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
• 
McDonalds served their coffee at temperatures that were too hot to be drinkable — hot enough to cause full thickness burns in 2 to 7 seconds. Before Ms. Liebeck’s injury, McDonalds already knew of over 700 people who had been burned by their coffee, and had ignored previous requests to store its coffee at normal restaurant temperatures.
Despite all this, McDonalds chose profits over customer safety, which is why the jury awarded punitive damages worth two days coffee sales before the judge later lowered it.
I think your analysis is correct–McDonalds was at fault here. But my question is this–how the hëll was serving undrinkably hot coffee supposed to be good for profits???
Tell me, would YOU accept coffee that was 50 degrees hotter than normal? Would you drink it?
If you really mean the specific “me” and not the hypothetical “me,” then…no. Not because it’s “50 degrees hotter than normal.” But rather, because I don’t drink coffee regardless of the temperature. Don’t care for the taste of the stuff. (Well, not entirely true…when I was younger, I used to drink it in a 50% coffee/50% milk & sugar ratio. That brought it down to well below “normal” temperatures, but at least gave it a taste I enjoyed.)
There’s no logic to that comparison at all. Different product, intended for different use, made by a different company, and placed in contact with a different part of the body
Here’s why I draw the comparison:
The coffee is not intended to be stored between the legs in an accellerating vehicle. By storing it in such a fashion, the “victim” must accept some culpability in the outcome. Likewise, the hypothetical lighter is not intended to be stored behind the ear while ignited. By storing it in such a fashion, “I” must accept some culpability in the outcome.
Lest anyone think otherwise, I feel it’s a shame the woman in question was injured. However, for her to absolve herself of any and all responsibility for what happened when she was handling the coffee improperly, I feel was wrong.
Darren, have any of your friends needed $20,000 medical care for the burns they suffered?
All Liebeck originally asked for was for McDonalds to help with her medical costs. When they refused, in (stories say) a rather insulting manner, only then did she go to the courts.
Bill, the rationale I heard was that by keeping the coffee hotter it stayed fresh longer, so they would have to brew coffee fewer times during the day and save money on supplies.
The coffee is not intended to be stored between the legs in an accellerating vehicle. By storing it in such a fashion, the “victim” must accept some culpability in the outcome. … her to absolve herself of any and all responsibility for what happened when she was handling the coffee improperly, I feel was wrong.
Well, guess what! Liebeck did accept some culpability and never absolved herself of all responsibility. Nor did the jury.
Quoting LectLaw:
“The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill.“
I’ve been out of the state for the last nine years (was born and raised in Georgia), but I find this case particularly troublesome. My hope is that the CBLDF will win this case. Otherwise, things could start looking pretty grim for fandom in the South. Peter, thank you for making me aware of this.
“Bill, the rationale I heard was that by keeping the coffee hotter it stayed fresh longer, so they would have to brew coffee fewer times during the day and save money on supplies.”
Thanks, that’s interesting…my own taste in coffee has more to do with strength than heat. I like finely powdered mexican expresso, so strong it sends my parents, terminal Chock Full O Nuts fans, fleeing in terror. Don’t really like it hot, since that just burns my tasebuds so that I can’t taste the bitter expresso goodness. Frankly, I’m surprised that Mickie Dees thinks that heating it to lava temperatures makes it taste better longer but their stuff is so far removed from my idea of coffee I have to yield to their expertise in the matter.
Now Starbucks…very sweet, a bit on the acidic side, but good. They don’t seem to need to make solar flares jump out of the cups to turn a tidy profit either…
The “mature readers” label on a comic is
a) voluntary
b) a choice made by the publisher and/or creator (not by a third party as is the case with film ratings and music labels)
c) subject to definition (Those making the decision to use the label define what is mature content. The seller and purchaser define who is considered a mature reader.)
d) intended as an advisory, not a warning (It is mainly describing a demographic of the intended audience.)
e) Not age-specific
f) Not the same thing as an “adults only” label
g) Generally the equivalent of “parental guidance suggested”
Giving a minor a copy of a mature readers that contains nudity is no worse than letting a minor attend a preview screening of a PG film that has a nude scene (as some PG films do). Even in communities where ratings are enforced by law, this is not illegal.
// Darren, have any of your friends needed $20,000 medical care for the burns they suffered? //
Don’t know how much the medical bills were, don’t really think it’s really think it’s realavnt actually.
// All Liebeck originally asked for was for McDonalds to help with her medical costs. When they refused, in (stories say) a rather insulting manner, only then did she go to the courts. //
Hey I admit, it would have been nice if they gave her some dough. If nothing else it would have been good customer relations, but I don’t think they were under an obligation to do so. Coffee is a hot liquid, hot liquid when spilled on human skin will burn. The fact that you can willingly buy hot liquid from someplace, spill it on yourself and turn around and expect the people you, of your own free will, brought said liquid from to pay for your injuries is IMO, absurd. The fact that a court entertained this suit, and she won such a huge settlement is also absurd. Mind you, I have no huge love for the McDonalds corporation, I think the way they treat thier employees, the way they prepare thier food, and the absolutly arrogent way they sometimes act are evil, and I’d like nothing better then to see them go down but in this case I just don’t think they’re wrong. I would not be surprised if some in the jury voted the way they did simply because McDonalds is the big evil corporation and this was a little old woman. It happens, but I just can’t do that. In my mind it would be hyprocritical to do that.
Giving a minor a copy of a mature readers that contains nudity
That should say “Giving a minor a copy of a mature readers comic”
// The coffee is not intended to be stored between the legs in an accellerating vehicle. By storing it in such a fashion, the “victim” must accept some culpability in the outcome. … her to absolve herself of any and all responsibility for what happened when she was handling the coffee improperly, I feel was wrong.
Well, guess what! Liebeck did accept some culpability and never absolved herself of all responsibility. Nor did the jury.
Quoting LectLaw:
“The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill.” //
See and that’s just what I can’t get around. In my mind she was 90-95% at fault, and McDonalds was about 5-10%. The idea that the person spilling the liquid on themselves bears the minority of responciblity is just out of wack. It doesn’t matter how “overheated” the coffee might have been, the fact that you spilled it on yourself automatically makes you 90-100% responcible. Now if this was a case of a McDonalds employee spilling it on themselves that would be different.
Don’t know how much the medical bills were, don’t really think it’s really think it’s realavnt actually.
Well, actually, they ARE quite relevant.
Bascially, you’re just arguing the facts and details are irrelevant, because my mind is made up.
And if that sounds insulting, I’m sorry, but I think that’s an acccurate representation of your rhetoric.
// Don’t know how much the medical bills were, don’t really think it’s really think it’s realavnt actually. //
// Well, actually, they ARE quite relevant. //
No they’re not.
// Bascially, you’re just arguing the facts and details are irrelevant, because my mind is made up. //
No, I’m arguing that some facts are irrelevent, lawyers do this all the time in court. The only difference here is that this isn’t a court, there’s no judge and I’m not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV. That said, I’m still entitled to my educated opinion, as are you. My educated opinion is that the cost of the medical bills don’t matter, the fact that she spilt coffee on herself automatically makes her 90-100% responcible for her injuries. We wouldn’t be having this discussion if a McDonald’s employee spilt it on her, (and even then I might think the final dollar amount a bit excessive). Obviously the courts, (and you), disagree with me. It happens. There are many times when I disagree with court decisions I read about, I’d be surprised if you didn’t as well. Hëll, there are many times where I thought the corporations really should have had it handed to them by the courts, this just isn’t one of those times.
// And if that sounds insulting, I’m sorry, but I think that’s an acccurate representation of your rhetoric. //
And you’re wrong, but I take no offence. 🙂
I think we’re going for a record number of posts here, people.
// Despite all this, McDonalds chose profits over customer safety, which is why the jury awarded punitive damages worth two days coffee sales before the judge later lowered it.
I think your analysis is correct–McDonalds was at fault here. But my question is this–how the hëll was serving undrinkably hot coffee supposed to be good for profits??? //
Well as I said, I know someone who used to go out of thier way to get McDonalds coffee in the morning because it was so hot. I have no reason to believe they were the only one who did, (although maybe they were), so it’s possible people did drink McDonalds coffee for no other reason then it was the hottest around. If enought people did so I could see it being good for the profits.
No, I’m arguing that some facts are irrelevent, lawyers do this all the time in court. The only difference here is that this isn’t a court, there’s no judge and I’m not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV.
That’s pretty evident. Nothing close to law; it’s simply that your mind’s made up and nothing’s going to change it.
You’re just being silly. Coffee ain’t supposed to be hot enough to cause burns….and certainly not third degree burns…You’re not even THINKING about what that means.
// No, I’m arguing that some facts are irrelevent, lawyers do this all the time in court. The only difference here is that this isn’t a court, there’s no judge and I’m not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV.
That’s pretty evident. Nothing close to law; it’s simply that your mind’s made up and nothing’s going to change it. //
You’re wrong. And, as a wise man once said, “the law is an ášš”. Courts make bad decisions all the time, no two people will probably ever agree on just what are the bad decision VS what are the good decisions but that’s what makes the world go around. (Hëll even lawyers and judges don’t always agree). I think this was a bad decision. I’ve said why I think it was a bad decision. Obviously you disagree. That’s fine, I’m cool with that. But your attempts at mindreading are annoying and wrong.
// You’re just being silly. //
No I’m actually being quite serious.
// Coffee ain’t supposed to be hot enough to cause burns….and certainly not third degree burns…You’re not even THINKING about what that means. //
Yes I am. I don’t drink coffee, people who do tell me, that is exactly how coffee is supposed to be prepared. My sister takes coffee off of the Mr Coffee machine and puts it in the microwave because it’s not hot enough, (I’ve seen people in my office do exactly the same thing, every day actually). My sister’s burnt her lip on coffee many a time, It’s yet to occur to her to sue the makers of the microwave. I said I don’t drink coffe, (or anything hot) and that’s true, but I do eat soup and I like said soup hot, really hot, steaming hot. Resturaunts used to serve soup steaming hot, after the McDonalds decision I’ve noticed that the soup at some resturaunts is no longer as hot as it used to be, (and therefor no longer as good IMO), can’t help but think that’s not a coincidence.
You’re still not getting it.
A third degree burn is one that destroys all the layers of skin, with damage deeper than hair follicles. They’re sometimes referred to as a full thickness burn. Treatment often requires skin grafts (as it did in the case of Ms. Liebeck).
Food is not supposed to be served at such temperatures and I doubt any of your friends have suffered these kinds of hospitalization-requiring injuries from their food.
“You’re just being silly. Coffee ain’t supposed to be hot enough to cause burns….and certainly not third degree burns…You’re not even THINKING about what that means.”
Roger, first I’ll say that I admit to total ignorance of the McDonalds Coffee case. That said, I’d think that if coffee was hot enough to cause third degree burns, it would impossible to drink without serious injury. Third degree burns go beyond even blisters.
What am I missing, here?
Yes I am. I don’t drink coffee, people who do tell me, that is exactly how coffee is supposed to be prepared.
No. It. Isn’t.
THINK!!!!
If it was supposed to be that hot, then it was meant to be hot enough TO CAUSE THIRD DEGREE BURNS WHEN YOU DRINK IT.
Sorry, but that’s really not the case.
Moreover, THIRD DEGREE burns are really, really, really beyond the pale to occur to a customer. They’re very serious and their cause would entail a different level of handling than would a source of first degree burns.
And it’s not mindreading…you just basically said the facts don’t matter. You may not think that, but you said that the extent of damage was irrelevant…when the amount of damage was the key to establishing both the culpability of Macdonalds and the extent of damages to be paid.
Roger, first I’ll say that I admit to total ignorance of the McDonalds Coffee case. That said, I’d think that if coffee was hot enough to cause third degree burns, it would impossible to drink without serious injury. Third degree burns go beyond even blisters.
Yeah, I think that’s the case. All burns are not the same (well, that’s why they classify them first, second and third degree), and it’s sloppy thinking to treat them the same. As Lis mentioned, you’re talking about serious level injuries here, not just something that can be treated with a little Bactine and a band aid. That kind of injury requires a serious heat source and that just doesn’t make coffee drinkable….
Wow, the things you miss while traveling abroad (Tel Aviv is a bit chilly this time of year in case you are interested)…
Anyway, it’s going back a few days on the posts but one of PAD’s comments caught my eye:
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.
Besides criminal intent, there is also criminal neglect. That’s how you end up with prosecutions for involuntary manslaughter and child endangerment. This case seems to be one not of intent, but neglect.
From my layman’s perspective, this doesn’t seem to rise to criminal neglect – unless of the several thousand comics several hundred of them were “mature” or “obscene”. I don’t know who was being given comics, but Halloween is generally for pre-teens, so that would be the one detail in all this that might be the most relevant.
Beyond that, this looks like a pretty silly case.
Darren, I agree with you in theory that the woman holds a major chunk of responsibilty for spilling the coffee on herself, but when you factor in the coffee being so hot as to cause major physical damage, that sort of goes out the window.
I personally don’t drink coffee. I actually can’t physically bring myself to drink any hot liquid, and in fact I prefer all my foods, including soup, to be luke warm at best. But since you mentioned that you like extremely hot soup, think about this scenario. You order a piping hot bowl of turkey lip soup from your favorite restaurant. When it’s placed in front of you, you excitedly pull your chair in closer and pick up your spoon, but in the process you bump the table and spill the entire bowl on your lap. The soup then proceeds to completely burn away your pants and undergarments, and then eats away the flesh of your thighs and naughty bits leaving large puss-filled gaping craters. IF you had actually ingested the soup, it would have disintegrated your esophogus.
Now tell me that’s not different from your soup/coffee being “super hot”. Super hot may turn your skin red, or cause some blistering, but it won’t eat your flesh away. I’ve personally experienced the flesh-craters caused by a sever burn back in art school when I had a mishap with a glue gun (completely my stupidity. I pulled the trigger and the gun was jammed, so I flipped it around and pushed on the glue stick hanging out the back, which then became molten as it dripped out the nozzle onto the back of my hand. In the crater left behind I could almost make out the various layers of my skin like a cross-section of soil) and it just ain’t the same as hot soup.
Monkeys.
The hotness issue also comes down to a matter of expectations. I could be wrong, but I beleive there is some legal term for it all, but basically when the consumer buys something, there are certain expectations that the seller is held accountable for. For example, when you buy a car, the buyer expects the car will work unless the seller indicates otherwise before the sale. If you buy the car and it turns out it doesn’t work (and you’re buying it from a new/used dealership and not a scrap yard), the seller can be held accountable for that. When you buy hot foods/liquids, you expect them to be hot, in some cases hot enough to cause a MINOR burn, but not hot enough to eat your flesh away (I seem to like that phrase). Again, there is a world of difference between a minor burn and a burn that requires skin grafts and surgery. If coffee is not ordinarily that hot (too hot to be physically drinkable without causing major damage), the seller of the coffee has to indicate just how dangerous it is.
I think I’m beginning to babble again.
Monkeys.
/// Yes I am. I don’t drink coffee, people who do tell me, that is exactly how coffee is supposed to be prepared.
No. It. Isn’t. //
And you may be right, other people say you’re wrong. I don’t drink coffee so I really have no opinion on how it should be prepared one way or the other but but I know enought people who’ve told me it should be that way to realize that’s there’s a sizable amount of people out there who like it that way, and it doesn’t seem wrong to me that McDonalds sold coffee to people who like it that way.
// If it was supposed to be that hot, then it was meant to be hot enough TO CAUSE THIRD DEGREE BURNS WHEN YOU DRINK IT. //
How about a THINK back at ya. Did you ever see that sign outside of McDonalds, the one that says Billions served? (And I’m old enought to remember when that sign actually had a number on it that went up every couple of months, but I digress). If even only 10% of those served ordered a coffee, 700 complaints is still a really low number. The majority of people who brought coffee at McDonalds apparently had no issue drinking it. Hëll, I knew someone who went out of thier way in the morning for the piping hot McDonalds coffee. For that matter, were there any other complant that day, from the other people who brought coffee at that McDonalds? Most McDonalds I know of do a lot of bussness at breakfast time, a lot of other people must of brought coffee from the same pot that same day yet nothing I’ve ever read showed any other customers that day coming forward to complain even after the lawsuit. Would seem to me that other people had no problem drinking that super hot coffee.
// Moreover, THIRD DEGREE burns are really, really, really beyond the pale to occur to a customer. They’re very serious and their cause would entail a different level of handling than would a source of first degree burns. //
I know what third degree burns are, I’ve even said that it would have been good customer relations if McDonalds paid the womans bills. I just don’t think they should have been required to by law. That’s where you and I disagree.
// And it’s not mindreading…you just basically said the facts don’t matter. //
Really, where exactly did I say that? I said that some facts are irrealvent, IMO, (or at least not as realivent as other fact). Our legal system does that all the time. Lawyers argue that evidence isn’t relevent, testomony isn’t relevent, etc. Sometimes the judge and juries agree with them, sometimes they don’t.
// You may not think that, but you said that the extent of damage was irrelevant…//
You’re taking what I said out of context. I said the damage was irrelevent because she spilt the coffee on herself. To me the important part of that sentence is the part about spilling the coffee on herself. That’s an accident, a regrettable one and I’m sorry the woman was injured, but I honestly do not believe McDonalds was to blame for her injuries. It would have been nice if McDonalds paid the woman and I would have been the first one to applaud them if they did, but I honestly do not think they should have been forced by a court to pay her. Obviously you disagree with that, fine, agree to disagree and let’s move on.
// Darren, I agree with you in theory that the woman holds a major chunk of responsibilty for spilling the coffee on herself, but when you factor in the coffee being so hot as to cause major physical damage, that sort of goes out the window.
I personally don’t drink coffee. I actually can’t physically bring myself to drink any hot liquid, and in fact I prefer all my foods, including soup, to be luke warm at best. But since you mentioned that you like extremely hot soup, think about this scenario. You order a piping hot bowl of turkey lip soup from your favorite restaurant. When it’s placed in front of you, you excitedly pull your chair in closer and pick up your spoon, but in the process you bump the table and spill the entire bowl on your lap. The soup then proceeds to completely burn away your pants and undergarments, and then eats away the flesh of your thighs and naughty bits leaving large puss-filled gaping craters. IF you had actually ingested the soup, it would have disintegrated your esophogus.
Now tell me that’s not different from your soup/coffee being “super hot”. Super hot may turn your skin red, or cause some blistering, but it won’t eat your flesh away. I’ve personally experienced the flesh-craters caused by a sever burn back in art school when I had a mishap with a glue gun (completely my stupidity. I pulled the trigger and the gun was jammed, so I flipped it around and pushed on the glue stick hanging out the back, which then became molten as it dripped out the nozzle onto the back of my hand. In the crater left behind I could almost make out the various layers of my skin like a cross-section of soil) and it just ain’t the same as hot soup. //
The situation you describe would be an accident and totally my fault. Soup, served properly, IMO, should be boiling hot (or hotter) and cool in front of you and take a damm long time to eat for just that reason. I know you probaly think I’m making this up but that is indeed how I cook it myself. (I eat microavable soup at lunch, the container says to cook it for 2 minutes, I cook it for 4-5, takes me a good 45 minutes to eat it. And I am very, very carful carrying said soup back to my desk, so I don’t burn myself or others).
//
A third degree burn is one that destroys all the layers of skin, with damage deeper than hair follicles. They’re sometimes referred to as a full thickness burn. Treatment often requires skin grafts (as it did in the case of Ms. Liebeck). //
I know what a 3rd degree burn is. I still don’t agree with you.
// Food is not supposed to be served at such temperatures and I doubt any of your friends have suffered these kinds of hospitalization-requiring injuries from their food. //
A former co-worker got a third degree burn on her leg after dropping a coffee pot and was rushed to the emergancy room, she was out of work for weeks. She didn’t sue the office but then again they paid her bills. Doesn’t change the fact that I still disagree with you and the courts.
// The hotness issue also comes down to a matter of expectations. I could be wrong, but I beleive there is some legal term for it all, but basically when the consumer buys something, there are certain expectations that the seller is held accountable for. For example, when you buy a car, the buyer expects the car will work unless the seller indicates otherwise before the sale. If you buy the car and it turns out it doesn’t work (and you’re buying it from a new/used dealership and not a scrap yard), the seller can be held accountable for that. When you buy hot foods/liquids, you expect them to be hot, in some cases hot enough to cause a MINOR burn, but not hot enough to eat your flesh away (I seem to like that phrase). Again, there is a world of difference between a minor burn and a burn that requires skin grafts and surgery. If coffee is not ordinarily that hot (too hot to be physically drinkable without causing major damage), the seller of the coffee has to indicate just how dangerous it is. //
Well, I’ve been told that it was known that McDonalds had the hottest coffee around, (and didn’t they didn’t used to have an advertisement to that effect at one point way back when). But I see your point. I would still argue that the woman bears the majority of the responciblity you may have made me rethink the percentages.
And you may be right, other people say you’re wrong. I don’t drink coffee so I really have no opinion on how it should be prepared one way or the other but but I know enought people who’ve told me it should be that way to realize that’s there’s a sizable amount of people out there who like it that way, and it doesn’t seem wrong to me that McDonalds sold coffee to people who like it that way.
Having once worked in a restaurant for several years, I can assure you that restaurants and fast food establishments are indeed liable for the items they serve to customers. Coffee or soup hot enough to cause third degree burns on a person’s body is every bit as dangerous and accountable as meat infested with salmonella. It’s like serving cyanide or Drano to a customer. It’s completely stupid and dangerous and any restaurant that does so deserves to be sued.
How about a THINK back at ya. Did you ever see that sign outside of McDonalds, the one that says Billions served?
Please don’t tell me you actually accept that slogan as truth.
If even only 10% of those served ordered a coffee, 700 complaints is still a really low number..
How many complaints do there have to be? One horrific incident is more than enough, as any restaurant owner or lawyer will gladly tell you.
You’re taking what I said out of context. I said the damage was irrelevent because she spilt the coffee on herself. To me the important part of that sentence is the part about spilling the coffee on herself.
And the restaurant patron who consumes expired meat and ends up being rushed to the E.R. with food poisoning ate that meat himself, so it’s all his own fault too, right? God forbid the restaurant be held accountable for the items it serves.
I read the first 20 or so postings regarding this matter. I will read the rest later but for the time being I’d like to play devil’s advocate and make 2 points:
1.) Has it occurred to anyone that the act of charging Gordon could have been deliberate on the part of person or persons? I bring this up only because the minor is not identified which would lead me to believe that the parent(s) is (are) not identified. If this is the case, how can the complainant prove that he or she was in fact in the store on that date and that his or her child was given the book as opposed to just taking it from a table? Or is there a more sinister motive going on here? I find it extremely difficult to believe that even the most conservative parent would go to this length in such a situation.
This seems to be a case of “he said, she said” but with far-reaching consequences.
which brings point 2: Aside from the possible legal implications and of course the impact on Gordon’s life and livelihood, another very sad prospect comes from the fact that the general public might likely perceive ALL comic books and related material to be unsuitable or worse. You must remember that we who comment on this blog, whether liberal or conservative, agreeing or disagreeing on the law’s premise, are comics fans. Our perception is colored by this fact. The layman reading of this case in the paper or seeing it on the nightly news (if it gets to that) might have a far different perception. If the population as a whole could be correctly drawn along conservative and liberal lines with reference to the election, that’s one heck of a lot of folks who might paint comics with one big negative brush. Somewhere Dr. Wertham is probably chuckling at this very moment…..
So let me get this straight.
Picasso’s pëņìš was melted by hot McDonalds coffee, which is why CBLDF is defending the Comic book store owner.
Man, Peter is really selective in the cases they represent nowadays.
:0)
No, no, no. A “parent” saw a comic book with a pëņìš in it, spilled their coffee and made a crater out of their child while some people argued that Juan Valdez should be sued because he picked the coffee beans.
Chances are, he’ll lose his ášš.
Sorry…it’s been a long day.
I thought the story was that John Ashcroft’s pëņìš accidentally knocked over a hot cup of coffee on some kid’s comic book. Probably his copy of Watchmen. Well, I’d be pìššëd too…
/// How about a THINK back at ya. Did you ever see that sign outside of McDonalds, the one that says Billions served?
Please don’t tell me you actually accept that slogan as truth. //
In this case yes actually I do. Consider MD’s is the biggest resturaunt chain in the world. I’ve never liked McDonalds all that much, (even as a kid, I always perfered Burger King or KFC), but even I couldn’t begin to count the amount of times I’ve eaten in a McDonalds over the course of my lifetime. If I had to take a guess I would say over a 100 times easily. Someone who actually likes MD’s could easily have eaten there 2-3 maybe even 10 times as much over the course of thier lifetimes. Multiply that over a few million people, over dozens of countries in the world and you can easily come to a number of several billion. Plus, as I’ve said, I’m old enought to remember when that sign didn’t say billions served, there was an actual number that went up periodically. When they got to a billion, (sometime in the 80’s if memory serves) they stopped counting and it became a billion, sometime later it became billions. At some time you get so big you don’t bother to count anymore.
One that uses a such a “highly mature” play on a person’s name while claiming that person needs to grow up, sheesh, how much plainer could it be that someone else needs to grow up much worse?
But you see, I’m not the AG, nor am I spending thousands of taxpayers money just so I don’t have to be photographed in front of a naughty bronze statue. I don’t claim to be anything other than just another obnoxious net-geek with an opinion.
So what is he called him “Asscroft”? Granted the position of S and H on the standard keyboard make it highly unlikely that it was a simple typo, but also rebmember this about Pope Úšhølë, er, Ashcroft:
The man LOST an election on his home turf…TO A DEAD MAN!
Ashcroft has no business in any government position. He was failure at getting elected, so his buddy GW did an end run around the elction system and took him national in an appointed (non-elected) position…)
I miss a day and find a trainwreck….some derailment, indeed. Let me help…
Implied warranty of merchantability is the legal term that says that goods put on the market are assummed to be in good working order, and safe for their intended use. In the case of food, I’d say that comsumability without fear of potentially life-threatening injury is one of the things people assume of their food.
The “harmful substance” test mentioned above is something I’ve never heard before, and I don’t think it works. Let me switch products to test it.
Say you go to Sears to purchase an appliance. You end up buying an oven range. The first time you use it, you unintentionally place you hand on the burner, suffering injury. Under the “harmful substance” test, Sears would be partially liable. They could have sold you a dishwasher, washer/dryer, or refridgerator, each of which would not have caused the injury the range did. Thus, Sears “injected” the element of danger (there as some problems with this as a parallel, as McD heated the coffee, while the range owner turned on the heat).
A better test is a concept courts call proximate cause. You basically start with the injury, and look backwards in time until you find some intervening event that ends the chain of liability. Was it a reasonable conclusion that, if McDs served coffee 50 degrees hotter than allows safe consumption, someone might spill it on themselves and suffer serious burns? If yes, then McDs can be held liable. The chain starts with McDs, as most would say that the coffee supplier has a reasonable expectation that McDs will not serve dangerous coffee.
Proximate cause also can (and in this case seems it was) be used to assign proportionate liability. The woman in this case was deemed to be 20% liable, probably because she knew that coffee is normally served hot, and she was in a car, and thus assumed some responsibility to handle the coffee carefully in order to prevent it from spilling. Only 20% because McDs serving temperature was unreasonable.
And to the suggestion that she could or should have named the relative driving the car? She *could* have. And the jury would have been well within their rights to asign some liability to the driver (and in fact may have, in coming up with that 20% figure). But the point is, as a plaintiff, you get to choose who you sue. Only very rarely would a third party get added. McD’s could have countersued the driver, I supposed, but can you imagine the press that would get? About as much positive press the City of Chicago is getting for suing a survivor of last year’s porch collapse.
Boy, I’m glad I wasn’t on that jury. I can see both sides of the argument and both have merit. I haven’t eaten a hot meal at McDonald’s in 8 years, because by the time I get my kids settled with their meals, my fries are cold (best fries in the world when hot, worst ten minutes later when cold). I don’t drink coffee, however. Apparently, though, if I ordered coffee, got my kids settled in (or drove home/to work) my coffee would still be hot. So McD’s keeps it hot.
I don’t drive anywhere with hot liquid between my legs, but then, my car has cup holders.
Still, spilling was an accident, a stupid-but-understandable accident.
Eh, I’d probably award doctor and lawyer bills with no punitive… but she was an old lady, if memory serves, so maybe I would go punitive.
And a lot of people are now drinking tepid coffee at McD’s (and I can’t get a super-sized meal anymore, either, so I can have A LOT of cold fries)…
There’s good reason I’ve never been awarded jury duty…
I didn’t post or say anything about this until I was able to track down a few more facts. I spoke with the Rome, GA, district attorney today, and got some more information. First, the child who received the book was nine years old, and the book was allegedly given directly to the child during a “Trick or Treat on Broad Street” event that evening and was not given to a parent or an intermediary ( I had seen some questions about that). Second, it has been reported in some places the Gordon’s earlier conviction for distribution of obscene materials was reversed on appeal, but the DA said that is not the case, and has forwarded Lexis/Nexis documents verifying that the conviction was upheld.
I know Gordon, and I like Gordon; I think he made a mistake in distributing this book. I don’t think it was intentional, by any means. However, I can say quite honestly that I would not want this book placed into the hands of a young child, and I would never have considered distributing it in a Halloween giveaway. WE give out hundreds of comics every Halloween, and I we have three different employees sort through those books to verify taht the material we are giving out is all ages appropriate; we also offer an assortment of books to each child to allow him/her to choose a book that he/she would like.
The fact that Gordon has an earlier conviction for distributing obscene materials may have led to the decision to arrest him once this complaint was made; that is entirely my speculation, and is not based on anything that Ms. Patterson, the district attorney, had to say. It seems logical, though, that the police would be more likely to respond to a case involving a store whose owner has already been convicted in the past of distributing obscene materials.
No decision to arraign has been made as of this time, I was told.
I do not have a copy of the Alternative Press comic in question in front of me, but I am told by a third party who has a book that there is a blurb or balloon in one point in the book referring to something sexual and that there is either a reference or a comment about mášŧûrbáŧìøņ in the book as well. Can anyone verify, dismiss, or elucidate on those claims?
To see a copy of the part that Cliff is referencing go to http://www.comicon.com/pulse .
It is definitely pornographic, if not obscene, and should never have been given to a child.
So what was the obscene material that Gordon was convicted of distributing before? The only reference I can find is a bibliography note of The Comics Journal #175, which came out in 1995.
Cliff: Thanks for taking the initiative and doing some homework on this case. The facts you provided certainly give us a better picture of what happened, which makes things sound more problematic for Mr. Lee. A nine year old was given this dreck? Pathetic.
To see the panels of the story that are [i]thuoght[/i] to be at issue, I’ve pasted a link below. As you know, there’s stuff that some may find offensive, so consider yourself warned:
http://www.comicon.com/pulse/images_ts/altcomics_salonpage.gif
I don’t see how the panels in question could be considered pornographic or obscene. Definitely a bone headed thing to give to a 9 year old but I don’t think anyone is disputing that. A mistake was made but one that could be easily corrected without anyone going to jail. Jeeze, give the kid a lifetime subscription to Archie Presents: Veronica or something, unless there’s some chance taht a copy of Cherry Poptart will accidentally be given to him.
So what was the obscene material that Gordon was convicted of distributing before? The only reference I can find is a bibliography note of The Comics Journal #175, which came out in 1995.
According to the site given above:
In 1993, he was found guilty of “distributing obscene materials” for selling copies of the Aircel comics Final Tabu and Debbie Does Dallas to adult customers. That conviction was successfully reversed on appeal
Those proabbaly WOULD be considered pørņø comics but if an adult wants them, so be it. I don’t think that bogus case should have any bearing on this one.
Nevermind. Comicon was down for a while but I got my answer. Gordon’s 1993 case was one of adult comics being sold to adults, whereas this is a matter of an adult comic being accidentally given to a kid.
Seems to me like this is just people being struck with massive a case of the dumb-ášš. Not only Georgia’s antiquated and arbitrarily applied “nudity=obscenity” law, and Gordon’s letting something like this slip through the cracks (especially after a previous smack from the smut police), but also on Jeff Mason’s part for putting material of that explicit nature into a free promotional giveaway in the first place.
I don’t buy the excuse of doing so because “it’s the nature of our line.” Many retailers aren’t going to pay attention to disclaimers, or even screen the actual comics, and just set out whatever they’re given. Watch the disclaimer before movie trailers: “The following PREVIEW has been approved for all audiences.” Even in the trailers for R-rated movies there are no f-bombs and no tits or dìçkš flopping around. It’s just common sense.
What a shame that a retailer has to take all the heat for such an irresponsible publisher and untalented cartoonist.
Here’s what the article on Comicon.com say:
“This new course of events is also the second CBLDF case involving Gordon Lee. In 1993, he was found guilty of “distributing obscene materials” for selling copies of the Aircel comics Final Tabu and Debbie Does Dallas to adult customers. That conviction was successfully reversed on appeal.”
Distributing obscene materials to adults? Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?
Thanks, Ken, for posting the link that gave far more details and a copy of the panels in question. While the pictures are not of a graphic act, when combined with the text, it is far more than just a portrayal of a male who happens to be nude. This is NOT just a case of a kid being handed a picture of a simple nude male (such as can be found in a science textbook, pictures of great art, a dictionary, or even some issues of National Geographic), and to compare it to such a work is to divorce the picture from its context. This is a comic book that clearly had strong sexual content.
While a case can be made that a mature adult should have the freedom to buy such a comic book, this particular case did not come about because of such an event. While I take the owner at his word that this was an accident, it is still his responsibility to make sure a mature comic is not handed out to a kid. (I am sorry, the excuse that he was giving out thousands is just that — an excuse. It does not change the fact that it was his responsibility.)
While some of you would not care if your 9 year old kid saw this comic book, there are many reasonable, rational, sane parents who would disagree. To make this into a true threat to free speech is to blow this case out of proportion and to miss its original context.
Iowa Jim
“Strong sexual content”???
If you mean the line about “mášŧûrbáŧìņg”, it seems pretty obvious to me from context that it was the model’s sarcastic commentary on Picasso’s painting style, which has been referred to even here in the so-called “real” world as “artistic mášŧûrbáŧìøņ”. If you mean the nudity, for crying out loud, grow up already!!
Now, I will say that if Gordon knew at the time that these panels were present in the book, he should have been careful to pull all the copies from the offer, given that the offer was apparently specifically to children. However, it is entirely possible that he had not in fact read the book, and was unaware that it contained drawings of nekkid folkses and a mildly naughty word (as well as a slightly stronger one, albeit in Spanish…). It should have been sufficient for the parent in question to come to the store, demand to see the manager, shake the book in his face, then perhaps throw it dramatically while exiting. Involving the police was unnecessary. The charges preferred by the DA, of course, are merely ludicrous.
If you mean the line about “mášŧûrbáŧìņg”, it seems pretty obvious to me from context that it was the model’s sarcastic commentary on Picasso’s painting style,
The panel has a building full of naked people, one with a child on his back, the lady says,”Follow the sound. He’s in there masterbating.”, then in the same panel the sounds coming from that room are “ENHHH… ENHHHH…” , leading us to believe that he is doing what she just claimed he is doing.
a mildly naughty word
Since when is the f-word a mildly naughty word??? Seems to me that it is at the top of the strongly offensive word list.
I think, whether you believe it just or not, the prosecution’s case is strong.
I think, whether you believe it just or not, the prosecution’s case is strong.
Hm. I’ve come across ERZNOZNIK v. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, which specifically says that banning nudity for minors is not an allowable state power, because you have to show that it’s obscene, and not just objectionable.
Hmm… I’ve read Erzoznik v. City of Jacksonville, and that’s not what it says at all, based on my reading. It says that a municipality cannot ban a drive-in theater from showing films banning nudity simply because it is possible that said nudity might be viewed from a public area. The only mention of minors is found here: “Nor can the ordinance be justified as an exercise of the city’s police power for the protection of children against viewing the films. Even assuming that such is its purpose, the restriction is broader than permissible. since it is not directed against sexually explicit nudity or otherwise limited…” I’m not a lawyer, but I would guess the nuances of the two cases would determine that this would not set a precedent. I’ve also been told that the Georgia law barring unsolicited distribution of material featuring nudity, etc., has been upheld in other rulings, although I haven’t verified that and I can’t cite cases. Can anyone offer any legal information regarding that?
cliff biggers
// a mildly naughty word
Since when is the f-word a mildly naughty word??? Seems to me that it is at the top of the strongly offensive word list. //
It was knocked off the top of the list by the N Word in 1995 and currently has the number three spot right behind the C Word. Conservitive viewers are really hoping the L word makes it up to the top 10 this year but it would have to jump over the S word which has been steadily moving up in recent years.