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
• 
“You seem to forget that I supported Jesus when he was arrested in Dallas at Keith’s Comics”
yet in the end you denied him and he was crucified! admit it!
On the other hand, I’m just amazed at the extradition treaty that the Romans and Pharisees had signed, reaching all the way into Texas and even traversing time itself…. 2000 years.
On a more series point, as I recall Ashcroft had a quite valid reason for covering those breasts and it wasn’t puritanical…. it was bloody personal. From the accounts I read various camera operators and producers thought it would be amusing and ironic to portray the “puritanical” holy-roller right next to some good solid stone statue-tits every time he spoke. So on every screen just a short distance away, in close proximity to the head of the Attorney General were great nipples. As he saw it they were making fun of him, so since he couldn’t rightly censor the jerks, he took away one of their enablers and thus he covered the statues. It’s a lot like taking away some jerk’s toy when he’s mis-used it. They mis-used the Mammaries of Justice and so he took them away.
“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…”
Except for their shells, maybe?
// 1Which is true enough. Also true enough is that, at least in America, the comics medium did start out aimed primarily at children. //
That’s actually somewhat of a myth. The early comic books were mostly reprints of comic strips and those strips were often done with an “older” audience in mind. (Ðìçk Tracy, for instance, was one of the first strips reprinted in comic book form, and while kids loved it it wasn’t really a kids strip. The audience that read Tracy then, would today be watching CSI of 24). It took a few years for the “it’s just for kids” mentality to kick and even then it didn’t kick in accross the board until the seduction of the innocent controversy of the 1950’s.
// 1On a more series point, as I recall Ashcroft had a quite valid reason for covering those breasts and it wasn’t puritanical…. it was bloody personal. From the accounts I read various camera operators and producers thought it would be amusing and ironic to portray the “puritanical” holy-roller right next to some good solid stone statue-tits every time he spoke. So on every screen just a short distance away, in close proximity to the head of the Attorney General were great nipples. As he saw it they were making fun of him, so since he couldn’t rightly censor the jerks, he took away one of their enablers and thus he covered the statues. It’s a lot like taking away some jerk’s toy when he’s mis-used it. They mis-used the Mammaries of Justice and so he took them away. //
Which makes Ashcroft looks petty and small. A real man would have said, “let them, it’s art. it’s been here a long time and I have bigger things to worry about then a bunch of reporters who insist on acting like 8th graders”. And of course the covering up of that breast was done with taxpayers money, yours and mine. Without even thinking hard I can think of a million better uses for that money then helping a small, petty man, who when all is said and done, will probably end up being a small footnote in history that no one remembers, save face in front of reporters.
>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 agree in principle, but the problem, as I see it, is that in our overly litigious societies, I can well imagine some kid deciding to take his parents to court for infringing on his ‘right’ to see that sort of thing. The law would have to be very carefully drafter with parental overrides built in.
>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…
Sadly, yes.
>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…
Looks like Ultron – should he surface up again – has another thing to worry about beyond Wanda and Mr. Jeffries.
>Don’t you think Wal-Mart should have the right to choose not to carry this book?
Not as simple in Canada where Heather Reisman (owner of Canada’s biggest, recently merged book store chains) unilaterally banned a book from being sold in her stores. If we can’t get it there, where will we?
Remembering that half the population doesn’t have Internet, after all, so that option is closed to them, too. So might as well be the government banning it, for most practical intents.
Posted by: Powell Pugh at February 7, 2005 05:25 PM
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.
The argument here is not that because it is just a comic, it is not as big a deal as film.
What is really being said is that because comics are a valid art form (equal to film, novels, painting, sculpture etc.), the medium is worthy of protection by the same precedents that overturned obscentity charges against Allen Ginsberg’s Howl, James Joyce’s Ulysses, and the Cincinnati Contemporary Art Center’s exhibit of Mapplethorpe’s photos.
“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.
Iowa Jim “
I don’t know about the rest of you, but this still doesn’t warrent a call to the police in my opinion. Now in my little corner of the world I tend to think you should make your voice heard with your dollar, and if the retailer did blow off my concerns as a parent, I would simply start shopping, and have my child shop at another comic store.
Jeff Coney has it right, well said.
(altho Gordon at most owes an apology for not screening the product he was giving free to children)
Being “personally offended” is NEVER an excuse to call the cops…
“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”
How can we hear it, this is a text based blog isn’t it?
The early comic books were mostly reprints of comic strips and those strips were often done with an “older” audience in mind.
Intended audience has never mattered.
The assumption that comics always have been and always will be for children I would guess stems from the fact that things like Warner Bros cartoons, and the early Disney movies, were for kids.
Alot of newspaper comic strips used to be for kids, but I’d love to see somebody claim that today for something like Doonesbury.
It’s simply an assumption based on ignorance.
“If Gordon had given a videotape to a minor containing the exact same scene, this case would be pretty much indefensible.”
Well…no. The defense would remain the same: That it doesn’t remotely fulfill the obscenity standards as put forward by the Miller test. Simply nudity is not obscene. Unless, of course, the Georgia law holds, in which case the depiction of simple nudity DOES become obscene.
In which case, anyone selling or renting “Schindler’s List” is now open to charges of peddling smut.
Anyone think that’s a good precedent to set? Anyone?
PAD
“As he saw it they were making fun of him, so since he couldn’t rightly censor the jerks, he took away one of their enablers and thus he covered the statues. It’s a lot like taking away some jerk’s toy when he’s mis-used it. They mis-used the Mammaries of Justice and so he took them away.”
So instead of reacting with, “Let them say what they want, it’s a free country,” he instead censored art.
Oh yeah. That’s definitely a guy with his free expression priorities in place.
PAD
I for one disagree with Iowa Jim (or is it jim from iowa now, I don’t recall), however, I’m getting a little annoyed by those who feel the need to take cheap shots at his expense.
Jim, I feel, expreses his thoughts clearly, consicly, and when he disagreees with the concesus here, he disagrees respectfully. I very often find myself disagreeing with his politics (in fact i can’t recall agreeing with him on any subject, save that maddrox is an great comic series, and our mutual appreciation for other works by Mr. David), but I think Iowa Jim should be extended the same curtesy he extends to us in these discussions/threads.
joeyfixit wrote: “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.”
Well, the U.S. isn’t the only country sensitive to violence. In, I believe, 1981, my wife and I and our newborn daughter were living in England. We went to see the science fiction film “Scanners” first run, which, although we weren’t aware of it initially, was apparently rated “X” in England. We lived off base and didn’t know anyone nearby who could babysit our daughter, so we took her to the theater with us. The plan was a typical one for parents with a young baby: If she fussed during the film, one of us would take her outside. Apparently no one who worked there saw my wife carry her in, and none of the handful of other moviegoers said anything to us in the lobby, but about 30 minutes into the movie, an employee came up to us and informed us that since my sleeping newborn was underage, she could not stay in the theater. Apparently, one of the locals ratted on us on the sly. And since they wouldn’t give us a refund, my wife and I took turns standing in the lobby with our daughter for the rest of the film. To this day, I don’t think I’ve seen “Scanners” all the way through.
How dumb was/is THAT law?
Shane:
“The argument here is not that because it is just a comic, it is not as big a deal as film.”
I know that. But the argument here is also not that it’s okay to give a kid something *labelled* as inappropriate for kids because it’s “Art” or because it’s historically researched.
The underlying problem here is whether or not an apology is a good enough response (or if indeed one was offered), which may unfortunately have to be resolved through the argument of an antiquated obscenity law which is apparently being applied arbitrarily.
My mention of comparing the comics to a film version was just an observation. Give the kid a prose novel describing the scene, no one’s going to say a thing about it. Give the kid a comic, we get this situation right here. Give the kid a videotape, the dude who gave it to him would be paying for his own legal defense.
Diverting from this particular case for a moment, I just wondered if anyone else had heard about this:
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1480744,00.html?maca=en-moreover-pol-eu-eng-574-rdf
It’s about an Austrian comic depicting Jesus as a pot-smoking parry animal who crosses the Sea of Galilee on a surfboard. The Greeks have banned it and threatened the author with six months imprisonment if he enters the country.
Can’t believe no one seems to have mentioned The Simpsons yet:
Helen Lovejoy: You’ve got to lead our protest against this abomination!
Marge: But that’s Michelangelo’s David. It’s a masterpiece.
Helen: It’s filth! It graphically portrays parts of the human body, which, practical as they may be, are evil.
Marge: But I like that statue.
Helen: I told you she was soft on full frontal nudity!
(later, while viewing Michelangelo’s David):
Homer: Pretty soon, every boy and girl in Springfield Elementary is going to come and see this thing.
Marge: Really? Why?
Homer: They’re forcing ’em!
And just to reinforce this.
Support the CBLDF
Support the CBLDF
Support the CBLDF
Support the CBLDF
Support the CBLDF
Support the CBLDF
Especially if you’re a fan of being able to buy Fallen Angel, which could get a retailer like me arrested in our communitites, should the DA decide they need to extra votes.
Whether you agree or disagree with this case, whether you’re Republican or Democrat or whatever, these types of laws need to be scrutanized and disected, and the CBLDF is at the forefront of that fight.
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?
Let me repeat what I said: My point was that IF the parent was calling in the first place because they were concerned other kids were also given mature comics, and the parent was ignored and told to go fly a kite by the store owner, then what other recourse would the parent have to make sure the comic store owner was not handing out mature comics to minors? There IS a difference if this was an accident or if this was deliberate.
I clearly stated this was a hypothetical. It is possible the parent did want “revenge” and hoped to throw the owner in jail. It is possible the owner fell on his knees and begged for forgiveness, mortified at his mistake. The reality is we have very few facts, and both sides will portray their side in the best possible light.
My point was that there were other explanations of why a reasonable, rational parent would call the police. In my scenario, it would NOT be clear that this was an honest mistake, so the parent would then take the next logical step of action. The Newsarama article made clear that the comic was mature in its content and language, not just in a few non-sexual nude pictures. While the prosecution is based on the pictures, the parent may (or may not) have been reacting to the comic as a whole.
I appreciate Nytwyng’s comments, which echo something I said at the beginning. Nytwyng is right that I do see the legal reasons to fight this case. My original point, though, is that the harsh comments about the parents are at least premature since we don’t know all of the facts in this case. There are TWO issues that are raised by this case. The first is the issue of the parent’s reaction and actions. The second is the criminal case. I fully defend the parents in this matter (even though I would most likely have handled it differently). I do not defend the prosecutors or the fact that this is particular incident is criminal (i.e., potentially a 3 year sentence). It puzzles me that some of you cannot separate these two issues.
Iowa Jim
Jim, I think part of the cause of some of the responses you’ve been getting is that your hypothetical does not fit with the facts we do have, both from the Newsarama piece and Gordan’s Lee’s own postings here.
While it’s possible that, for the sake of preserving evidence, Gordan and the N’AMA piece didn’t report some facts, it appears the first Gordan knew of the mistake was when the police arrested him. That implies that no call of complaint was made to the store about the incident. More facts may come out that shed some light on the actual course of events, but based on what we know now, there’s nothing to suggest that the aggrieved party made any attempt to deal with Gordan on their own.
Which brings up the police. People, myself included, have criticized the family for reporting the incident to the authoroties. And while I still feel that the law, as applied in this case, is wrong, that doesn’t make the law itself wrong. Children have long been a protected class in the eyes of the law, so it’s not really surprising that we pass laws to protect them from things that we don’t apply the same protection to adults.
Given that, were I a conservative-minded parent living in GA, and aware of the law prohibiting the distribution of obscene material to children, and in support of such law, then calling the police would be a natural reaction under these circumstances.
Which excuses not at all the prosecution of the case. An investigation, certainly, but unless there’s more to that book/event than we know, an arrest was unwarranted.
The Greeks have banned it and threatened the author with six months imprisonment if he enters the country.
Let’s see… no video games (didn’t they ban most if not all of them recently?), no portraying their “national heroes” as gays, and now this.
But hey, I don’t believe Greece was ever on my “to visit” list.
// The assumption that comics always have been and always will be for children I would guess stems from the fact that things like Warner Bros cartoons, and the early Disney movies, were for kids. //
The WB cartoons were not made for children. They were made for adults, shown for adult audiences before adult movies. They did not become associated with “childrens fare” until decades later when they started being shown on TV.
// Alot of newspaper comic strips used to be for kids //
A lot of them still are, but a lot of them were also for adults. Newspaper comics of old very often had things in them that Saturday morning Cartoons would never be able to have. (Like Ðìçk Tracy shooting someone though the head). In the 30-40’s and 50’s, the audience for newspaper strips was always considered to be older whereas the audience for Saturday morning cartoons was always considered to be younger. Kids loved reading them too, but that’s not the same as saying they were meant for them.
// but I’d love to see somebody claim that today for something like Doonesbury. //
Doonesbury is very often moved off the comics page, onto the editoral page because people claim that very thing. That everything on the comics page should be for kids, since Doonesbury is obviously not it gets moved.
Does anybody remember the old TWILIGHT ZONE episode where BILLY MUMY’s character banished all those people to the “corn field”, where all sorts of horrible things were supposed to be happening to them? Well, it can finally be revealed exactly what the “horrible beyond all words” fate was that happened to them:
They became Republicans!
In related news, there’s a bill coming down the pike, apparantly with bipartisan support, that would increase the fine for broadcasting indeceny over public airwaves to as much as $500,000 per incident. Yay US.
As you know, I’m a conservative and a Christian (or maybe you don’t know, or more likely don’t care…)
My response would be dependent on the age of my child. If he was very young, I’d call the store owner and politely confront him or her. Mistakes are easy to make. If he was an older child, depending on the comic, I would just take it away from him and explain why.
The only way I’d call the police, as Jim has stated, is if the retailer really was peddling smut with no intention of stopping it.
I recognize that my standards are a lot tighter than most people’s, and also like Jim, I have no intention of making other people live to my standards.
Also like Jim, I don’t think the human body is evil (well, mine is close, but diet soda tastes so bad) but I do think nudity should be reserved to marital intimacy (and showering, of course). My kids are taught to be modest, but they don’t think their bodies are evil. They know sex is wonderful and fun, but they also know it’s reserved for marriage.
My upbringing was considerably looser than that I’m giving my children. I believe the pørņ I was viewing at a young age had a lot to do with the objectifying of women that plagued my young adult life. I’d prefer to educate my kids away from that.
I also think that most posts directed at Jim were dealing with the positions they want Jim to represent and not those that he really represents.
Jim, I think part of the cause of some of the responses you’ve been getting is that your hypothetical does not fit with the facts we do have, both from the Newsarama piece and Gordan’s Lee’s own postings here.
Fair enough. I somehow missed the fact that Gordan himself was posting here. I was not trying to imply what he had posted was a lie or misleading. Thanks for the clarification.
Iowa Jim
This is my opinion:
Since the American Culture began their endless campaign of “be afraid” and have, through a wide variety of medium, push this agenda with more zeal then the Nazi’s at the height of their anti-Jewish campaign, this is what we come too. A lot of people blame Republican thinking for this because it uses this ploy the loudest, but the Democrats do it too. I wasn’t for voting for Bush, but the “Vote for the other guy because Bush is worse” is a stupid reason to vote for a candidate next to “he love jellybeans.” It’s a campaign of fear.
In the campaign the right-wing, where most of these censors come from, has led the charge by finding more BS reason for us to be in fear then anyone on the planet.
Fear the Gays – they are going to ruin marrage.
Fear the Blacks – Usual assortment of racist reasons
Fear the Arabs – so what we provolk them every chance we get, they hate us because we’re us
Fear Free Speech – it doesn’t follow our line therefore must be stopped at all costs.
Fear Nukes – THEY’RE OUT THERE!!! THERE OUT THERE!!!
In this you get cases like Mr. David sighted. And the reality. Here’s the punchline, in fighting against this you also fight in favor of these censors. They are exercising their free speech too. That, to me, is something only America can come up with, in order to protect free speech you have to fight for the right of people trying to erode free speech to continue to do it. Because in the end it’s all free speech, innit?
msg to Iowa Jim:
Just wanted to post my appreciation for respectfully and bravely posting your POV in this private (more or less) forum, in a manner both civilized and as erudite as possible for this hot button issue.
Talk about religion and politics — censorship and parent’s rights, nudity, legality and laws — and it brings out the best and the worst in all of us.
Just wanted you to know.
Umar wrote: “Since the American Culture began their endless campaign of “be afraid” and have, through a wide variety of medium, push this agenda with more zeal then the Nazi’s at the height of their anti-Jewish campaign, this is what we come too.”
I understand where you are going with the sentiment of your post, but if you really believe the statement you wrote above, then I’m afraid you know nothing about what conditions were really like in Germany before and during World War II, and what conditions in the United States currently are like.
You may feel that such outrageous hyperbole may strengthen your point, but it doesn’t. If anything, it completely destroys any legitimate argument you may have.
In this you get cases like Mr. David sighted. And the reality. Here’s the punchline, in fighting against this you also fight in favor of these censors. They are exercising their free speech too. That, to me, is something only America can come up with, in order to protect free speech you have to fight for the right of people trying to erode free speech to continue to do it. Because in the end it’s all free speech, innit?
The parent(s) expressing their displeasure, and even stating (even if incorrectly) that there was malicious intent, so on and so forth…that’s the exercise of free speech.
Inappropriately applying laws that have nothing to do with the case at hand, though? I’m not sure how that’s “exercising free speech.”
// A lot of newspaper comic strips used to be for kids //
I’m reminded of the whole “public airwaves” arguement that is used against Janet, Howard Stern, etc.. Yes, they are the public airwaves. I and the members of the population that occasionally (or even frequently) watch/listen to Stern are also part of The Public, and it strikes me as ridiculous, in this age of V-chips, Parental Locks, NetNannies, and the ability to erase an offending channel on your remote (which, anymore, is necessary to work just about everything), that we are told we should give up our guilty (or non-guilty) pleasures so someone else can be a ‘good parent.’
The Janet thing is even more ridiculous because the whole incident lasted what? 2 – 3 seconds? The fact that people chose to complain to the FCC about this seems more neurotic to me than any potential ‘damage’ to their little ones.
//My upbringing was considerably looser than that I’m giving my children. I believe the pørņ I was viewing at a young age had a lot to do with the objectifying of women that plagued my young adult life.//
Your choice. Given the fact that there have been responses from both males and females testifying to the lack of any corrupting influence from having looked at PLAYBOY in their youth, I think it’s safe to say that your experience is not a general one. Then again, I think this statement is a cop-out, like some serial killer on Death Row blaming his murder spree on cheerleaders and nudie mags.
Ultimately, it seems to me to boil down to a further attempt to legislate morality. I’m not too sympathetic to Iowa Bob’s hypothetical “What if the store owner blew the objecting customer off;” I agree that both the customer AND our cloged courts are better served by the customer taking her business elsewhere.
“Iowa Bob”
Hmm, I wonder what *would* happen if you somehow managed to merge Jim and me together? We’d/it’d probably need constant supervision, because we’d/it’s spend so much time debating itself that it’d forget to eat.
You can’t fault a person for calling the police. That’s the point of the police, to call upon when you feel threatened. It’s no one’s place to decide the definition of “threatened” for the entire populace.
Imagine there is a group of large, unfamiliar men gathered outside in a driveway next to your house shouting and loudly laughing amongst themselves. How would you handle it? Some people would call the police right away. Some people would quietly complain to themselves. Some people wouldn’t notice. Some people might try to go over and join the group. None of these reactions are wrong, they are just what the respective individual feels safest doing.
If the parent in this case felt threatened then it’s perfectly within her right to call the police. Maybe it’s not what you would have done, but it’s not wrong.
I think this is the entire point that Jim is trying to get across. Since we don’t know the details we can’t comment on them, but the idea of blaming someone for calling the police is ridiculous, no matter how minor the infraction seems in your opinion.
The only thing we can say for sure right now is that the punishment does not fit the (supposed) crime.
Hmmmm, don’t know about this case, but Ashcroft (from a story I read a long time back and nope, I can’t source it) got tired of the MSM having fun with those bøøbìëš behind his head. I mean, come on, you are doing a serious job and the press only wants those pictures to have sport with you? And like I said, I don’t know this current case but if the guy sold these *mature* books to underage kids blaming law enforcement is not the solution…
I think the entire problem is that the parents of this minor didn’t bother to deal with the store directly. This is a simple mistake that can be solved without any kind of court nonsense.
When did our country get to the point that people are so terrified of dealing with each other that they have to resort to the cops and the courts to solve everything? When did minor mistakes become major catastrophes?
Hmmmm, don’t know about this case, but Ashcroft (from a story I read a long time back and nope, I can’t source it) got tired of the MSM having fun with those bøøbìëš behind his head. I mean, come on, you are doing a serious job and the press only wants those pictures to have sport with you?
Funny how 1) covering the statue was one of his first acts as AG and 2) All of the previous AGs, including Ed Meese, famous for his anti-pornagraphy “study” had no problem being taken seriously while talking to the press in front of the statue.
Robbnn: As you know, I’m a conservative and a Christian (or maybe you don’t know, or more likely don’t care…)
Don’t worry, I won’t hold it against you. 🙂
My response would be dependent on the age of my child. If he was very young, I’d call the store owner and politely confront him or her. Mistakes are easy to make. If he was an older child, depending on the comic, I would just take it away from him and explain why.
Sounds reasonable
The only way I’d call the police, as Jim has stated, is if the retailer really was peddling smut with no intention of stopping it.
And here’s where the case hinges on everything. Is simply showing a naked human being, in and of itself, “smut”? Given that the image, as described, wasn’t depicting any act of sex, nor was meant to arouse, I don’t think it qualifies. It’s not like he gave a copy of Hustler to a minor.
I think that Gordon didn’t consider the image to be “smut”, but that defination can change from person to person. While the parent has every right to disagree with Gordon, punishing him in such a manner is far too harsh and wrongheaded a response.
Umar:
“It’s a campaign of fear.”
I’m not saying you’re entirely wrong, but I will say that this really doesn’t apply to the case at hand. Also, most of the psychobabble correlations between fear, non-acceptance, intolerance and hatred are faulty at best.
Slick,
I should have qualified that the comic in question doesn’t fit my definition of smut, but I suppose for some it is.
I don’t believe the “climate of fear” is a partison issue, I believe it is a psychological issue, in that the human race often requires – and therefore looks for – fear for motivation. Not a good trait, by any means, but a near universal one. If it isn’t “them” it’s “cancer” or “pollution” or SOMETHING.
Malvito,
I don’t consider it a cop out, since I accept responsibility for it, but early pørņ viewing – the viewing of objectifying material – is a strong influence. And just because some people claim it wasn’t harmful to them, it may indeed be harmful, they just don’t consider it harm (you have to accept objective harm isn’t always subjective harm to agree, so YMMV).
“Remember how ludicrous it was when John Ashcroft draped cloths over the bare breasts of the statue of justice? “
Just for the record, this is an extreme mischaracterisation. No cloths were draped over any bare breasts. For years, the DOJ has been renting drapes (for over $2000 per event) which were used as a backdrop for when the AG does a press conference. It’s the big black curtains with the US seal on them. A few years ago a staffer got the smart idea of just buying a set for around $8000, rather than paying $2000 several times a month. It saves money and makes sense.
Of course, it’s not as good as a story as trying to make up a fake story about Ashcroft and/or Bush.
But all of this doesn’t matter anyways. Support the CBLDF!
Posted by malvito at February 8, 2005 02:22 PM:
. . .in this age of V-chips, Parental Locks, NetNannies, and the ability to erase an offending channel on your remote (which, anymore, is necessary to work just about everything). . .
When I was a kid, you didn’t need any of these things. There was a special button on the TV, radio, stereo, etc. It was called the “OFF” button, and all my parents had to do was tell me “turn that OFF.”
V-chips, remote codes, and calling the police over matters such as this are merely an excuse to get other people to parent your kids for you, so you don’t have to bother with it yourself. If you feel that your child will be “damaged” by anything they see or hear in today’s media, then you are just not doing your job as a parent.
Robin said: “early pørņ viewing – the viewing of objectifying material – is a strong influence. And just because some people claim it wasn’t harmful to them, it may indeed be harmful, they just don’t consider it harm”.
Isn’t religion a much stronger influence than pørņ? Might it not be harmful to tell a child that there is a super powerful being who resides in an infernal underworld of fire and brimstone and wants nothing more than to be able to torment his/her soul for all eternity? Might it have a negative effect on a person’s well-being to be raised with the belief that to engage in healthy, stress-relieving sex without being married brings you one step closer to such a place?
I agree that harm is subjective.
Jerry sort of beat me to this but anyway…
On a more series point, as I recall Ashcroft had a quite valid reason for covering those breasts and it wasn’t puritanical…. it was bloody personal. From the accounts I read various camera operators and producers thought it would be amusing and ironic to portray the “puritanical” holy-roller right next to some good solid stone statue-tits every time he spoke. So on every screen just a short distance away, in close proximity to the head of the Attorney General were great nipples. As he saw it they were making fun of him, so since he couldn’t rightly censor the jerks, he took away one of their enablers and thus he covered the statues. It’s a lot like taking away some jerk’s toy when he’s mis-used it. They mis-used the Mammaries of Justice and so he took them away.
Which makes Ashcroft looks petty and small. A real man would have said, “let them, it’s art. it’s been here a long time and I have bigger things to worry about then a bunch of reporters who insist on acting like 8th graders”. And of course the covering up of that breast was done with taxpayers money, yours and mine. Without even thinking hard I can think of a million better uses for that money then helping a small, petty man, who when all is said and done, will probably end up being a small footnote in history that no one remembers, save face in front of reporters.
According to an Urban Legends site I visited: The theory that Ascroft ordered (or, at the very least, approved) the statue concealed originated with a January, 2002, ABC News report. Department of Justice spokespeople have firmly denied that the decision to erect the drape was motivated by the explicit nature of the statue, and insist it was not ordered by Ashcroft nor purchased with his knowledge or approval. According to DoJ sources, the drape was first erected for President Bush’s rededication of the Great Hall in honor of Robert F. Kennedy (Bush lead people requested a TV-friendly blue background be used in lieu of the hall’s grey marble walls). Since Ashcroft planned to use the drape in the future, an AG staffer decided it would be cheaper to purchase the backdrop at $8,650 rather than continue to rent it at $2,000 a pop. She did so without Ashcroft’s knowledge.
Many detractors claim these arguments are merely a smokescreen by the administration to conceal what they consider a prudish conservative censorship agenda. The “did-he-or-didn’t-he” debate that has ensued has been dubbed by some as “Drapegate” or “Breastgate” will probably never be resolved.
Far be it for me to crush a perfectly good story. Personally, I kind of doubt that the AG has the time to micromanage the upholstery. I mean, I’m not crazy about the shade of greenish tan they painted my classroom but I really don’t think that the Superintendent was down at Lowes gazing at paint patches, looking for one that would best hide vomit stains.
If the account above is true we actually had a government employee taking the initiative to save we the taxpayers big money…and look at the grief it caused. Well, no good turn goes unpunished, I always say.
1Let me put it another way:
If the Jehovah’s witnesses come to my house while I’m away, and gave my kids copies of The Watchtower, should I call the cops? I might subjectively consider their views to be “harmful” (and a great deal more harmful than pørņ). Should I set aside the Witnesses’ freedom of religion?
I’m tempted to print several hundred copies of Leonardo Da Vinci’s “Proportions of Man” (as shown at http://cgfa.sunsite.dk/vinci/p-vinci23.htm), then go to a street corner in Georgia and hand them out to anyone passing by. If asked, I’ll just explain that I am trying to promote the classical arts.
Can’t wait for the right-wing fundamentalists to shriek that I’m “peddling pornography,” and reveal themselves to be the tasteless prigs that they are…
–R.J.
just because some people claim it wasn’t harmful to them, it may indeed be harmful, they just don’t consider it harm
In other words, you’re saying you know my experiences and comprehend their impact on my life better than I know myself? Do you have any idea how arrogant and condescending that sounds?
Can we set up a tracking system for Iwoa Jim’s kids? They’re gonna be so repressed growing up, I don’t want to be anywhere near them when they go off.
Well, that was ridiculous and totally uncalled for!
think part of the argument here stems from a point where your personal philosophy mingles what the others think of as two separate issues
Don’t try to understand, explain, rationalize, or condone what a hypocrite thinks.
He’s a die hard Republican, for smaller governemnt and all of that, but he thinks that the first thing to be done isn’t to confront the issue, but to report someone to the Goverment. It’s not what a rational being does, it’s not what a true Christian does, and it’s not what a man does.
“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 “
I recall in highschool (so 15-20 years ago…jeeze! sigh) I mail ordered some stuff from Mile-High Comics. Whatever it was arrived, with some free throw ins…those Marvel Kirby greeting cards and misc comics..I seem to recall a Teen Titans, and some independednt horror book called “Seduction of the Innocent”….I don’t remember that comics, as my mom saw it, and threw it away…she might have written Mile High a nasty letter….but I don’t know that…
Gee a parent dealing with a problem like a responsible adult.
And we’re from the South too
…this whole situation shames us as a people.