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
• 
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.
What I said is that as a parent, if my kid got a mature comic, then it is possible others got comics that were of an even more graphic nature. I don’t know if this was what went through the actual parent’s heads, but it is what would go through mine. Calling the police to report it could be simply a way of making sure that this did not happen. (I have already stated that going to the store owner is obviously better. But most people hate confrontation. So calling the Police does not necessarily mean you want the other person arrested. It can just mean you are too afraid to confront the person directly.)
Iowa Jim
Iowa Jim posted: 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.
Nope. There is no legal contract involved in the movie ratings system (nor in the TV ratings system, nor the electronic gaming industry’s system, nor in the Parental Guidance stickers on albums, nor in a “Mature Readers” label on a comic). All of these are examples of voluntary ratings systems.
Now, some communities have passed ordinances based on these voluntary systems, but they are few and far between. In general, there’s no punishment for a theater owner (etc.) that accidentally or inadvertently — or even intentionally — allows someone under 17 to see an R-rated film (etc.).
Most theaters (etc.), however, honor the ratings systems to avoid controversy in their communities, to avoid having draconian laws passed based on voluntary systems, and to avoid situations just like this one.
Some chains have policies of not carrying or selling or renting to minors media with “mature” ratings. Some chains won’t carry the media at all. That’s their prerogative. Some allow the parents to decide (Blockbuster, in particular, is very good about this — it’s part of your membership contract whether you will allow minors to rent “mature” media), which is also their prerogative. Some even use their retail might to force industries and artists to self-censor if they wish for the chain to carry their material (Wal-Mart is infamous for this), and again, that’s their prerogative (assuming the artists and labels are fool enough to go along with it).
All this is voluntary, and none of it is prosecutable. Or at least, it shouldn’t be.
Most communities do have statutes protecting minors from pornographic or obscene material. None of what has been described fits that definition.
I say, “Go CBLDF!” And I intend to renew my lapsed membership at MegaCon!
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.
—
I’ll make this simple. If the book is not obscene, it’s protected by the first amendment. Michaelangelo’s pëņìš does not meet the definition of obscenity. Thus, it is wrong to report it to the police, and wrong for the police to take action on this.
If you disagree with this statement, you’re one of the bad guys, and you’re not even in favor of due process under the law. You’re a jerk.
You could be correct in that thought, Jim. But the facts suggest that a specific book was identified, and the only possibly objectionalbe material in that book was a naked man engaged in normal, non-sexual activities. The charge is for distributing obscene images to a minor. While you’re correct that the family may not have been familiar with the law, and I guess that somewhat distances them from culpability, the same cannot be said for the prosecutors that took this case.
And yes, I do understand that you think that if the facts are as I’ve stated them, the case should be dropped. But that’s like shutting the barnd door after the cow’s escaped.
I’m with R. Maheras. Next time I visit my cousin, I’m going to bring a box of comics for her son. but I need to sit down and review them to make sure there’s nothing in there inappropriate for a 10 year old. You can’t just assume that any of today’s comments are 100% kid safe. Heck Identity Crisis was upsetting to me, and I’m 33 (with the occasional maturity of a 12 year old, according to my wife).
And Gordon, Watchmen had more than a naked blue guy. It had a big naked blue guy. It also had depictions of sex, female nudity, prostitution, graphic realistic violence, rape, and erectile disfuntion. So, maybe that’s not the best example to be using here.
This sort of stupidity is why I agree with Frank Miller about labeling books. It only makes it easier for censors to find targets.
“This story all started with the comic book store making a mistake,not with the authorities trying to stifle free speech”
It did start with the authorities trying to stifle free speech, otherwise the law wouldn’t have been passed.
R. Maheras wrote:
“Well, the main problem here is that such laws ARE in the books, and apparently, one of these laws was violated. … Perhaps instead of reactive response, CBLDF could proactively seek out such laws where they exist and lobby to have them modified or stricken.”
It’s like this. The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Any federal, state, or local statute which violates the constitution is not the law. It is not a crime to violate an unconstitutional statute.
There is a way to deal with the conflict, and that is to have a court resolve the issue of whether the statute violates the constitution. But courts do not render advisory decisions. The issue has to come up in an actual court case.
So until someone is prosecuted under the unconstitutional law, the court is not in a position to decide the issue. When someone is prosecuted, those of us who strongly favor free speech should pitch in and support the defense by, for example, donating money to CBLDF.
Remember that if someone is prosecuted under an unconstitutional statute and is acquitted because the law is declared unconstitutional, the attorneys fees and costs of defense can be a great financial strain on the defendant. Without the support of the rest of us, the person who was wrongfully accused may be financially ruined by the cost of defense, especially if the matter has to be appealed. Since we ALL benefit from having our constitutional rights upheld, it behooves us all to chip in and help shoulder that burden.
Now, some communities have passed ordinances based on these voluntary systems, but they are few and far between. In general, there’s no punishment for a theater owner (etc.) that accidentally or inadvertently — or even intentionally — allows someone under 17 to see an R-rated film (etc.).
Thanks for the correction. Guess I lived in a place where it was a local ordinance.
Bobb,
Next time I visit my cousin, I’m going to bring a box of comics for her son. but I need to sit down and review them to make sure there’s nothing in there inappropriate for a 10 year old.
While it was “tastefully” portrayed, PAD’s Madrox #4 had a depiction of sex. In general, I am glad comics are not just written for a 10 year old, but it does mean you can’t just hand a stack to a kid. (And before anyone jumps to a conclusion, I would not call the police if someone gave may kid a copy of Madrox #4!)
Iowa Jim
And before anyone jumps to a conclusion, I would not call the police if someone gave may kid a copy of Madrox #4!
How generous of you!
But keep your phone close at hand, who knows when you’ll decide someone has to be arrested for distriuting a piece of art.
Just imagine, if you are fortunate enough to get your way, anytime, anywhere, someone’s gonna arbitrarily go to jail for offending someone.
Superhero and boy sidekick, sounds pretty gay to me. Arrest someone!
Scarlet Witch promotes satimism, someone needs to be locked up!
Let the purge begin! For the children!
Steve wrote: “There is a way to deal with the conflict, and that is to have a court resolve the issue of whether the statute violates the constitution. But courts do not render advisory decisions. The issue has to come up in an actual court case.”
Well, that’s fine and dandy, but what does a retailer do until such a Supreme Court decision is finally rendered? And what if the court decision is not sweeping enough or specific enough to help retailers in every case?
Personally, I think the argument to NOT label comics “mature” stinks. In effect, the creator’s asking the retailer to fall on a live censorship grenade in the creator’s stead, which is really swell of him, don’t you think?
What such a stance REALLY means is, “Hey, a mature label will hurt sales of my book, and since I don’t like censorship anyway, I don’t want no stinkin’ labels!”
Well tough bananas, I say. The film industry has successfully used such a rating system to help blunt censorship attacks in its industry. Comics should do the same. And if a creator wants to stick extreme stuff in his/her books, then that creator will just have to deal with an NC-17 equivalent rating.
Someday, if a definitive Supreme Court decision ever takes place, the comics industry can dump its ratings system and creators can live happily ever after. In the interim, however, I don’t think creators should be asking retailers to risk their livelyhoods or freedom in place of the creators. Somehow, it just doesn’t seem fair to me.
this a whole muck-a-muck could have been easily avoided if the comic shop owner didn’t give a “mature audiences” comic to a kid. He really pulled a boner on that one.
“Well, that’s fine and dandy, but what does a retailer do until such a Supreme Court decision is finally rendered? And what if the court decision is not sweeping enough or specific enough to help retailers in every case?”
Well, you’ve basically just put your finger on why obscenity law is a joke. Specific works are not considered obscene until AFTER a retailer sells it, someone complains about it, and a judge and jury announce, “Yes, this is obscene.”
One of the fundamentals of criminal law is state of mind. The accused has to be intending to commit a crime. But if the material isn’t outlawed at the time of sale, then there would seem to be no possible criminal intent. Except…no. In this type of persecution–sorry, prosecution–the system mandates a sort of judicial retcon. The jury decides material is obscene, and then the retailer is retroactively condemned for selling material that wasn’t illegal at the time of sale.
Murder is illegal. Stealing is illegal. You know that going in. But you can sell a comic book that the law has made no judgment on, and it can then be decided two years later that the comic book shouldn’t have been sold, and you can then be punished with the same force of law as if you had known it at the time of sale.
“Personally, I think the argument to NOT label comics “mature” stinks.”
The argument is simple: It makes no difference. There was no comic book more conspicuously labeled than the one in the Jesus Castillo case. “For adults only!” “Mature!” “Not for under 18!” So what happened? He obeyed all the advisories, it was bought by an adult, and they still found him guilty of selling obscenity. The argument doesn’t stink. The law stinks.
PAD
Iowa Jim,
I think part of the argument here stems from a point where your personal philosophy mingles what the others think of as two separate issues:
1) As you mentioned to Mr. David, you believe — rightly! — that a parent can and should filter that parent’s child’s intake of information, for the sake of the mental and emotional health of the child. Yes. It doesn’t have to be “fair”, just ask any thirteen-year-old, but any responsible parent will impose rules and restrictions anyhow.
My mom forbade Madonna from my music collection when I was a kid, and when I *accidentally* violated that rule — I wanted a record of a single I’d heard on the radio, and the current Madonna had been mixed into the bin, and I didn’t pay attention until after I got home — that rule was changed so that I had to get Every! Music! Purchase! {stompstompstompslam!} vetted before I stepped up to the cash register. My parents also forbade makeup when I was thirteen, as I wasn’t emotionally mature enough yet to deal with all the obsessions that come along, and they had to step in when one of my aunts gave me mascara for Christmas.
2) The United States Government, Federal and State, has the resources necessary to forcibly impose a jurisdiction-wide filter upon some and/or all of its population, with consequences ranging from confiscation (of money, as a fine, and/or goods, as an impoundation, and/or free will, as a court-ordered restriction or a trip to jail) to eviction to permanent confinement to execution, depending on the jurisdiction in question.
You feel that the government should be using those resources to enforce filters CHOSEN BY A PARENT — not even limiting to those unanimously agreed upon by ALL parents, but in fact you want the government to enforce filters chosen by ONE parent — yourself, maybe — with perhaps a supporting theory that “all right-thinking people will NATURALLY and ALWAYS agree with each other in every detail that matters, so that pesky ‘unanimous’ thing is resolved without difficulty”. Anyone who disagrees with the filter is thereby not “right-thinking people” and their objections should be overruled.
The government is NOT a parent, nor are its subjects to collectively be considered “children”. The government is NOT a parenting tool. Parenting is the minute-to-minute-for-eighteen-years-straight duty of the parent, NOT of the government.
This seems to be the concept to which your debating opponents object. I’m reading arguments against the idea that the government should be parenting, and I’m reading responses from you that insist “parenting is a Good Thing”. Yes, yes it is, but parenting is a Good Thing for the parent to do, and certainly not for the government to do.
It’s difficult to separate emotionally vested, survival-of-loved-ones oriented issues down to their distinct parts, Lord knows. Surely no one here objects to you editing what your kids experience. You should! We’re glad you do! Even if it’s not how we would edit the same! Please continue!
As a separate issue entirely, however, please do the editing yourself — don’t require citizens and businesses around you to take up your responsibility, don’t expect strangers to parent your kids, don’t let your kids loose on the internet or the mall or the television because all right-thinking people will naturally police themselves and each other according to your own standards for your children’s witnessing.
PARENTS HAVE RIGHTS TO RAISE THEIR KIDS
To Iowa Jim and others who support this parent and the obscenity laws, you might think the above line reinforces your support but in fact, it doesn’t.
Think about this: If the gov’t whether it be local,state of federal can say what your children can see or not….it takes away your right to parent. How?Because now, you have to obey the law instead of your own beliefs.In this case, what if a parent wants their underage kids to read this book to foster knowledge and interest in Picasso and historical events. Under this law, it appears to me, that said parent could actually be jailed for that.
Where is your parental rights then?
It’s better to allow things by law then to disallow them. If it’s allowed for kids to see a naked body then you as a parent can choose not to let them see it as the parent. But if the law says you can’t let them see it, you choice is taken away.
Michael J Norton
It’s better to allow things by law then to disallow them. If it’s allowed for kids to see a naked body then you as a parent can choose not to let them see it as the parent. But if the law says you can’t let them see it, you choice is taken away.
I understand what you are saying, but that only works in situations where parents have a choice before the child views/hears the thing in question. I think in most situations what you suggest is reasonable. But then you get into things like TV. Some think it is fine for there to be nudity on the public airwaves. Yes, a parent should be monitoring TV, but do they have to turn it off to leave the room to just get a drink of water? Do they need to tape it and prescreen it before they let their child watch?
I would hope there could be some middle ground between the extremes.
Iowa Jim
Just imagine, if you are fortunate enough to get your way, anytime, anywhere, someone’s gonna arbitrarily go to jail for offending someone.
You clearly have not a word I have said if you believe that is what I want, endorse, or expect to have happen.
Iowa Jim
I would hope there could be some middle ground between the extremes.
And that is where you get to be a parent, to decide the middle ground.
You control the remote, not your child.
If you want to let your kids read books or comics, maybe you should be the one purchasing for them and screening them. The same for music.
I didn’t think it’s as difficult as some parents apparently make it out to be.
Cheezum Crow, I finally get here to read this and an entire shitstorm has already squalled its way across the beaches.
I do sort of wonder about the age of the kid but that’s me, personally; how I raise my kid has no bearing on any law in this case. I also sort of wonder the extent of shelter this kid existed in. I can guess the emotions that led someone to the filing of these kinds of charges and can understand feeling that way but I CANNOT understand doing that, sending a man to jail, and I cannot articulate best myself the serious gap in the law that allows this kind of thing to happen but man, it’s pretty lowdown.
I’d be willing to go as far as buying into community service. I don’t see where a fine would matter since no money changed hands between anybody here, and Gordon certainly isn’t getting that family’s business any more, so it’s not like he came out ahead and must be taken down. It was a mistake, an honest mistake, and one that I can see “must read to underpriveliged children on the weekends” as an equitable punishment for, but not jail time, man. The shareholders of Enron got screwed WAY more than anybody in that free comic, and how many of them went to jail? one? four? for how long?
Just saying is all: I get it, I understand the parents, but I cannot agree with them and I wish the case the best of luck. Also, thanks for reminding me about Salon, I forgot to pick that up (which i was originally incited to do so thanks to CBLDF)…
A worthy case to pick up to be sure. There is a level of absurdity in the complaint of the comic book, given that, you can see the exact same image in any male locker room throughout this great land of ours. For free, too.
Good luck with it, Peter, and please keep us posted on the proceedings.
Mark
Incidentally this seems like the kind of parenting gap you usually hear about. I know when I was a kid I got a copy of Heavy Metal without my parents realizing what it was. Of course I was 5, I didn’t know what it was either, but they usually checked the comics they bought for me. Today, I check my comics for content I don’t want to buy. Not sexual things or violence but more scenes and inrerperitations I don’t endorse. Example, I bought issue 1 of Bruce Jones’ Hulk and was very “meh” toward it. So I flipped through the next issue to see if it was more of the same and decided not to buy it. I also don’t buy comics with a Strong Left point of view or a Strong Right point of view…I’m not terribly closed-minded, particularly about comics, but so much of both are so bad. I’ll get my Strong Left and Strong Right influences from the cable 24 hour news like everyone else.
I mean if you want to stop your kid from ever seeing nudity, wear a burqa, raise him in a shack, that’s fine: as a parent you can do that. Nobody has a monopoly on “successful parenting,” hëll, the kid may turn out all right. But YOU have to take the action and the responsibility. It’s not the government’s job, their job is to protect us from crap like disease and poverty and explosions. It’s not the store owner’s job, it’s his job to make money. Ditto the publisher. It’s YOUR job, Joe and Jane Dickhate. YOU monitor and you take responsibility if you fall down on the job. And of course “falling down on the job” will mean different things to different people but, hey, I’m not stopping you. Just don’t try to stop me. Y’dig?
I believe it was probably an honest mistake on Gordon’s part, and the charges should be dropped because of that. Sure, the “distributing material depicting nudity” law is antiquated and probably needs to be stricken from the books (and it’s Georgia, so there’s probably some laws about not letting your mule sleep in a bathtub, too). Every convenience store sells Hustler and Black Tail, so I don’t see how it can stand, anyway.
As for the First Amendment aspect… whatever. “I’ll defend to the death your right blah-blah-blah…” I’m just really tired of having to stand up for losers like Howard Stern, Janet Jackson, Vince Neil, Mike Diana and Nick Bertozzi (who can’t even draw). If only they had laws prohibiting the distribution of crap…
We as comics enthusiasts like to say that the comics medium is just as powerful as film. But here we’re saying “It’s just some ink drawings of an old man’s limp dìçk.” If Gordon had given a videotape to a minor containing the exact same scene, this case would be pretty much indefensible. We keep saying “Comics Aren’t Just For Kids Anymore.” Well, the issue here is that we didn’t succeed in keeping the comics that aren’t for kids away from the kids.
I just continue to be appalled at the whole body hatred you Americans have going for you. Tell a kid that the human body is dirty and shouldn’t be looked at and then be surprised when they get into self-loathing and depression when they hit adolescence.
What Marionette said.
Marionette wrote: “I just continue to be appalled at the whole body hatred you Americans have going for you. Tell a kid that the human body is dirty and shouldn’t be looked at and then be surprised when they get into self-loathing and depression when they hit adolescence.”
Oh, I don’t think prudishness in America has a whole lot to do with teenager self-loathing and depression. As a matter of fact, I’ll bet there are teens in every culture and country in the world who have such failings.
[b]Just imagine, if you are fortunate enough to get your way, anytime, anywhere, someone’s gonna arbitrarily go to jail for offending someone.
[/b]
[b]
You clearly have not a word I have said if you believe that is what I want, endorse, or expect to have happen.
Iowa Jim[/b]
____
You said it was ok for the parents to call the police if they had contacted the comic store and the store had dismissed them or laughed at them.
What does that mean? That someone isn’t breaking the law if they say “sorry?” I mean, you’re either guilty or your not, right?
I’m trying to understand the world according to Jim. Why would someone call the police if the law wasn’t being broken?
Ooops, screwed up the tag.
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
Actually, as long ago as “20 or 30 years ago”, laws having to do with “adult content” in Georgia, if interpreted literally, made it a crime to display the Bible where children might see it.
The ABA show used to be in Atlanta every few years.
Since that law took effect, it hasn’t been.
I support freedom of speech. That is not because I think that ideas or images can’t be harmful to individuals or to society. It is because when the government has the power to outlaw certain ideas or forms of expression, that power is likely to be used to suppress dissent. And I’m including both political dissent and what you might call social dissent, that is, bucking societal norms.
Even if I thought there were ideas or images that were so harmful that they should be prohibited, I would not trust the government to make good decisions on what to ban and what to allow.
And the consequences of banning something are severe. In effect, if it is illegal to do an act (such as expose a child to a drawing of a naked man), that authorizes the forcible abduction and captivity of any person who is suspected of committing that act. To abduct someone and hold him captive is a severe act, and the authorization to do so should be reserved for those who commit acts that seriously injure other people.
So what is a parent to do if he is upset about a drawing in a comic that was given to his child? Complain to the store owner. Write a letter to the editor. Post your feelings about it on the Internet. Organize a boycott.
The most effective response to bad or inappropriate speech is more speech. That is, rather than ban it, speak against it. Use your right of free speech and make yourself heard. But don’t abduct the dude at gunpoint and hold him captive, and don’t ask the police to do it for you.
What Steve Premo said.
And yeah I’m sure teenagers around the world have the same hormonal mood swings but I’m sure “your body wants sex now, so you’re evil” doesn’t help matters.
As a matter of fact, I’ll bet there are teens in every culture and country in the world who have such failings.
Oh, I’m sure there are. But few countries spend as much time and energy enforcing that they should be ashamed of what nature has given at them.
And that is not only enforced by telling kids that nudity is bad, but also in saying that anything other than the perfect male/female form (see: advertising) is bad.
We’ve created our own fubar’ed society that nobody wants to fix except make it even more oppressive.
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?
My art history professor, as well as most art historians, refer to the man as the “pantaloon painter.”
As for parents watching what their children read, my partner once owned the X-Men issue where Wolverine gets his adamantium skeleton ripped out. He was relatively young and his mother found it and tossed it out (to his present dismay) due to the violence. As an adult now finishing college, he is sad that his mom didn’t just set the comic aside until he was older, but he doesn’t begrudge her choice of parental censorship.
Though this deals with violence, not nudity, I’d like to use it as an example, agreeing with Jarissa’s second point. In my partner’s family, the ‘routine’ violence of movies and comic books was, for the most part, open to consumption (it was the holographic card that really triggered his mom). In my family, I wasn’t even exposed to that sort of violence until I was almost a teenager. Casual or mildly sexual nudity, on the other hand, was ‘no big thing’–which it certainly wasn’t in my partner’s household.
Point being; each family system is different, as a lot of these comments seem to be arguing. When a populace is so varied, how can a law fairly deal with everyone affected? As we all have seen one time or another, it can
It never ceases to amaze me of how ridiculous people are about the human body. God help us all.
To further add a tidbit to what PAD said, there is another true story about this same kind of censorship. Read Dan Brown’s Angels and Demons and he talks about the “Great Castration” when many male nude statures were castrated with a hammer at the Vatican because one of the popes or bishops thought it was indecent. All those statues with fig leaves, well the leaves were added to replace his handiwork.
As for the case now, it should be bounced right out of court.
“If only they had laws prohibiting the distribution of crap…”
Well, that would put an end to ninety percent of everything. At least retailers wouldn’t have problems anymore with rack space.
PAD
I want to know more facts about the accuser before I completely pass judgment, but it seems to me that the wrong person might be facing jailtime. Goodluck Gordon.
“As for parents watching what their children read, my partner once owned the X-Men issue where Wolverine gets his adamantium skeleton ripped out. He was relatively young and his mother found it and tossed it out (to his present dismay) due to the violence. As an adult now finishing college, he is sad that his mom didn’t just set the comic aside until he was older, but he doesn’t begrudge her choice of parental censorship.”
And as the person who suggested that Wolverine get his adamantium skeleton ripped out, I can only applaud her judgment, because I *still* think it was the dumbest idea I ever voiced…
PAD
And as the person who suggested that Wolverine get his adamantium skeleton ripped out, I can only applaud her judgment, because I *still* think it was the dumbest idea I ever voiced…
Yet, it’s one of the most logical things Magneto could do.
The end of the Age of Apocalypse stuff, where Magneto literally tears Apocalypse in half… a brilliant maneuver. 🙂
But, seriously, you suggested the adamantium getting ripped out, bit, PAD? Thumbs up! 🙂
“If only they had laws prohibiting the distribution of crap…”
And WHO gets to define crap? You’re trying to open an even bigger can of worms if you are anything but completely sarcastic with that comment.
PAD
I kinda liked the concept, the execution of it was truly heart- and gut-wrenching. Nice to know Magneto can “melt” and reshape “set” adamantium…
” Remember Doctor Manhattan? He’ll get you one to three years in Georgia…”
Geez. When I made the Dr.Manhattan crack yesterday (when you first hinted at this subject) I was actually joking.
*sigh*
John Mosby
(the spirit is willing but the flesh is weekly)
And further to the actual subject…
I have no problem with the idea that if there is nudity in the magazine that there should probably be some sort of notice, or at leats the magaizne not next to Transformers on the shelf. Not the “YOU’LL GO BLIND!!!!” shock-horror sort but a note of some kind, if not on the cover then on the rack itself (sic).
I can understand an unwitting parent letting a little kid buy what they think is the equivalent to Spider-man and then finding out to their dismay they’ve got something a little more mature. Hopefully a savvy store owner could probably spot this at a thousand paces (unwitting non comic-affiliated parents have this glazed, desperate look).
There’s no reason to stop printing any and all kind of comic that fits within the common-sense notions of the law (each to his/her own), just the common-sense notion that prevents, say: Power Rangers, Buffy, The Shield and Debbie Does Metropolis from appearing next to each other in the TV schedules.
Of course, the main problem with this cunning plan is the fact that no-one ever puts a warning notice up that says ‘Super-heroines wearing so little clothing that though you can’t see anything REALLY rude, they’d actually be arrested for solicitation or catch pnemonia in real life’
Thank God.
🙂
John
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.
Raises hand as counterexample.
I can still remember discovering my parents’ Playboys.
Based on which house we were living in, this probably happened when I was between seven and ten years old at the time.
I loved to read them — for the cartoons. I skipped over the pictures and the articles, and just flipped pages directly to the comics and jokes.
No lasting harm that anyone’s ever noticed in me beyond a really bad sense of humor (though that’s probably more the fault of my access to my parents’
MAD Magazine collection, along with early accumulated exposure to Mel Brooks, Marx Brothers and Muppets).
It’s nice to see I’m not the only one who thinks the “nudity is evil” attitude does more harm than good. I don’t see how the implications (both about the mindset of the people who helped it come into being, and the “concequences” for it [basically being taught that you’re immoral etc. if you prefer to not wear clothing; or the “guilt trip” the above people try to get you on; or the psychological damage that occurs not because of what you’re actually seeing {like you might in a rape or murder}, but more because you were told this was wrong and should be viewed… however, can’t think of the word]) can come out as being helpful. Also, I honestly never viewed the “comic obscenity” issue the way Peter described it. I wanted to say thanks. It really opened my mind.
“I just continue to be appalled at the whole body hatred you Americans have going for you. Tell a kid that the human body is dirty and shouldn’t be looked at and then be surprised when they get into self-loathing and depression when they hit adolescence.”
Jeeze, generalize much? We Americans are not nearly as monolithic as the people of whatever fair land you hail from (the Borg Collective?). Frankly, a bigger problem here would be the habit of some to paint whole groups of people with bigoted assumptions that fit their own little world view…so if you ever come to visit you should have no trouble finding like minded friends.
“As a matter of fact, I’ll bet there are teens in every culture and country in the world who have such failings.”
“Oh, I’m sure there are. But few countries spend as much time and energy enforcing that they should be ashamed of what nature has given at them.”
few countries??? I hate to pull a Marionette here and slag whole nations of people but wouldn’t you think that the countries where women are encouraged/coerced into hiding their bodies be just a BIT more repressive. Judging from my detailed scientific study (achieved by randomly hitting buttons on my TV remote control) the “time and energy” being spent seems to be having little effect. Oboy! Another bra and panties wrestling match on this weeks WWF Smackdown!
I mean, I live in the freaking Bible Belt, home of Jesse Helms and I could, for purely research purposes of course, go down the street to the local Adult Bookstore and buy stuff that would make Al Goldstein blush, up to and including acts involving barnyard animals and/or Ron Jeremy. I can’t remember the last time ATTACK OF THE CRAB MONSTERS was on TV but I can always be sure that one of the Cinemax stations will have the latest episode of MARILYN CHAMBERS FANTASIES (I’m sorry to report that Ms Chamber’s fantasies these days are more along the “Wow, an all you can eat dessert buffet!” variety but then again who am I to judge?).
Not that this changes for a moment the need to remain ever vigilant but the reports of our Puritanical repression of visual displays of sexuality have been, to say the least, greatly exaggerated.
Iowa Jim: I understand what you are saying, but that only works in situations where parents have a choice before the child views/hears the thing in question. I think in most situations what you suggest is reasonable. But then you get into things like TV. Some think it is fine for there to be nudity on the public airwaves. Yes, a parent should be monitoring TV, but do they have to turn it off to leave the room to just get a drink of water? Do they need to tape it and prescreen it before they let their child watch?
Pre-screening shows for your kid really isn’t a bad idea. I see nothing wrong with a parent doing that. And if the parent wants to get a drink, they can always wait until a commercial, those generally lack nudity, but your child may learn about erectile dysfunction and genetial herpes. And if your child does see/hear something that you find offensive, you’re perfectly free to change the channel, or, at worse, just explain to your kid that you disapprove of that kind of behavior/language, and that they are no longer permitted to watch said show/read said book because of it. That’s parenting, Jim.
You filtering what your child sees at a particular age is one thing. The government filtering what everyone sees at any age is another.
Jim,
Reading this exchange, I must say that it appears you almost, but not quite, get why the CBLDF’s getting involved in this. I say, “almost, but not quite” because, while you recognize, for example, that the “distribution of nudity” charge is being misapplied, it’s the potential outcome of that misapplication that’s the greatest peril in this case.
Follow, if you will. Let’s suppose both the obscenity and distribution of nudity charges remain. (They probably will…prosecutors love to throw multiple charges at the proverbial wall to see what sticks.) Now, further, let’s suppose that the prosecution wins the case. This sets at least two legal precedents:
1) That nudity, in and of itself, regardless of context or content, can legally be considered “obscene.”
and
2) That Georgia’s distribution of nudity law can be applied outside the “unsolicited mailing” framework it currently exists within.
By all appearances, it would appear that preventing such precedents from being set is the CBLDF’s primary goal. here.
And, such a victory for the prosecution isn’t much of a leap, as evidenced by Jesus’ case.
And, speaking of ‘Sus, Keith’s and the CBLDF…attended a Customer Appreciation Day that Keith’s and a couple other local stores held last weekend. And, in a CBLDF benefit raffle, won an Earth X Bloodstorm statue. Never read the series, didn’t know who the character was ’til reading the box…but gladly ponied up the dough for my entries as it was to benefit the CBLDF. It wasn’t much (and, “not much” is all I can afford these days), but every little bit helps. 🙂
but the reports of our Puritanical repression of visual displays of sexuality have been, to say the least, greatly exaggerated.
Sure, tell that to Janet Jackson and CBS.
In high school two friends and I went to see Trainspotting at a theater that didn’t card us. Fran loved the movie enough that he went and read the book right away. When it came to the video store a few months later the video store clerk said that if she rented it to us she could go to jail. As Julio already pointed out, this isn’t true. I worked in a theater at the time and pointed this out to the clerk, who wasn’t convinced and just refused to rent to us anyway.
Here’s my thought: why was it okay for Fran to read the book but not see the movie? The same stuff was in both, right? Throughout my younger years, older people had all sorts of notions about censoring what I read in a comic book or saw in a movie or (heaven forbid) heard on an album, but when it came to books, nobody cared. I’m pretty sure that I was introduced to the “C” word by either Dan Simmons’ “Hyperion” or the Dark Half before I was fourteen. Now, Hyperion’s a great book and I’m glad I was exposed to it at a young age, but why the double standard? I remember my boss at the theater wouldn’t let me sit and watch Demon Knight (which I’d already seen) when I was 16. When I was 15 I did a book report on Stephen King’s It and compared it to the movie, elaborating on the fact that a tv movie couldn’t have the orgy that all the kids have with the redhead so they can band together and find their way out of the sewers, and it sure couldn’t top the deep psychosis of the Hockstetter kid, who’d drowned his brother in the tub and believed he was the only sentient creature in the universe.
Why the double standard? I live in PA. Is it the same in the south? If a GA library gives a kid Gerald’s Game does anybody raise a ruckus?
joeyfixit’s post brings to mind a point that swam around in my head earlier today while reading this thread.
Several times, in the responses, have been statements to the effect that, “I can’t just grab a stack of comics and assume they’re all ok for kids.” Which is true enough. Also true enough is that, at least in America, the comics medium did start out aimed primarily at children. But, it hasn’t been such for a fair stretch…at least during the period that most of us here who are also comics fans/readers have been reading them. But, it makes me wonder….
Does anyone assume that if they, say, grab a box full of random novels that any/most/all of them will be suitable for all ages?
Does anyone assume that if they grab a stack of CD’s that any/most/all of them will be suitable for all ages?
Does anyone assume that if they randomly select a channel on television, that what they’ll land on is suitable for all ages?
It’s legal losses like, for instance, the Jesus Castillo case that, ultimately, beget more cases like it; that allow prosecutors to successfully employ the argument, “It’s in a comic book, thus it was clearly intended to be sold to children, because we all know comic books are just ‘kids’ stuff’.”
Here’s another double standard I think’s worth pointing out, which might be more relevant to the “nudity” discussion. When I was 18 I went on a school trip to Germany. The movie Cyborg came on tv. There came a scene that I’d never seen before, in which the girl (not the cyborg) is bouncing down the beach naked. And I do mean bouncing. I’d never seen this scene because I was used to watching it on tv (Philadelphia 17, specifically). I pointed this out to my host family as being a weird/surprising thing to see on commercial tv, not offended but getting a kick out of it. My partner shrugged it off as not being unusual at all.
A few minutes later Jean Claude launches into a fight scene. “Hey,” I notice, “they cut stuff out”. Again, I only knew this movie from television. I believe what was cut out involved van Damme slashing a bad guy’s throat with a knife that stuck out of his boot. When I asked why this had been removed, I was told, “Children might be watching.”
Later on in the trip we went to Berlin. In the subway there was an ad that featured a topless girl rising out of a lake. She had to be at least ten feet tall. The chicks were upset at the unreality of the depiction. Apparently this girl somehow surpassed the laws of gravity. None of the guys seemed to mind. I didn’t mind it. She certainly did nothing to “cheapen” the nude female form for me. That was eight years ago; I can still remember what she looks like, but I’ll be dámņëd if I can remember what the ad was for.
Elayne Riggs wrote:
“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.”
Don’t you think Wal-Mart should have the right to choose not to carry this book? For those people who want to purchase this book, they can buy it elsewhere at numerous locations. Just think you’re blowing this a bit out of proportion, especially with the “saddens the hëll out of me…”
Hearst had the right to ban Citizen Kane from as many theaters as he could. He also had the right not to advertise the movie in any of his publications. Did that make it right? Or was it an abuse of power?
Absolutely Wal-Mart should have the right not to carry a product. It’s if the gov’t, or the Republican Party(which is in charge at the moment and our President is a member of, also who Wal-Mart give a ton of cash to) tells them not to carry it that it becomes a problem.
I’ve told this story online before but I’ll tell it again here. I worked at a movie theater for a year. At the time Firestorm, that bastion of good film making, came out. I worked at the ticket counter and a woman comes up with her 12 year old son and asks for a ticket for him for the movie. She then asks if there is any (and this she whispered) “nudity or s-e-x” in it. I said no, but “a guy gets a ax to the head”…and she said “Oh, that’s ok.” and bought a ticket! She didn’t even go see it with him!
Oh well.
Michael J Norton