On oversight on my part: I should have mentioned that “Funky Winkerbean” began the trial last week of the comic book store owner up on obscenity charges. John Byrne makes an appearance as an expert witness, and the strip echoes the Jesus Castillo case (right down to the notorious, “C’mon…everyone knows comics are for kids” comment from the DA which wound up swaying the Castillo jury.) The strip can be found here: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/fun/funky.asp?date=20051120
PAD
• 
Am I the only one who thinks it ironic for John Byrne, who often rants on his message board that comics should be for kids, is shown in a comic strip testifying that comics aren’t just for kids?
Hah. I like how the whole courtroom runs to the window to see the TV crew.
With the PTC coming out against shows like Family Guy, it’s clear that there is still very-much a perception by some that comics and cartoon, by virtue of the very fact that they are animated, are for kids. And by default, not for adults. Despite how many cartoon strips and other “funnies” printed into newspapers (like Funky itself) are telling stories not for kids, but for all people, adult, child, whoever, so long as they have the intelligence to understand what’s going on.
Our society’s attempts at segregation continue to amaze and astound me.
“Am I the only one who thinks it ironic for John Byrne, who often rants on his message board that comics should be for kids, is shown in a comic strip testifying that comics aren’t just for kids?”
Since I miss a lot of the Byrne rants, I didn’t think of this. My thought was “hey, it sounds like they actually spoke with JB (and assumed they had, in order to get his permission to have him appear in the strip) and put in a quote from him.”
Although there’s a difference between saying that all comics should be for kids, and that superhero comics should be for kids.
Based on memories of John Byrne statements as well as his intense interest in history, I would not bat an eye if I heard that he testified in support of free speech.
Fred
For those reading the strip in the archives, this part of the storyline begins on November 12th. I recommend going there 1st, then heading forward.
On this site, reading the strip is really preaching to the converted: Most people here don’t want any comic store shut down, many read mature comics (I didn’t say pørņ (not that there’s anything wrong with that) which include works as diverse as WATCHMEN, Y: THE LAST MAN and several Marvel Knights titles, and I’m sure quite a few are card-carrying members of the CBLFD.
The strip is important, though, for the general public to see. No matter how many comic books are made for grown-ups or win “serious” awards, there remains the belief that comics are “only” for children. And especially in the current political climate, censorship faces much more support and less opposition if it’s somehow perceived as protecting kids. (I’m now hearing Maude Flanders shouting “Won’t someone please think of the children?”) As long as adult materials are kept in a distinct area from the mainstream books, a comic store should be able to carry any amout if adult materials it wants. (In the days before Blockbuster and Hollywood Video conquered the world, lots of video stores had an Adults Only section, usually in the back and behind curtains or doors, and no one moved to shut them down!) Let’s assume that children aren’t omnipresent and that adults can select what they like.
“I like how the whole courtroom runs to the window to see the TV crew.”
Not the whole courtroom. What broke me up was the guy in the juror’s box who was sleeping.
PAD
Den,
He doesn’t say that “all” comics should be for kids, just that characters created for a younger audience (i.e., Superman, Batman, Spider-Man) should be in books accessible to said younger audience.
(In other words, no X-rated comics featuring Superman and Lois’ wedding night.)
The sad part, of course, is that if they find they can’t nail somebody on the “comics are for kids” garbage, they’ll just press the “obscenity disguised as comics” angle in some other fashion.
Maybe add in a bit of “it’ll make kids violent” spice.
And after that, the prosecution and the jurors will all go home and watch Desperate Housewives
He doesn’t say that “all” comics should be for kids, just that characters created for a younger audience (i.e., Superman, Batman, Spider-Man) should be in books accessible to said younger audience.
And I didn’t say that he said “all” comics should be for kids either (you can tell that because the word “all” doesn’t appear in my post), but he often doesn’t make the distinction in his rants.
As to why John Byrne — Byrne actually drew Funky for a brief period there, when Batiuk needed a break.
Looking at the art style, I think Byrne may still be contributing to the strip in an unofficial capacity.
John Byrne’s contributions to Funky Winkerbean (as a guest artist/writer) are at http://jbgallery.ourbunch.net/cgi-bin/funky.cgi
which wound up swaying the Castillo jury.
Allegedly swaying the Castillo jury. The only ones that lay claim to it having any sway over the jury is CBLDF, who botched the trial. All public court records indicate that the DA presented a solid case based on research and facts. The inability of CBLDF to obtain an appeal backs that up.
The inability of CBLDF to obtain an appeal backs that up.
You would think, but this was a Texas case and the Texas Supreme Court has denied appeals when the defendent’s lawyer was found to have been sleeping during the trial.
5TH Court of Appeals
“Allegedly swaying the Castillo jury. The only ones that lay claim to it having any sway over the jury is CBLDF, who botched the trial. All public court records indicate that the DA presented a solid case based on research and facts. The inability of CBLDF to obtain an appeal backs that up.”
That’s not necessarily true. When you appeal, you are only granted an appeal on procedural/administrative errors, or clear errors of law. “The jury got it wrong” isn’t, generally speaking, a strong basis to file an appeal on. You can’t really challenge an error of fact on appeal. So all the absence of an appeal means is that there wasn’t a legal basis on which to grant the appeal. It by no means that the right legal outcome was achieved.
Poor John has had enough problems. First losing the love of the first(?) woman to ever love him back and now this trial. Hopefully justice will be done properly this time, but you never know with Batiuk. Look at all the problems the other characters have had over the years.
Personally, I was hoping that John and Becky would get together, but that was before Wally was rescued and returned from Iraq.
But maybe that was for the best in the long run, considering it was Becky’s mom that started all of John’s legal troubles in the first place.
But even with Lisa representing him, there is no guarantee of a favorable verdict or low legal fees.
Of course he can always sell the engagement ring he bought for Becky to pay for his legal fees, considering he sold practically everything he personally owned of any real value to buy that in the first place.
Here’s hoping for a big “Not Guilty”.
Whilr we’re on the subject of Texas, did you know that they recently outlawed all marriages?
HJR No. 6 Sec. 32(b)
This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2005/11/did_texas_just_1.html
Hah, took me a while (I’m slow sometimes) to see what people meant by outlawing all marriages. I read that, as I’m sure its drafters meant to say, that the state can’t recognize any additional unions identicle to marraige. Of course, that’s not what the language says.
So, yeah, Texas just abolished marraige. Which, y’know, mostly makes the whole problem go away.
To quote from the 5th Court of Appeals link above:
“In conducting this analysis, we may disagree with the jury’s determination, even if probative evidence supports the verdict, but we must avoid substituting our judgment for that of the fact finder.”
That is, Bobb is correct. The fact an appeal wasn’t won, doesn’t mean the Court of Appeals agreed with the original decision. Just that there was no legal reason to overturn it.
On the other hand…it does appear from a quick look through the decision, that the Texas decision was based on general obscenity. Not based on selling adult material to minors. It appears to me that the Prosecution was arguing nobody should be reading this material, even adults.
// 1Am I the only one who thinks it ironic for John Byrne, who often rants on his message board that comics should be for kids, is shown in a comic strip testifying that comics aren’t just for kids? //
To be fair Byrne has never said that, what he has said, more or less, is that comics that were created for a kid audience, (like Superman and Batman), should still be done for a kids audience, (Which I kinda agree with BTW), and genres that were intended for children, (like the superhero genre) should still be done for children, (Which I don’t totally agree with but think is a valid argument). He has no problem with adult comics like Sin City or his own Next Men.
He is however also in favor a ratings system for comics, which I certainly don’t agree with. Nothing in his Funky appearance seems to contridict his personal beliefs and the guest appearance was done with his permission.
What I don’t get is why the comic shop trial story was dropped for so long. Yes, in real life a trial often does take place months after the initial arrest, but to separate the arrest and trial by months in the comic strip- with, to the best of my knowledge, _no_ mention of the situation in the interim- doesn’t make any sense. I found it annoying that the incident seemed to be dropped several months ago, and there are probably readers just picking up on the storyline who are annoyed that they don’t know the details of what transpired in May.
That being said, that prosecutor sure is an idiot. Too bad that mindset exists in the real world.
Rick
P.S. Was that juror asleep, or just disheartened that all those lemmings had rushed to the window?
Oaky — i don’t think Byrne is currently working on “Funky”. However, some time ago, Batiuk consciously altered his own style somewhat, bringing it somewhat nearer to Byrne’s style after Byrne did the strip for at least a month — the John/Becky near-romance sited by someone upline, which at least partially set up the arrest/trial. (The complainant is Bscky’s mother who was only in the sotre because Backy had mentiond it.)
(For his birthday in that sequence, Becky consulted one of the other comic-savvy characters and got John a signed Byrne Wonder Woman sketch [duly shown in a panel] as a gift.)
Batiuk’s been having quiet fun now and then; when Wally and Backy went to Afghanistan on a land-mine clearing project for their honeymoon, one of their neighbours, who is Chinese, presented Wsally with a “lcuky flight jacket” that his father had gotten from a young man who flew with the Flying Tigers — with only a little effort, one could read the nametag: “T. Lee”
More on the appellate decision (thanks to Ham for posting the link).
The language cited by the court makes no reference to selling to minors. But I think it most likely that it played into the verdict reached by the jury. If this had been an issue of Juggs (or whatever), sold in some liquor store, it probably wouldn’t have resulted in a conviction. But since it was sold at a comic store, frequented by at least some kids, I think the jury’s opinion about what societal standards applied were of a higher nature. You could certainly take from the decision that the Demon Beast Invasion series in Texas was obscenity, but you could also take it as only obscene when sold over the counter in a comic shop. The same material, advertised in a adult-oriented magazine, and ordered directly through the mail (after an age verification check) might very well have been passed by this same jury as not obscene.
Which I guess means that, if you’re an LCS in Texas, if you want to carry stuff like this, you’d better make sure to keep it very separate from the DC and Marvel stuff.
It’s too bad the SCOTUS never took this case up (or maybe they did and I’m just ignorant of their decision).
“Which I guess means that, if you’re an LCS in Texas, if you want to carry stuff like this, you’d better make sure to keep it very separate from the DC and Marvel stuff.”
Which is what they did. Separate shelves or even sold from behind the counter.
PAD
“Won’t someone please think of the children?”
At which point someone should pipe up with “We are, madam. We are trying to ensure they will grow up in a world where they can speak their piece without fear of self-appointed censors shutting them down. We are trying to see to it that they, and their children will be in a world which doesn’t stiffle their development by smothering them with overprotection.”
Nawww … probably wouldn’t fly.
“Which is what they did. Separate shelves or even sold from behind the counter.”
I can’t tell exactly from the opinion, but it sounds like he served 12 months probation (in lieu of 180 days in jail) and was fined $4,000? So long as this case is applied very narrowly, I don’t see it as a huge erosion of free speech rights. The LCS I grew up with, and the one I go to today, both have the “adult” material either in a seperate area, behind a gate that’s monitored by store employees, or behind the counter. As a parent, I’d not worry about sending my kid into those stores, and wonder if maybe they were going to come out with something I’d rather they not have just yet. On the other hand, a shop that doesn’t keep such a separate section probably wouldn’t get my patronage, or more to the point, my kid’s.
The law does say something like “based on community standards,” and the harder-core Magna/hentai stuff can be really, well, hard core, not for everyone, and they really do mean “not for children” when they stick that on the cover. It should be kept out of the hands of kids, unless the child’s parent/guardian decides it’s ok. And even then, I’d probably challenge that idea, although not legally.
“I can’t tell exactly from the opinion, but it sounds like he served 12 months probation (in lieu of 180 days in jail) and was fined $4,000? So long as this case is applied very narrowly, I don’t see it as a huge erosion of free speech rights.”
Of course not. That’s why people are always willing to accept such things: Because it doesn’t seem huge. Those who would deprive adults of their right to buy whatever reading material they want because it offends their own sensibilities are like shoplifters. A store isn’t really harmed by the theft of a single item. But tote them up, day after day after day after day, and it mounts up and becomes a huge problem.
A beach doesn’t wash away into the ocean all at once. It erodes slowly, over years. The key to maintaining rights such as free speech is doing whatever is humanly possible to make sure there’s NO erosion, lest you turn around one day and discover the beach has washed away.
“The LCS I grew up with, and the one I go to today, both have the “adult” material either in a seperate area, behind a gate that’s monitored by store employees, or behind the counter.”
And if he’s in the wrong town, and sells a copy of an adult book to an adult, he could then be prosecuted. And with the Castillo case on the books, an eager beaver prosecutor might well be emboldened to give it a try. That’s how it works.
PAD
“And if he’s in the wrong town, and sells a copy of an adult book to an adult, he could then be prosecuted. And with the Castillo case on the books, an eager beaver prosecutor might well be emboldened to give it a try. That’s how it works.”
Agreed. But if you accept the proposition that how some material can be sold can be regulated (no pørņ sold directly to kids), then Castillo isn’t the kind of erosion that leads to further erosion. There’s always the danger that it will be used and applied that way, and in that case you hope that they system catches that mistake at some point. It is the proverbial slippery slope, but that comes with the territory. Unless we’re going to have true free speech, meaning Penthouse on the shelf right next to Harry Potter, rather than keeping the former behind the desk while the later enjoys full main-floor display, some regulation is going to have to be tolerated.
If Castillo used to advance the case that Hentai, in call cases, is obscene and prohibited, that’s a case for a higher Consitutional power to come down and set right the lines.
The shoplifting example works the other way: one or two kids picking up explicit sexual content won’t be harmed. But add up the impacts over time, and maybe we do get an erosion of societal norms.
On the other hand, maybe we get a liberated generation not so concerned with naked pictures and ideas. But so long as Castillo is only used to allow a community to regulate how material can be displayed or distributed, and doesn’t outright prohibit it’s sale to consenting adults, I don’t see a problem with it. That’s a big “so long as,” granted. And I’d much rather see market influence, where stores that don’t segregate the hard core material from the general material don’t do as well financially, used rather than the penal system.
But the Castillo case isn’t about *how* this material is sold and distributed. It’s about making sure it isn’t sold to anyone at all. Castillo wasn’t charged with selling pornography to a minor. He was charged with selling adult material to an adult. Under the standard that this case establishes, there is no circumstance in which that material could be sold to anyone, anywhere.
“But the Castillo case isn’t about *how* this material is sold and distributed. It’s about making sure it isn’t sold to anyone at all. Castillo wasn’t charged with selling pornography to a minor. He was charged with selling adult material to an adult. Under the standard that this case establishes, there is no circumstance in which that material could be sold to anyone, anywhere.”
Not really. When looking at judicial precedent, you always (if you’re doing your job correctly) look at the circumstances surrounding that precedent. Implicit in the Castillo case is that the material was not sufficiently shielded from access to children. It’s not just a case of “adult walks into comic store, asks for DBI, clerk gets it from behind counter and sells it to adult.” It’s “adult walks into comic store, picks up DBI from the rack, and community decides that, despite warning sign about adult section, this kind of sale coupled with this kind of display amounts to obscene.”
As PAD pointed out, the solution was to have a segregated adults section. There hasn’t been a rash of follow-up convictions, so unless such adult comics are no longer sold in Texas, something must have been worked out.
As PAD pointed out, the solution was to have a segregated adults section.
But the thing is, that “solution” didn’t help Jesus Castillo one bit:
http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/3267.html
Q:”Did you have your adult comics in a separate area where underage patrons weren’t allowed to see it?”
JC: “Yes, we had them in a separate area where kids weren’t allowed to go.”
And earlier:
Q:”What recommendations would you have for retailers to help them avoid the situation that you were in?”
JC: “Well, I don’t know. I guess it would be—get rid of your X-Rated comics–we don’t sell that type of material anymore. Unfortunately, it’s the only way I know to avoid the situation in Texas, at least.”
So segrating the comics in an area where kids can’t get to them isn’t enough. In Texas, the only standard is not sell them to anyone, anytime.
I know I’m getting nit-picky, but Castillo had them, according to the recap in the appellate opinion, on the back racks, with a sign, but still sharing the same floor space as everything else. Not behind a curtain, door, or behind the counter. Kids were not normally allowed, but how hard would it be for a kid to get access to them?
Saying “So segrating the comics in an area where kids can’t get to them isn’t enough. In Texas, the only standard is not sell them to anyone, anytime.” is a jump in logic that Castillo alone does not support. Case law is fact specific. The progeny of Castillo, should any ever come about, might attempt to take the application of this standard of obscene to the point you suggest. But that’s the way case law works. The next case would have to demonstrate that the material, when additional measures are taken to prevent kids from having access to it, remains obscene.
Kids were not normally allowed, but how hard would it be for a kid to get access to them?
That would depend on how hard a clerk like Castillo policed the area.
If you want to be nitpicky, then answer this: Stores like Borders carry Playboy and other magazines with adult content. They’re kept in the same area with the other magazines, usually in the top back rank with a sign stating that they are for adults only.
I have yet to see any employee at Borders walking around the magazine section to make sure the kids aren’t mixing the Playboys with the Nikolodean Magazines.
So, under the Castillo ruling, the situation is even worse than at Ken’s Comics. There is nothing keeping kids from viewing adult material.
So, should the manager of the local Borders in Texas be prosecuted? Under Castillo, it looks like the prosecutor has a rock-solid case.
What about DVDs? I know of a number of retailers that don’t put adult DVDs in a separate room from the copies of the Incredibles. Should they be prosecuted?
Den, you a cloest lawyer? I know you’re not, but those are exactly the kinds of questions that subsequent courts would look at. The answer is…it depends on the community, really.
Some Borders type stores do shelf Playboys and other “gentlemen’s” mags on the same shelf. But in most cases that I’ve seen, they’re on the top rack, out of reach of all but the tallest of 14 year olds, usually have some kind of blinder on them so all you can see is the title, and are shrink-wrapped, or have the cover covered with some non-see-throughable material. And they don’t sell them to minors. Essentially, steps have been taken to keep kids from getting exposed to them.
In other places, such magazines are kept behind the sales counter, with covers covered and such. But the link is that they aren’t kept in a place where kids have easy access to them. Mags like XBox magazine and Wizard are on the bottom shelf, usually in the front. Heck, I’m 5’10”, and I have hard time getting to the mags in the top shelf.
Err, I mean, I’d HAVE a hard time getting to them. Yeah…that’s what I mean….
And in many cases, the Border’s is storing them that way because there’s a local ordinance that requires them to be stored that way. Free speech is not absolute. Whether it should be or not is a totally different debate I think we’ve had in the past, and I know this board has discussed. But if we allow that regulation of free speech rights includes proscriptions for how certain material can be marketed, under the aims of protecting children from exposure to material unsuitable for them, there’s nothing wrong with this kind of regulation. It’s like requiring a 5 day waiting period for acquiring a handgun. Sure, it infringes on your Constitutional right to bear arms, but it’s balancing that with the right to NOT get shot by your loved one when they fly into a furious rage because you ate the last twinkie.
As to DVDs, well, ditto. Since most people, kids included, aren’t carrying around portable DVD players, the only way kids are going to get exposed to adult DVDs is to buy them, take them home, and watch them. Putting an adult DVD (assuming the cover isn’t itself X-rated) on a shelf were kids can pick it up isn’t exactly the same thing as exposing them to pørņ. Renting it to them is another matter entirely.
Do I think managers of these stores should be prosecuted? No. For that matter, I don’t think Castillo should have been prosecuted. What ever happened to warnings? Especially with sorta obscure laws? Newsarama has a link up about a Home Depot that banned someone because they walked out of the store with a pencil they hadn’t paid for, warning them that they were going to be charged with shoplifting. This AFTER the loss prevention thug had followed the guy around the store, waiting to pounce on him as soon as he walked out. Fer cryin’ out loud, we hear people in the government complaining about how we’re losing our sense of community, and it’s no wonder. We’re treated like criminals. Would it have killed the town Castillo had his shop in to send him a letter, alerting him to the complaints they had received, and advising him to beef up his adult’s only section? Or to stop the guy at Home Depot and say “excuse me, sir, I think you have one of our pencils behind your ear?”
The majority of people want to obey the law, or at least not break it.
“I know I’m getting nit-picky, but Castillo had them, according to the recap in the appellate opinion, on the back racks, with a sign, but still sharing the same floor space as everything else. Not behind a curtain, door, or behind the counter. Kids were not normally allowed, but how hard would it be for a kid to get access to them?”
First things first…
I don’t know Texas law and I’ve only ever been there once.
And that was some time ago.
OK, on with my bit.
I’m going to be nit-picky now. The people who want to take the argument of “it’s not really that bad” seem to be missing something here. This case sucked because it was about comic books. And I mean that by it was only about comic books.
Bobb, been in a Barnes and Noble, Books-a-Million, Boarder’ Books, Virgin Books, Tower Record and Books, or just about any other book shop from the Sunshine State to NJ? You can walk in and go anywhere in the store without an escort or an ID check. You can go to the kids area or the area where they keep the better sex books with their full color photo layouts and anywhere inbetween with nobody stopping by to make sure you can be there. Go to the magazine racks and you can find the Nick Kids type of stuff just a few racks down from the in plain sight Maxim, FHM, Playboy, Penthouse, etc. Step into just about any quick mart and you can find tons of skin mags right by the door in full view of everybody. And, last time I looked, kids do go into all those places quite often.
But, often, if you go to the same towns where you have that level of freedom on their part you find that comic shops don’t share that freedom. You can’t just put it in its own section, mark it and keep an eye on it (more then many book stores I’ve been in do). Nooooo. You have to lock it away from all sight and knowledge.
So, why is that a problem with me?
Comic book shops share one very important thing with big book stores and other retailers. They all want new people to be able to come in and fine something that they like/want and to then become part of the regular crowd of shoppers. Big book stores put their stock on display in full veiw so that anyone can come in and see the sights and maybe find something that they didn’t know about while looking for what they came in for. You can’t look for or ask for something that you don’t know exists but you can come upon it while going after something you wanted to by.
Big book stores can put it all out there and catch no where near the grief that comic shops will. Why? Well, books are for everybody. Books are all ages entertainment. But not comic books. Why? Because, and everybody say it with me, comics are for kids.
My biggest gripe with cases like this is that they always hold comics to a different standard then books. Always. If Castillo and others keep their adult stock in a nice little section of the shop that they can keep an eye on (again, more then many of the big book stores really do) and keep the more graphic cover art covered then that should be enough. They shouldn’t have to lock their books away in some underground vault in the same towns and cities where book stores have things like the Helmut Newton Playboy coffee table book on display for shoppers of all ages to see.
But it’s comic books. It’s a kids entertainment. Comics should be held to a different standard then books now and forever more. The Castillos of the world should keep the bad ones out of sight or just order copies for the regulars that ask for them. Of course, again, that doesn’t help the odd newbe who comes into the comic shop to look around. It also doesn’t help comic books to shake off the image of kid’s entertainment when even comic readers won’t fight for the same treatment as book readers.
Great, Day late and a dollar short. You hit my points already. I started typing the above post two hours ago and had to leave to work a wreck. I come back, finish my last paragraph, hit post and find that the two of you stole my thunder.
You’re no fun at all.
🙁
I’m not a lawyer, but I do work in government and spend a lot of time talking about regulation enforcement.
Height and shrink wrap are no deterent for clever kids determined to see some bøøbìëš. And I’ve seen retailers having them on the racks without any kind of blinders.
As for adult DVDs, covers on the cases alone would violate many community’s standards of decency.
In my opinion, if the store did everything Castillo says they did: putting the adult comics on separate racks with signs telling the kids that they were not allowed there, the they did more than Borders (not to just pick on them) usually does.
And the bottom line is, Castillo was convicted of selling material labeled for adults only to an adult. If that’s the only standard that applies, then every 7-Eleven clerk in Texas should be afraid.
“And the bottom line is, Castillo was convicted of selling material labeled for adults only to an adult.”
Well, when you put it this way…you’re right. He should not have been convicted at all, based on the sale. The actual act he committed should not have been found to be a crime. It’s only when you add in the other stuff about access to kids and such. I guess partly what I’m doing is what the future CBLDF lawyer would do when Castillo is brought up by a future prosecuter in the next case…pointing out the facts that make Castillo more about regulation of how adult material can be displayed/sold, rather than whether it can be sold at all. If the cop had pretended to be like 16 years old, and then bought it, they could have gotten him for attempting to sell to a minor or something.
Efforts taken to keep keeps from seeing bøøbìëš are never going to be foolproof. But when those efforts are reasonable, the fact that a clever kid sneaks one off the rack and pops it open isn’t going to land someone in jail. When they’re reasonable. That’s going to be a standard decided upon by the local community. For some, posting a sign and putting them at the back of the store will be enough. For others, nothing short of keeping them behind the counter, locked and covered with just the titles showing, will suffice. There’s not going to be one Federal standard that fits. And as Jerry mentioned, comic shops, by virtue of the fact that, at least on some level, comics are still aimed at a younger audience, are going to be held to a different standard that the 7-11 or Borders. Does that suck for the LCS? I guess, although in reality they need do very little to protect themselves.
“As for adult DVDs, covers on the cases alone would violate many community’s standards of decency.”
Adult DVDs? You don’t even need to look that far. I was doing the Christmas shopping a few years ago and picked up a heavy metal DVD by Manowar from the music section and found a concert picture on the back cover of a very healthy young woman showing what she had to the world. You can’t miss it. And it was placed neatly in the music section and has been there for years since. And that’s just the one where I remeber the name on the DVD. I’ve seen loads of others in both the sports and music sections and at least a few that come close to the line without crossing it in the movie section. Again, being treated with a bit more freedom then comics.
Den said:
And I didn’t say that he said “all” comics should be for kids either (you can tell that because the word “all” doesn’t appear in my post), but he often doesn’t make the distinction in his rants.
Then you must have meant that you find it ironic that someone who believes that any comics should be for kids might be portrayed as stating that “that comics aren’t just for kids.” Why would you find that ironic?
But that’s where the hypocrisy of this whole case comes into play: both Borders and 7-11 sell material that is aimed kids and material that is aimed at adults. No one thinks about magazines or DVDs as being marketed primarily at kids. Everyone agrees that there some of each targeted for both markets. But because it’s *comics* the default thinking is that it’s for kids and anyone selling a comic with nudity in it must be some kind of molester, no matter how many “adults only” signs he puts up or where in the store the books are located.
“But that’s where the hypocrisy of this whole case comes into play: both Borders and 7-11 sell material that is aimed kids and material that is aimed at adults. No one thinks about magazines or DVDs as being marketed primarily at kids. Everyone agrees that there some of each targeted for both markets. But because it’s *comics* the default thinking is that it’s for kids and anyone selling a comic with nudity in it must be some kind of molester, no matter how many “adults only” signs he puts up or where in the store the books are located.”
There’s some significant distinctions. Maybe the biggest one being that 7-11 and Borders have large corporate budgets, with legal retainers, in order to put up a decent fight. Castillo had only the resources of the CBLDF. He was an easy mark.
But beyond that, to a degree, you’re right, in that there is a double standard being applied. You can say that Borders and 7-11 do have goods that are aimed at kids…but that’s not the primary nature of the goods they carry. Whether right or wrong, comic books are seen as targeted primarily at kids. The DVD ananolgy I’d suggest isn’t a Blockbuster, but rather a Disney store, carrying Cinderella and Finding Nemo, and on the next rack, the Penthouse series. If a shop carries all kinds of DVDs, including but not specializing in kids films, it’s not the same. Now, if the store stocks the adult stuff right next to the kids section, I’m sure they’d get complaints.
But the fact is, the modern comics shop does not carry books that are just aimed at kids. No shop would be able to stay in business carrying just Spongebob* and Powerpuff Girls comics. So, they have material appropriate for a wide variety of age groups – just like Borders and 7-11 do. The fact that the legal system and the public-at-large doesn’t seem to recognize this fact means that comic shops are easy targets, even if CBLDF could manage to raise enough funds to match the lawyers that Borders and 7-11 no doubt have on retainer.
*And of course, I’m sure there is some religious right wackjob group that is planning on getting Spongebob comics banned because they bought into the whole “Spongebob is gay” nonsense.
So long as this case is applied very narrowly, I don’t see it as a huge erosion of free speech rights
So how narrowly do we apply this case? It’s acceptable for 1 person to lose his free speech rights, but wrong the next time? Is it acceptible to apply it to 5 people, but not a sixth? At what point do we say censorship is wrong?
But so long as Castillo is only used to allow a community to regulate how material can be displayed or distributed, and doesn’t outright prohibit it’s sale to consenting adults, I don’t see a problem with it
Castillo does prohibit selling to consenting adults (CA). A CA sought out the book, a CA went into the adults only section, and a CA bought the book. There were no children involved, no one forced to buy or even look at something they didn’t want to.
Aye, I’d agree. Comic shops do make easy targets. It’s an extension of the “pick on the nerdy kid” mentality. It sucks. And the LCS owner/operator would be well advised to take steps to protect himself from it.
But I don’t think it’s going to change. Which is rather sad.
It is sad, because it’s clear that the only way a comics shop owner in Texas can protect himself is to not sell any adult-oriented material. Which amounts to de facto censorship by the government.
Welcome to Bush’s world.
“Welcome to Bush’s world. “
No, thanks, I’ll try living in Denial a little longer, till that clock of PAD’s runs down…
WAY up the thread, Bobb said:
“With the PTC coming out against shows like Family Guy, it’s clear that there is still very-much a perception by some that comics and cartoon, by virtue of the very fact that they are animated, are for kids.”
Well, to be fair, some of the things they pull on Family Guy would probably be found objectionable by some no matter whether the show was animated or not. My wife sometimes watches the show, and I’ve come to enjoy some of it, at times (not the theme song!). But from what I’ve seen of the new episodes on Fox, the show’s creators appear to have decided that its resurrection makes them invincible. The driving point of the show seems to be how offensive, grotesque, extreme, and “obscene” they can be – much as that seems to be the only point of “Nip/Tuck” these days (maybe even moreso in the case of the latter). But unlike Nip/Tuck, Family Guy is – in one of its regular broadcasts, anyway – on regular broadcast television, and so is held to a different, more family-friendly standard. In a society where the Janet Jackson/Justin Timberlake thing and a curse word on an awards show can (ridiculously) result in large fines (or has that all changed with the happy departure of Michael Powell?), I’m surprised that Family Guy – because of content, not animation – has been able to push boundaries as far as it has without more trouble.
(Not to say that I think it should be censored at all – frankly, commercials bragging about “parental controls” for your TV probably annoy me more than Family Guy ever has – or that I don’t think AN objection to it could be that it’s animated. But the jokes that they make on there go beyond ANYTHING I recall ever hearing on network TV, not just on a network cartoon show.)
What about DVDs? I know of a number of retailers that don’t put adult DVDs in a separate room from the copies of the Incredibles. Should they be prosecuted?
How about this: in a nearby mall, the Sam Goody puts the adult DVD’s right next to the anime DVD’s.
Sure, there are those silly plastic things they put in front of the adult DVD’s, and the display area is near the checkout counter, but is that really going to stop a kid who wants to look at them? No, it isn’t.
I wonder how Sam Goody operates in Texas.
I guess, although in reality they need do very little to protect themselves.
You’re right: all they have to do is close their doors permanently. Which seems to be what some in Texas want.
The fact remains that comics are more or less discriminated against when they shouldn’t be – they should be treated equal to every other print medium. But they’re not.
Apparently the prosecutors down there in Backasswards, Texas don’t see movies like Spider-Man, X-Men, Blade, and so forth to catch the *gasp* adult themes. Or at least, themes that adults understand that children really don’t.