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
• 
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.
Just as there are many reasonable, rational, sane parents who would simply take the book away from the child, explain to the child why it was being taken away and then call the store to tell them of the problem.
However, there are plenty of unreasonable and irrational parents who would simply overreact and call the police.
Conservitive viewers are really hoping the L word makes it up to the top 10 this year
Which one? Lesbian or liberal? 🙂
Continuing the original point about misapplied obscenity laws, a man is being charged with distribution of sexually oriented materials to minors because of some raunchy stickers pasted to his car!
Somehow I’m reminded of the case involving a canoeist who fell into the water, swore, and was charged under an archaic law prohibiting such language within earshot of children. I believe the law was eventually ruled unconstitutional.
In no way, shape, or form are the images posted on Comicon.com obscene. Give me a friggin’ break. R-rated? Yes. Inappropriate? Yes. Worth 1-3 years of a man’s life? Hëll, NO!
That comic strip is absolutely NOT “without artistic merit.” It is not obscene. It’s not pornography (whatever that is). It’s just human bodies. Get over it.
And people wonder why I won’t enter the state of Georgia (or Texas, after Jesus’ case). Ugh.
Eric
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
That latter part pertaining to minors, I think, would most certainly apply to this case, as it establishes limits on the power of the state to regulate classes of speech such as nudity, which includes obscenity and non-obscenity; I don’t see how it can’t apply here, as it’s been cited in other cases involving minors and obscenity.
And I’d be VERY interested in seeing cases establishing the constitutionality of this law. FCC v. PACIFICA definitely showed governmental power for broadcast radio with respect to minors, but in other cases, the Supreme Court declined to extend it to other media. I suspect that the nature of the transaction and the overly broad nature of the law will ultimately be found to be unconstitutional.
In no way, shape, or form are the images posted on Comicon.com obscene. Give me a friggin’ break. R-rated? Yes. Inappropriate? Yes. Worth 1-3 years of a man’s life? Hëll, NO!
I would agree with all 4 of your statements (and have said so above). However, you left out one issue: whether you agree with the law or not, the owner gave out an unsolicited nude image, and that is illegal. While the nudity in this case is clearly not as harmful as many that can be thought of, the law exists to protect from those more extreme cases. We can debate all day the merits of such a law, but at the end of the day, a law was actually broken. The issue concerning the nudity part of it is that it was unsolicited, not that it was obscene. It will be interesting to see how all of this shakes out when it actually goes to court.
Iowa Jim
Jim:
1) The law is unconstitutional. As others here have pointed out, an unconstitutional law isn’t really a law because it contradicts the highest law in the land. Therefore, Gordon hasn’t broken any laws.
2) I’m not sure that he’s even broken the one with which he’s being charged (assuming, for the sake of argument, that it’s constitutional). If you look at the text of the law over at Newsarama, you’ll see that, in addition to the word “unsolicited”, there are also the words “delivery” and “addressee.” To me, these narrow the scope of that law to things sent through the mail, and since the kid didn’t get this comic from MileHighComics.com…
3) On one hand, I agree with you. Rule of law is good, necessary, the foundation of our society, etc. On the other hand, if we all know that the punishment ($10K and/or 1-3 years) does not fit the crime, how can you so strongly support the application of the law in this case? They’re stretching this law even in the best case, and a strict reading of it would allow the office to drop the charge, saying “It was dumb, but we don’t have a solid case and it’s not worth bringing to trial.” Poof! Problem solved. The legal system (and its built-in human element that keeps us from living out some scary Asimovian story where we’re executed for a parking ticket) has done its job, we can all go home.
I don’t say this trying to trick or insult you (I just really don’t understand): Do you want him to be convicted?
Eric
“It was dumb” is meant to refer to Gordon’s mistake, just to clarify.
Read the rest of the postings up to my own comments yesterday and can truly say that most have nothing to do with this case.
Now to my previous comments and onwards: Cliff Biggers made the point that the book was ALLEGEDLY given to the 9-year old. So now some questions: Did anyone witness this event? If not, is it the child’s word that this happened? If so, was it one of Gordon’s employees or was it Gordon himself? This would establish some culpability or responsibility. Frankly, anyone with two brains to rub together who looks at the cover of this item would realize that it’s likely not appropriate for minors, and certainly not a 9-year old! Common sense!
I’ve read the panels in question. Presented by themselves they are taken out of context. They definitely have sexual connotation in this way. However, they are part of what is a larger representation of a potential historical situation. I’m not sure if such a presentation would be protected under the law.
In any case, if a person actually gave that book to the 9-year old, then that person is an idiot. But there needs to be determination of if it was actually given as opposed to taken and then to see who actually did the giving.
My second point made yesterday really hits it especially if the panels are produced in news media again out of context. Look what you can find in all comic books these days…..good grief!
Posted by Craig J. Ries at February 9, 2005 11:21 AM
Anyone who says that has apparently never actually watched many Warner Bros shorts, hasn’t actually perceived what they saw if they did, or knows little or nothing about how films in general and the WB shorts in particular used to be presented.
And your comment shows that you don’t know jack either.
But then, perception is what I am talking about, isn’t it? The perception that ALL comic books are for kids.
Never said you were necessarily wrong — rather that the perception you cite is/was wrong.
So the person making incorrect assumptions about what someone meant here doesn’t appear to be me.
However, if you do buy into that perceptin yourself, then, hey, knock yourself oout.
// Conservitive viewers are really hoping the L word makes it up to the top 10 this year
Which one? Lesbian or liberal? 🙂 //
Whichever one you want. 🙂 I was thinking liberal, realizing that it could also be interpreted as lesbian and either way would work as a joke. So as I said, which ever one works for you.
(and its built-in human element that keeps us from living out some scary Asimovian story where we’re executed for a parking ticket)
Actually, Larry Niven is the author famous for writing stories about people bein executed for traffic violations, not Asimov
Jim, one of your comments made me go down this line of thinking.
“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.”
I think this is exactly what makes this a free speech issue. Something that is legalized to the point of criminality generally has to always be illegal. That means that injury must be a natural and almost given consequence of the action involved. Murder always involves a loss of life. Theft always involves a loss or conversion of property. Crimes such as these pose such a threat to ordered society that even attempting them, or in some cases planning them, is illegal.
Which makes any law regulating the distribution of obscene material to a minor difficult for exactly the reasons Jim has stated: Not everyone would object to this material being given to their kids. Some would. Some wouldn’t. Some would object if the child is 9, some 10, some 8. The point being, there’s no clear sense that injury would always result from a child viewing this material. Which makes the application of criminal sanction arbitrary at best.
Arbitrary criminal laws are always prime targets to be declared unconstitutional. If a criminal law is so vague and broad as to not present a clear concept of when some act will violate it, it cannot be applied.
Which makes the argument for free speech here even stronger. If even the more conservative minded that participate on this forum would agree that the images in question are not obscene, then what are they? Is there a class of art/expression that is not obscene, yet not covered by the Constitutionas fee speech clause?
Hopefully, the efforts of the CBLDF will get this case dismissed. If not, I think this is going to be trouble. It sounds like Gordan has run afoul of GA’s anti-nudity-distribution laws before, and for selling to adults, no less. So there’s already precedent in that jurisdiction supporting the expansion of a law that appears to apply to mail distribution to selling (unless the books in question were mailed). And while Gordan would probably be OK if the jury were composed of PAD’s blog posters, I don’t recall many of us living in GA. It may take a Supreme Court appeal of this case before things are resolved.
So according to a newsarama interview with the district attorney, the guy has a prior conviction. That won’t help.
But he also gave a comic containing nudity and sexual content to a 9 year old? Not to a parent but a 9 year old? Sounds like he needed to be arrested for pure stupidity alone.
Well, the law IS a law UNTIL it’s ruled unconstitutional. It’s too fuzzy to be a good law, and so should be clarified or struck down (but the issue at hand is difficult to clarify – what is ‘obscene’ for children?). It won’t be struck down until someone is charged with it.
By no means should Gordon have been charged with it (nor with the last one he was charged with) but in the long run he might be doing Georgia a favor (lucky him). As the old saw goes, “the US court system is the worst in the world… until you compare it to every other court system.”
Absolutely true, Robbnn. At least Gordan is getting another day in court. I’ve seen conflicting reports about whether Gordan’s previous run-in with the anti-nudity distribution law was overturned or not. If it wasn’t overturned, then it’s unlikely that charge will be dismissed, and it’ll take at least another conviction and appeal before that is resolved.
One good thing, if this starts to get some negative public scrutiny, GA lawmakers might actually consider re-writing the law. On the other hand, if most of the public reaction is in support of such laws, and the Supreme Court does not intervene, Gordan could be facing the very real possibility of some jail time.
Which would mean that a man can be sent to prison for showing pics of the nude human body to kids. Whether you feel the images were offending or not, unless you want to have such a tame depiction or sexual association declared to be obscenity, then you have to oppose this application.
Actually, Larry Niven is the author famous for writing stories about people bein executed for traffic violations, not Asimov
See? It just goes to show that I haven’t read that story in a long time. Thanks for the heads-up.
Powell Pugh posted:
“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.”
Um, actually, that’s not the case. Most studios do make their trailers available to be viewed by the largest potential audience, meaning the trailers are generally done for a PG film. That, however, does NOT prevent a studio from making a trailer that includes “f-bombs” and “tits or dìçkš” under one significant condition: The feature film being shown must be at the same level or higher than the trailer being shown (the trailer for an R film showing before a PG feature may not be any more explicit than what would appear in the PG film, but the R film could have a stronger trailer showing before an R feature film). Also, most theaters won’t show a trailer stronger than PG before a G feature film (some theaters are reluctant to do even that, but will usually run PG trailers from films deemed family-friendly).
I think this is exactly what makes this a free speech issue. Something that is legalized to the point of criminality generally has to always be illegal.
If I understand your logic, then there should also be no laws restricting alcohol or tobacco from minors. The fact that some may agree with removing those restrictions as well does not make it a good idea.
I can see the point that the law, as it appears to be currently written, does seem to be a little broad. But I would strongly object to there being no law on this issue, especially when it comes to minors. The issue is not that a child will be irrevocably scared by seeing a nude body. The deeper issue is that there are perverts who would use nude pictures for the purpose of arousing minors sexually. Even as an adult, I should not be subjected to being bombarded with unsolicited nude pictures. That stance does not prevent my neighbor from buying nude pictures, it simply keeps it an equal choice for both of us of what we choose to view.
Iowa Jim
1) The law is unconstitutional. As others here have pointed out, an unconstitutional law isn’t really a law because it contradicts the highest law in the land. Therefore, Gordon hasn’t broken any laws.
Not trying to be funny, but your statement is an illustration of the difference between SOME conservatives and liberals. UNTIL the law is ruled unconstitutional, it is still a law. (Whether Gordon actually broke this particular law is a valid — but different — debate.) In addition, he is currently charged with breaking the law, he has not yet been found guilty.
Not being a lawyer or a prosecutor, I have no idea if he should have been charged in the first place. If my understanding of the law is correct, than I think it was valid to charge him. As noted above, I believe such laws are to protect the general public from willfull violations. Since this was an accident, I don’t know if the law should have applied.
2) I’m not sure that he’s even broken the one with which he’s being charged (assuming, for the sake of argument, that it’s constitutional). If you look at the text of the law over at Newsarama, you’ll see that, in addition to the word “unsolicited”, there are also the words “delivery” and “addressee.” To me, these narrow the scope of that law to things sent through the mail, and since the kid didn’t get this comic from MileHighComics.com…
My reading it seemed to allow room for it being handed out as well, but obviously, it is legal jargon meant to be not understood from us common folk. (Mild sarcasm intended.)
3) On one hand, I agree with you. Rule of law is good, necessary, the foundation of our society, etc. On the other hand, if we all know that the punishment ($10K and/or 1-3 years) does not fit the crime, how can you so strongly support the application of the law in this case?
Just because the maximum punishment is 3 years does not mean it has to apply in this case. If this was done deliberately, and if the content was of a more graphic sexual nature, 3 years seems very fair. It is a mistake to assume that a minor infraction will bring about the maximum penalty (obviously it could, but in the real world, it normally does not). Furthermore, I do not feel he had to be charged, but merely stated I can understand why he was.
I don’t say this trying to trick or insult you (I just really don’t understand): Do you want him to be convicted?
If my understanding of the law is correct, I think he should be convicted but not pay a fine or go to prison. This would do two things. If this was a mistake (and I think it was), then it would cause others to pay attention to what they give out to kids but not further penalize Gordon. If it wasn’t a mistake, or if he repeats the mistake, it would rightly cause him to get into trouble when he violates the conditions of the current charge and show that something needs to change.
Bottom line, based on the facts given, Gordon should neither pay a fine or go to prison. I accept that it was an accident. I realize that legal fees are no cakewalk, but that is the price of the mistake he made.
Iowa Jim
Alchahol and tobacco are very different creatures. We can argue about what the proper age of access should be, but I think it’s universally accepted that consumption of alcahol and tobacco at an early age is overall bad for healtha dn development, both physically and psycologically. It’s not so much a question as to whether those items could harm children.
I know there are some that think all laws like this should be eradicated. I’m not one of them. But again I think you highlight why this is such a contentious issue: the law is intended to prevent perverts from using sexual images to lure kids into situations that could be harmful to them. If such is the case, then these charges should be dismissed, as it’s pretty obvious that no such intent is present. The law is impacting on a class of actions (mistaken distribution to a minor) that it is not intended to, and it calls upon the law enforcement agency to recognize this and drop the charges.
I would add that the anti-nudity distribution law would in fact prevent your neighbor from acquiring and viewing those pictures. I fail to see how that is not directly impacting on free speech rights.
As to whether an unconstitutional law is a valid law or not, Jim pretty much has it right. Just because some segment of society thinks a law is unconsitutional does not mean that they can act as though the law does not exits. Until a court declares it contrary to the Constitution, it is still very much law. For instance, there are some that view our Agency system as an unconstitutional assignment of power. The shorthand is that US Agencies (FAA, EPA, etc.) are created by statute, granted congressional powers by law (the constitution does not provide for such assignments of power), yet they officially under the direction of the President/Executive office. So, the combine both legislative and executive branches of government, which the Consititution made a point of splitting. Oh, and some agencies (EPA in particular) also have their own judiciary system, so there’s all three constitional branches in one neat package.
Despite the opinion and appearance that agencies are unconstitutionl, they still exist, and are so entrenched in our system of government that there’s probably no getting around them anymore.
Back on point, the only way to challenge a law you believe to be unconstitutional is to break it. If you’re correct, and you can get a high enough court to agree with you, the effects could potentially be retro-active, meaning anyone sentenced under that law would either have to be released or tried on different charges.
Didn’t mean to derail with the coffee thing. My apologies. When I first referenced it, I was simply using it as an illustration of common sense: coffee = hot, expect it to be hot.
🙂
That said, hitting a few different folks’ points at a time, before having to run back to work from lunch…
———————-
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.
Key words: “Leading us to believe.” With the punch line in the next panel being that he’s hurling paint at the canvas.
As Foghorn Leghorn used to say, “It’s, ah say, it’s a joke, son.”
———————-
But he also gave a comic containing nudity and sexual content to a 9 year old?
Given the URL’s posted above to the panels in question…please point out the “sexual content.”
Bobb,
I understand and agree with what you’re saying in terms of the way the legal system works. My statement of “it’s not really a law because it’s unconstitutional” was going off of what Steve Premo said waaaay above:
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.
You (Bobb) say:
Just because some segment of society thinks a law is unconsitutional does not mean that they can act as though the law does not exist.
But then you go on to note that the only real way to challenge such a law is to break it. All that I would add to my post above to clarify my position is: If it’s in the law, you can’t expect to break it without someone coming down on you. However, if it’s unconstitutional, the court should recognize that and you should be exonerated (which is the court retroactively saying, “Yup, that law should never have been there in the first place and you committed no crime in breakin’ it, son.”)
I hope that helps clarify what I said, but I won’t disagree with your last post in practice.
Eric
Not trying to be funny, but your statement is an illustration of the difference between SOME conservatives and liberals. UNTIL the law is ruled unconstitutional, it is still a law.
Sigh. I’m not even going to touch the “conservatives and liberals” thing. It’s not worth discussing. As for as “it is still a law,” see my post immediately above. I agree that the cops and prosecutor are acting within the bounds of their mandates, but I think that the law itself is unjust.
My reading it seemed to allow room for it being handed out as well, but obviously, it is legal jargon meant to be not understood from us common folk. (Mild sarcasm intended.)
It is certainly amazing to me how simple things like words get complicated when one puts them into law. It’s times like this I wish I weren’t one of the common folk so that I’d know a little better what I was talking about.
Just because the maximum punishment is 3 years does not mean it has to apply in this case. If this was done deliberately, and if the content was of a more graphic sexual nature, 3 years seems very fair.
But there is not a single thing in the law about the act needing to be deliberate, nor is the term “more graphic sexual nature” defined or mentioned. You seem to want this guy to get in trouble because of the “minor+nudity” issue, of which only the “nudity” part bearing on the case. With the law under which they’re charging him, that the kid was 9 is beside the point. (Not that anyone would know that the way the prosecutor is presenting it, but…)
If my understanding of the law is correct, I think he should be convicted but not pay a fine or go to prison. This would… cause others to pay attention to what they give out to kids but not further penalize Gordon.
Again, nothing about kids in the law. No one should be afraid of doing what Gordon did under the laws of Georgia as they have been presented to us. (That doesn’t make it right or a smart idea, but there’s a big difference between “smart or right” and “legal”, and the cops/prosecutor should only be dealing with what’s “legal”.)
Eric
Jim, given that the case law I cited SPECIFICALLY mentioned minors and nudity and that mere nudity is not enough to restrict its distrubution to minors, why SHOULD we think it’s constitutional?
By the way, here’s the relevant portion of the decision, which is a major part of the Court’s writing:
Appellee also attempts to support the ordinance as an exercise of the city’s undoubted police power to protect children. Appellee maintains that even though it cannot prohibit the display of films containing nudity to adults, the present ordinance is a reasonable means of protecting minors from this type of visual influence.
It is well settled that a State or municipality can adopt more stringent controls on communicative materials available to youths than on those available to adults. See, e. g., Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968). Nevertheless, minors are entitled to a significant measure of First Amendment protection, see Tinker [422 U.S. 205, 213]
Thanks for the added explanation, Eric. While from certain viewpoints, both you and Jim are correct, telling the guy that is just released from 10 years in prison after a court delcares the law he was convicted up unconstitutional that he can consider himself to never have been convited is of little comfort to him, I’m guessing.
Jim’s expression that the punishment might not fit the crime here is a little disturbing (not Jim, but the idea he expresses). He’s essentially saying some punishment here is appropriate, but not the one the court has the option of applying here. Granted, juries can and do often hand do other sentences, but those guidelines are very persuasive (I’m afraid I’m not up on the current caselaw on using sentencing guides, so I don’t know if courts still use these).
Still, I supposed you could have an enterprising jury convict, but commute the sentence. I doubt that would happen. What’s more likely is that if the jury convicts, jail time will be included in the sentence.
In which case (if Jim is on that Jury) he’s faced with the dilemma of convicting and sending to jail a man he doesn’t feel warrants jail time, or acquitting a man he feels is guilty in order to spare him unwarrated punishment.
All of which, I think, supports the idea that the charges should be dropped in this case. If the punishment is too harsh for the crime, the prosecutors have within their discrection the option of not taking the case.
I would add that the anti-nudity distribution law would in fact prevent your neighbor from acquiring and viewing those pictures. I fail to see how that is not directly impacting on free speech rights.
Here is where I fully admit my confusion: The law that was quoted on the comicon website specifically used the word “unsolicited.” If my understanding is correct, then your point is invalid since the law would NOT keep an individual from choosing to purchase a nude picture. Since I have never heard that Playboy, etc., is banned from being mailed to or sold in the entire state of Georgia, it would seem like that my understanding is correct. So can you (or anyone) clarify this matter?
Iowa Jim
Jim, given that the case law I cited SPECIFICALLY mentioned minors and nudity and that mere nudity is not enough to restrict its distrubution to minors, why SHOULD we think it’s constitutional?
I have always said you are asking a good question. The courts may agree with you and change the law. But others have already responded with legal reasons why your case law does not apply (and yes, I also read your rebutal to the objections).
Whether you or I THINK it is constitutional doesn’t change the fact the law is on the books. It has to be either repealed by the GA legislature, or overturned by a higher court.
Iowa Jim
Gotta make this one very quick:
Jim, the problem with the law is that if we accept the prosecution’s definition of “deliver”, this means that it is illegal to hand my neighbor a copy of, say, a taped baseball game to show him one amazing play because 1) he didn’t ask for it, 2) one player slaps another’s behind in the way baseball players do and it happens on camera. Based on the wording of the law, this is “sexual content” and if my neighbor didn’t specifically ask to see it, I’ve just “delivered” the content to him and I could get 1-3 years in prison.
This law is pathetically vague and broad.
[i]Playboy[/i] isn’t really the issue here.
Eric
Playboy isn’t really the issue here.
That’s what I meant.
In which case (if Jim is on that Jury) he’s faced with the dilemma of convicting and sending to jail a man he doesn’t feel warrants jail time, or acquitting a man he feels is guilty in order to spare him unwarrated punishment.
Actually, since I have no idea if my understanding of the law is correct, I would assume that Gordon is innocent of actually breaking the law until proven guilty. He (apparently) admits accidentally giving the comic to the kid, but that does not mean he actually broke the law as written.
If he did break the law, and it was proven, then yes, I would find him guilty. Generally speaking, sentencing is a separate phase done by either the judge or the jury. If it is shown it was accidental, then I would be in favor of a commuted sentence. I am not sure why this seems unlikely to you, but I have never served on a jury (been called to jury duty many times, but never chosen as an actual juror), nor am I lawyer, so tell me how I am wrong in my belief it could be commuted.
Iowa Jim
Eric,
Your point doesn’t make sense if it is legal to give someone a copy of Playboy.
Jim, the problem with the law is that if we accept the prosecution’s definition of “deliver”, this means that it is illegal to hand my neighbor a copy of, say, a taped baseball game to show him one amazing play because 1) he didn’t ask for it, 2) one player slaps another’s behind in the way baseball players do and it happens on camera. Based on the wording of the law, this is “sexual content” and if my neighbor didn’t specifically ask to see it, I’ve just “delivered” the content to him and I could get 1-3 years in prison.
The issue with the “delivery” law was nudity. The question is, what if you handed your neighbor a copy of what you thought was the baseball game, but you programmed your VCR wrong and it taped a late night “adult” program with nudity and sexual content. I agree, if the law means you could get 1-3 years in prison for an honest mistake, then yes, the law is clearly wrong. (I also wonder if somehow there has to be a “commercial”/”business” component involved. My personally handing you a nude picture is different in some ways than a business handing it out.)
Iowa Jim
Nudity is the issue for Gordon, but the law itself also provides for “sexual conduct” which is what I described with the baseball thing, and that proves the law is overly broad and unconstitutional.
Places selling Playboy aren’t the issue, and I think that’s what you were talking about a couple of posts ago. The thing is, if I had read an article in Playboy (and that is why I read it, of course!) that I thought was interesting, under the prosecution’s reading of the law, I’m pretty sure I couldn’t even hand it to you to read unless you asked me for the magazine first.
I, too, wonder if the court would view the difference between commerical and personal “delivery.” To me, though, that just means that there’s another reason why this law is bad. When you don’t know what the law means, it’s hard to enforce it properly.
In any case, I think this dead horse has gotten enough of a beating from me until we hear further updates. Good luck, Gordon, and thanks, CBLDF. (I’d still like to hear from PAD, though, if you’re around.)
Eric
Jim, the problem with the law is that if we accept the prosecution’s definition of “deliver”, this means that it is illegal to hand my neighbor a copy of, say, a taped baseball game to show him one amazing play because 1) he didn’t ask for it, 2) one player slaps another’s behind in the way baseball players do and it happens on camera. Based on the wording of the law, this is “sexual content” and if my neighbor didn’t specifically ask to see it, I’ve just “delivered” the content to him and I could get 1-3 years in prison.
Just as a point of note, you might want to find a better example than this. Technically, copying anything on tv and then distributing it is a violation of copyright laws.
Granted, if the only person you give it to is your neighbor nothing may be done, but then again, if by giving him something that contains “sexual content”, you piss him off and he calls the police… well…like I said, technically, it is bootlegging.
Jim, I’m basing my opinion on the fact that Gordan apparantly has been convicted under this very anti-nudity distribution law once before. I guess I’m jumping the gun, since I’ve seen no info as to whether any jail times resulted from that prior conviction. But if it held, and he’s convicted again, and the jury is allowed to consider prior convictions, then a harsher sentence is likely.
And according to the facts known about the prior conviction, it involved the sale of books of a very adult nature sold to adults. It’s not clear of the sale involved a mailing, or who complained about it. Heck those might not even be the facts, but if they are, it seems like GA is not a good place to be in the adult pictures business.
Here is where I fully admit my confusion: The law that was quoted on the comicon website specifically used the word “unsolicited.” If my understanding is correct, then your point is invalid since the law would NOT keep an individual from choosing to purchase a nude picture. Since I have never heard that Playboy, etc., is banned from being mailed to or sold in the entire state of Georgia, it would seem like that my understanding is correct. So can you (or anyone) clarify this matter?
A question that popped into my head earlier, regarding the “unsolicited” part of the law Gordon’s being slapped with:
Setting aside, for a moment, whether the book making it into the Halloween giveaway stack was a simple oversight (which I accept that it is)….
Since this Halloween giveaway “trick-or-treat” event was a promoted function of the shopping center (if I understood an ealier post correctly), and customers (including the 9-year-old in question) showed up that day for that promotion…is the freebie comic (regardless of content) still “unsolicited?”
Great point, Nytwyng. The earlier incident involving this law was over a purchase. Unless Gordan forced the adult to buy the books at gunpoint, it’s hard to imagine how the “unsolicited” aspect of the law was broken. But if the prior jury/judge managed to apply the law for an in-person purchase, then I don’t see any reason why they’d let a little thing like the actual wording of the law stop them from applying it here, either.
Short answer: Yes. Just because something is free doesn’t necessarily mean that you want it. And you have to take into account whether or not a 9 year old KNOWS and UNDERSTANDS what he’s asking for. Under the law, the answer would probably be “no”.
I should point out that the previous is only my opinion, of course. I could be wrong.
Frankly, this whole thing sickens me.
As a customer of Gordon Lee’s comic shop for the last 11 YEARS, I have had many opportunities to get to know him as both an individual and as a comic shop owner. In all my time, I have never known Gordon to do anything that would intentionally endanger his personal or professional life. He’s not perfect and any normal human being is capable of making mistakes, but he would never give anything questionable to a minor unless he had the consent of the parent.
The fact that the parent called the police instead of contacting Gordon is insane to me. Would he have been embarrassed about the mixup? Sure, he would. He’d also do something to make it up to the parent and “minor” involved. That’s the kind of guy he is, not the kind that he’s accused of being by the local police.
I sincerely hope this whole thing is overturned quickly so Gordon can get back on with his life.
Just because something is free doesn’t necessarily mean that you want it.
Understood. My asking the question, though, arises from the shopping center’s promotion of the Halloween giveaway. If that’s why a particular customer was there, would their receipt of material that they ultimately didn’t want still be “unsolicited?” (Ex. If I don’t like, say, Snickers bars, go trick-or-treating and get a Snickers, was that Snickers “unsolicited?”)
Which raises the follow-up question: Is/was there any indication that the 9-year-old in question was there to (primarily) participate in the shopping center’s Halloween trick-or-treat giveaway promotion, or was it just happenstance that brought this all together on Halloween?
I mean, we took our then-2-and-a-half year old to a similar “Boo at the Zoo” event, and got plenty o’ junk that he/we didn’t want*. But, I doubt we could call that “unsolicited.”
(*On the way out, however, we did see a group of adults in pretty good super-hero costumes…including, most impressively, a Kitty Pryde complete with Lockheed the dragon.)
If anyone here wouldn’t have a cow if their 9 year old got a hold of a comic that had images like that, there is something wrong with you.
After viewing the images and text, it is inappropriate for any kid to see.
What the comic book shop owner did was inexcusable and he should be held accountable. The CBLDF will not look good for taking this case on. It will hurt them more than it will help the comic book shop owner.
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!!
Okay, but what 12 year old is going to understand that line as satire? I can believe a parent found this inappropriate for their child.
That said, I still stand by the comments I made earlier that, while this may have been negligent, it’s not criminal negligence unless he was giving it out to several minors indiscriminately. Once that is understood, a better decision can be made.
If anyone here wouldn’t have a cow if their 9 year old got a hold of a comic that had images like that, there is something wrong with you.
I have a 3 year old. Now, or 6 years hence, while I may not deem it suitable for him at the time, I certainly wouldn’t “have a cow” if he saw it. Not because it contains nudity, but because the content as a whole is beyond his level at the time. (No matter how bright his mother and I think he is.) In fact, “having a cow,” in my view, would only serve to worsen the situation, and such reactions only lead to the vicious cycle that has the naked human form objectified so greatly here in the US, which prompts reactions such as this, which in turn tighten restrictions further, which makes it easier and easier to “offend” with any hint of nudity, and ’round and ’round the cycle goes.
After viewing the images and text, it is inappropriate for any kid to see.
Not having assessed every “kid” in the nation, let alone the world, I wouldn’t dream of making such a blanket statement. (Likewise, I wouldn’t dream of blanketing every single minor with the term “kid.”)
What the comic book shop owner did was inexcusable and he should be held accountable.
Obviously, you’ve missed Gordon’s own posts, stating that the book making it into the “trick-or-treat” stack was an oversight, and agrees it shouldn’t have happened. I’d hardly call it “inexcusable,” however. What’s “inexcusable” is the extreme overreaction that is a result of the oversight.
The CBLDF will not look good for taking this case on. It will hurt them more than it will help the comic book shop owner.
Once again, you appear to be overlooking the stated reasons as to why the CBLDF’s getting involved. No one – not even Gordon – is making the claim that a 9-year-old should have been given the book in question. Instead, the CBLDF is attempting to prevent sweeping, damaging precedents from being set should Gordon be convicted of the charges as prevented, namely:
1) The depiction of nudity, in and of itself, regardless of content or context, being deemed “obscene.”
and
2) The distribution of material containing nudity being criminalized, by a mis-application of a law not intended for the circumstances as found in this case.
Should the first precedent be set, then, for example, Superman – The Movie becomes, by definition, “obscene,” for the single scene with baby Kal-El presenting himself in all his glory to the Kents; Star Trek: The Next Generation‘s “Chain of Command” two-parter becomes “obscene,” because of Picard’s derriere; Michaelangelo’s “David” becomes “obscene,” as it is a nude; and so on…and so on….
Should the second precedent be set, then distributing the above examples, in any form or function, automatically becomes a crime, as well.
Does this sound like a reasonable outcome of a simple mistake being made at a comic store? For that matter, does it sound reasonable at all?
Just as a point of note, you might want to find a better example than this.
Good point. I will try to refrain from further such activities. 🙂
Iowa Jim
wayena:
[I]”I have never known Gordon to do anything that would intentionally endanger his personal or professional life. He’s not perfect and any normal human being is capable of making mistakes, but he would never give anything questionable to a minor unless he had the consent of the parent.”[/I]
I agree. Gordon simply made a mistake. Whereas Jeff Mason intentionally included potentially objectionable material in a promotional giveaway item.
I mean, we took our then-2-and-a-half year old to a similar “Boo at the Zoo” event, and got plenty o’ junk that he/we didn’t want*. But, I doubt we could call that “unsolicited.”
Was someone there holding a gun to your head? If not, you could have refused to take the stuff. I do it all the time if I go into a store and someone is handing out free samples. I’m under no obligation to take them. As an adult, you’re able to decide for yourself whether or not that is something you want. A nine year old however, is not mature enough to decide what is appropriate for him to read. It is up to the adults around him to make that decision for him, whether those adults be parents, teachers, or yeah even comic book store owners.
And while I can agree with most people here that this Mr. Gordon made a mistake, I don’t know if I’m willing to give him a pass just because I consider the sexual content to be harmless.
I don’t know all the details of this case. Even so, from what I’ve seen discussed in this forum, Mr. Gordon appeared to be ignorant of the contents of the free comic book he was giving out. What if instead of a nude Picasso, it was a stronger image, say a “Dolcett” style of artwork which often shows women in bondage, and even decapitated, disemboweled and even roasting on a spit. And as bad as that sounds, I’m sure there’s someone out there who will swear that it doesn’t meet the “definiton” of obscene. I mean, I think someone suggested that Picasso sitting around with out clothes on was not only historically accurate because of the heat, but not really sexual nor intended to be, but come on. How many boys in the fifties and sixities got their first sexual thrill from seeing lingerie ads in the newspaper or the pictures in National Geographic?
So I’m having a hard time seeing this an an exclusively “free speech” issue. And even if it is, does the concept of free speech as it applies to adults, extend to children, who may not possess the maturity to fully understand or appreciate the message?
that is the biggest load of šhìŧ i have ever heard