…is apparently prosecuting the Gordon Lee case in Rome, GA. As the press release from the CBLDF below will show, after a year and a half, on the eve of the case going forward, the prosecutor “suddenly” discovered that the basic facts of their case were wrong. Out went the old case, in comes the new. If I were a taxpayer in Rome, I’d be outraged over the frivilous waste of tax dollars. See below:
Gordon Lee: Case Dismissed, But Back To Square One
The long-running case of Georgia v. Gordon Lee took yet another strange turn of events yesterday when the prosecution dismissed all charges against the Rome, Georgia retailer only to bring a new accusation arising from the Halloween 2004 incident that resulted in his arrest.
When Judge Larry Salmon entered the courtroom shortly after 9 AM Monday, prosecutors declared the case nolle prosse, meaning that the charges that were to go to trial this week have been dismissed. Prosecutors are re-filing under a new accusation alleging that Lee handed “Alternative Comics #2” to a six-year-old minor and his nine-year-old brother, instead of solely to the nine-year-old, as has been previously, and repeatedly, declared.
Lee now faces two misdemeanor counts of “Distribution of Materials Harmful to a Minor” (OCGA 16-12-103). One count alleges he “did unlawfully … knowingly furnish and disseminate to a minor… a book, pamphlet, magazine and printed matter containing pictures, drawings and visual representation and images of a person or portion of the human body which depict sexually explicit nudity, sexual conduct, and sadomasochistic abuse and which is harmful to minors…” The second count alleges that he disseminated and furnished material containing “explicit and detailed verbal descriptions and narrative accounting of sexual excitement, sexual conduct, and sadomasochistic abuse and which taken as a whole is harmful to minors.”
The dismissal of the case against Lee is a victory for the retailer, though the new accusation sets his defense back to square one. The next step will be for prosecutors to bring a new arraignment for Lee, at which point the case proceeds down the long road to trial all over again. Defense Attorney Paul Cadle says, “This is a victory, but it means we have to keep going.”
Cadle adds, “Today’s dismissal is recognition of the strengths of Gordon’s case and our vigorous legal defense of him in this matter. We said all along that these charges are inappropriate and I think we’ve been vindicated by their dismissal. But, if they want to bring further charges, we’ll be back in court again.”
Though the dismissal is a victory in the near term, there are abundant questions about how prosecutors arrived at this point. CBLDF counsel first heard of the intention to dismiss the existing charges and draw up a new accusation late Sunday afternoon.
Lead counsel Alan Begner says, “I have never — as a criminal trial lawyer for thirty years — seen a complete changing of the facts like this. Throughout the last year and a half, through written statements, the investigation, and the presentation of evidence before the grand jury, as well as the written accusation and indictment, the State had steadfastly asserted that the comic book had been handed to the nine-year-old. The dismissal of the charges today reflects the prosecution’s admission that everything that was presented as evidence before was untrue, and that they had stuck to the false facts through procedure after procedure in the case. We now intend to investigate how a year and a half of statements based on one set of facts has now been changed at the last minute to another set of facts.”
Cadle adds, “To find out about this significant factual change in the allegations against Gordon at 3 PM on a Sunday when we were supposed to be going to trial at 9 AM on a Monday is disconcerting. It unfortunately has the result of costing Mr. Lee and the Fund tons more time, effort, and money. As attorneys, we’ve done what we’re supposed to do and we’re going to keep doing that. Alan and I were ready, willing, and able to go to trial this week, but unfortunately we now need to incur more legal time and expense to move forward.”
To date the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund has spent in excess of $40,000 defending Mr. Lee, and expects costs to hit the $50,000 mark later this month when invoices from the current round of legal fees arising from trial preparation arrive.
Charles Brownstein, the Fund’s Executive Director said, “Monday’s proceedings represent one of the stranger legal episodes in the Fund’s twenty-year history, but it is an episode that stands as vindication of our commitment to proving Gordon’s innocence, as well as affirmative evidence of the larger importance of our organization’s purpose. From the start of the courtroom process, our attorneys have proved that Mr. Lee has been unjustly overcharged, and yesterday’s dismissal of that case is the most recent indication that his arrest and the charges brought against him were entirely without merit.”
Brownstein adds, “By the start of May we will have spent $50,000 defending Mr. Lee against these unjust charges – a sum that no small retailer, such as Gordon, would have been able to afford. Without the Fund, he would have had to risk personal bankruptcy or pleading to a crime that prosecutors have now admitted he is not guilty of committing. Our purpose is to defend retailers like Gordon against such unjust prosecution. And while the cost of proving his innocence is great, it is a pittance in comparison to seeing a member of our business community sold down the river for crimes of which he is innocent.”
He concludes, “I can only shake my head at the fact that the case has come this far, and that the prosecution appears ready and willing to sink even more of Rome’s public resources into prosecuting such a meritless misdemeanor. That said, we intend to finish the job we started: to continue our march to prove Mr. Lee’s innocence, and to ensure that no retailer in Georgia is harmed by any bad precedent that could arise from a conviction in this case. We hope we can continue to count on the support of the comics fan and business communities as we perform this important work, because there’s still a long road left to travel before we reach a final victory.”
The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund was founded in 1986 as a 501 (c) 3 non-profit organization dedicated to the preservation of First Amendment rights for members of the comics community. Donations and inquiries should be directed to the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund at info@cbldf.org or 800-99-CBLDF
• 
Hi Jeff in Nc.
I vote only when a candidate represents me. Which, it is sad to say, is not that often. I would vote more often if we had an option that read “To Hëll with the lot of them,” or “No Confidence.”
And yes, I do, at times, paint with a broad brush. It’s just me returning the favor to those who have done so to me, specifically religious whack jobs. It’s a weakness of mine.
Further I do, in fact, appreciate that we are having a discussion wherein the closest we’ve come to name calling was when I refered to myself as a dìçk.
Back to house cleaning for now.
Catch you later.
The military is still kicking out gays and not taking any who are honest about their sexuality. I thought that they might loosen these rules when they were having trouble meeting recruitment goals but those problems have pretty much gone away (which is why they are no longer reported). It’s a dumb policy.
I don’t agree with the BSA policy but I also fully expect that if they did allow gays to be scoutmasters and, God forbid, one molests a kid, the lawyers for the victim would make a big deal about allowing a known homosexual to go out camping with boys.
Yeah, it’s a bad argument. No, I don’t agree with it. Yes, I think they might have to back the money truck up.
Question 1: Where were the kids’ parents at the time?
Question 2: What can we do, as a group of reasonably intelligent individuals, to mke sure that things like this and other frivolous court cases never get off the ground? The point that was made somewhere above is the most valid thing. THERE ARE BIGGER THINGS IN THE WORLD TO BE WORKING AGAINST. Especially for the police and the DA. And why ISN’T there a statement from the kids?
As it happens, the season premiere of “Penn & Teller: Bûllšhìŧ!” was about the Boy Scouts. It was on Monday night, but I imagine there’ll be another couple of chances to see it before next week. And, yeah, they do discriminate at the national level, and yeah, they have an awful lot of sweetheart deals involving the use of public facilities–including the quadrennial Jamboree that’s held on a military base at considerable cost to taxpayers and almost no cost to the BSA.
Paul
(troops participate in church services, hold chapel on campouts, etc)
I was in Boy Scouts for a couple of years, and while, yes, we had our meetings at a church, we were never involved in church services, nor I do ever recall holding such services on campouts or other functions.
Question 2: What can we do, as a group of reasonably intelligent individuals, to mke sure that things like this and other frivolous court cases never get off the ground?
Well, I’m increasingly seeing the logic of “loser pays” systems which would discourage frivolous lawsuits by requiring the loser to pay the other party’s legal fees. (Provided that the system’s devised in such a way to address some of the general concerns about a loser-pays system.)
But I don’t know how realistically a loser-pays system could apply in criminal cases like this one, as opposed to civil cases.
Why did this turn into a discussion of the Boy Scouts?
The original derailing post was one that listed the Boy Scouts and several other issues and said there were several bad things that were happening that should be addressed instead of this trial. That’s *always* true. For anything that anyone is ever arrested for, someone can pop up and say “well what about that other stuff?” It doesn’t really help anything, though. Yeah, those things are important. So is this.
Do we really need to derail this conversation with 1000 posts about the BSA?
Jason M. Bryant:
“The original derailing post was one that listed the Boy Scouts and several other issues and said there were several bad things that were happening that should be addressed instead of this trial. That’s *always* true. For anything that anyone is ever arrested for, someone can pop up and say “well what about that other stuff?” It doesn’t really help anything, though. Yeah, those things are important. So is this.”
Hi Jason.
It was not my intention to derail the topic at hand. It just sort of grew of it’s own volition.
I agree with what you said about “that other stuff” for the most part. I disagree in the Gordon Lee case(s) however. The fact that case 1 was dropped because of what appears to be poor preparation on the part of the prosecutor (never interviewing the alleged “victim”) to file a set of all new charges regarding the same incident less than a full day prior to the start of the trial seems dubious at best when compared to other more relevant crimes, with criminal intent, that occur on a regular basis.
Untill such time as some solid evidence surfaces against Mr. Lee I’ll be assuming he is innocent and that this prosecution (Part 2: The Revenge) is fallacious.
“The fact that case 1 was dropped because of what appears to be poor preparation on the part of the prosecutor (never interviewing the alleged “victim”) to file a set of all new charges regarding the same incident less than a full day prior to the start of the trial seems dubious at best when compared to other more relevant crimes, with criminal intent, that occur on a regular basis.”
I think pretty much everyone here will agree to most of that. At the very least, the prosecution was incompetent. There’s a distinct possibility that they have handled this in a sleazy, borderline corrupt way.
But there will always be “more relevant crimes”. For almost any crime that someone is arrested for, something worse also happened that day. You can’t argue your way out of a traffic ticket in California by pointing out that there are murder cases in New York. So whether or not this is a valid case is just a separate issue from whether or not there are bigger cases.
Ok, it’s only marginally on topic but this week’s South Park rocked! It’s the first of a two parter and I think the biggest joke is that there will be no second part.
As for Mr. Lee, I wish that Dateline NBC would quit parading Muslims around NASCAR races trying to make news and spend a little time reporting on a story like this–a little guy being railroaded. It’s actual news and hey, they might even make things better on the free speech front, something that might even help the mighty NBC one day. Seems like a no-brainer but that might still require more brains than they have.
A few points here. You can argue that the BSA should get no public funds or preferential treatment. However, you’re going waaaay to far to ascribe the “hate” mentality to them. The BSA is and has always been a religious organization. Units can only be chartered in conjunction with a charter organization (a church).
So the cub scout/boy scout troop associated with my public school district growing up meant that my public school was a church? Intriguing.
Unless you are ascribing the “hate” connuncatation to every church in the world, (and in that case, there is no use continuing this conversation), then it doesn’t work for the BSA.
The BSA doesn’t claim to be a church. And churches don’t get public funds. You won’t find a church holding services at fire stations, police departments, or in public schools.
By not accepting atheists or gays as scoutmasters or as boy scouts, they are teaching that the atheists and gays are ‘unacceptable’ or ‘inferior’. This pretty much meets the definition of hate.
(No atheist/homosexual is able to say the Scout Oath without lying, which would make them dishonorable, untrustworthy, etc… So, yes, honest atheists and homosexuals are screened out from the BSA.)
It’s perfectly ok for a private organization to discriminate. The Supreme Court declared so, and they were right. The KKK has a right to meet. The first amendment guarantees it with the right to assembly. Therefore the BSA has a right to meet too. But not sponsored by public schools, fire stations, and police depts.
The BSA doesn’t claim to be a church.
Actually, in public statements made during the furor about the young atheist who was denied the ability to make Eagle on that basis alone, one of the senior BSA administrators stated that the religious function was essential to the Boy Scouts.
So when your BSA troop used the public school, this meant that either a) the school was in fact a church, and was accepting public funds under false pretenses, or b) the school was in violation (knowingly or un-) of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, and several ensuing Supreme Court cases. Pick one.
I think the horse is sufficiently dead now…
b) the school was in violation (knowingly or un-) of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, and several ensuing Supreme Court cases
Not necessarily, the BSA can be allowed to meet in a school under equal access laws. The basic criteria for this is that other organizations, religious & non, be given equal access to equal facilities.
“You won’t find a church holding services at fire stations, police departments, or in public schools.”
Bull. Churches meet at public schools all the time. Almost every high school or elementry school around here leases out their space to new churches while the church is being built. My current church, in fact, met at a local high school for years before we finally had our building constructed.
“By not accepting atheists or gays as scoutmasters or as boy scouts, they are teaching that the atheists and gays are ‘unacceptable’ or ‘inferior’. This pretty much meets the definition of hate.”
Again, bull. Churches expect their members to be religious, and most organized religiouns don’t allow homosexual pasters, priests, and ministers. So evidently they are hate groups as well.
And again, they BSA does no screening on gay and atheist. There is nothing in the scout oath or law on homosexuality. The BSA has the same policy on gays as our military. A policy implemented by a Democratic President during a time of total democratic control of the government. Don’t ask/Don’t tell.
As for Atheist, as long as a scout can recognize a greater force than themselves, they qualify, under the BSA terms. This can even be “humanity” or “the human will” or even science.
Obviously, if you join an organization charters out of a Catholic church, there might be stricter interpretations, but since the troop exists as part of the Church’s youth program, this is expected.
Thanks for the continued support, please donate to the CBLDF! (And how about getting back ON topic?)
Not necessarily, the BSA can be allowed to meet in a school under equal access laws. The basic criteria for this is that other organizations, religious & non, be given equal access to equal facilities.
This is true. The Supreme Court ruled a number of years ago that schools have to adopt an “all or nothing” policy for leasing their facilities after hours. The central part of the case was a Christian prayer group that wanted to meet after school. The court ruled that if the school lets a local chess club or music club meet, they have to allow religious group equal access to the facilities. This also means that if the next group that wants to meet at the school building is a local Wiccan group or Satanic coven, the school has to accomodate them as well.
A policy implemented by a Democratic President during a time of total democratic control of the government. Don’t ask/Don’t tell.
I’m not sure what the relevance of making a point of stating this here was. Are you saying that because this policy was implemented by a Democratic administration, no one who is a Democrat and/or liberal can disagree with it?
As for Atheist, as long as a scout can recognize a greater force than themselves, they qualify, under the BSA terms. This can even be “humanity” or “the human will” or even science.
I would agree up to the point of calling science “greater force than themselves.” Contrary to the propaganda of the wingnuts, science is not a belief system. Scientists do not think of science as some kind “force” that they need to appeal to or appease. No does it dictate any kind of code of personal behavior or philosophy. Science is simply a process of obtaining factual knowledge of the world around us by applying observation and experimentation and evaluating data objectivity. And before this gets into a lengthy debate about how the godless evolutionists are trying to undermine the very fabric of the society, I will see up front that there are many scientist who fail the objectivity part, but that in and of itself doesn’t invalidate any particular scientific theory.
As for whether the Boy Scouts have actually practiced the idea of considering viewing “humanity” as a “force greater than themselves” as meeting the requirement to do one’s duty to God as required in the Scout Oath, I’ll just point out that the BSA has in the past expelled atheists, agnostics, and even some Buddhists and Unitarian Universalists from their ranks on the basis that they don’t acknowledge the existance of a god. I know of no cases where a scout was allowed to continue in the organization by proclaiming that humanity was a force greater than himself.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/bsa_0.htm#me
I can’t speak to whom they may or may not have expelled, without specific examples. The link you provide merely states what you did – that it happened.
I remembered reading an article about a troop expelling an atheist years ago. Unfortunately, I could not find anything online to support it.
I can safely assume that a Catholic based BSA troop might not allow an atheist or a budhist to join. But I can speak from personal experience that they have allowed atheist who were respectful of others religious beliefs to be active. And I’m speaking as a life long scout, parent of a scout, and adult volunteer.
Interestingly enough, during my time in the Scouts, I was approached by two self-proclaimed born-agains who wanted to encourage me to be born again. I was raised Lutheran and thought I already had been, but what do I know?
The Boy Scouts aren’t perfect. I’ll be the first to admit it. But they were compared to the KKK twice in this thread, which is just nuts.
That wasn’t me who made that comparison and I don’t agree with it, but I do believe that they discriminate against homosexuals and atheists.
Their policies, much like any large organization, change over time and evolve. They used to exclude women, and this has changed. I expect other policies will change over time, but ultimatly each troop will still have to maintain the rules set by its charter organization (church) that it is a member of.
Which will no doubt lead to a schism in the scouts, much like the Episcopal Church of America is experiencing in the Anglican Communion.
No, I don’t think that. However, I do think it is reasonable to expect an organization to take it’s social stance cues from a liberal administration, and shouldn’t be called hatemongers or compared to the KKK for sharing the same “enlightened” policy.
Okay, that makes sense, but you have to keep in mind that the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy wasn’t what the Clinton administration originally wanted to implement. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” was only adopted as a compromise when they experienced stiff resistance from both parties. And when “don’t ask, don’t tell” was unveiled, neither side was happy with it, but they learned to live with it. And just because you’ve learned to live with something, doesn’t mean you think it’s right or “enlightened.”
I still, however, agree, that comparing them to the KKK is widely off the mark and if one’s goal is to persuade them to change their policy, it’s not constructive in the least.
Okay, that makes sense, but you have to keep in mind that the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy wasn’t what the Clinton administration originally wanted to implement. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” was only adopted as a compromise when they experienced stiff resistance from both parties. And when “don’t ask, don’t tell” was unveiled, neither side was happy with it, but they learned to live with it. And just because you’ve learned to live with something, doesn’t mean you think it’s right or “enlightened.”
This is an example of why I was amazed that Clinton, to the end, had the support of so many liberals and that so many of them made excuses for the “Don’t ask don’t tell” policy. Sure, it wasn’t what they originally wanted and yes, it was probably the best that they could get. So what? On some issues you do not compromise. You stand up for what’s right and you take the loss and in losing you most likely hasten the day where you win. This compromise, like so many compromises, just pushed back that day.
Imagine if, when 9/11 happened, Gay rights groups had highlighted men and women who were ready to fight for their country but denied the ability to do so. It would have had impact. now it’s much less so since critics can claim that they would be easily able to do so if they were not showboating their cause.
Bill Clinton gave a good speech on Gay Rights but between DADT and the Defense of Marriage Act, his actions were nothing to brag about, Hopefully Hillary will have a bit more spine.
“Sure, it wasn’t what they originally wanted and yes, it was probably the best that they could get. So what? On some issues you do not compromise.”
I disagree. Without compromise, many issues in this country would not have advanced as much as they have. Does anyone here think that race relations in the 1970s were good? Well, they weren’t, but they were better than things were in the 50s. It would be a giant step backwards if things went back to the way they were in the 70s, but we wouldn’t have gotten as far as we have now without the middle step.
Compromise is slow improvement. An all-or-nothing approach leads to stalemate, which doesn’t make things better at all. So even if nobody likes the compromise, a good leader will still take it and then seek more improvement later.
Jason, there’s truth in what you say but sometimes compromise just extends a bad situation that is about to fall apart under the weight of its own contradictions.
Same thing for gay marriage. If they accept the compromise of “civil unions” they will never get the right to marry. People who might otherwise support gay marriage because of the inherent unfairness of the current situation will be able to justify continued discrimination once civil unions become the official alternative.
It’s true that civil rights for Blacks did not come about all at once but what would have happened if the civil rights leaders had compromised on the basic issues–say, agreed to Jim Crow laws but just tried to make sure the Black-Only restrooms were cleaner? Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and the Defence of Marriage Act just made anti-gay discrimination official policy. That’s one hëll of a bad compromise.
At this point, there is actually a chance of getting gay marriage laws passed. As long as that’s true, then yes, people should fight for that.
But you can’t apply that mentality arbitrarily. To compromise in a situation where there was no chance of either side relenting is reasonable.
The idea of “no compromising ideals” is a wonderful idea. It’s quite heroic, just like pushing someone out of the way of a truck and getting hit yourself, instead of getting both of you out of the way. It’s heroic in the same way as jumping in front of a bullet and dying to save someone, instead of just yanking the target out of the way and saving both of you. Like fighting to the last man against impossible odds instead of retreating and possibly winning another battle later.
Lots of things sound heroic, but are actually counter productive. “No compromises” is one of them. Yeah, you have to fight for as much as you can get. That doesn’t mean that a good leader never compromises on something important. For the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, I can’t fault Clinton for compromising, especially since it’s the kind of compromise that doesn’t make a statement about the issue, it leaves it open for later discussion.
I actually didn’t like Clinton while he was in office. I’ve come to respect him more since then, however.
This is an example of why I was amazed that Clinton, to the end, had the support of so many liberals and that so many of them made excuses for the “Don’t ask don’t tell” policy.
You know, I can say the same about how many conservatives still support Bush and his $3 trillion deficit, new bloated bureacracy, and incompetent war planning.
Then I realize that most conservatives believe that government is inherently inefficient and generally makes things work and no one has tried harder to prove that belief than Bush.
“You know, I can say the same about how many conservatives still support Bush and his $3 trillion deficit, new bloated bureacracy, and incompetent war planning.”
Don’t confuse “support” with choosing Bush over the alternative. If someone steps up to provide an alternative that’s more palpatable than Bush, and they would blow him out of the water.
A Clinton type candidate in 2004 would have won handily. Instead, we got Kerry, and a bunch of liberals calling all conservatives “stupid” and inbred, and such. We got Michael Moore wanting to have the blue states join Canada.
I’m not a Bush fan, but Michael Moore’s America scares me a hëll of a lot more. Give me a good centrist. A fiscal conservative, strong on security, and with reasonable social programs. Clinton did this well, but Kerry was waaaaay to far to the left. I don’t think Hillary is as centrist as Bill, so I don’t expect her to be the one to step up.
It should be interesting to see who pops up in 2006/2007 to be the candidates. I expect we’ll have some reletivly unknowns make their presence heard.
Jason–again, you are quite right on most points. I have little patience for those who have a “my way or the highway” approach to life.
Some compromises, though, make things worse. Better to take a loss in that case and live to fight another day.
Again, I think that in the 60s it would have been easy for the civil rights movement to work out compromises with the forces of segregation, allowing them to make things better for blacks. They chose to knuckle down and go for something more than that. Had Dr. King taken the former route his name would not be celebrated today.
Jerry–yeah, that sounds about right. McCain would win in a landslide if the election were held now, which is why there has recently been such a conserted effort on the part of media types to knock him down a few pegs. Predictable.
I disagree about Hillary though. I think it’s her nomination for the taking.
“I disagree about Hillary though. I think it’s her nomination for the taking.”
I agree, but I think it would be unfortunate I don’t think Hillary is a candidate disenchanted conservatives could support. Bill Clinton filled that role well for folks disenchanted with Bush Sr. Hillary will have the additional difficulty in that she won’t (as much as the election will be positioned) be running against Dubya. I imagine the Republican who wins the nomination will be pretty far from Bush politically (both in idealogies and in the circles they operate in).
Don’t confuse “support” with choosing Bush over the alternative.
I’m not, but despite his dismal approval ratings, there are still plenty in the blogosphere that still defend him with every last breath.
I’m not a Bush fan, but Michael Moore’s America scares me a hëll of a lot more. Give me a good centrist. A fiscal conservative, strong on security, and with reasonable social programs.
I would support such a candidate 100%, but unfortunately, we live in a very polarizing time and the odds that either pary will nominate a strong centrist seem to drop every day.
As for Michael Moore’s America, I wasn’t aware that he was ruler of his own country. Moore is just the left’s version of Ann Coulter, but while the right’s nutjob looks like a transexual, the left has been stuck with a middle-aged frat boy. Both of them are jokes. The more we let either of them talk, the more people realize how stupid they both are.
“Moore is just the left’s version of Ann Coulter, but while the right’s nutjob looks like a transexual, the left has been stuck with a middle-aged frat boy. Both of them are jokes. The more we let either of them talk, the more people realize how stupid they both are.”
I agree 100%. Although, I’m willing to offer up Rush, Sean, and Ann to be shot into space, along with Al, Moore, and one hollywood star of our choice… just to be done with them.
Seriously though, I think the problem is, Ann Coulter drives self-described liberals further left, and Moore drives conservatives further right. And when people are told they are “stupid” or “committing treason” for making choices they have already made, or for having certain beliefs, this tends to make them dig in their heels even more. I think this is were a lot of the hold out support for Bush is. I think there are a lot of people who might stop supporting Bush, and might have even not voted for him in the last election, but were unwilling to take and action that might imply that the people who were calling them idiots were right.
When I saw that there were several new posts on here, I wondered if I’d find that this thread had gotten back on-topic. Instead, we’ve got a NEW derailing? Yikes…. Now, to briefly contribute to it 😉
I don’t agree that McCain would win in a landslide – or maybe even at all – if the election were TODAY, based on the negative numbers for not only Bush but Republicans in general in the new AP/Ispos (sp?) poll… (Actually, Bill, since I know you’ve expressed a desire for a different party to be in control of the legislative branch than the executive, you might be able to look at this as a positive indicator for the direction of the next two years … if the electorate follows through….)
Now, to lurch more towards topic: Despite the excellence of the book, I guess I have to hope that Mr. Lee, and other comic vendors, are careful not to give out Fallen Angel to any young kids on the next Free Comic Book Day. I don’t see any type of age indication or content-warnings on the covers, but some of the issues do contain obscenities (granted, nothing they don’t hear at school every day by the time they’re eleven – maybe younger) and nudity. Now, I would let a mature young person SEVERAL years under eighteen read FA, myself; but this case does show that a heap of unnecessary trouble can come from vendors not erring on the side of extreme caution, unfortunately.
And, directly to the case: is there any indication of how long it may take to play out now, the next court date (the next time the judge could toss the mess out due to prosecutorial screwing around, fingers crossed?), anything?
I don’t think Hillary is a candidate disenchanted conservatives could support.
I don’t think Hillary is a candidate disenchanted liberals could support, either. At least not this one.
TWL
posted by tommy raiko:
“Well, I’m increasingly seeing the logic of “loser pays” systems which would discourage frivolous lawsuits by requiring the loser to pay the other party’s legal fees. (Provided that the system’s devised in such a way to address some of the general concerns about a loser-pays system.)”
i fear that that sort of system would make any person, no matter how good their case, too afraid to sue someone with better, more expensive lawyers.
posted by Mitch Evans:
“What kind of parent thakes their children to a public place and ignores them long enough for a stranger to hand them something or long enough to climb into a vending maching for that matter?
And they always say the same thing, “I just turned away for a second.””
the kind of parent who lives in the real world.
honestly, do you expect parents to watch every move of a nine year old child in a comic book store? at the age of nine, i would expect my parents to leave me in the comic book store by myself, even if i had a six-year old brother with me.
-will
“at the age of nine, i would expect my parents to leave me in the comic book store by myself, even if i had a six-year old brother with me.”
And someone does that in my store, I’ll call child services on them.
What makes leaving your kid alone in a comic shop any different than leaving your kid alone in a wal-mart, or at the mall? And for god’s sake, please don’t say “cause comics are for kids”.
Indestructibleman:
“the kind of parent who lives in the real world.
honestly, do you expect parents to watch every move of a nine year old child in a comic book store? at the age of nine, i would expect my parents to leave me in the comic book store by myself, even if i had a six-year old brother with me.”
Ok, I’ll grant that to a point. Indeed, I should have said “What kind of RESPONSIBLE parent…”
“honestly, do you expect parents to watch every move of a nine year old child in a comic book store? “
In fact I do. Choosing to spawn a child doesn’t make someone immune from responsibility.
Look at it this way…
People may well assume that a comic shop is a safe place for kids to hang out while mom and dad are elsewhere arguing over a Whirlpool or GE dishwasher. Chances are that your average pedophile has thought of that and is counting on the parents making such an assumption. After all for the pedophile it’s a hunt. A strategy is involved on his part. It makes sense that a responsible (there’s that word again) parent would use a counter strategy, heavy on the most reliable tactic available: Watching. Their. Child.
“at the age of nine, i would expect my parents to leave me in the comic book store by myself, even if i had a six-year old brother with me.”
Maybe it’s just me, but this sounds a little like “I expect my parent to neglect me so they can be consumers.” Then again, maybe they were watching you when you thought they were not. Which makes them good parents.
i fear that that sort of system would make any person, no matter how good their case, too afraid to sue someone with better, more expensive lawyers.
Not so much. There’s such a system here in British Columbia (and Canada generally, with some exceptions). You can afford good lawyers if you have a good case, ’cause the other guy will end up paying the tab if you win, not you.
But, as a result of having to assess the merits before proceeding, there are far fewer cases that go to trial, and far more instances of people negotiating a compromise.
Which doesn’t mean there aren’t frivolous suits, but it doesn’t seem like there are nearly as many.
“In fact I do. Choosing to spawn a child doesn’t make someone immune from responsibility.”
i’m curious to see what any parents on here think of this.
do you really think it’s feasible, or even desirable, to monitor every second of your child’s life because of the possibility they might be hurt?
certainly, you keep an eye on them generally, and you instruct them not to go with strangers or accept gifts from them and you do your best to control where they do go, but they cannot live their entire lives under your watchful gaze.
at that rate, you might as well keep them at home in a padded room.
Indestructible, as a father of two, I would have to say that there’s a line (and not all that fine a line) between “watching them every second” and leaving them unattended, alone and vulnerable, in a public place for several minutes. For instance, should I take my daughter to my favorite comic shop (On Comic Ground, favorite by dint of being the only one in the area), I might be a row or so away, but I would not leave the shop and go to the used-book store next door, believing that all would be well in my absence.
I don’t believe that any responsible parent would act in such a fashion. What do you think, PAD?