time (I was about four or five, if memory serves), I wasn’t shocked, scarred, or horrified. If anything, in my youthful wisdom, I really found it rather funny.
I don’t want to think I was any more or less enlightened than the average 5 year-old in the early 1980s.
I’m sorry (and I’m not a father, so I might not have much right to say this), but I feel that the onus on protecting a child from whatever a parent feels a child should be protected from falls on the parents themselves. As a parent, it seems logical that if you want your child to be protected from sex, drugs, violence, and naughty language, the person who should be on the proverbial frontline, protecting the child, informing them, and helping build their moral character is *YOU*, not the government, not the schools, not the entertainment industry in general or the comic book industry in specific.
Iowa Jim, should art teachers have to always obtain permission from parents before allowing students to study, say, Greek sculpture?
I’m sorry (and I’m not a father, so I might not have much right to say this), but I feel that the onus on protecting a child from whatever a parent feels a child should be protected from falls on the parents themselves.
There are some key details missing from the case, such as where the parent was, if the kid walked to the store, etc. Either way, if I took my kid to a comic book store, I would not dream they would be handed a comic book that was labeled having mature content. It is not unreasonable for a parent to have that expectation.
Iowa Jim
“There is a lot more to this case than simply “free speech.” This comic WAS given to a minor. Whether you agree with the parent or not, this case clearly has implications for parental rights.”
No, it really doesn’t (although somehow I knew that you, Jim, would be the very first to weigh in in favor of censorship). You’re saying that one parent’s ire trumps free speech. I’m saying it doesn’t. Any reasonable person says it doesn’t. Do you comprehend that if you, as an adult, buy a copy of “Contract with God” in Georgia, the retailer can be arrested for selling it to you? Does that seem sane to you?
We’re talking proportional response. If a parent is upset because he thinks his child’s brain is going to be melted by Picasso’s pëņìš, then going and complaining to the store owner is proportional. The owner being arrested and facing one to three years in jail plus fines thanks to a law that violates the First Amendment and would register “Watchmen” obscene is not proportional. It’s insane.
PAD
Gordon,
Thanks for answering my questions the best you could. I sincerly hope that more rational heads do the right thing and dismiss this case totally. Of course, that doesn’t help now, but hopefully things will be made right again.
Ya know, as I continued to read this thread, it strikes me that my parents used to go through all of my candy and the contents of my goodie bag as soon as I got home. They also ensured that I was accompanied by an adult (or group if there were several kids out together.). Although there may be a concern of some parents for the contents of said comic (“he thinks his child’s brain is going to be melted by Picasso’s pëņìš”… possibly the funniest and, at the same time, most frightening statement I’ve seen on this blog in some time), I am stuck with 2 thoughts:
1) where does parental responsibility come in?
2) What has happened to moderation and common sense responses with regard to follow-up on concerns. Had this happened 20 to 30 years ago, I’d think that a very likely response would have been the parent taking away the comic in question and, if the authorities were brought in, a verbal warning of concern to the comic shop owner alond with documentation being made so that if there was a pattern of behavior leading a reasonable person to believe that the proprietor was a predator, than steps could be taken.
Just some random responses that I wanted to get out…. thoughts?
Gordon,
I support you completely in this legal battle, but next Halloween, do yourself a favor and double check what you’re handing out for free to kids. Get a pile of Disney comics for the kids…
Wonder if this ever would have become a legal issue had it not been a give away…
Nice to know parents inspect candy in their kids bags but not anything else… Sorry Jim, this is fully on the parents, quit foisting your lazy parenting on others…
Iowa Jim, should art teachers have to always obtain permission from parents before allowing students to study, say, Greek sculpture?
Not in general. There is some art that is clearly sexual (including, for example, paintings on some Greek pottery that depict sexual acts). That would be inappropriate for younger ages. Nor would I object to a teen watching Schinlder’s List, which has a small amount of nudity. If they were mature enough to handle the violence, they can handle the historically accurate nudity.
This issue, though, was not about studying a work of art. It is about a comic book store making a mistake and giving a mature comic book to a minor. I am sympathetic to the fact that they were handing out a lot of free comics. But they are still reponsible for what they give out. Especially to a minor.
My point is not that a child would be harmed for life by accidentally getting this comic book. As described, it may be offensive, but it was not harmful. My point is that this case is NOT just about free speech. Do they sell Playboy in that state? Then clearly, they distribute nudity (and nudity that has clear sexual overtones). The issue is what is appropriate to give to a minor.
The Newsarama article makes this point for me. It says the comic book would probably be “R” rated at a theater. Well, if the theater let a minor in to watch an “R” rated movie without a parent/adult there with the minor, they would be legally in trouble. That is exactly what has happened in this case. To try to make it an assault on free speech in general is to miss a key point in this case.
Iowa Jim
Here
In an era where The Daily Show’s “America: The Book” can be banned from Wal-Marts and Mississippi libraries because of one page depicting nude bodies (and they as much as admit “If they had published the book without that one picture, that one page, we’d have the book”), this doesn’t surprise me at all. It saddens the hëll out of me, but it doesn’t surprise me.
PAD,
Nice that you think I am predictable. You seem to forget that I supported Jesus when he was arrested in Dallas at Keith’s Comics. In that case, an ADULT bought the book, not a minor. The case was a trap, no minor was involved, and I thought the case was a farce.
Do you comprehend that if you, as an adult, buy a copy of “Contract with God” in Georgia, the retailer can be arrested for selling it to you? Does that seem sane to you?
I need clarification on this issue: Is it illegal to sell Playboy in Georgia? Is it illegal to sell a book with pictures by Maplethorpe (sp?)? If it is illegal to sell ANYTHING that has a nude picture, yes, I agree it is insane. If the law, however, is that material that has nudity should not be sold to a minor, that is a different matter. (While I strongly believe pornography (to take something more narrow than nudity) is harmful, I don’t agree with “banning” it. I do support it not being sold to minors.)
We’re talking proportional response. If a parent is upset because he thinks his child’s brain is going to be melted by Picasso’s pëņìš, then going and complaining to the store owner is proportional. The owner being arrested and facing one to three years in jail plus fines thanks to a law that violates the First Amendment and would register “Watchmen” obscene is not proportional. It’s insane.
You raise an interesting point. I probably would go first to the store owner. But I may also report it, depending on the circumstances. If the owner made the mistake with this comic (which I DO agree is not obscene), did he make a similar mistake with a comic that is obscene? If I know the store, I may give the owner the benefit of the doubt. If I do not, I probably would not.
Unlike the case in Dallas, this was not a trap, this was not an adult with an agenda. The store owner admits giving the mature comic to a minor. While I agree that the courts should hopefully show intelligence and not fine or jail him if he is found guilty since this is clearly a very minor infraction, the fact is, he DID violate a law currently on the books. You may disagree with that law, but that doesn’t change the fact that he violated the law.
Iowa Jim
“It is about a comic book store making a mistake and giving a mature comic book to a minor.”
No, it’s not. If the comic book store made a mistake and gave a mature comic book to a minor, the mere act of that is not, should not, must not be against the law. Gordon was arrested under a law forbidding the distribution of “obscenity” to a minor, and the mere sight of Picasso’s pëņìš does not fit any remotely constitutional definition of “obscenity.” That’s what you’re missing, either deliberately or otherwise.
I’m reminded of the pilot episode of “West Wing” in which a conservative much like Jim asks Bartlet, “Don’t you think children being able to buy pornography for five dollars on every street corner is too high a price to pay for free speech.” Bartlet without hesitation says, “No.” The conservative, surprised, says, “No?” And Bartlet says, “No. However, I do think that five dollars is too high a price to pay for pornography.”
A parent’s rights end where insanity begins. A law forbidding the distribution of comics with nudity is insane. A law that would call selling a 17 year old (for example) “Watchmen” (for example) distributing obscenity to minors is insane. The notion of parents feeling the state must move in to try and shut down a comic store over Picasso’s pëņìš is insane, and the only thing more insane than a parent feeling that is the state doing it.
PAD
although somehow I knew that you, Jim, would be the very first to weigh in in favor of censorship
PAD,
I have a question for you. And I mean it sincerely: Do you censor what your kids see, read, watch, etc.? Forget this case for a second, and let’s talk about the rights and responsiblities of a parent. If I sent your daughter a nice video for Christmas that told the story of Easter and how Jesus died and rose from the dead, would you just pass it on to her? If you chose to exercise your right as a parent and not give it to her, are you engaging in censorship? (For the record, I would not call you a “censor,” bigot, or any other name. I would support your right as a parent to say the video was not appropriate for your daughter.)
The only “censorship” that my comments agreed with is the right of a parent to determine what is appropriate and not appropriate for his or her child. I may think the parent is insane, but in most cases, I would be supportive. (An exception would be when there is clearly abuse going on.)
Iowa Jim
I don’t think this case is remotely comparable with the Wal-Mart decision not to carry “America” (which I think is a dumb decision but utterly within their rights to make) nor even the MS libraries (which, IIRC, changed their minds after public response) — for one thing, no one was facing jail time or massive fines in those cases. Good luck to the CBLDF on this one!
The only “censorship” that my comments agreed with is the right of a parent to determine what is appropriate and not appropriate for his or her child. I may think the parent is insane, but in most cases, I would be supportive. (An exception would be when there is clearly abuse going on.)
What if I bought this comic for my 13 year old son or 12 year old daughter? Should I be arrested for it? I have let my son read Watchmen. Have I committed a crime? What if I gave him a Playboy instead?
“A parent’s rights end where insanity begins. A law forbidding the distribution of comics with nudity is insane. A law that would call selling a 17 year old (for example) “Watchmen” (for example) distributing obscenity to minors is insane.”
And if such a law had been on the books in Texas in 1999, a Barnes and Noble Manager, a clerk, and I could all have been arrested when I bought a copy to give a friend as a birthday present.
If the comic book store made a mistake and gave a mature comic book to a minor, the mere act of that is not, should not, must not be against the law.
PAD, this is where I honestly don’t get where you are coming from. What is the point of considering something “mature” if it does not matter if it is given to a minor? Let me repeat, I think it would be WRONG for the owner to go to jail for 3 years for giving out this comic accidentally. However, if he knowingly gave out a mature comic to a minor, that should carry a penalty.
A parent should obviously be responsible for their child. But it is impossible for a parent to be with a child 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. We will have to agree to disagree on this, but I think laws restricting a minor from access to some mature content is reasonable.
A law forbidding the distribution of comics with nudity is insane.
You have not yet answered my question: Is this law limited to distribution to minors, or also to adults? I clearly stated that if it excludes adults, I would agree it is a limit to “free speech.” I can’t imagine there being a law that would allow Playboy to be sold but restrict comic books with nudity being sold to adults. But stranger laws have been written. Can anyone answer my question?
Iowa Jim
What if I bought this comic for my 13 year old son or 12 year old daughter? Should I be arrested for it? I have let my son read Watchmen. Have I committed a crime? What if I gave him a Playboy instead?
To the first two? Of course not. I have already stated that this comic is clearly not obscene. It would no more be wrong than your taking a child to an “R” rated movie. That is your parental choice to make. Whether I agree or disagree is irrelevant.
In regards to Playboy, I do think giving Playboy to a child, especially before puberty, is at least borderline abusive. They are not yet ready to hanlde it, and it does cause harm. If nothing else, it arouses sexual appetities that they are not yet ready to satisfy (with whom are they going to have sex to satisfy their desires?). Why torture them in this way?
The case PAD raised clearly is NOT abusive in the way a copy of Playboy would be. Nudity in the context depicted is not sexually arousing.
Since I seem to not have been clear enough, let me put it this way:
IF the law about nudity in comics, as written, means selling a comic book that has a realistic picture of the statue of David by Michelangelo is illegal, then I agree the law is wrong and should be changed. Nudity is not always sexually oriented (although determining that line can be quite difficult, which might be why a law could be written just banning all nudity).
Iowa Jim
It is something intimate, and by making it common, it cheapens it.
*rofl*
Gimme a break, Jim.
You’re worried about a comic book cheapening nudity?
Oh man, now I know what’s wrong with our society.
Jim, I think you’re mixing arguments, here, and somewhat missing the point. I think even Gordan (based on statements included in the story found at Newsarama) would agree that this type of material (Mature Readers) is inappropriate to be freely handed out to kids. The piece says the book was “inadvertantly” included in the mix of books handed out. So, no one (it appears to me) is saying that the parents were wrong for being concerned with the distribution.
But from there, you appear to be in support of a law that would put a man in jail for making that mistake. A sentence of 1-3 years is a felony sentence, right up there with domestic battery and subsequent counts of child molestation (in Illinois, at least. Some states make cases of domestic battery a misdemeanor, which has a maximum prison sentence of 1 year).
Jim, the point isn’t was it wrong. The point is, was it illegal. The laws cited above or distributing obscene material to a minor, which I don’t think anyone would say this qualifies as. The second law really applies to unsolicited mail distribution of nudity. If this law is applied to this case, it would go so far beyond the bounds of the law as explained that it really would be an example of judicial legislation.
I think there’s very little danger here that someone in Geogria ordering a copy of Watchmen through the mail is going to be breaking the law.
And as to the movie theater example…the Movie Ratings are applied voluntarily. There are no official laws enforcing them, and if some kid sneaks into Porky’s, or even if the theater lets them in, no one should be going to jail.
Which is not to say that some justifiably irrate parents can’t or shouldn’t go to the theater manager, and maybe the local paper, to complain about the practice. But taking responsibility and action for yourself is a far, far distant cry than turning to the police.
What should have occurred here is the parent should have complained, and Gordan (who by accounts above and in Newsarama has not been contacted by the complainant) could have explained and apologized. Or, the police/prosecutor should have engaged in a little common-sense and/or legal application and realized that this case was more than frivolous, it was a waste of taxpayer’s resources, and refused to issue an arrest warrant.
But since common sense and good parenting failed here, we’re stuck with this mess.
On the other hand, the law would make it illegal for DC (or anyone else) to submit samples of Watchmen, unsolicited, without the “Warning, Nudity” sign on the package. While I don’t think that particular aspect of the law goes too far, it should serve as a warning to anyone mailing stuff in GA.
You’re worried about a comic book cheapening nudity?
My comments were broader than just picture(s) in one comic book. It referred to why a parent might feel nude pictures are inappropriate in general.
Iowa Jim
Jim, the law referred to in the case applies to any mailing in GA. By my reading of it, it does not prevent the sale of things like Playboy via subscription. It only applies to the unsolicited mailing of images of nudity without posting a specific warning on the package that the contents contain nudity.
So, getting an unsolicited issue of Playboy without the warning violates the law. Buying a subscription to Playboy and asking them to mail it to your address does not.
It does make me wonder if Playboys come with that warning, in case they get delivered to the wrong address. Were I Playboy’s legal council…sorry, got sidetracked…I’d recommend that GA wrapping have the warning, just in case.
Jim, the point isn’t was it wrong.
You are correct in saying that I appear to be on a different wavelength on this issue. I DO think there is a disagreement in the first place whether it was wrong. Particularly PAD’s comments on this issue. I would welcome hearing feedback on this basic question:
Forgetting this particular case, is it wrong (regardless of whether or not it is illegal) for a parent to object for his or her child (who is a minor) to be given a mature comic book?
A related question: does “free speech” require that if a person gives a minor a mature comic book, it cannot be illegal?
Iowa Jim
Jim I guess where we disagree is what level of penalty should apply. I don’t think that this type of action shoud involve the public judiciary. It’s an accidental distribution of an image no more offensive than David. Or many images you can find in many bible. Or in Church. Or in National Geographic.
You can’t shelter you children 24/7. Well, you can, but then you yourself are committing a form of abuse. The best you can do is educate them, instil morals in them, and hope that when things like this happen, they react in a way you would approve of. Getting poor Gordan arrested because he made a minor, and in the end harmless to any child, is not going to be setting a good example to your child.
Jim, the law referred to in the case applies to any mailing in GA.
Ok, I am even more confused: How was what the comic book store did “illegal” if it was not by mail? Or is it the idea of giving out nudity “unsolicited” (whether it came by mail or not)?
Either way, I still don’t understand how the law makes it illegal to sell a comic with nudity to someone who knowingly asks for the comic.
Iowa Jim
As for me, I have no problems with parents getting involved with their kids and deciding what is and is not appropriate for them to view. Every parent should do this. Recent example: Was at a Target near the video game section, and there was a 6-8 year old boy playing one of the games they had set up. The little “angel” sounded like he had beer raised on MTV reality shows and Cinemax late at night. Of course, my thoughts were of the “if this is how bad the kid sounds, can you imagine what kind of parents he has?” But I didn’t want them arrested, and I didn’t want the kid arrested. If I’d had kids of my own with me, I’d have moved them out of earshot, for sure, or maybe said something to an employee, but never would I think that anyone should be arrested just for something like that.
There’s the proverbial “bingo,” Jim. From what the Newsarama story had, the law doesn’t even apply to these facts, and that’s one of the things the CBLDF is going to pursue. That charge should never have been made, and should just be dropped by the prosecutor’s office.
I believe that hiding nudity and making it the
Getting poor Gordan arrested because he made a minor, and in the end harmless to any child, is not going to be setting a good example to your child.
Is there a more complete description of what happened in this case? Because this is one option of how things could have happened.
The kid (with or without his parent) goes to the store at Halloween and gets a free comic. As a parent, you would probably not grab it right away to check it out. You would understandably assume that if the comic book store was giving out free comics to children, they would not have mature content.
The kid gets home. The parent realizes that the comic has mature content. The parent is understandably upset. Did they call the store first? We don’t know yet. They decide to report the comic book to the “authorities.” Why? It may not just be to get the store owner arrested. It could be that they worried what was also given to other kids. They might not even dream the owner would be arrested and possibly put in jail for 3 years. They simply could have been worried that something even more mature was given out to other kids.
Obviously, it is also possible the parents WERE out to shut down the store, etc. The problem is, we don’t know yet. And I can very much see a variation of my scenario being true. If I reported it, I would not have assumed the owner would be arrested (at least, not before knowing the story of Jesus in Dallas). I would have assumed they would have received a warning, the police may have looked into whether other kids got mature comics, etc.
This story all started with the comic book store making a mistake, not with the authorities trying to stifle free speech. I believe it was a mistake and not intentional. I agree it would be absurd to send the owner to jail for 3 days, much less 3 years. I might even agree that, if it is as PAD describes, the law banning all nudity in comics is absurd and should be struck down. But the reality is that the law appears to have been broken. Once reported, the authorities are simply enforcing a law on the books. The parent’s actions can be very understandable, and are not a bad example to their child.
Iowa Jim
“I have a question for you. And I mean it sincerely: Do you censor what your kids see, read, watch, etc.?”
I practice guidance for material and when I think it is and is not appropriate. For instance, when it first came out, I felt that Ariel was far too young to see “Schindler’s List.” Now, however, she’s thirteen, and I think she not only can, but should.
“Forget this case for a second, and let’s talk about the rights and responsiblities of a parent. If I sent your daughter a nice video for Christmas that told the story of Easter and how Jesus died and rose from the dead, would you just pass it on to her?”
I’d ask her if she was interested in watching it. If she said yes, I’d give it to her. See, unlike some, I don’t think my child’s mind will melt if she’s exposed to beliefs that are other than what she’s taught by me.
“If you chose to exercise your right as a parent and not give it to her, are you engaging in censorship?”
No, because I’m making no attempt to punish, harass, or restrict the sender, the retailer from whom the sender bought it, or the producer of the tape.
“(For the record, I would not call you a “censor,” bigot, or any other name. I would support your right as a parent to say the video was not appropriate for your daughter.)”
You’d support my right to tell someone else what to do. There’s a shocker.
“The only “censorship” that my comments agreed with is the right of a parent to determine what is appropriate and not appropriate for his or her child.”
Wrong. You endorse the parent going and complaining TO THE POLICE BECAUSE OF PICASSO’S PÊNÍS. You consider this right and proper. You consider this just punishment. You consider this proportional and appropriate. You support punitive action against the retailer that could get him thrown in jail over a dead artist’s dingy, which in turn would have a chilling effect on any retailer wishing to sell any comic book with any nudity to anyone (since that’s forbidden under Georgia law.)
Get it now?
PAD
Getting back to the case, I think the woman was within her rights to question how her child got the book and should have followed it up with the owner, but I think she was wrong
Okay, between when I posted the first time and when I hit ‘Post’, a lot more in the way of relevant facts were posted. As these comics were intended as free Halloween giveaways to children, perhaps a more discerning eye towards their content should have been given.
Still, I have to stick to my druthers and say that while a mistake was clearly made and the Mea Culpa for such is squarely in the lap of Mr. Lee and his shop, the charges levied (and the potential sentencing involved) seem rather exaggerated and way out of line. If allowed to stand, they could set an alarming precedent. As such, the CBLDF’s concern and their involvement in this case is most certainly warranted.
PICASSO’S PÊNÍS
dead artist’s dingy
lol
Sounds like a couple of new bands. Maybe their title track could be
Let me suggest one scenario: She calls the store and the owner blows her off, laughs in her face, and tells her to not be such a prude. I am not suggesting this did happen, but there are a lot of gaps in this story I need to know before I blame the mother (or father) for reporting this incident to the authorities.
If that turns out to be the case, considering how it happened, then she did the right thing. From what I understand from the article, her first reaction was to call the police, and that was wrong.
I’m basing my assumptions mostly from the Newsarama article, and Gordan’s post. Since he does not know the name, age, gender, or parents of the child in question, I’m guessing that he nor his store were contacted by the family.
Jim, why else would the police get involved? You don’t call the police unless you need them to do something you can’t do. We last called the police for a domestic disturbance carrying on in the adjoining condo complex. Not only was it disturbing to hear the couple swear and threaten each other, we were concerned that it would escalate into physical violence. Not bein super-strong or neigh-invulnerable, I called the police, and the arrived to deal with the situation.
But I called them because I knew that there was activity going on that was wrong, illegal, and for which those involved could be arrested.
On the other hand, I don’t call the police when the neighbors’ kids stare into my windows because they want to watch our cats. I ask them not to, and I mention it to their parents when I see them. Could I call the police? Sure. I bet I could even get the little misceants arrested. It’d be wrong for me to do that, but I could.
Jim, what you’re saying is that seeing a naked man depicted in a comic is obscene. Basically, that the naked human body is obscene.
Wrong. You endorse the parent going and complaining TO THE POLICE BECAUSE OF PICASSO’S PÊNÍS. You consider this right and proper. You consider this just punishment. You consider this proportional and appropriate. You support punitive action against the retailer that could get him thrown in jail over a dead artist’s dingy, which in turn would have a chilling effect on any retailer wishing to sell any comic book with any nudity to anyone (since that’s forbidden under Georgia law.)
For the record:
1.) I do endorse the parent reporting the incident. I am not saying they had to, or even that it was the best option, but I can very much understand them doing so.
2.) Unless the parents KNEW that the store owner would face 3 years in prison, your point is invalid. As for myself, I have clearly said that even 3 days in prison is pointless and absurd. Reporting it to the police is not the same as saying you want a business closed and the owner put in prison.
3.) If the law is as you state it, I have already said by all means strike it down or change it. Pretending it is not there will not make it go away. We are not talking about a law just written, but one already on the books. If the law has been misapplied, as others have suggested, then that is also a problem that should be addressed. Either way, the parent is NOT to blame. This came up because their child was given a mature comic book.
The parents did not set out to close the comic book store by going to it on Halloween (or however the did got the comic). This came up because the store made a mistake. If the reaction is overblown, it is because of the prosecutor and the laws on the books, not because of a parent. If this was a one time, inadvertant mistake, I don’t know why the prosecutor has chosen to prosecute.
By the way, thanks for answering my questions. I will drop the point since we will just continue to disagree.
Iowa Jim
And another thing!!! (Just kidding, but I have to get my posts in now, as I’ll actually be (gasp) working for the rest of the PM soon)
Jim, I know you read comics. So the statement that seeing your (proverbial here) child get a free comic means you don’t need to check it out is really stretching reality. Newsarama has an image of what I’m guessing is the cover of the book in question, and it’s not your normal spandex and tights comic. It very much looks like fringe, artsy, or however you want to describe it Indy cover. And you never know what you’re going to get in those. Obsolving the parent of checking on the spot is just trying to shift responsibility for monitoring what your child reads on to others. Waiting till you get home, or a week after, is too long. Check it out while you’re still at the store (if the parent in this case was even there).
I don’t think you can claim outrage at someone exposing children to adult (not pørņ, but mature) matieral if you’re not going to make some attempt to review what they see. If it were a DC or Marvel title that you were familiar with, I’d agree with the feeling that the comic was “kid safe.”
PAD wrote: “We’re talking proportional response. If a parent is upset because he thinks his child’s brain is going to be melted by Picasso’s pëņìš, then going and complaining to the store owner is proportional.”
Well, the main problem here is that such laws ARE in the books, and apparently, one of these laws was violated. Without said law, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Perhaps instead of reactive response, CBLDF could proactively seek out such laws where they exist and lobby to have them modified or stricken.
In addition, regardless of what one’s views are regarding freedom of speech, since we all know such laws DO exist at the present time, publishers, in the best interest of their distributors and retailers, should knock themselves out to implement a unambiguous flagging system so the guys on the front lines don’t get blindsided.
This reminds me of a situation I was in recently where someone I know who teaches special education students (and knows I am a comics enthusiast) asked me for some comics to give the kids to read. Thirty years ago, I could have just grabbed any old stack of overground comics and handed them to her. For this request, however, for anything other than a Gladstone comic, I had to leaf through each one to make sure the material was “appropriate.” Why? Because even though some companies put “mature” disclaimers on their mature material, others don’t — making what was once an innocuous task into something that is akin to walking a minefield. Thus, I can only imagine how difficult it must be today for most comics retailers to keep from offending someone, or in extreme cases, breaking a local law.