February 07, 2005

New CBLDF case

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

Posted by Peter David at February 7, 2005 09:24 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commenting
Comments
Posted by: Fred Chamberlain at February 7, 2005 10:08 AM

Man, why haven't these zealots gone after Sears? Their annual catalogs, complete with photos of women in translucent bras, held quite a bit of my attention during my early pubescent years.

Anyone making predicitions on how or when this trend wil end?

Fred

Posted by: Mark Patterson at February 7, 2005 10:08 AM

And, concerning the Turtles, remember the way they were originally drawn...with larger tails. Which looked suspiciously like...

...gotta stop now. I'm starting to think like a censor.

Posted by: JamesLynch at February 7, 2005 10:14 AM

While I wonder if this case will hold up in court (like the judge who posted the Ten Commandments at his courthouse, the case seems doomed to failure), it's a truly scary precedent. Let's hope that with the activism of those who believe in freedom of speech (notably the CBLDF here), this attempt at censorship is defeated. Let's also hope Gordon Lee can stay in business when the whole thing is over: There have been cases where even winning winds up costing the defendant too much money to stay in business.

(And while we're at it, let's hope this gets more publicity than just on this site. Where are the news articles warning that this is happening?)

Posted by: Adoresixtyfour at February 7, 2005 10:17 AM

Oh, for the love of Jeebus...this law is utter nonsense. Nudity is not, in and of itself, sexual except to those who are already thinking about it that way. We're not born with clothing, people.

Posted by: Bladestar at February 7, 2005 10:22 AM

JamesLynch made the most important point, even if Mr. Lee wins in court (as he should), he may end up a martyr from the cost of the case.

Yeah, America is the greatest country in the world, sure... blowing people up and killing them in all sorts of ways is cool, but god forbid someone take off their clothes...

Posted by: Steve Pheley at February 7, 2005 10:22 AM

So, when a baby is born naked, do you arrest the mother or the doctor?

Posted by: Jeff In NC at February 7, 2005 10:37 AM

'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." '

A few questions come to mind. First, what was the age of the minor that received this free comic. Were they with a parent/adult guardian at the time? Was there even a minor, or were the authorities acting under the assumption that if there were free comics, they automatically went to minors? How did the shop distribute these comics? Were they given out by hand, or left on a table where people could take what they wanted? And finally, was Diamond (I'm assuming here they were the distributor) and the publisher named in the suit?

Posted by: Jeff In NC at February 7, 2005 10:42 AM

Just read the story over at Newsarama, answered most of my questions...

http://www.newsarama.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27048

Posted by: Peter David at February 7, 2005 10:58 AM

"So, when a baby is born naked, do you arrest the mother or the doctor?"

Neither. However, a guy once sold second hand an issue of "Elfquest" depicting an elf birth, and he was promptly arrested for doing so. The CBLDF managed to get that case kicked pretty fast. Of course, if Gordon sold that comic, he could be arrested (again) for it.

PAD

Posted by: Gordon Lee at February 7, 2005 11:05 AM

Jeff,

To answer your questions: the age of the minor hasn't been disclosed, so I've no idea if the minor was 2 or 17. It hasn't been revealed if a parent/guardian was present at the time. The comics given out, over 2,200 of them, to anyone for halloween by hand. Diamond, nor the publisher, are mentioned in the suit as they're not the ones on the frontline, I am.

Gordon Lee

Posted by: Seth Miller at February 7, 2005 11:08 AM

I LIVE in Georgia, subscribe to comics, blog about comics, visit comics retailers and this is the FIRST I've heard about this case. Cliff Biggers, the man behind Comic Shop News, runs Dr. No's in metro Atlanta and I don't think he's mentioned this either. Keep us posted, PAD.

Posted by: Iowa Jim at February 7, 2005 11:22 AM

I read the Newsarama story and there is one detail PAD left out: the comic book had a notice (on the back, oddly enough) that said it was for mature audiences only. I would agree that what is described being in the comic is clearly not "obscene." But it was negligent of the comic shop to hand out the comic in the first place. If it was my kid who received such a comic, I would have also reported it.

Nudity is not, in and of itself, sexual except to those who are already thinking about it that way.

That may be true to some degree, but I sure would not agree with someone handing my kids nude pictures, regardless of whether they are of a "sexual" nature or not. I don't consider the body to be evil, but I do think nudity is inappropriate in a "casual" context. It is something intimate, and by making it common, it cheapens it. Opposition to nude pictures being given to minors should be the right of a parent, whether you agree with the parent's reasons or not.

There is a lot more to this case than simply "free speech." This comic WAS given to a minor. Whether you agree with the parent or not, this case clearly has implications for parental rights.

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Brian Geers at February 7, 2005 11:25 AM

Are either kids -that- sheltered or parents -that- selectively myopic that they feel that any and all nudity, regardless of context is deserving of prison time?

I remember a book called "In the Night Kitchen" by Maurice Sendak that my mom read to me as a child. Towards the end of the book, the protagonist, a young boy, ends up visibly naked.

Would the Georgia State law be trying to tell me that my saintly, greying-haired mother, one of the nicest, mildest, most harmless, church-goingest women on the planet has been reading me (*GASP*) kiddie porn?

At the time (I was about four or five, if memory serves), I wasn't shocked, scarred, or horrified. If anything, in my youthful wisdom, I really found it rather funny.

I don't want to think I was any more or less enlightened than the average 5 year-old in the early 1980s.

I'm sorry (and I'm not a father, so I might not have much right to say this), but I feel that the onus on protecting a child from whatever a parent feels a child should be protected from falls on the parents themselves. As a parent, it seems logical that if you want your child to be protected from sex, drugs, violence, and naughty language, the person who should be on the proverbial frontline, protecting the child, informing them, and helping build their moral character is *YOU*, not the government, not the schools, not the entertainment industry in general or the comic book industry in specific.

Posted by: KM at February 7, 2005 11:30 AM

Iowa Jim, should art teachers have to always obtain permission from parents before allowing students to study, say, Greek sculpture?

Posted by: Iowa Jim at February 7, 2005 11:32 AM

I'm sorry (and I'm not a father, so I might not have much right to say this), but I feel that the onus on protecting a child from whatever a parent feels a child should be protected from falls on the parents themselves.

There are some key details missing from the case, such as where the parent was, if the kid walked to the store, etc. Either way, if I took my kid to a comic book store, I would not dream they would be handed a comic book that was labeled having mature content. It is not unreasonable for a parent to have that expectation.

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Peter David at February 7, 2005 11:33 AM

"There is a lot more to this case than simply "free speech." This comic WAS given to a minor. Whether you agree with the parent or not, this case clearly has implications for parental rights."

No, it really doesn't (although somehow I knew that you, Jim, would be the very first to weigh in in favor of censorship). You're saying that one parent's ire trumps free speech. I'm saying it doesn't. Any reasonable person says it doesn't. Do you comprehend that if you, as an adult, buy a copy of "Contract with God" in Georgia, the retailer can be arrested for selling it to you? Does that seem sane to you?

We're talking proportional response. If a parent is upset because he thinks his child's brain is going to be melted by Picasso's penis, then going and complaining to the store owner is proportional. The owner being arrested and facing one to three years in jail plus fines thanks to a law that violates the First Amendment and would register "Watchmen" obscene is not proportional. It's insane.

PAD

Posted by: Jeff In NC at February 7, 2005 11:41 AM

Gordon,

Thanks for answering my questions the best you could. I sincerly hope that more rational heads do the right thing and dismiss this case totally. Of course, that doesn't help now, but hopefully things will be made right again.

Posted by: Fred Chamberlain at February 7, 2005 11:44 AM

Ya know, as I continued to read this thread, it strikes me that my parents used to go through all of my candy and the contents of my goodie bag as soon as I got home. They also ensured that I was accompanied by an adult (or group if there were several kids out together.). Although there may be a concern of some parents for the contents of said comic ("he thinks his child's brain is going to be melted by Picasso's penis"... possibly the funniest and, at the same time, most frightening statement I've seen on this blog in some time), I am stuck with 2 thoughts:

1) where does parental responsibility come in?

2) What has happened to moderation and common sense responses with regard to follow-up on concerns. Had this happened 20 to 30 years ago, I'd think that a very likely response would have been the parent taking away the comic in question and, if the authorities were brought in, a verbal warning of concern to the comic shop owner alond with documentation being made so that if there was a pattern of behavior leading a reasonable person to believe that the proprietor was a predator, than steps could be taken.

Just some random responses that I wanted to get out.... thoughts?

Posted by: Bladestar at February 7, 2005 11:45 AM

Gordon,

I support you completely in this legal battle, but next Halloween, do yourself a favor and double check what you're handing out for free to kids. Get a pile of Disney comics for the kids...

Wonder if this ever would have become a legal issue had it not been a give away...

Nice to know parents inspect candy in their kids bags but not anything else... Sorry Jim, this is fully on the parents, quit foisting your lazy parenting on others...

Posted by: Iowa Jim at February 7, 2005 11:45 AM

Iowa Jim, should art teachers have to always obtain permission from parents before allowing students to study, say, Greek sculpture?

Not in general. There is some art that is clearly sexual (including, for example, paintings on some Greek pottery that depict sexual acts). That would be inappropriate for younger ages. Nor would I object to a teen watching Schinlder's List, which has a small amount of nudity. If they were mature enough to handle the violence, they can handle the historically accurate nudity.

This issue, though, was not about studying a work of art. It is about a comic book store making a mistake and giving a mature comic book to a minor. I am sympathetic to the fact that they were handing out a lot of free comics. But they are still reponsible for what they give out. Especially to a minor.

My point is not that a child would be harmed for life by accidentally getting this comic book. As described, it may be offensive, but it was not harmful. My point is that this case is NOT just about free speech. Do they sell Playboy in that state? Then clearly, they distribute nudity (and nudity that has clear sexual overtones). The issue is what is appropriate to give to a minor.

The Newsarama article makes this point for me. It says the comic book would probably be "R" rated at a theater. Well, if the theater let a minor in to watch an "R" rated movie without a parent/adult there with the minor, they would be legally in trouble. That is exactly what has happened in this case. To try to make it an assault on free speech in general is to miss a key point in this case.

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Wolfman at February 7, 2005 11:46 AM

Here’s what happened: kid got book, parent saw it and parent has hissy fit. At this point, if she were so inclined, the mother should have contacted the store owner with her concerns. Then the owner could have looked into the problem and made sure the book was put in a place where only adults could have gotten to it (but not removed from the store). Then the owner apologizes to the mother for the mix-up and everyone goes on about their business.

Calling the police over it was just over the edge of ridiculous. I firmly believe that the mother probably did more damage to the kid’s psyche with her outrageous behavior in calling the police and calling undue attention to the whole affair than the comic itself could have ever done.

I don’t know for a fact that she actually threw a hissy fit, but I’ve never known anyone angry enough over something to call the police to do so with a casual conversation-like demeanor. Just the fact that she did call the police lends credence to the fact that she was acting irrational.

Posted by: Elayne Riggs at February 7, 2005 11:53 AM

In an era where The Daily Show's "America: The Book" can be banned from Wal-Marts and Mississippi libraries because of one page depicting nude bodies (and they as much as admit "If they had published the book without that one picture, that one page, we'd have the book"), this doesn't surprise me at all. It saddens the hell out of me, but it doesn't surprise me.

Posted by: Iowa Jim at February 7, 2005 11:58 AM

PAD,

Nice that you think I am predictable. You seem to forget that I supported Jesus when he was arrested in Dallas at Keith's Comics. In that case, an ADULT bought the book, not a minor. The case was a trap, no minor was involved, and I thought the case was a farce.

Do you comprehend that if you, as an adult, buy a copy of "Contract with God" in Georgia, the retailer can be arrested for selling it to you? Does that seem sane to you?

I need clarification on this issue: Is it illegal to sell Playboy in Georgia? Is it illegal to sell a book with pictures by Maplethorpe (sp?)? If it is illegal to sell ANYTHING that has a nude picture, yes, I agree it is insane. If the law, however, is that material that has nudity should not be sold to a minor, that is a different matter. (While I strongly believe pornography (to take something more narrow than nudity) is harmful, I don't agree with "banning" it. I do support it not being sold to minors.)

We're talking proportional response. If a parent is upset because he thinks his child's brain is going to be melted by Picasso's penis, then going and complaining to the store owner is proportional. The owner being arrested and facing one to three years in jail plus fines thanks to a law that violates the First Amendment and would register "Watchmen" obscene is not proportional. It's insane.

You raise an interesting point. I probably would go first to the store owner. But I may also report it, depending on the circumstances. If the owner made the mistake with this comic (which I DO agree is not obscene), did he make a similar mistake with a comic that is obscene? If I know the store, I may give the owner the benefit of the doubt. If I do not, I probably would not.

Unlike the case in Dallas, this was not a trap, this was not an adult with an agenda. The store owner admits giving the mature comic to a minor. While I agree that the courts should hopefully show intelligence and not fine or jail him if he is found guilty since this is clearly a very minor infraction, the fact is, he DID violate a law currently on the books. You may disagree with that law, but that doesn't change the fact that he violated the law.

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Peter David at February 7, 2005 12:01 PM

"It is about a comic book store making a mistake and giving a mature comic book to a minor."

No, it's not. If the comic book store made a mistake and gave a mature comic book to a minor, the mere act of that is not, should not, must not be against the law. Gordon was arrested under a law forbidding the distribution of "obscenity" to a minor, and the mere sight of Picasso's penis does not fit any remotely constitutional definition of "obscenity." That's what you're missing, either deliberately or otherwise.

I'm reminded of the pilot episode of "West Wing" in which a conservative much like Jim asks Bartlet, "Don't you think children being able to buy pornography for five dollars on every street corner is too high a price to pay for free speech." Bartlet without hesitation says, "No." The conservative, surprised, says, "No?" And Bartlet says, "No. However, I do think that five dollars is too high a price to pay for pornography."

A parent's rights end where insanity begins. A law forbidding the distribution of comics with nudity is insane. A law that would call selling a 17 year old (for example) "Watchmen" (for example) distributing obscenity to minors is insane. The notion of parents feeling the state must move in to try and shut down a comic store over Picasso's penis is insane, and the only thing more insane than a parent feeling that is the state doing it.

PAD

Posted by: Iowa Jim at February 7, 2005 12:13 PM

although somehow I knew that you, Jim, would be the very first to weigh in in favor of censorship

PAD,

I have a question for you. And I mean it sincerely: Do you censor what your kids see, read, watch, etc.? Forget this case for a second, and let's talk about the rights and responsiblities of a parent. If I sent your daughter a nice video for Christmas that told the story of Easter and how Jesus died and rose from the dead, would you just pass it on to her? If you chose to exercise your right as a parent and not give it to her, are you engaging in censorship? (For the record, I would not call you a "censor," bigot, or any other name. I would support your right as a parent to say the video was not appropriate for your daughter.)

The only "censorship" that my comments agreed with is the right of a parent to determine what is appropriate and not appropriate for his or her child. I may think the parent is insane, but in most cases, I would be supportive. (An exception would be when there is clearly abuse going on.)

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Chris Galdieri at February 7, 2005 12:14 PM

I don't think this case is remotely comparable with the Wal-Mart decision not to carry "America" (which I think is a dumb decision but utterly within their rights to make) nor even the MS libraries (which, IIRC, changed their minds after public response) -- for one thing, no one was facing jail time or massive fines in those cases. Good luck to the CBLDF on this one!

Posted by: Wolfman at February 7, 2005 12:20 PM

The only "censorship" that my comments agreed with is the right of a parent to determine what is appropriate and not appropriate for his or her child. I may think the parent is insane, but in most cases, I would be supportive. (An exception would be when there is clearly abuse going on.)

What if I bought this comic for my 13 year old son or 12 year old daughter? Should I be arrested for it? I have let my son read Watchmen. Have I committed a crime? What if I gave him a Playboy instead?

Posted by: Michael Pullmann at February 7, 2005 12:22 PM

"A parent's rights end where insanity begins. A law forbidding the distribution of comics with nudity is insane. A law that would call selling a 17 year old (for example) "Watchmen" (for example) distributing obscenity to minors is insane."

And if such a law had been on the books in Texas in 1999, a Barnes and Noble Manager, a clerk, and I could all have been arrested when I bought a copy to give a friend as a birthday present.

Posted by: Iowa Jim at February 7, 2005 12:24 PM

If the comic book store made a mistake and gave a mature comic book to a minor, the mere act of that is not, should not, must not be against the law.

PAD, this is where I honestly don't get where you are coming from. What is the point of considering something "mature" if it does not matter if it is given to a minor? Let me repeat, I think it would be WRONG for the owner to go to jail for 3 years for giving out this comic accidentally. However, if he knowingly gave out a mature comic to a minor, that should carry a penalty.

A parent should obviously be responsible for their child. But it is impossible for a parent to be with a child 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. We will have to agree to disagree on this, but I think laws restricting a minor from access to some mature content is reasonable.

A law forbidding the distribution of comics with nudity is insane.

You have not yet answered my question: Is this law limited to distribution to minors, or also to adults? I clearly stated that if it excludes adults, I would agree it is a limit to "free speech." I can't imagine there being a law that would allow Playboy to be sold but restrict comic books with nudity being sold to adults. But stranger laws have been written. Can anyone answer my question?

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Iowa Jim at February 7, 2005 12:37 PM

What if I bought this comic for my 13 year old son or 12 year old daughter? Should I be arrested for it? I have let my son read Watchmen. Have I committed a crime? What if I gave him a Playboy instead?

To the first two? Of course not. I have already stated that this comic is clearly not obscene. It would no more be wrong than your taking a child to an "R" rated movie. That is your parental choice to make. Whether I agree or disagree is irrelevant.

In regards to Playboy, I do think giving Playboy to a child, especially before puberty, is at least borderline abusive. They are not yet ready to hanlde it, and it does cause harm. If nothing else, it arouses sexual appetities that they are not yet ready to satisfy (with whom are they going to have sex to satisfy their desires?). Why torture them in this way?

The case PAD raised clearly is NOT abusive in the way a copy of Playboy would be. Nudity in the context depicted is not sexually arousing.

Since I seem to not have been clear enough, let me put it this way:

IF the law about nudity in comics, as written, means selling a comic book that has a realistic picture of the statue of David by Michelangelo is illegal, then I agree the law is wrong and should be changed. Nudity is not always sexually oriented (although determining that line can be quite difficult, which might be why a law could be written just banning all nudity).

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at February 7, 2005 12:40 PM

It is something intimate, and by making it common, it cheapens it.

*rofl*

Gimme a break, Jim.

You're worried about a comic book cheapening nudity?

Oh man, now I know what's wrong with our society.

Posted by: Bobb at February 7, 2005 12:43 PM

Jim, I think you're mixing arguments, here, and somewhat missing the point. I think even Gordan (based on statements included in the story found at Newsarama) would agree that this type of material (Mature Readers) is inappropriate to be freely handed out to kids. The piece says the book was "inadvertantly" included in the mix of books handed out. So, no one (it appears to me) is saying that the parents were wrong for being concerned with the distribution.

But from there, you appear to be in support of a law that would put a man in jail for making that mistake. A sentence of 1-3 years is a felony sentence, right up there with domestic battery and subsequent counts of child molestation (in Illinois, at least. Some states make cases of domestic battery a misdemeanor, which has a maximum prison sentence of 1 year).

Jim, the point isn't was it wrong. The point is, was it illegal. The laws cited above or distributing obscene material to a minor, which I don't think anyone would say this qualifies as. The second law really applies to unsolicited mail distribution of nudity. If this law is applied to this case, it would go so far beyond the bounds of the law as explained that it really would be an example of judicial legislation.

I think there's very little danger here that someone in Geogria ordering a copy of Watchmen through the mail is going to be breaking the law.

And as to the movie theater example...the Movie Ratings are applied voluntarily. There are no official laws enforcing them, and if some kid sneaks into Porky's, or even if the theater lets them in, no one should be going to jail.

Which is not to say that some justifiably irrate parents can't or shouldn't go to the theater manager, and maybe the local paper, to complain about the practice. But taking responsibility and action for yourself is a far, far distant cry than turning to the police.

What should have occurred here is the parent should have complained, and Gordan (who by accounts above and in Newsarama has not been contacted by the complainant) could have explained and apologized. Or, the police/prosecutor should have engaged in a little common-sense and/or legal application and realized that this case was more than frivolous, it was a waste of taxpayer's resources, and refused to issue an arrest warrant.

But since common sense and good parenting failed here, we're stuck with this mess.

On the other hand, the law would make it illegal for DC (or anyone else) to submit samples of Watchmen, unsolicited, without the "Warning, Nudity" sign on the package. While I don't think that particular aspect of the law goes too far, it should serve as a warning to anyone mailing stuff in GA.

Posted by: Iowa Jim at February 7, 2005 12:45 PM

You're worried about a comic book cheapening nudity?

My comments were broader than just picture(s) in one comic book. It referred to why a parent might feel nude pictures are inappropriate in general.

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Bobb at February 7, 2005 12:50 PM

Jim, the law referred to in the case applies to any mailing in GA. By my reading of it, it does not prevent the sale of things like Playboy via subscription. It only applies to the unsolicited mailing of images of nudity without posting a specific warning on the package that the contents contain nudity.

So, getting an unsolicited issue of Playboy without the warning violates the law. Buying a subscription to Playboy and asking them to mail it to your address does not.

It does make me wonder if Playboys come with that warning, in case they get delivered to the wrong address. Were I Playboy's legal council...sorry, got sidetracked...I'd recommend that GA wrapping have the warning, just in case.

Posted by: Iowa Jim at February 7, 2005 12:53 PM

Jim, the point isn't was it wrong.

You are correct in saying that I appear to be on a different wavelength on this issue. I DO think there is a disagreement in the first place whether it was wrong. Particularly PAD's comments on this issue. I would welcome hearing feedback on this basic question:

Forgetting this particular case, is it wrong (regardless of whether or not it is illegal) for a parent to object for his or her child (who is a minor) to be given a mature comic book?

A related question: does "free speech" require that if a person gives a minor a mature comic book, it cannot be illegal?

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Bobb at February 7, 2005 12:54 PM

Jim I guess where we disagree is what level of penalty should apply. I don't think that this type of action shoud involve the public judiciary. It's an accidental distribution of an image no more offensive than David. Or many images you can find in many bible. Or in Church. Or in National Geographic.

You can't shelter you children 24/7. Well, you can, but then you yourself are committing a form of abuse. The best you can do is educate them, instil morals in them, and hope that when things like this happen, they react in a way you would approve of. Getting poor Gordan arrested because he made a minor, and in the end harmless to any child, is not going to be setting a good example to your child.

Posted by: Iowa Jim at February 7, 2005 12:55 PM

Jim, the law referred to in the case applies to any mailing in GA.

Ok, I am even more confused: How was what the comic book store did "illegal" if it was not by mail? Or is it the idea of giving out nudity "unsolicited" (whether it came by mail or not)?

Either way, I still don't understand how the law makes it illegal to sell a comic with nudity to someone who knowingly asks for the comic.

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Bobb at February 7, 2005 12:58 PM

As for me, I have no problems with parents getting involved with their kids and deciding what is and is not appropriate for them to view. Every parent should do this. Recent example: Was at a Target near the video game section, and there was a 6-8 year old boy playing one of the games they had set up. The little "angel" sounded like he had beer raised on MTV reality shows and Cinemax late at night. Of course, my thoughts were of the "if this is how bad the kid sounds, can you imagine what kind of parents he has?" But I didn't want them arrested, and I didn't want the kid arrested. If I'd had kids of my own with me, I'd have moved them out of earshot, for sure, or maybe said something to an employee, but never would I think that anyone should be arrested just for something like that.

Posted by: Bobb at February 7, 2005 01:02 PM

There's the proverbial "bingo," Jim. From what the Newsarama story had, the law doesn't even apply to these facts, and that's one of the things the CBLDF is going to pursue. That charge should never have been made, and should just be dropped by the prosecutor's office.

Posted by: Wolfman at February 7, 2005 01:05 PM

I believe that hiding nudity and making it the “big secret” does more harm to minors than good. While I have not given my son a Playboy, I haven’t made movies with nudity (like the Forsaken, for instance) or sexual overtones (Something About Mary) off limits. We watch the movies together and both my kids know that if they have any questions, I’ll give them the most complete and honest answer I can. Judging from their friends, this has made them far better adjusted to the world than other kids their age.

For example, my son wanted me to take him to Hooters. We pass by it all the time and he’d heard the stories of what it was like from others at school, most of who had never been there. For them, Hooters was nirvana, mystical and awe-inspiring. So I did, with a few ground rules to start. He was far more polite and cordial to the waitresses than some of the adults here and he even got his picture taken with some of the waitresses. He hasn’t asked to go back because the mystery has been solved and he found out it wasn’t that big a deal. Besides, according to him, the food wasn't very good.

Getting back to the case, I think the woman was within her rights to question how her child got the book and should have followed it up with the owner, but I think she was wrong…let me repeat, WRONG…to call the police. I think this case is exactly why laws are overturned and taken off the books. I hope that’s what happens here.

Posted by: Iowa Jim at February 7, 2005 01:09 PM

Getting poor Gordan arrested because he made a minor, and in the end harmless to any child, is not going to be setting a good example to your child.

Is there a more complete description of what happened in this case? Because this is one option of how things could have happened.

The kid (with or without his parent) goes to the store at Halloween and gets a free comic. As a parent, you would probably not grab it right away to check it out. You would understandably assume that if the comic book store was giving out free comics to children, they would not have mature content.

The kid gets home. The parent realizes that the comic has mature content. The parent is understandably upset. Did they call the store first? We don't know yet. They decide to report the comic book to the "authorities." Why? It may not just be to get the store owner arrested. It could be that they worried what was also given to other kids. They might not even dream the owner would be arrested and possibly put in jail for 3 years. They simply could have been worried that something even more mature was given out to other kids.

Obviously, it is also possible the parents WERE out to shut down the store, etc. The problem is, we don't know yet. And I can very much see a variation of my scenario being true. If I reported it, I would not have assumed the owner would be arrested (at least, not before knowing the story of Jesus in Dallas). I would have assumed they would have received a warning, the police may have looked into whether other kids got mature comics, etc.

This story all started with the comic book store making a mistake, not with the authorities trying to stifle free speech. I believe it was a mistake and not intentional. I agree it would be absurd to send the owner to jail for 3 days, much less 3 years. I might even agree that, if it is as PAD describes, the law banning all nudity in comics is absurd and should be struck down. But the reality is that the law appears to have been broken. Once reported, the authorities are simply enforcing a law on the books. The parent's actions can be very understandable, and are not a bad example to their child.

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Peter David at February 7, 2005 01:10 PM

"I have a question for you. And I mean it sincerely: Do you censor what your kids see, read, watch, etc.?"

I practice guidance for material and when I think it is and is not appropriate. For instance, when it first came out, I felt that Ariel was far too young to see "Schindler's List." Now, however, she's thirteen, and I think she not only can, but should.

"Forget this case for a second, and let's talk about the rights and responsiblities of a parent. If I sent your daughter a nice video for Christmas that told the story of Easter and how Jesus died and rose from the dead, would you just pass it on to her?"

I'd ask her if she was interested in watching it. If she said yes, I'd give it to her. See, unlike some, I don't think my child's mind will melt if she's exposed to beliefs that are other than what she's taught by me.

"If you chose to exercise your right as a parent and not give it to her, are you engaging in censorship?"

No, because I'm making no attempt to punish, harass, or restrict the sender, the retailer from whom the sender bought it, or the producer of the tape.

"(For the record, I would not call you a "censor," bigot, or any other name. I would support your right as a parent to say the video was not appropriate for your daughter.)"

You'd support my right to tell someone else what to do. There's a shocker.

"The only "censorship" that my comments agreed with is the right of a parent to determine what is appropriate and not appropriate for his or her child."

Wrong. You endorse the parent going and complaining TO THE POLICE BECAUSE OF PICASSO'S PENIS. You consider this right and proper. You consider this just punishment. You consider this proportional and appropriate. You support punitive action against the retailer that could get him thrown in jail over a dead artist's dingy, which in turn would have a chilling effect on any retailer wishing to sell any comic book with any nudity to anyone (since that's forbidden under Georgia law.)

Get it now?

PAD

Posted by: Iowa Jim at February 7, 2005 01:14 PM

Getting back to the case, I think the woman was within her rights to question how her child got the book and should have followed it up with the owner, but I think she was wrong…let me repeat, WRONG…to call the police.

Let me suggest one scenario: She calls the store and the owner blows her off, laughs in her face, and tells her to not be such a prude. I am not suggesting this did happen, but there are a lot of gaps in this story I need to know before I blame the mother (or father) for reporting this incident to the authorities.

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Brian Geers at February 7, 2005 01:14 PM

Okay, between when I posted the first time and when I hit 'Post', a lot more in the way of relevant facts were posted. As these comics were intended as free Halloween giveaways to children, perhaps a more discerning eye towards their content should have been given.

Still, I have to stick to my druthers and say that while a mistake was clearly made and the Mea Culpa for such is squarely in the lap of Mr. Lee and his shop, the charges levied (and the potential sentencing involved) seem rather exaggerated and way out of line. If allowed to stand, they could set an alarming precedent. As such, the CBLDF's concern and their involvement in this case is most certainly warranted.

Posted by: Wolfman at February 7, 2005 01:17 PM

PICASSO'S PENIS
dead artist's dingy

lol
Sounds like a couple of new bands. Maybe their title track could be “Limp for your Love”.

Posted by: Wolfman at February 7, 2005 01:22 PM

Let me suggest one scenario: She calls the store and the owner blows her off, laughs in her face, and tells her to not be such a prude. I am not suggesting this did happen, but there are a lot of gaps in this story I need to know before I blame the mother (or father) for reporting this incident to the authorities.

If that turns out to be the case, considering how it happened, then she did the right thing. From what I understand from the article, her first reaction was to call the police, and that was wrong.

Posted by: Bobb at February 7, 2005 01:26 PM

I'm basing my assumptions mostly from the Newsarama article, and Gordan's post. Since he does not know the name, age, gender, or parents of the child in question, I'm guessing that he nor his store were contacted by the family.

Jim, why else would the police get involved? You don't call the police unless you need them to do something you can't do. We last called the police for a domestic disturbance carrying on in the adjoining condo complex. Not only was it disturbing to hear the couple swear and threaten each other, we were concerned that it would escalate into physical violence. Not bein super-strong or neigh-invulnerable, I called the police, and the arrived to deal with the situation.

But I called them because I knew that there was activity going on that was wrong, illegal, and for which those involved could be arrested.

On the other hand, I don't call the police when the neighbors' kids stare into my windows because they want to watch our cats. I ask them not to, and I mention it to their parents when I see them. Could I call the police? Sure. I bet I could even get the little misceants arrested. It'd be wrong for me to do that, but I could.

Jim, what you're saying is that seeing a naked man depicted in a comic is obscene. Basically, that the naked human body is obscene.

Posted by: Iowa Jim at February 7, 2005 01:29 PM

Wrong. You endorse the parent going and complaining TO THE POLICE BECAUSE OF PICASSO'S PENIS. You consider this right and proper. You consider this just punishment. You consider this proportional and appropriate. You support punitive action against the retailer that could get him thrown in jail over a dead artist's dingy, which in turn would have a chilling effect on any retailer wishing to sell any comic book with any nudity to anyone (since that's forbidden under Georgia law.)

For the record:

1.) I do endorse the parent reporting the incident. I am not saying they had to, or even that it was the best option, but I can very much understand them doing so.

2.) Unless the parents KNEW that the store owner would face 3 years in prison, your point is invalid. As for myself, I have clearly said that even 3 days in prison is pointless and absurd. Reporting it to the police is not the same as saying you want a business closed and the owner put in prison.

3.) If the law is as you state it, I have already said by all means strike it down or change it. Pretending it is not there will not make it go away. We are not talking about a law just written, but one already on the books. If the law has been misapplied, as others have suggested, then that is also a problem that should be addressed. Either way, the parent is NOT to blame. This came up because their child was given a mature comic book.

The parents did not set out to close the comic book store by going to it on Halloween (or however the did got the comic). This came up because the store made a mistake. If the reaction is overblown, it is because of the prosecutor and the laws on the books, not because of a parent. If this was a one time, inadvertant mistake, I don't know why the prosecutor has chosen to prosecute.

By the way, thanks for answering my questions. I will drop the point since we will just continue to disagree.

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Bobb at February 7, 2005 01:31 PM

And another thing!!! (Just kidding, but I have to get my posts in now, as I'll actually be (gasp) working for the rest of the PM soon)

Jim, I know you read comics. So the statement that seeing your (proverbial here) child get a free comic means you don't need to check it out is really stretching reality. Newsarama has an image of what I'm guessing is the cover of the book in question, and it's not your normal spandex and tights comic. It very much looks like fringe, artsy, or however you want to describe it Indy cover. And you never know what you're going to get in those. Obsolving the parent of checking on the spot is just trying to shift responsibility for monitoring what your child reads on to others. Waiting till you get home, or a week after, is too long. Check it out while you're still at the store (if the parent in this case was even there).

I don't think you can claim outrage at someone exposing children to adult (not porn, but mature) matieral if you're not going to make some attempt to review what they see. If it were a DC or Marvel title that you were familiar with, I'd agree with the feeling that the comic was "kid safe."

Posted by: R. Maheras at February 7, 2005 01:33 PM

PAD wrote: "We're talking proportional response. If a parent is upset because he thinks his child's brain is going to be melted by Picasso's penis, then going and complaining to the store owner is proportional."


Well, the main problem here is that such laws ARE in the books, and apparently, one of these laws was violated. Without said law, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Perhaps instead of reactive response, CBLDF could proactively seek out such laws where they exist and lobby to have them modified or stricken.

In addition, regardless of what one's views are regarding freedom of speech, since we all know such laws DO exist at the present time, publishers, in the best interest of their distributors and retailers, should knock themselves out to implement a unambiguous flagging system so the guys on the front lines don't get blindsided.

This reminds me of a situation I was in recently where someone I know who teaches special education students (and knows I am a comics enthusiast) asked me for some comics to give the kids to read. Thirty years ago, I could have just grabbed any old stack of overground comics and handed them to her. For this request, however, for anything other than a Gladstone comic, I had to leaf through each one to make sure the material was "appropriate." Why? Because even though some companies put "mature" disclaimers on their mature material, others don't -- making what was once an innocuous task into something that is akin to walking a minefield. Thus, I can only imagine how difficult it must be today for most comics retailers to keep from offending someone, or in extreme cases, breaking a local law.

Posted by: Iowa Jim at February 7, 2005 01:34 PM

Jim, what you're saying is that seeing a naked man depicted in a comic is obscene. Basically, that the naked human body is obscene.

What I said is that as a parent, if my kid got a mature comic, then it is possible others got comics that were of an even more graphic nature. I don't know if this was what went through the actual parent's heads, but it is what would go through mine. Calling the police to report it could be simply a way of making sure that this did not happen. (I have already stated that going to the store owner is obviously better. But most people hate confrontation. So calling the Police does not necessarily mean you want the other person arrested. It can just mean you are too afraid to confront the person directly.)

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Julio Diaz at February 7, 2005 01:39 PM

Iowa Jim posted: The Newsarama article makes this point for me. It says the comic book would probably be "R" rated at a theater. Well, if the theater let a minor in to watch an "R" rated movie without a parent/adult there with the minor, they would be legally in trouble.

Nope. There is no legal contract involved in the movie ratings system (nor in the TV ratings system, nor the electronic gaming industry's system, nor in the Parental Guidance stickers on albums, nor in a "Mature Readers" label on a comic). All of these are examples of voluntary ratings systems.

Now, some communities have passed ordinances based on these voluntary systems, but they are few and far between. In general, there's no punishment for a theater owner (etc.) that accidentally or inadvertently -- or even intentionally -- allows someone under 17 to see an R-rated film (etc.).

Most theaters (etc.), however, honor the ratings systems to avoid controversy in their communities, to avoid having draconian laws passed based on voluntary systems, and to avoid situations just like this one.

Some chains have policies of not carrying or selling or renting to minors media with "mature" ratings. Some chains won't carry the media at all. That's their prerogative. Some allow the parents to decide (Blockbuster, in particular, is very good about this -- it's part of your membership contract whether you will allow minors to rent "mature" media), which is also their prerogative. Some even use their retail might to force industries and artists to self-censor if they wish for the chain to carry their material (Wal-Mart is infamous for this), and again, that's their prerogative (assuming the artists and labels are fool enough to go along with it).

All this is voluntary, and none of it is prosecutable. Or at least, it shouldn't be.

Most communities do have statutes protecting minors from pornographic or obscene material. None of what has been described fits that definition.

I say, "Go CBLDF!" And I intend to renew my lapsed membership at MegaCon!

Posted by: scott at February 7, 2005 01:41 PM

Let me suggest one scenario: She calls the store and the owner blows her off, laughs in her face, and tells her to not be such a prude. I am not suggesting this did happen, but there are a lot of gaps in this story I need to know before I blame the mother (or father) for reporting this incident to the authorities.

--

I'll make this simple. If the book is not obscene, it's protected by the first amendment. Michaelangelo's penis does not meet the definition of obscenity. Thus, it is wrong to report it to the police, and wrong for the police to take action on this.

If you disagree with this statement, you're one of the bad guys, and you're not even in favor of due process under the law. You're a jerk.

Posted by: Bobb at February 7, 2005 01:45 PM

You could be correct in that thought, Jim. But the facts suggest that a specific book was identified, and the only possibly objectionalbe material in that book was a naked man engaged in normal, non-sexual activities. The charge is for distributing obscene images to a minor. While you're correct that the family may not have been familiar with the law, and I guess that somewhat distances them from culpability, the same cannot be said for the prosecutors that took this case.

And yes, I do understand that you think that if the facts are as I've stated them, the case should be dropped. But that's like shutting the barnd door after the cow's escaped.

I'm with R. Maheras. Next time I visit my cousin, I'm going to bring a box of comics for her son. but I need to sit down and review them to make sure there's nothing in there inappropriate for a 10 year old. You can't just assume that any of today's comments are 100% kid safe. Heck Identity Crisis was upsetting to me, and I'm 33 (with the occasional maturity of a 12 year old, according to my wife).

And Gordon, Watchmen had more than a naked blue guy. It had a big naked blue guy. It also had depictions of sex, female nudity, prostitution, graphic realistic violence, rape, and erectile disfuntion. So, maybe that's not the best example to be using here.

Posted by: Michael Brunner at February 7, 2005 02:10 PM

This sort of stupidity is why I agree with Frank Miller about labeling books. It only makes it easier for censors to find targets.

"This story all started with the comic book store making a mistake,not with the authorities trying to stifle free speech"
It did start with the authorities trying to stifle free speech, otherwise the law wouldn't have been passed.

Posted by: Steve Premo at February 7, 2005 02:11 PM

R. Maheras wrote:
"Well, the main problem here is that such laws ARE in the books, and apparently, one of these laws was violated. ... Perhaps instead of reactive response, CBLDF could proactively seek out such laws where they exist and lobby to have them modified or stricken."

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.

There is a way to deal with the conflict, and that is to have a court resolve the issue of whether the statute violates the constitution. But courts do not render advisory decisions. The issue has to come up in an actual court case.

So until someone is prosecuted under the unconstitutional law, the court is not in a position to decide the issue. When someone is prosecuted, those of us who strongly favor free speech should pitch in and support the defense by, for example, donating money to CBLDF.

Remember that if someone is prosecuted under an unconstitutional statute and is acquitted because the law is declared unconstitutional, the attorneys fees and costs of defense can be a great financial strain on the defendant. Without the support of the rest of us, the person who was wrongfully accused may be financially ruined by the cost of defense, especially if the matter has to be appealed. Since we ALL benefit from having our constitutional rights upheld, it behooves us all to chip in and help shoulder that burden.

Posted by: Iowa Jim at February 7, 2005 02:12 PM

Now, some communities have passed ordinances based on these voluntary systems, but they are few and far between. In general, there's no punishment for a theater owner (etc.) that accidentally or inadvertently -- or even intentionally -- allows someone under 17 to see an R-rated film (etc.).

Thanks for the correction. Guess I lived in a place where it was a local ordinance.

Bobb,

Next time I visit my cousin, I'm going to bring a box of comics for her son. but I need to sit down and review them to make sure there's nothing in there inappropriate for a 10 year old.

While it was "tastefully" portrayed, PAD's Madrox #4 had a depiction of sex. In general, I am glad comics are not just written for a 10 year old, but it does mean you can't just hand a stack to a kid. (And before anyone jumps to a conclusion, I would not call the police if someone gave may kid a copy of Madrox #4!)

Iowa Jim

Posted by: scott at February 7, 2005 02:39 PM

And before anyone jumps to a conclusion, I would not call the police if someone gave may kid a copy of Madrox #4!

How generous of you!

But keep your phone close at hand, who knows when you'll decide someone has to be arrested for distriuting a piece of art.

Just imagine, if you are fortunate enough to get your way, anytime, anywhere, someone's gonna arbitrarily go to jail for offending someone.

Superhero and boy sidekick, sounds pretty gay to me. Arrest someone!

Scarlet Witch promotes satimism, someone needs to be locked up!

Let the purge begin! For the children!

Posted by: R. Maheras at February 7, 2005 03:00 PM

Steve wrote: "There is a way to deal with the conflict, and that is to have a court resolve the issue of whether the statute violates the constitution. But courts do not render advisory decisions. The issue has to come up in an actual court case."


Well, that's fine and dandy, but what does a retailer do until such a Supreme Court decision is finally rendered? And what if the court decision is not sweeping enough or specific enough to help retailers in every case?

Personally, I think the argument to NOT label comics "mature" stinks. In effect, the creator's asking the retailer to fall on a live censorship grenade in the creator's stead, which is really swell of him, don't you think?

What such a stance REALLY means is, "Hey, a mature label will hurt sales of my book, and since I don't like censorship anyway, I don't want no stinkin' labels!"

Well tough bananas, I say. The film industry has successfully used such a rating system to help blunt censorship attacks in its industry. Comics should do the same. And if a creator wants to stick extreme stuff in his/her books, then that creator will just have to deal with an NC-17 equivalent rating.

Someday, if a definitive Supreme Court decision ever takes place, the comics industry can dump its ratings system and creators can live happily ever after. In the interim, however, I don't think creators should be asking retailers to risk their livelyhoods or freedom in place of the creators. Somehow, it just doesn't seem fair to me.

Posted by: TallestFanEver at February 7, 2005 03:04 PM

this a whole muck-a-muck could have been easily avoided if the comic shop owner didn't give a "mature audiences" comic to a kid. He really pulled a boner on that one.

Posted by: Peter David at February 7, 2005 03:17 PM

"Well, that's fine and dandy, but what does a retailer do until such a Supreme Court decision is finally rendered? And what if the court decision is not sweeping enough or specific enough to help retailers in every case?"

Well, you've basically just put your finger on why obscenity law is a joke. Specific works are not considered obscene until AFTER a retailer sells it, someone complains about it, and a judge and jury announce, "Yes, this is obscene."

One of the fundamentals of criminal law is state of mind. The accused has to be intending to commit a crime. But if the material isn't outlawed at the time of sale, then there would seem to be no possible criminal intent. Except...no. In this type of persecution--sorry, prosecution--the system mandates a sort of judicial retcon. The jury decides material is obscene, and then the retailer is retroactively condemned for selling material that wasn't illegal at the time of sale.

Murder is illegal. Stealing is illegal. You know that going in. But you can sell a comic book that the law has made no judgment on, and it can then be decided two years later that the comic book shouldn't have been sold, and you can then be punished with the same force of law as if you had known it at the time of sale.

"Personally, I think the argument to NOT label comics "mature" stinks."

The argument is simple: It makes no difference. There was no comic book more conspicuously labeled than the one in the Jesus Castillo case. "For adults only!" "Mature!" "Not for under 18!" So what happened? He obeyed all the advisories, it was bought by an adult, and they still found him guilty of selling obscenity. The argument doesn't stink. The law stinks.

PAD

Posted by: Jarissa at February 7, 2005 03:26 PM

Iowa Jim,

I think part of the argument here stems from a point where your personal philosophy mingles what the others think of as two separate issues:

1) As you mentioned to Mr. David, you believe -- rightly! -- that a parent can and should filter that parent's child's intake of information, for the sake of the mental and emotional health of the child. Yes. It doesn't have to be "fair", just ask any thirteen-year-old, but any responsible parent will impose rules and restrictions anyhow.
My mom forbade Madonna from my music collection when I was a kid, and when I *accidentally* violated that rule -- I wanted a record of a single I'd heard on the radio, and the current Madonna had been mixed into the bin, and I didn't pay attention until after I got home -- that rule was changed so that I had to get Every! Music! Purchase! {stompstompstompslam!} vetted before I stepped up to the cash register. My parents also forbade makeup when I was thirteen, as I wasn't emotionally mature enough yet to deal with all the obsessions that come along, and they had to step in when one of my aunts gave me mascara for Christmas.

2) The United States Government, Federal and State, has the resources necessary to forcibly impose a jurisdiction-wide filter upon some and/or all of its population, with consequences ranging from confiscation (of money, as a fine, and/or goods, as an impoundation, and/or free will, as a court-ordered restriction or a trip to jail) to eviction to permanent confinement to execution, depending on the jurisdiction in question.
You feel that the government should be using those resources to enforce filters CHOSEN BY A PARENT -- not even limiting to those unanimously agreed upon by ALL parents, but in fact you want the government to enforce filters chosen by ONE parent -- yourself, maybe -- with perhaps a supporting theory that "all right-thinking people will NATURALLY and ALWAYS agree with each other in every detail that matters, so that pesky 'unanimous' thing is resolved without difficulty". Anyone who disagrees with the filter is thereby not "right-thinking people" and their objections should be overruled.

The government is NOT a parent, nor are its subjects to collectively be considered "children". The government is NOT a parenting tool. Parenting is the minute-to-minute-for-eighteen-years-straight duty of the parent, NOT of the government.
This seems to be the concept to which your debating opponents object. I'm reading arguments against the idea that the government should be parenting, and I'm reading responses from you that insist "parenting is a Good Thing". Yes, yes it is, but parenting is a Good Thing for the parent to do, and certainly not for the government to do.

It's difficult to separate emotionally vested, survival-of-loved-ones oriented issues down to their distinct parts, Lord knows. Surely no one here objects to you editing what your kids experience. You should! We're glad you do! Even if it's not how we would edit the same! Please continue!
As a separate issue entirely, however, please do the editing yourself -- don't require citizens and businesses around you to take up your responsibility, don't expect strangers to parent your kids, don't let your kids loose on the internet or the mall or the television because all right-thinking people will naturally police themselves and each other according to your own standards for your children's witnessing.

The whole principle is wrong. It’s like demanding that grown men live on milk because the baby can’t eat steak. - RAH
Posted by: Michael J Norton at February 7, 2005 03:40 PM

PARENTS HAVE RIGHTS TO RAISE THEIR KIDS

To Iowa Jim and others who support this parent and the obscenity laws, you might think the above line reinforces your support but in fact, it doesn't.

Think about this: If the gov't whether it be local,state of federal can say what your children can see or not....it takes away your right to parent. How?Because now, you have to obey the law instead of your own beliefs.In this case, what if a parent wants their underage kids to read this book to foster knowledge and interest in Picasso and historical events. Under this law, it appears to me, that said parent could actually be jailed for that.

Where is your parental rights then?

It's better to allow things by law then to disallow them. If it's allowed for kids to see a naked body then you as a parent can choose not to let them see it as the parent. But if the law says you can't let them see it, you choice is taken away.

Michael J Norton

Posted by: Iowa Jim at February 7, 2005 04:17 PM

It's better to allow things by law then to disallow them. If it's allowed for kids to see a naked body then you as a parent can choose not to let them see it as the parent. But if the law says you can't let them see it, you choice is taken away.

I understand what you are saying, but that only works in situations where parents have a choice before the child views/hears the thing in question. I think in most situations what you suggest is reasonable. But then you get into things like TV. Some think it is fine for there to be nudity on the public airwaves. Yes, a parent should be monitoring TV, but do they have to turn it off to leave the room to just get a drink of water? Do they need to tape it and prescreen it before they let their child watch?

I would hope there could be some middle ground between the extremes.

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Iowa Jim at February 7, 2005 04:21 PM

Just imagine, if you are fortunate enough to get your way, anytime, anywhere, someone's gonna arbitrarily go to jail for offending someone.

You clearly have not a word I have said if you believe that is what I want, endorse, or expect to have happen.

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at February 7, 2005 04:34 PM

I would hope there could be some middle ground between the extremes.

And that is where you get to be a parent, to decide the middle ground.

You control the remote, not your child.

If you want to let your kids read books or comics, maybe you should be the one purchasing for them and screening them. The same for music.

I didn't think it's as difficult as some parents apparently make it out to be.

Posted by: Two at February 7, 2005 04:54 PM

Cheezum Crow, I finally get here to read this and an entire shitstorm has already squalled its way across the beaches.

I do sort of wonder about the age of the kid but that's me, personally; how I raise my kid has no bearing on any law in this case. I also sort of wonder the extent of shelter this kid existed in. I can guess the emotions that led someone to the filing of these kinds of charges and can understand feeling that way but I CANNOT understand doing that, sending a man to jail, and I cannot articulate best myself the serious gap in the law that allows this kind of thing to happen but man, it's pretty lowdown.

I'd be willing to go as far as buying into community service. I don't see where a fine would matter since no money changed hands between anybody here, and Gordon certainly isn't getting that family's business any more, so it's not like he came out ahead and must be taken down. It was a mistake, an honest mistake, and one that I can see "must read to underpriveliged children on the weekends" as an equitable punishment for, but not jail time, man. The shareholders of Enron got screwed WAY more than anybody in that free comic, and how many of them went to jail? one? four? for how long?

Just saying is all: I get it, I understand the parents, but I cannot agree with them and I wish the case the best of luck. Also, thanks for reminding me about Salon, I forgot to pick that up (which i was originally incited to do so thanks to CBLDF)...

Posted by: Mark Walsh at February 7, 2005 05:09 PM

A worthy case to pick up to be sure. There is a level of absurdity in the complaint of the comic book, given that, you can see the exact same image in any male locker room throughout this great land of ours. For free, too.

Good luck with it, Peter, and please keep us posted on the proceedings.

Mark

Posted by: Two at February 7, 2005 05:10 PM

Incidentally this seems like the kind of parenting gap you usually hear about. I know when I was a kid I got a copy of Heavy Metal without my parents realizing what it was. Of course I was 5, I didn't know what it was either, but they usually checked the comics they bought for me. Today, I check my comics for content I don't want to buy. Not sexual things or violence but more scenes and inrerperitations I don't endorse. Example, I bought issue 1 of Bruce Jones' Hulk and was very "meh" toward it. So I flipped through the next issue to see if it was more of the same and decided not to buy it. I also don't buy comics with a Strong Left point of view or a Strong Right point of view...I'm not terribly closed-minded, particularly about comics, but so much of both are so bad. I'll get my Strong Left and Strong Right influences from the cable 24 hour news like everyone else.

I mean if you want to stop your kid from ever seeing nudity, wear a burqa, raise him in a shack, that's fine: as a parent you can do that. Nobody has a monopoly on "successful parenting," hell, the kid may turn out all right. But YOU have to take the action and the responsibility. It's not the government's job, their job is to protect us from crap like disease and poverty and explosions. It's not the store owner's job, it's his job to make money. Ditto the publisher. It's YOUR job, Joe and Jane Dickhate. YOU monitor and you take responsibility if you fall down on the job. And of course "falling down on the job" will mean different things to different people but, hey, I'm not stopping you. Just don't try to stop me. Y'dig?

Posted by: Powell Pugh at February 7, 2005 05:25 PM

I believe it was probably an honest mistake on Gordon's part, and the charges should be dropped because of that. Sure, the "distributing material depicting nudity" law is antiquated and probably needs to be stricken from the books (and it's Georgia, so there's probably some laws about not letting your mule sleep in a bathtub, too). Every convenience store sells Hustler and Black Tail, so I don't see how it can stand, anyway.

As for the First Amendment aspect... whatever. "I'll defend to the death your right blah-blah-blah..." I'm just really tired of having to stand up for losers like Howard Stern, Janet Jackson, Vince Neil, Mike Diana and Nick Bertozzi (who can't even draw). If only they had laws prohibiting the distribution of crap...

We as comics enthusiasts like to say that the comics medium is just as powerful as film. But here we're saying "It's just some ink drawings of an old man's limp dick." If Gordon had given a videotape to a minor containing the exact same scene, this case would be pretty much indefensible. We keep saying "Comics Aren't Just For Kids Anymore." Well, the issue here is that we didn't succeed in keeping the comics that aren't for kids away from the kids.

Posted by: Marionette at February 7, 2005 05:35 PM

I just continue to be appalled at the whole body hatred you Americans have going for you. Tell a kid that the human body is dirty and shouldn't be looked at and then be surprised when they get into self-loathing and depression when they hit adolescence.

Posted by: Two at February 7, 2005 05:41 PM

What Marionette said.

Posted by: R. Maheras at February 7, 2005 05:57 PM

Marionette wrote: "I just continue to be appalled at the whole body hatred you Americans have going for you. Tell a kid that the human body is dirty and shouldn't be looked at and then be surprised when they get into self-loathing and depression when they hit adolescence."


Oh, I don't think prudishness in America has a whole lot to do with teenager self-loathing and depression. As a matter of fact, I'll bet there are teens in every culture and country in the world who have such failings.

Posted by: scott at February 7, 2005 05:58 PM

[b]Just imagine, if you are fortunate enough to get your way, anytime, anywhere, someone's gonna arbitrarily go to jail for offending someone.
[/b]

[b]
You clearly have not a word I have said if you believe that is what I want, endorse, or expect to have happen.

Iowa Jim[/b]

____

You said it was ok for the parents to call the police if they had contacted the comic store and the store had dismissed them or laughed at them.

What does that mean? That someone isn't breaking the law if they say "sorry?" I mean, you're either guilty or your not, right?

I'm trying to understand the world according to Jim. Why would someone call the police if the law wasn't being broken?

Posted by: scott at February 7, 2005 05:59 PM

Ooops, screwed up the tag.

Posted by: mike weber at February 7, 2005 06:10 PM

Had this happened 20 to 30 years ago, I'd think that a very likely response would have been the parent taking away the comic in question and, if the authorities were brought in, a verbal warning of concern to the comic shop owner alond with documentation being made so that if there was a pattern of behavior leading a reasonable person to believe that the proprietor was a predator, than steps could be taken

Actually, as long ago as "20 or 30 years ago", laws having to do with "adult content" in Georgia, if interpreted literally, made it a crime to display the Bible where children might see it.

The ABA show used to be in Atlanta every few years.

Since that law took effect, it hasn't been.

Posted by: Steve Premo at February 7, 2005 06:23 PM

I support freedom of speech. That is not because I think that ideas or images can't be harmful to individuals or to society. It is because when the government has the power to outlaw certain ideas or forms of expression, that power is likely to be used to suppress dissent. And I'm including both political dissent and what you might call social dissent, that is, bucking societal norms.

Even if I thought there were ideas or images that were so harmful that they should be prohibited, I would not trust the government to make good decisions on what to ban and what to allow.

And the consequences of banning something are severe. In effect, if it is illegal to do an act (such as expose a child to a drawing of a naked man), that authorizes the forcible abduction and captivity of any person who is suspected of committing that act. To abduct someone and hold him captive is a severe act, and the authorization to do so should be reserved for those who commit acts that seriously injure other people.

So what is a parent to do if he is upset about a drawing in a comic that was given to his child? Complain to the store owner. Write a letter to the editor. Post your feelings about it on the Internet. Organize a boycott.

The most effective response to bad or inappropriate speech is more speech. That is, rather than ban it, speak against it. Use your right of free speech and make yourself heard. But don't abduct the dude at gunpoint and hold him captive, and don't ask the police to do it for you.

Posted by: Two at February 7, 2005 06:33 PM

What Steve Premo said.

And yeah I'm sure teenagers around the world have the same hormonal mood swings but I'm sure "your body wants sex now, so you're evil" doesn't help matters.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at February 7, 2005 06:46 PM

As a matter of fact, I'll bet there are teens in every culture and country in the world who have such failings.

Oh, I'm sure there are. But few countries spend as much time and energy enforcing that they should be ashamed of what nature has given at them.

And that is not only enforced by telling kids that nudity is bad, but also in saying that anything other than the perfect male/female form (see: advertising) is bad.

We've created our own fubar'ed society that nobody wants to fix except make it even more oppressive.

Posted by: B. Zedan at February 7, 2005 06:50 PM

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?

My art history professor, as well as most art historians, refer to the man as the "pantaloon painter."

As for parents watching what their children read, my partner once owned the X-Men issue where Wolverine gets his adamantium skeleton ripped out. He was relatively young and his mother found it and tossed it out (to his present dismay) due to the violence. As an adult now finishing college, he is sad that his mom didn't just set the comic aside until he was older, but he doesn't begrudge her choice of parental censorship.

Though this deals with violence, not nudity, I'd like to use it as an example, agreeing with Jarissa's second point. In my partner's family, the 'routine' violence of movies and comic books was, for the most part, open to consumption (it was the holographic card that really triggered his mom). In my family, I wasn't even exposed to that sort of violence until I was almost a teenager. Casual or mildly sexual nudity, on the other hand, was 'no big thing'--which it certainly wasn't in my partner's household.

Point being; each family system is different, as a lot of these comments seem to be arguing. When a populace is so varied, how can a law fairly deal with everyone affected? As we all have seen one time or another, it can’t.

And we seem a long ways from compromise.

Posted by: Steve Leone at February 7, 2005 06:57 PM

It never ceases to amaze me of how ridiculous people are about the human body. God help us all.

To further add a tidbit to what PAD said, there is another true story about this same kind of censorship. Read Dan Brown's Angels and Demons and he talks about the "Great Castration" when many male nude statures were castrated with a hammer at the Vatican because one of the popes or bishops thought it was indecent. All those statues with fig leaves, well the leaves were added to replace his handiwork.

As for the case now, it should be bounced right out of court.

Posted by: Peter David at February 7, 2005 07:16 PM

"If only they had laws prohibiting the distribution of crap..."

Well, that would put an end to ninety percent of everything. At least retailers wouldn't have problems anymore with rack space.

PAD

Posted by: J. Alexander at February 7, 2005 07:17 PM

I want to know more facts about the accuser before I completely pass judgment, but it seems to me that the wrong person might be facing jailtime. Goodluck Gordon.

Posted by: Peter David at February 7, 2005 07:17 PM

"As for parents watching what their children read, my partner once owned the X-Men issue where Wolverine gets his adamantium skeleton ripped out. He was relatively young and his mother found it and tossed it out (to his present dismay) due to the violence. As an adult now finishing college, he is sad that his mom didn't just set the comic aside until he was older, but he doesn't begrudge her choice of parental censorship."

And as the person who suggested that Wolverine get his adamantium skeleton ripped out, I can only applaud her judgment, because I *still* think it was the dumbest idea I ever voiced...

PAD

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at February 7, 2005 07:30 PM

And as the person who suggested that Wolverine get his adamantium skeleton ripped out, I can only applaud her judgment, because I *still* think it was the dumbest idea I ever voiced...

Yet, it's one of the most logical things Magneto could do.

The end of the Age of Apocalypse stuff, where Magneto literally tears Apocalypse in half... a brilliant maneuver. :)

But, seriously, you suggested the adamantium getting ripped out, bit, PAD? Thumbs up! :)

Posted by: Bladestar at February 7, 2005 07:43 PM

"If only they had laws prohibiting the distribution of crap..."
And WHO gets to define crap? You're trying to open an even bigger can of worms if you are anything but completely sarcastic with that comment.

PAD

I kinda liked the concept, the execution of it was truly heart- and gut-wrenching. Nice to know Magneto can "melt" and reshape "set" adamantium...

Posted by: John Mosby at February 7, 2005 07:54 PM

" Remember Doctor Manhattan? He'll get you one to three years in Georgia..."

Geez. When I made the Dr.Manhattan crack yesterday (when you first hinted at this subject) I was actually joking.

*sigh*

John Mosby
(the spirit is willing but the flesh is weekly)

Posted by: John Mosby at February 7, 2005 08:06 PM

And further to the actual subject...

I have no problem with the idea that if there is nudity in the magazine that there should probably be some sort of notice, or at leats the magaizne not next to Transformers on the shelf. Not the "YOU'LL GO BLIND!!!!" shock-horror sort but a note of some kind, if not on the cover then on the rack itself (sic).

I can understand an unwitting parent letting a little kid buy what they think is the equivalent to Spider-man and then finding out to their dismay they've got something a little more mature. Hopefully a savvy store owner could probably spot this at a thousand paces (unwitting non comic-affiliated parents have this glazed, desperate look).

There's no reason to stop printing any and all kind of comic that fits within the common-sense notions of the law (each to his/her own), just the common-sense notion that prevents, say: Power Rangers, Buffy, The Shield and Debbie Does Metropolis from appearing next to each other in the TV schedules.

Of course, the main problem with this cunning plan is the fact that no-one ever puts a warning notice up that says 'Super-heroines wearing so little clothing that though you can't see anything REALLY rude, they'd actually be arrested for solicitation or catch pnemonia in real life'

Thank God.
:)

John

Posted by: Lis Riba at February 7, 2005 08:21 PM

I do think giving Playboy to a child, especially before puberty, is at least borderline abusive. They are not yet ready to hanlde it, and it does cause harm.

Raises hand as counterexample.

I can still remember discovering my parents' Playboys.
Based on which house we were living in, this probably happened when I was between seven and ten years old at the time.
I loved to read them -- for the cartoons. I skipped over the pictures and the articles, and just flipped pages directly to the comics and jokes.
No lasting harm that anyone's ever noticed in me beyond a really bad sense of humor (though that's probably more the fault of my access to my parents'
MAD Magazine collection, along with early accumulated exposure to Mel Brooks, Marx Brothers and Muppets).

Posted by: Ted at February 7, 2005 09:31 PM

It's nice to see I'm not the only one who thinks the "nudity is evil" attitude does more harm than good. I don't see how the implications (both about the mindset of the people who helped it come into being, and the "concequences" for it [basically being taught that you're immoral etc. if you prefer to not wear clothing; or the "guilt trip" the above people try to get you on; or the psychological damage that occurs not because of what you're actually seeing {like you might in a rape or murder}, but more because you were told this was wrong and should be viewed... however, can't think of the word]) can come out as being helpful. Also, I honestly never viewed the "comic obscenity" issue the way Peter described it. I wanted to say thanks. It really opened my mind.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at February 7, 2005 10:07 PM

"I just continue to be appalled at the whole body hatred you Americans have going for you. Tell a kid that the human body is dirty and shouldn't be looked at and then be surprised when they get into self-loathing and depression when they hit adolescence."

Jeeze, generalize much? We Americans are not nearly as monolithic as the people of whatever fair land you hail from (the Borg Collective?). Frankly, a bigger problem here would be the habit of some to paint whole groups of people with bigoted assumptions that fit their own little world view...so if you ever come to visit you should have no trouble finding like minded friends.

"As a matter of fact, I'll bet there are teens in every culture and country in the world who have such failings."

"Oh, I'm sure there are. But few countries spend as much time and energy enforcing that they should be ashamed of what nature has given at them."

few countries??? I hate to pull a Marionette here and slag whole nations of people but wouldn't you think that the countries where women are encouraged/coerced into hiding their bodies be just a BIT more repressive. Judging from my detailed scientific study (achieved by randomly hitting buttons on my TV remote control) the "time and energy" being spent seems to be having little effect. Oboy! Another bra and panties wrestling match on this weeks WWF Smackdown!

I mean, I live in the freaking Bible Belt, home of Jesse Helms and I could, for purely research purposes of course, go down the street to the local Adult Bookstore and buy stuff that would make Al Goldstein blush, up to and including acts involving barnyard animals and/or Ron Jeremy. I can't remember the last time ATTACK OF THE CRAB MONSTERS was on TV but I can always be sure that one of the Cinemax stations will have the latest episode of MARILYN CHAMBERS FANTASIES (I'm sorry to report that Ms Chamber's fantasies these days are more along the "Wow, an all you can eat dessert buffet!" variety but then again who am I to judge?).

Not that this changes for a moment the need to remain ever vigilant but the reports of our Puritanical repression of visual displays of sexuality have been, to say the least, greatly exaggerated.

Posted by: Slick at February 7, 2005 10:48 PM

Iowa Jim: I understand what you are saying, but that only works in situations where parents have a choice before the child views/hears the thing in question. I think in most situations what you suggest is reasonable. But then you get into things like TV. Some think it is fine for there to be nudity on the public airwaves. Yes, a parent should be monitoring TV, but do they have to turn it off to leave the room to just get a drink of water? Do they need to tape it and prescreen it before they let their child watch?

Pre-screening shows for your kid really isn't a bad idea. I see nothing wrong with a parent doing that. And if the parent wants to get a drink, they can always wait until a commercial, those generally lack nudity, but your child may learn about erectile dysfunction and genetial herpes. And if your child does see/hear something that you find offensive, you're perfectly free to change the channel, or, at worse, just explain to your kid that you disapprove of that kind of behavior/language, and that they are no longer permitted to watch said show/read said book because of it. That's parenting, Jim.

You filtering what your child sees at a particular age is one thing. The government filtering what everyone sees at any age is another.

Posted by: Nytwyng at February 7, 2005 11:21 PM

Jim,

Reading this exchange, I must say that it appears you almost, but not quite, get why the CBLDF's getting involved in this. I say, "almost, but not quite" because, while you recognize, for example, that the "distribution of nudity" charge is being misapplied, it's the potential outcome of that misapplication that's the greatest peril in this case.

Follow, if you will. Let's suppose both the obscenity and distribution of nudity charges remain. (They probably will...prosecutors love to throw multiple charges at the proverbial wall to see what sticks.) Now, further, let's suppose that the prosecution wins the case. This sets at least two legal precedents:
1) That nudity, in and of itself, regardless of context or content, can legally be considered "obscene."
and
2) That Georgia's distribution of nudity law can be applied outside the "unsolicited mailing" framework it currently exists within.

By all appearances, it would appear that preventing such precedents from being set is the CBLDF's primary goal. here.

And, such a victory for the prosecution isn't much of a leap, as evidenced by Jesus' case.

And, speaking of 'Sus, Keith's and the CBLDF...attended a Customer Appreciation Day that Keith's and a couple other local stores held last weekend. And, in a CBLDF benefit raffle, won an Earth X Bloodstorm statue. Never read the series, didn't know who the character was 'til reading the box...but gladly ponied up the dough for my entries as it was to benefit the CBLDF. It wasn't much (and, "not much" is all I can afford these days), but every little bit helps. :-)

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at February 7, 2005 11:28 PM

but the reports of our Puritanical repression of visual displays of sexuality have been, to say the least, greatly exaggerated.

Sure, tell that to Janet Jackson and CBS.

Posted by: joeyfixit at February 7, 2005 11:35 PM

In high school two friends and I went to see Trainspotting at a theater that didn't card us. Fran loved the movie enough that he went and read the book right away. When it came to the video store a few months later the video store clerk said that if she rented it to us she could go to jail. As Julio already pointed out, this isn't true. I worked in a theater at the time and pointed this out to the clerk, who wasn't convinced and just refused to rent to us anyway.
Here's my thought: why was it okay for Fran to read the book but not see the movie? The same stuff was in both, right? Throughout my younger years, older people had all sorts of notions about censoring what I read in a comic book or saw in a movie or (heaven forbid) heard on an album, but when it came to books, nobody cared. I'm pretty sure that I was introduced to the "C" word by either Dan Simmons' "Hyperion" or the Dark Half before I was fourteen. Now, Hyperion's a great book and I'm glad I was exposed to it at a young age, but why the double standard? I remember my boss at the theater wouldn't let me sit and watch Demon Knight (which I'd already seen) when I was 16. When I was 15 I did a book report on Stephen King's It and compared it to the movie, elaborating on the fact that a tv movie couldn't have the orgy that all the kids have with the redhead so they can band together and find their way out of the sewers, and it sure couldn't top the deep psychosis of the Hockstetter kid, who'd drowned his brother in the tub and believed he was the only sentient creature in the universe.
Why the double standard? I live in PA. Is it the same in the south? If a GA library gives a kid Gerald's Game does anybody raise a ruckus?

Posted by: Nytwyng at February 7, 2005 11:58 PM

joeyfixit's post brings to mind a point that swam around in my head earlier today while reading this thread.

Several times, in the responses, have been statements to the effect that, "I can't just grab a stack of comics and assume they're all ok for kids." Which is true enough. Also true enough is that, at least in America, the comics medium did start out aimed primarily at children. But, it hasn't been such for a fair stretch...at least during the period that most of us here who are also comics fans/readers have been reading them. But, it makes me wonder....

Does anyone assume that if they, say, grab a box full of random novels that any/most/all of them will be suitable for all ages?

Does anyone assume that if they grab a stack of CD's that any/most/all of them will be suitable for all ages?

Does anyone assume that if they randomly select a channel on television, that what they'll land on is suitable for all ages?

It's legal losses like, for instance, the Jesus Castillo case that, ultimately, beget more cases like it; that allow prosecutors to successfully employ the argument, "It's in a comic book, thus it was clearly intended to be sold to children, because we all know comic books are just 'kids' stuff'."

Posted by: joeyfixit at February 8, 2005 01:07 AM

Here's another double standard I think's worth pointing out, which might be more relevant to the "nudity" discussion. When I was 18 I went on a school trip to Germany. The movie Cyborg came on tv. There came a scene that I'd never seen before, in which the girl (not the cyborg) is bouncing down the beach naked. And I do mean bouncing. I'd never seen this scene because I was used to watching it on tv (Philadelphia 17, specifically). I pointed this out to my host family as being a weird/surprising thing to see on commercial tv, not offended but getting a kick out of it. My partner shrugged it off as not being unusual at all.
A few minutes later Jean Claude launches into a fight scene. "Hey," I notice, "they cut stuff out". Again, I only knew this movie from television. I believe what was cut out involved van Damme slashing a bad guy's throat with a knife that stuck out of his boot. When I asked why this had been removed, I was told, "Children might be watching."
Later on in the trip we went to Berlin. In the subway there was an ad that featured a topless girl rising out of a lake. She had to be at least ten feet tall. The chicks were upset at the unreality of the depiction. Apparently this girl somehow surpassed the laws of gravity. None of the guys seemed to mind. I didn't mind it. She certainly did nothing to "cheapen" the nude female form for me. That was eight years ago; I can still remember what she looks like, but I'll be damned if I can remember what the ad was for.

Posted by: Dennis V. at February 8, 2005 01:41 AM

Elayne Riggs wrote:

"In an era where The Daily Show's "America: The Book" can be banned from Wal-Marts and Mississippi libraries because of one page depicting nude bodies (and they as much as admit "If they had published the book without that one picture, that one page, we'd have the book"), this doesn't surprise me at all. It saddens the hell out of me, but it doesn't surprise me."

Don't you think Wal-Mart should have the right to choose not to carry this book? For those people who want to purchase this book, they can buy it elsewhere at numerous locations. Just think you're blowing this a bit out of proportion, especially with the "saddens the hell out of me..."

Posted by: joeyfixit at February 8, 2005 02:02 AM

Hearst had the right to ban Citizen Kane from as many theaters as he could. He also had the right not to advertise the movie in any of his publications. Did that make it right? Or was it an abuse of power?

Posted by: Michael J Norton at February 8, 2005 02:14 AM

Absolutely Wal-Mart should have the right not to carry a product. It's if the gov't, or the Republican Party(which is in charge at the moment and our President is a member of, also who Wal-Mart give a ton of cash to) tells them not to carry it that it becomes a problem.

I've told this story online before but I'll tell it again here. I worked at a movie theater for a year. At the time Firestorm, that bastion of good film making, came out. I worked at the ticket counter and a woman comes up with her 12 year old son and asks for a ticket for him for the movie. She then asks if there is any (and this she whispered) "nudity or s-e-x" in it. I said no, but "a guy gets a ax to the head"...and she said "Oh, that's ok." and bought a ticket! She didn't even go see it with him!

Oh well.

Michael J Norton

Posted by: Blue Spider at February 8, 2005 02:51 AM

"You seem to forget that I supported Jesus when he was arrested in Dallas at Keith's Comics"

yet in the end you denied him and he was crucified! admit it!

On the other hand, I'm just amazed at the extradition treaty that the Romans and Pharisees had signed, reaching all the way into Texas and even traversing time itself.... 2000 years.

On a more series point, as I recall Ashcroft had a quite valid reason for covering those breasts and it wasn't puritanical.... it was bloody personal. From the accounts I read various camera operators and producers thought it would be amusing and ironic to portray the "puritanical" holy-roller right next to some good solid stone statue-tits every time he spoke. So on every screen just a short distance away, in close proximity to the head of the Attorney General were great nipples. As he saw it they were making fun of him, so since he couldn't rightly censor the jerks, he took away one of their enablers and thus he covered the statues. It's a lot like taking away some jerk's toy when he's mis-used it. They mis-used the Mammaries of Justice and so he took them away.

Posted by: Alan Wilkinson at February 8, 2005 05:18 AM

"And yes, I know some smartguys will immediately claim Michelangelo is only remembered because of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Well, guess what: Except for sashes and masks, the Turtles are naked, so..."

Except for their shells, maybe?

Posted by: Darren J Hudak at February 8, 2005 05:51 AM

// 1Which is true enough. Also true enough is that, at least in America, the comics medium did start out aimed primarily at children. //

That's actually somewhat of a myth. The early comic books were mostly reprints of comic strips and those strips were often done with an "older" audience in mind. (Dick Tracy, for instance, was one of the first strips reprinted in comic book form, and while kids loved it it wasn't really a kids strip. The audience that read Tracy then, would today be watching CSI of 24). It took a few years for the "it's just for kids" mentality to kick and even then it didn't kick in accross the board until the seduction of the innocent controversy of the 1950's.

Posted by: Darren J Hudak at February 8, 2005 05:58 AM

// 1On a more series point, as I recall Ashcroft had a quite valid reason for covering those breasts and it wasn't puritanical.... it was bloody personal. From the accounts I read various camera operators and producers thought it would be amusing and ironic to portray the "puritanical" holy-roller right next to some good solid stone statue-tits every time he spoke. So on every screen just a short distance away, in close proximity to the head of the Attorney General were great nipples. As he saw it they were making fun of him, so since he couldn't rightly censor the jerks, he took away one of their enablers and thus he covered the statues. It's a lot like taking away some jerk's toy when he's mis-used it. They mis-used the Mammaries of Justice and so he took them away. //

Which makes Ashcroft looks petty and small. A real man would have said, "let them, it's art. it's been here a long time and I have bigger things to worry about then a bunch of reporters who insist on acting like 8th graders". And of course the covering up of that breast was done with taxpayers money, yours and mine. Without even thinking hard I can think of a million better uses for that money then helping a small, petty man, who when all is said and done, will probably end up being a small footnote in history that no one remembers, save face in front of reporters.

Posted by: The StarWolf at February 8, 2005 06:23 AM

>It's better to allow things by law then to disallow them. If it's allowed for kids to see a naked body then you as a parent can choose not to let them see it as the parent. But if the law says you can't let them see it, you choice is taken away.

I agree in principle, but the problem, as I see it, is that in our overly litigious societies, I can well imagine some kid deciding to take his parents to court for infringing on his 'right' to see that sort of thing. The law would have to be very carefully drafter with parental overrides built in.

>And as the person who suggested that Wolverine get his adamantium skeleton ripped out, I can only applaud her judgment, because I *still* think it was the dumbest idea I ever voiced...

Sadly, yes.

>I kinda liked the concept, the execution of it was truly heart- and gut-wrenching. Nice to know Magneto can "melt" and reshape "set" adamantium...

Looks like Ultron - should he surface up again - has another thing to worry about beyond Wanda and Mr. Jeffries.

>Don't you think Wal-Mart should have the right to choose not to carry this book?

Not as simple in Canada where Heather Reisman (owner of Canada's biggest, recently merged book store chains) unilaterally banned a book from being sold in her stores. If we can't get it there, where will we?
Remembering that half the population doesn't have Internet, after all, so that option is closed to them, too. So might as well be the government banning it, for most practical intents.

Posted by: shane at February 8, 2005 06:37 AM

Posted by: Powell Pugh at February 7, 2005 05:25 PM

We as comics enthusiasts like to say that the comics medium is just as powerful as film. But here we're saying "It's just some ink drawings of an old man's limp dick." If Gordon had given a videotape to a minor containing the exact same scene, this case would be pretty much indefensible.


The argument here is not that because it is just a comic, it is not as big a deal as film.

What is really being said is that because comics are a valid art form (equal to film, novels, painting, sculpture etc.), the medium is worthy of protection by the same precedents that overturned obscentity charges against Allen Ginsberg's Howl, James Joyce's Ulysses, and the Cincinnati Contemporary Art Center's exhibit of Mapplethorpe's photos.

Posted by: Jeff Coney (www.hedgehoggames.com)) at February 8, 2005 07:20 AM

"Let me suggest one scenario: She calls the store and the owner blows her off, laughs in her face, and tells her to not be such a prude. I am not suggesting this did happen, but there are a lot of gaps in this story I need to know before I blame the mother (or father) for reporting this incident to the authorities.

Iowa Jim "

I don't know about the rest of you, but this still doesn't warrent a call to the police in my opinion. Now in my little corner of the world I tend to think you should make your voice heard with your dollar, and if the retailer did blow off my concerns as a parent, I would simply start shopping, and have my child shop at another comic store.

Posted by: Bladestar at February 8, 2005 07:39 AM

Jeff Coney has it right, well said.

(altho Gordon at most owes an apology for not screening the product he was giving free to children)

Being "personally offended" is NEVER an excuse to call the cops...

Posted by: Jeff Coney (www.hedgehoggames.com)) at February 8, 2005 07:59 AM

"You clearly have not a word I have said if you believe that is what I want, endorse, or expect to have happen.

Iowa Jim"

How can we hear it, this is a text based blog isn't it?

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at February 8, 2005 09:04 AM

The early comic books were mostly reprints of comic strips and those strips were often done with an "older" audience in mind.

Intended audience has never mattered.

The assumption that comics always have been and always will be for children I would guess stems from the fact that things like Warner Bros cartoons, and the early Disney movies, were for kids.

Alot of newspaper comic strips used to be for kids, but I'd love to see somebody claim that today for something like Doonesbury.

It's simply an assumption based on ignorance.

Posted by: Peter David at February 8, 2005 10:09 AM

"If Gordon had given a videotape to a minor containing the exact same scene, this case would be pretty much indefensible."

Well...no. The defense would remain the same: That it doesn't remotely fulfill the obscenity standards as put forward by the Miller test. Simply nudity is not obscene. Unless, of course, the Georgia law holds, in which case the depiction of simple nudity DOES become obscene.

In which case, anyone selling or renting "Schindler's List" is now open to charges of peddling smut.

Anyone think that's a good precedent to set? Anyone?

PAD

Posted by: Peter David at February 8, 2005 10:11 AM

"As he saw it they were making fun of him, so since he couldn't rightly censor the jerks, he took away one of their enablers and thus he covered the statues. It's a lot like taking away some jerk's toy when he's mis-used it. They mis-used the Mammaries of Justice and so he took them away."

So instead of reacting with, "Let them say what they want, it's a free country," he instead censored art.

Oh yeah. That's definitely a guy with his free expression priorities in place.

PAD

Posted by: A. Greene at February 8, 2005 10:15 AM

I for one disagree with Iowa Jim (or is it jim from iowa now, I don't recall), however, I'm getting a little annoyed by those who feel the need to take cheap shots at his expense.

Jim, I feel, expreses his thoughts clearly, consicly, and when he disagreees with the concesus here, he disagrees respectfully. I very often find myself disagreeing with his politics (in fact i can't recall agreeing with him on any subject, save that maddrox is an great comic series, and our mutual appreciation for other works by Mr. David), but I think Iowa Jim should be extended the same curtesy he extends to us in these discussions/threads.

Posted by: R. Maheras at February 8, 2005 10:18 AM

joeyfixit wrote: "Here's another double standard I think's worth pointing out, which might be more relevant to the "nudity" discussion. When I was 18 I went on a school trip to Germany. The movie Cyborg came on tv. There came a scene that I'd never seen before, in which the girl (not the cyborg) is bouncing down the beach naked. And I do mean bouncing."


Well, the U.S. isn't the only country sensitive to violence. In, I believe, 1981, my wife and I and our newborn daughter were living in England. We went to see the science fiction film "Scanners" first run, which, although we weren't aware of it initially, was apparently rated "X" in England. We lived off base and didn't know anyone nearby who could babysit our daughter, so we took her to the theater with us. The plan was a typical one for parents with a young baby: If she fussed during the film, one of us would take her outside. Apparently no one who worked there saw my wife carry her in, and none of the handful of other moviegoers said anything to us in the lobby, but about 30 minutes into the movie, an employee came up to us and informed us that since my sleeping newborn was underage, she could not stay in the theater. Apparently, one of the locals ratted on us on the sly. And since they wouldn't give us a refund, my wife and I took turns standing in the lobby with our daughter for the rest of the film. To this day, I don't think I've seen "Scanners" all the way through.

How dumb was/is THAT law?

Posted by: Powell Pugh at February 8, 2005 10:26 AM

Shane:
"The argument here is not that because it is just a comic, it is not as big a deal as film."

I know that. But the argument here is also not that it's okay to give a kid something *labelled* as inappropriate for kids because it's "Art" or because it's historically researched.

The underlying problem here is whether or not an apology is a good enough response (or if indeed one was offered), which may unfortunately have to be resolved through the argument of an antiquated obscenity law which is apparently being applied arbitrarily.

My mention of comparing the comics to a film version was just an observation. Give the kid a prose novel describing the scene, no one's going to say a thing about it. Give the kid a comic, we get this situation right here. Give the kid a videotape, the dude who gave it to him would be paying for his own legal defense.

Posted by: Michael Pullmann at February 8, 2005 10:51 AM

Diverting from this particular case for a moment, I just wondered if anyone else had heard about this:

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1480744,00.html?maca=en-moreover-pol-eu-eng-574-rdf

It's about an Austrian comic depicting Jesus as a pot-smoking parry animal who crosses the Sea of Galilee on a surfboard. The Greeks have banned it and threatened the author with six months imprisonment if he enters the country.

Posted by: John DiBello at February 8, 2005 11:07 AM

Can't believe no one seems to have mentioned The Simpsons yet:

Helen Lovejoy: You've got to lead our protest against this abomination!
Marge: But that's Michelangelo's David. It's a masterpiece.
Helen: It's filth! It graphically portrays parts of the human body, which, practical as they may be, are evil.
Marge: But I like that statue.
Helen: I told you she was soft on full frontal nudity!


(later, while viewing Michelangelo's David):

Homer: Pretty soon, every boy and girl in Springfield Elementary is going to come and see this thing.
Marge: Really? Why?
Homer: They're forcing 'em!

Posted by: Jerry Wall at February 8, 2005 11:12 AM

And just to reinforce this.

Support the CBLDF
Support the CBLDF
Support the CBLDF
Support the CBLDF
Support the CBLDF
Support the CBLDF

Especially if you're a fan of being able to buy Fallen Angel, which could get a retailer like me arrested in our communitites, should the DA decide they need to extra votes.

Whether you agree or disagree with this case, whether you're Republican or Democrat or whatever, these types of laws need to be scrutanized and disected, and the CBLDF is at the forefront of that fight.

Posted by: Iowa Jim at February 8, 2005 11:50 AM

You said it was ok for the parents to call the police if they had contacted the comic store and the store had dismissed them or laughed at them. What does that mean? That someone isn't breaking the law if they say "sorry?" I mean, you're either guilty or your not, right? I'm trying to understand the world according to Jim. Why would someone call the police if the law wasn't being broken?

Let me repeat what I said: My point was that IF the parent was calling in the first place because they were concerned other kids were also given mature comics, and the parent was ignored and told to go fly a kite by the store owner, then what other recourse would the parent have to make sure the comic store owner was not handing out mature comics to minors? There IS a difference if this was an accident or if this was deliberate.

I clearly stated this was a hypothetical. It is possible the parent did want "revenge" and hoped to throw the owner in jail. It is possible the owner fell on his knees and begged for forgiveness, mortified at his mistake. The reality is we have very few facts, and both sides will portray their side in the best possible light.

My point was that there were other explanations of why a reasonable, rational parent would call the police. In my scenario, it would NOT be clear that this was an honest mistake, so the parent would then take the next logical step of action. The Newsarama article made clear that the comic was mature in its content and language, not just in a few non-sexual nude pictures. While the prosecution is based on the pictures, the parent may (or may not) have been reacting to the comic as a whole.

I appreciate Nytwyng's comments, which echo something I said at the beginning. Nytwyng is right that I do see the legal reasons to fight this case. My original point, though, is that the harsh comments about the parents are at least premature since we don't know all of the facts in this case. There are TWO issues that are raised by this case. The first is the issue of the parent's reaction and actions. The second is the criminal case. I fully defend the parents in this matter (even though I would most likely have handled it differently). I do not defend the prosecutors or the fact that this is particular incident is criminal (i.e., potentially a 3 year sentence). It puzzles me that some of you cannot separate these two issues.

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Bobb at February 8, 2005 12:07 PM

Jim, I think part of the cause of some of the responses you've been getting is that your hypothetical does not fit with the facts we do have, both from the Newsarama piece and Gordan's Lee's own postings here.

While it's possible that, for the sake of preserving evidence, Gordan and the N'AMA piece didn't report some facts, it appears the first Gordan knew of the mistake was when the police arrested him. That implies that no call of complaint was made to the store about the incident. More facts may come out that shed some light on the actual course of events, but based on what we know now, there's nothing to suggest that the aggrieved party made any attempt to deal with Gordan on their own.

Which brings up the police. People, myself included, have criticized the family for reporting the incident to the authoroties. And while I still feel that the law, as applied in this case, is wrong, that doesn't make the law itself wrong. Children have long been a protected class in the eyes of the law, so it's not really surprising that we pass laws to protect them from things that we don't apply the same protection to adults.

Given that, were I a conservative-minded parent living in GA, and aware of the law prohibiting the distribution of obscene material to children, and in support of such law, then calling the police would be a natural reaction under these circumstances.

Which excuses not at all the prosecution of the case. An investigation, certainly, but unless there's more to that book/event than we know, an arrest was unwarranted.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at February 8, 2005 12:08 PM

The Greeks have banned it and threatened the author with six months imprisonment if he enters the country.

Let's see... no video games (didn't they ban most if not all of them recently?), no portraying their "national heroes" as gays, and now this.

But hey, I don't believe Greece was ever on my "to visit" list.

Posted by: Darren J Hudak at February 8, 2005 12:29 PM

// The assumption that comics always have been and always will be for children I would guess stems from the fact that things like Warner Bros cartoons, and the early Disney movies, were for kids. //

The WB cartoons were not made for children. They were made for adults, shown for adult audiences before adult movies. They did not become associated with "childrens fare" until decades later when they started being shown on TV.

// Alot of newspaper comic strips used to be for kids //

A lot of them still are, but a lot of them were also for adults. Newspaper comics of old very often had things in them that Saturday morning Cartoons would never be able to have. (Like Dick Tracy shooting someone though the head). In the 30-40's and 50's, the audience for newspaper strips was always considered to be older whereas the audience for Saturday morning cartoons was always considered to be younger. Kids loved reading them too, but that's not the same as saying they were meant for them.


// but I'd love to see somebody claim that today for something like Doonesbury. //

Doonesbury is very often moved off the comics page, onto the editoral page because people claim that very thing. That everything on the comics page should be for kids, since Doonesbury is obviously not it gets moved.

Posted by: Alan Coil at February 8, 2005 12:39 PM

Does anybody remember the old TWILIGHT ZONE episode where BILLY MUMY's character banished all those people to the "corn field", where all sorts of horrible things were supposed to be happening to them? Well, it can finally be revealed exactly what the "horrible beyond all words" fate was that happened to them:

They became Republicans!

Posted by: Bobb at February 8, 2005 01:12 PM

In related news, there's a bill coming down the pike, apparantly with bipartisan support, that would increase the fine for broadcasting indeceny over public airwaves to as much as $500,000 per incident. Yay US.

Posted by: Robbnn at February 8, 2005 01:32 PM

As you know, I'm a conservative and a Christian (or maybe you don't know, or more likely don't care...)

My response would be dependent on the age of my child. If he was very young, I'd call the store owner and politely confront him or her. Mistakes are easy to make. If he was an older child, depending on the comic, I would just take it away from him and explain why.

The only way I'd call the police, as Jim has stated, is if the retailer really was peddling smut with no intention of stopping it.

I recognize that my standards are a lot tighter than most people's, and also like Jim, I have no intention of making other people live to my standards.

Also like Jim, I don't think the human body is evil (well, mine is close, but diet soda tastes so bad) but I do think nudity should be reserved to marital intimacy (and showering, of course). My kids are taught to be modest, but they don't think their bodies are evil. They know sex is wonderful and fun, but they also know it's reserved for marriage.

My upbringing was considerably looser than that I'm giving my children. I believe the porn I was viewing at a young age had a lot to do with the objectifying of women that plagued my young adult life. I'd prefer to educate my kids away from that.

I also think that most posts directed at Jim were dealing with the positions they want Jim to represent and not those that he really represents.

Posted by: Iowa Jim at February 8, 2005 01:48 PM

Jim, I think part of the cause of some of the responses you've been getting is that your hypothetical does not fit with the facts we do have, both from the Newsarama piece and Gordan's Lee's own postings here.

Fair enough. I somehow missed the fact that Gordan himself was posting here. I was not trying to imply what he had posted was a lie or misleading. Thanks for the clarification.

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Umar at February 8, 2005 01:50 PM

This is my opinion:

Since the American Culture began their endless campaign of "be afraid" and have, through a wide variety of medium, push this agenda with more zeal then the Nazi's at the height of their anti-Jewish campaign, this is what we come too. A lot of people blame Republican thinking for this because it uses this ploy the loudest, but the Democrats do it too. I wasn't for voting for Bush, but the "Vote for the other guy because Bush is worse" is a stupid reason to vote for a candidate next to "he love jellybeans." It's a campaign of fear.

In the campaign the right-wing, where most of these censors come from, has led the charge by finding more BS reason for us to be in fear then anyone on the planet.

Fear the Gays - they are going to ruin marrage.
Fear the Blacks - Usual assortment of racist reasons
Fear the Arabs - so what we provolk them every chance we get, they hate us because we're us
Fear Free Speech - it doesn't follow our line therefore must be stopped at all costs.
Fear Nukes - THEY'RE OUT THERE!!! THERE OUT THERE!!!

In this you get cases like Mr. David sighted. And the reality. Here's the punchline, in fighting against this you also fight in favor of these censors. They are exercising their free speech too. That, to me, is something only America can come up with, in order to protect free speech you have to fight for the right of people trying to erode free speech to continue to do it. Because in the end it's all free speech, innit?

Posted by: arcee at February 8, 2005 01:58 PM

msg to Iowa Jim:

Just wanted to post my appreciation for respectfully and bravely posting your POV in this private (more or less) forum, in a manner both civilized and as erudite as possible for this hot button issue.

Talk about religion and politics -- censorship and parent's rights, nudity, legality and laws -- and it brings out the best and the worst in all of us.

Just wanted you to know.

Posted by: R. Maheras at February 8, 2005 02:06 PM

Umar wrote: "Since the American Culture began their endless campaign of "be afraid" and have, through a wide variety of medium, push this agenda with more zeal then the Nazi's at the height of their anti-Jewish campaign, this is what we come too."


I understand where you are going with the sentiment of your post, but if you really believe the statement you wrote above, then I'm afraid you know nothing about what conditions were really like in Germany before and during World War II, and what conditions in the United States currently are like.

You may feel that such outrageous hyperbole may strengthen your point, but it doesn't. If anything, it completely destroys any legitimate argument you may have.

Posted by: Nytwyng at February 8, 2005 02:12 PM

In this you get cases like Mr. David sighted. And the reality. Here's the punchline, in fighting against this you also fight in favor of these censors. They are exercising their free speech too. That, to me, is something only America can come up with, in order to protect free speech you have to fight for the right of people trying to erode free speech to continue to do it. Because in the end it's all free speech, innit?

The parent(s) expressing their displeasure, and even stating (even if incorrectly) that there was malicious intent, so on and so forth...that's the exercise of free speech.

Inappropriately applying laws that have nothing to do with the case at hand, though? I'm not sure how that's "exercising free speech."

Posted by: malvito at February 8, 2005 02:22 PM

// A lot of newspaper comic strips used to be for kids //

I'm reminded of the whole "public airwaves" arguement that is used against Janet, Howard Stern, etc.. Yes, they are the public airwaves. I and the members of the population that occasionally (or even frequently) watch/listen to Stern are also part of The Public, and it strikes me as ridiculous, in this age of V-chips, Parental Locks, NetNannies, and the ability to erase an offending channel on your remote (which, anymore, is necessary to work just about everything), that we are told we should give up our guilty (or non-guilty) pleasures so someone else can be a 'good parent.'

The Janet thing is even more ridiculous because the whole incident lasted what? 2 - 3 seconds? The fact that people chose to complain to the FCC about this seems more neurotic to me than any potential 'damage' to their little ones.

//My upbringing was considerably looser than that I'm giving my children. I believe the porn I was viewing at a young age had a lot to do with the objectifying of women that plagued my young adult life.//

Your choice. Given the fact that there have been responses from both males and females testifying to the lack of any corrupting influence from having looked at PLAYBOY in their youth, I think it's safe to say that your experience is not a general one. Then again, I think this statement is a cop-out, like some serial killer on Death Row blaming his murder spree on cheerleaders and nudie mags.

Ultimately, it seems to me to boil down to a further attempt to legislate morality. I'm not too sympathetic to Iowa Bob's hypothetical "What if the store owner blew the objecting customer off;" I agree that both the customer AND our cloged courts are better served by the customer taking her business elsewhere.

Posted by: Bobb at February 8, 2005 02:31 PM

"Iowa Bob"

Hmm, I wonder what *would* happen if you somehow managed to merge Jim and me together? We'd/it'd probably need constant supervision, because we'd/it's spend so much time debating itself that it'd forget to eat.

Posted by: Breck at February 8, 2005 03:04 PM

You can't fault a person for calling the police. That's the point of the police, to call upon when you feel threatened. It's no one's place to decide the definition of "threatened" for the entire populace.

Imagine there is a group of large, unfamiliar men gathered outside in a driveway next to your house shouting and loudly laughing amongst themselves. How would you handle it? Some people would call the police right away. Some people would quietly complain to themselves. Some people wouldn't notice. Some people might try to go over and join the group. None of these reactions are wrong, they are just what the respective individual feels safest doing.

If the parent in this case felt threatened then it's perfectly within her right to call the police. Maybe it's not what you would have done, but it's not wrong.

I think this is the entire point that Jim is trying to get across. Since we don't know the details we can't comment on them, but the idea of blaming someone for calling the police is ridiculous, no matter how minor the infraction seems in your opinion.

The only thing we can say for sure right now is that the punishment does not fit the (supposed) crime.

Posted by: Carl at February 8, 2005 03:26 PM

Hmmmm, don't know about this case, but Ashcroft (from a story I read a long time back and nope, I can't source it) got tired of the MSM having fun with those boobies behind his head. I mean, come on, you are doing a serious job and the press only wants those pictures to have sport with you? And like I said, I don't know this current case but if the guy sold these *mature* books to underage kids blaming law enforcement is not the solution...

Posted by: Ryuukuro at February 8, 2005 03:42 PM

I think the entire problem is that the parents of this minor didn't bother to deal with the store directly. This is a simple mistake that can be solved without any kind of court nonsense.

When did our country get to the point that people are so terrified of dealing with each other that they have to resort to the cops and the courts to solve everything? When did minor mistakes become major catastrophes?

Posted by: Den at February 8, 2005 03:52 PM

Hmmmm, don't know about this case, but Ashcroft (from a story I read a long time back and nope, I can't source it) got tired of the MSM having fun with those boobies behind his head. I mean, come on, you are doing a serious job and the press only wants those pictures to have sport with you?

Funny how 1) covering the statue was one of his first acts as AG and 2) All of the previous AGs, including Ed Meese, famous for his anti-pornagraphy "study" had no problem being taken seriously while talking to the press in front of the statue.

Posted by: Slick at February 8, 2005 04:05 PM

Robbnn: As you know, I'm a conservative and a Christian (or maybe you don't know, or more likely don't care...)

Don't worry, I won't hold it against you. :)

My response would be dependent on the age of my child. If he was very young, I'd call the store owner and politely confront him or her. Mistakes are easy to make. If he was an older child, depending on the comic, I would just take it away from him and explain why.

Sounds reasonable

The only way I'd call the police, as Jim has stated, is if the retailer really was peddling smut with no intention of stopping it.

And here's where the case hinges on everything. Is simply showing a naked human being, in and of itself, "smut"? Given that the image, as described, wasn't depicting any act of sex, nor was meant to arouse, I don't think it qualifies. It's not like he gave a copy of Hustler to a minor.

I think that Gordon didn't consider the image to be "smut", but that defination can change from person to person. While the parent has every right to disagree with Gordon, punishing him in such a manner is far too harsh and wrongheaded a response.

Posted by: Powell Pugh at February 8, 2005 04:08 PM

Umar:
"It's a campaign of fear."

I'm not saying you're entirely wrong, but I will say that this really doesn't apply to the case at hand. Also, most of the psychobabble correlations between fear, non-acceptance, intolerance and hatred are faulty at best.

Posted by: Robbnn at February 8, 2005 04:38 PM

Slick,

I should have qualified that the comic in question doesn't fit my definition of smut, but I suppose for some it is.

I don't believe the "climate of fear" is a partison issue, I believe it is a psychological issue, in that the human race often requires - and therefore looks for - fear for motivation. Not a good trait, by any means, but a near universal one. If it isn't "them" it's "cancer" or "pollution" or SOMETHING.

Malvito,
I don't consider it a cop out, since I accept responsibility for it, but early porn viewing - the viewing of objectifying material - is a strong influence. And just because some people claim it wasn't harmful to them, it may indeed be harmful, they just don't consider it harm (you have to accept objective harm isn't always subjective harm to agree, so YMMV).

Posted by: Jerry Wall at February 8, 2005 04:49 PM

"Remember how ludicrous it was when John Ashcroft draped cloths over the bare breasts of the statue of justice? "

Just for the record, this is an extreme mischaracterisation. No cloths were draped over any bare breasts. For years, the DOJ has been renting drapes (for over $2000 per event) which were used as a backdrop for when the AG does a press conference. It's the big black curtains with the US seal on them. A few years ago a staffer got the smart idea of just buying a set for around $8000, rather than paying $2000 several times a month. It saves money and makes sense.

Of course, it's not as good as a story as trying to make up a fake story about Ashcroft and/or Bush.

But all of this doesn't matter anyways. Support the CBLDF!

Posted by: Bunch at February 8, 2005 05:57 PM

Posted by malvito at February 8, 2005 02:22 PM:

. . .in this age of V-chips, Parental Locks, NetNannies, and the ability to erase an offending channel on your remote (which, anymore, is necessary to work just about everything). . .

When I was a kid, you didn't need any of these things. There was a special button on the TV, radio, stereo, etc. It was called the "OFF" button, and all my parents had to do was tell me "turn that OFF."

V-chips, remote codes, and calling the police over matters such as this are merely an excuse to get other people to parent your kids for you, so you don't have to bother with it yourself. If you feel that your child will be "damaged" by anything they see or hear in today's media, then you are just not doing your job as a parent.

Posted by: joeyfixit at February 8, 2005 06:01 PM

Robin said: "early porn viewing - the viewing of objectifying material - is a strong influence. And just because some people claim it wasn't harmful to them, it may indeed be harmful, they just don't consider it harm".

Isn't religion a much stronger influence than porn? Might it not be harmful to tell a child that there is a super powerful being who resides in an infernal underworld of fire and brimstone and wants nothing more than to be able to torment his/her soul for all eternity? Might it have a negative effect on a person's well-being to be raised with the belief that to engage in healthy, stress-relieving sex without being married brings you one step closer to such a place?

I agree that harm is subjective.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at February 8, 2005 06:11 PM

Jerry sort of beat me to this but anyway...

On a more series point, as I recall Ashcroft had a quite valid reason for covering those breasts and it wasn't puritanical.... it was bloody personal. From the accounts I read various camera operators and producers thought it would be amusing and ironic to portray the "puritanical" holy-roller right next to some good solid stone statue-tits every time he spoke. So on every screen just a short distance away, in close proximity to the head of the Attorney General were great nipples. As he saw it they were making fun of him, so since he couldn't rightly censor the jerks, he took away one of their enablers and thus he covered the statues. It's a lot like taking away some jerk's toy when he's mis-used it. They mis-used the Mammaries of Justice and so he took them away.

Which makes Ashcroft looks petty and small. A real man would have said, "let them, it's art. it's been here a long time and I have bigger things to worry about then a bunch of reporters who insist on acting like 8th graders". And of course the covering up of that breast was done with taxpayers money, yours and mine. Without even thinking hard I can think of a million better uses for that money then helping a small, petty man, who when all is said and done, will probably end up being a small footnote in history that no one remembers, save face in front of reporters.

According to an Urban Legends site I visited: The theory that Ascroft ordered (or, at the very least, approved) the statue concealed originated with a January, 2002, ABC News report. Department of Justice spokespeople have firmly denied that the decision to erect the drape was motivated by the explicit nature of the statue, and insist it was not ordered by Ashcroft nor purchased with his knowledge or approval. According to DoJ sources, the drape was first erected for President Bush's rededication of the Great Hall in honor of Robert F. Kennedy (Bush lead people requested a TV-friendly blue background be used in lieu of the hall's grey marble walls). Since Ashcroft planned to use the drape in the future, an AG staffer decided it would be cheaper to purchase the backdrop at $8,650 rather than continue to rent it at $2,000 a pop. She did so without Ashcroft's knowledge.

Many detractors claim these arguments are merely a smokescreen by the administration to conceal what they consider a prudish conservative censorship agenda. The "did-he-or-didn't-he" debate that has ensued has been dubbed by some as "Drapegate" or "Breastgate" will probably never be resolved.

Far be it for me to crush a perfectly good story. Personally, I kind of doubt that the AG has the time to micromanage the upholstery. I mean, I'm not crazy about the shade of greenish tan they painted my classroom but I really don't think that the Superintendent was down at Lowes gazing at paint patches, looking for one that would best hide vomit stains.

If the account above is true we actually had a government employee taking the initiative to save we the taxpayers big money...and look at the grief it caused. Well, no good turn goes unpunished, I always say.

Posted by: joeyfixit at February 8, 2005 06:22 PM

1Let me put it another way:
If the Jehovah's witnesses come to my house while I'm away, and gave my kids copies of The Watchtower, should I call the cops? I might subjectively consider their views to be "harmful" (and a great deal more harmful than porn). Should I set aside the Witnesses' freedom of religion?

Posted by: Robert Jung at February 8, 2005 06:53 PM

I'm tempted to print several hundred copies of Leonardo Da Vinci's "Proportions of Man" (as shown at http://cgfa.sunsite.dk/vinci/p-vinci23.htm), then go to a street corner in Georgia and hand them out to anyone passing by. If asked, I'll just explain that I am trying to promote the classical arts.

Can't wait for the right-wing fundamentalists to shriek that I'm "peddling pornography," and reveal themselves to be the tasteless prigs that they are...

--R.J.

Posted by: Lis Riba at February 8, 2005 06:58 PM

just because some people claim it wasn't harmful to them, it may indeed be harmful, they just don't consider it harm
In other words, you're saying you know my experiences and comprehend their impact on my life better than I know myself? Do you have any idea how arrogant and condescending that sounds?

Posted by: Scavenger at February 8, 2005 07:25 PM

Can we set up a tracking system for Iwoa Jim's kids? They're gonna be so repressed growing up, I don't want to be anywhere near them when they go off.

Posted by: Ken at February 8, 2005 07:28 PM

Well, that was ridiculous and totally uncalled for!

Posted by: Scavenger at February 8, 2005 07:39 PM

think part of the argument here stems from a point where your personal philosophy mingles what the others think of as two separate issues

Don't try to understand, explain, rationalize, or condone what a hypocrite thinks.

He's a die hard Republican, for smaller governemnt and all of that, but he thinks that the first thing to be done isn't to confront the issue, but to report someone to the Goverment. It's not what a rational being does, it's not what a true Christian does, and it's not what a man does.

Posted by: Scavenger at February 8, 2005 07:47 PM

"Had this happened 20 to 30 years ago, I'd think that a very likely response would have been the parent taking away the comic in question "

I recall in highschool (so 15-20 years ago...jeeze! sigh) I mail ordered some stuff from Mile-High Comics. Whatever it was arrived, with some free throw ins...those Marvel Kirby greeting cards and misc comics..I seem to recall a Teen Titans, and some independednt horror book called "Seduction of the Innocent"....I don't remember that comics, as my mom saw it, and threw it away...she might have written Mile High a nasty letter....but I don't know that...

Gee a parent dealing with a problem like a responsible adult.

And we're from the South too

...this whole situation shames us as a people.

Posted by: Nytwyng at February 8, 2005 08:29 PM

The Janet thing is even more ridiculous because the whole incident lasted what? 2 - 3 seconds? The fact that people chose to complain to the FCC about this seems more neurotic to me than any potential 'damage' to their little ones.

Interestingly enough, outgoing FCC Chairman Michael Powell has acknowledged that, although the number of complaints to the FCC regarding "inappropriate" material has increased over the past year or so, that the complaints themselves are predominantly form letters provided by a select handful of groups, all with the same particular agenda of "cleaning up" airwaves.

In other words, the kneejerk reactions we've been seeing to broadcasters, particularly since the Janet Jackson incident, are being instigated by a (relatively speaking) small group of individuals. It'd be sad if it weren't so scary.

Posted by: Nytwyng at February 8, 2005 08:41 PM

I appreciate Nytwyng's comments, which echo something I said at the beginning. Nytwyng is right that I do see the legal reasons to fight this case. My original point, though, is that the harsh comments about the parents are at least premature since we don't know all of the facts in this case. There are TWO issues that are raised by this case. The first is the issue of the parent's reaction and actions. The second is the criminal case. I fully defend the parents in this matter (even though I would most likely have handled it differently). I do not defend the prosecutors or the fact that this is particular incident is criminal (i.e., potentially a 3 year sentence). It puzzles me that some of you cannot separate these two issues.

Thanks for the kind words, Jim.

But, I'd have to agree with those who feel that the parents' decision to call the police, rather than taking their complaint directly to the source (i.e. the store) was, indeed, disproportionate. Is saying so being "harsh?" I don't think so.

Just as (as has been mentioned in other posts here) there appears to be an abandonment of responsibility among many parents for actually parenting their own children, so too has much of American society appeared to have decided to want the courts to step in and "parent" them, rather than dealing directly with the (relatively) minor things that happen to them in their daily lives. Such as happened in this case.

In the time that it took the parents to contact the police and get this ball rolling, they could have contacted the store and - most likely - received an explanation and/or apology from Gordon. Instead, they chose to overreact, and the result of that overreaction could have far more serious and far-reaching consequences than their child seeing a two-dimensional black-and-white drawing of a man sitting in his birthday suit.

But, hey...what do I know. I mean, I also assume that coffee's hot without seeing a warning label that says so, and don't put it between my knees right before accellerating my car.

I'm just kinda nutty that way. :-)

Posted by: Blue Spider at February 8, 2005 09:29 PM

1) I'm kind of sorry that the story wasn't true, that the legend was untrue and that the truth is rather mundane. I'll deal.

2) I wish the Attorney General of the United States DID have the time and opportunity to micro-manage in those ways. A true smaller-government man like myself really does wish that the super-powerful money-munching politicians and administrators in our central Federal Government had more time on their hands and less opportunity to decide the directions of the country.

I also wish that stuff in and around D.C. cost less, but we all have our dreams.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at February 8, 2005 09:47 PM

Scavenger says:
Can we set up a tracking system for Iwoa Jim's kids? They're gonna be so repressed growing up, I don't want to be anywhere near them when they go off.

Followed by:
He's a die hard Republican, for smaller governemnt and all of that, but he thinks that the first thing to be done isn't to confront the issue, but to report someone to the Goverment. It's not what a rational being does, it's not what a true Christian does, and it's not what a man does.

Yeah, like a real man makes snide comments about another man's kids. Low, man, very very low.

Normally I'd advise against ad hominem attacks but for you it would be a step up.

Posted by: Tom Pearce at February 8, 2005 09:49 PM

Peter,

You may not agree with Iowa Jim, but at least he had the courage to openly state his opinion. At least he was thoughtful and polite in his responses. Unlike a lot of blogs, at least it didn't devolve into name-calling.

I really enjoyed this topic; it really made you think about how lucky we are to have free speech and how we must fight for it -- even if it is the opinion of someone I totally disagree with.

Everyone! Support the CBLDF!

Posted by: Gordon Lee at February 8, 2005 09:49 PM

Thanks for your support folks! Support the CBLDF, as I am not the the only retailer that has had this done to him/her. Many others prefer to remain quiet while I really am glad that the CBLDF has come to my aid to protect my legal rights. The fight continues ...

Posted by: Bladestar at February 8, 2005 09:55 PM

Scavenger is right, look for the next Columbine in Iowa... or maybe Georgia...

Posted by: Briareos at February 8, 2005 10:05 PM

First post here so I'm going to say I'm a fan of your work but that whole John Ashcroft covered the nude statue story is a big myth. The people in charge of setting up press conferences like this wanted a better backdrop then a big grey building (which is what the statue is in front of) They also wanted all the backgrounds for press conferences to have a unified front. John Ashcroft didn't order it and it had nothing to do with the statue.

Posted by: Briareos at February 8, 2005 10:10 PM

Sorry missed Bill's post where he posted my point oh well HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOO world! ;)

Posted by: mike weber at February 9, 2005 01:19 AM

The assumption that comics always have been and always will be for children I would guess stems from the fact that things like Warner Bros cartoons, and the early Disney movies, were for kids.

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.

Posted by: mike weber at February 9, 2005 01:38 AM

Hearst had the right to ban Citizen Kane from as many theaters as he could.

No -- as a non-governmental entity, he had the power to do so. Rights would be another matter.

It's about an Austrian comic depicting Jesus as a pot-smoking parry animal who crosses the Sea of Galilee on a surfboard.

Rather sounds like "Foolbert Sturgeon"'s "New Advemtures of Jesus". from back ikn the '70s or so.

Hmmmm, don't know about this case, but Ashcroft (from a story I read a long time back and nope, I can't source it) got tired of the MSM having fun with those boobies behind his head. I mean, come on, you are doing a serious job and the press only wants those pictures to have sport with you?

Funny how 1) covering the statue was one of his first acts as AG and 2) All of the previous AGs, including Ed Meese, famous for his anti-pornagraphy "study" had no problem being taken seriously while talking to the press in front of the statue.

So apparently this is an Urban Legend. If it were true, one would think that it probably had something to do with how ludicrous the AGs in question perceived/did not perceive their own positions to be. If you know deep down that the majority of thinking people are going to think you're a dangerous loon, you need to take every possible measure you can to avoid giving extra ammunition.

Posted by: Elf with a gun at February 9, 2005 02:13 AM

**PAD

"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..."

Alan Wilkinson:

Except for their shells, maybe?**

Yes, the Turtles are covered by the 'Wookie Rule' which states "Any character covered by fur is not really naked". Or by shells, or scales, for that matter. :)

Chris

Posted by: Carl at February 9, 2005 02:23 AM

Funny how 1) covering the statue was one of his first acts as AG and 2) All of the previous AGs, including Ed Meese, famous for his anti-pornagraphy "study" had no problem being taken seriously while talking to the press in front of the statue.

So apparently this is an Urban Legend. If it were true, one would think that it probably had something to do with how ludicrous the AGs in question perceived/did not perceive their own positions to be. If you know deep down that the majority of thinking people are going to think you're a dangerous loon, you need to take every possible measure you can to avoid giving extra ammunition.

I haven't seen anyone post any links proving or unproving what I originally heard. So your point is unfounded. And people that think Ashcroft and GWB's cabinet are "dangerous loons" are in the minority or John F-cking Kerry would be the president, yes? Put that in your moonbat pipe and smoke it...

Posted by: Grev at February 9, 2005 02:42 AM

Nytwyng

But, hey...what do I know. I mean, I also assume that coffee's hot without seeing a warning label that says so, and don't put it between my knees right before accellerating my car.

...I assume you're referring to the Stella Liebeck case? In that case, I'll refer you to the very website that's named a ridiculous lawsuit case after her:

http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html

Yes, she was partially to blame for her burns. But, I use the "harmless substance test" on a case. Replace the damaging agent with a harmless substance. We replace the coffee with orange juice. Then we ask, would the plaintiff be suing if they did the same thing with the harmless substance? The answer here would most likely be no. Then, we ask, was the substance given her by the defendent? Here, yes. Finally, we ask, would the defendent have bought the harmless OJ had the harmful coffee not been available? In this case, I think she would have. Thus, I'd conclude that McDonald's added the danger element, and she probably should have sued them. It wasn't the suit that was ridiculous, it was the verdict. Which was eventually trimmed down and then settled out of court anyway.

Let's try this with another famed McDonald's plaintiff, the suit about making someone fat. Here, we ask the same questions. Replace Big Macs with Veggie burgers. To question 1, would he be fat had he eaten veggie burgers rather than big macs? Answer, Unknown, leaning no. 2, were the big macs provided by McD's? Yes. 3, would fat man have eaten there had veggie burgers been on the menu instead of big macs? Here, I'm inclined to say, definitely not. And thus this case fails that test, and should be thrown out (and was).

Posted by: wolvy at February 9, 2005 03:24 AM

I find this silly, that He's getting chargd with this law. If he wasnt going out to "offend" or harass anybody. Then whats the problem. Not to mention it was bought by an adult. Which either didnt have comen sense. Because if something is labeled "Mature" "Adults Only" ofcourse its going to have some objectional things it.

Not to mention. I dont see whats so offensive about the site of picasso panting naked? He's not having sex, He's not raping anybody, He's not dry humping someone. He's just panting. Nothing less, Nothing more.

I think they should remove that law they have. Because its rather idiotic.

Posted by: Carl at February 9, 2005 04:34 AM

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1676&dept_id=225412&newsid=8066957&PAG=461&rfi=9

Let me bring this down to the local level for you: Last weekend, I was having dinner with a reporter (at Margaret Kuo's new place in Wayne, which you ought to try) and we were talking about terrorism and national security. This particular reporter - smart guy, very knowledgeable - opines that he doesn't trust Attorney General John Ashcroft because Ashcroft is a pointy-headed Bible-thumper who is so puritanical that he had his minions cover the exposed breast of the Spirit of Justice statue. Surely you all know this story: Ashcroft, shrieking at the sight of the uncovered female form of Minnie Lou, as the statue is affectionately known, orders it draped. Maureen Dowd of the recently discredited New York Times opined that Ashcroft put Lady Justice "in a burqa." The "burqa" line was immediately picked up by Al Gore, who did not disclose its dowdy origins.
The problem with this story is that it isn't true. Nope. Never happened. The statue is still there, still looks like it has always looked. It is true that Ashcroft doesn't use it as the background for his press conferences any longer, opting for the standard blue curtain. I'm positive the reporter I was dining with would have checked that story before it got into print, but his standards are manifestly higher than those in vogue at The New York Times.
Ashcroft is a Christian fundamentalist, and funny stories about Christian fundamentalists are "too good to check," as the newsroom saying goes. You can read in the major press all kinds of libelous and farcical nonsense about Ashcroft - he's covering statues, he's deathly afraid of calico cats because he regards them as a sign of the devil, etc. All fiction, of course. Is the Times going to issue a correction and apology over this, or discipline Dowd? Of course not.
---------
Welp, this was all I could find, everything else was liberal opinion or rants about it, no solid news or facts. And I am sorry, if a bunch of assclown reporters kept doing this on purpose, yeah, I would be steamed too. I mean, it would be the same as making sure if someone you didn't like that worked at say, Dick Smith's Insurance always got a picture with the word "Dick" (just that) behind their head. And I mean everytime. They might not have your juvie sense of humor, yes?

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at February 9, 2005 06:37 AM

Along the lines of the Ashcroft legend, Bill Moyers, allegedly a journalist, managed to smear old James Watt in a recent speech, attributing a quote to him that seems to have been entirely made up. And there are still people who probably believe that George Bush the father once was amazed to see that supermarkets had scanners.

Luckily we have the internet which, while it may help desseminate such flasehoods, can also help to eliminate them as well.

Posted by: Den at February 9, 2005 08:59 AM

1http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/a/ashcroft-breast.htm

Enjoy!

Posted by: Robbnn at February 9, 2005 09:21 AM

"Can't wait for the right-wing fundamentalists to shriek that I'm "peddling pornography," and reveal themselves to be the tasteless prigs that they are..."

Gosh, thanks for the broad brush. You know, a lot of us might thank you for the picture. As usual, the actions of a small band of people are being generalized to an entire group. Very broad minded of you.


Lis,
"In other words, you're saying you know my experiences and comprehend their impact on my life better than I know myself? Do you have any idea how arrogant and condescending that sounds?"

While I use your name in this post, I didn't in the last one, so I'm not saying anything about you or your life. However, yes, sometimes an objective eye can site things that the subject can't. My dad insisted that smoking wasn't harming him, but the cancer suggests otherwise, doesn't it? While I believe objective harm exists, I didn't say I was the judge of it (or perhaps you're assuming I want to outlaw porn, which, while I would love it if it all disappeared, I have no interest in legislating such a thing, except for minors.)

Posted by: Nytwyng at February 9, 2005 09:24 AM

Yes, she was partially to blame for her burns. But, I use the "harmless substance test" on a case. Replace the damaging agent with a harmless substance. We replace the coffee with orange juice. Then we ask, would the plaintiff be suing if they did the same thing with the harmless substance? The answer here would most likely be no. Then, we ask, was the substance given her by the defendent? Here, yes. Finally, we ask, would the defendent have bought the harmless OJ had the harmful coffee not been available? In this case, I think she would have. Thus, I'd conclude that McDonald's added the danger element, and she probably should have sued them. It wasn't the suit that was ridiculous, it was the verdict. Which was eventually trimmed down and then settled out of court anyway.

Sorry, but I can't buy into this.

It's coffee. It's supposed to be hot. Had it not been, she'd have been complaining that she bought coffee, and it was cold. (Unless, of course, she chose to sue them over that, too.)

It reminds me of an old Wapner-era People's Court I once saw, in which a plaintiff sued a fried chicken joint because he bit into the chicken and a small pocket of hot oil spurted out and burned his lip. In that case, however, Wapner sided for the defendant, because the plaintiff agreed that he knew the chicked was prepared by deep-frying it in hot oil, that he expected the chicken to be hot, and would have complained to the restaurant had it not been.

Posted by: Fred Chamberlain at February 9, 2005 09:37 AM

Nytwyng:

>It's coffee. It's supposed to be hot. Had it not been, she'd have been complaining that she bought coffee, and it was cold. (Unless, of course, she chose to sue them over that, too.)

>It reminds me of an old Wapner-era People's Court I once saw, in which a plaintiff sued a fried chicken joint because he bit into the chicken and a small pocket of hot oil spurted out and burned his lip. In that case, however, Wapner sided for the defendant, because the plaintiff agreed that he knew the chicked was prepared by deep-frying it in hot oil, that he expected the chicken to be hot, and would have complained to the restaurant had it not been.

I thought the same thing way back when it first got the attention of the national media. After researching it a little, it is not the obnxious trivial lawsuit that McD's or tort reformers would have you believe. Apparently the coffee was at a temperature significantly higher than standard coffee, just shy of boiling if I remember correctly. The woman received burns that required skin grafts and her final compensation didn't do much more than cover her medical bills. (Side note: McDonalds lowered the temperature in which they keep their brewed coffee.)

Fred, who is suddenly having flashbacks to the days of his McDonalds employment. I love hot drinks, but had to let their coffee cool for a few minutes before attempting to drink it.

Posted by: Jeff Mason at February 9, 2005 10:57 AM

As applied here, the more frightening is the "unsolicited material" charge - which would apply to adults just as it would to children. The "unsolicited" law originally comes from folks sending such material in the mail to folks. The Georgia legislature recently added a section to to the law incorporating unsolicited e-mail.

The two laws that were charged here are not fungible and need to be analyzed separately. The "obscenity" law is basically the same as most obscenity laws throughout the United States, utilizing a local morals standard. The "unsolicited material" law could certainly be overreaching as applied in this case where an individual purportedly came in and requested a Halloween package of comics.- but again, the same analysis of the "unsolicited material" would be the same if the material was delivered to an adult or a child.

From the press release, it isn't clear that Gordon Lee has been formally charged by the State of Georgia of anything yet.

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.

Why, you ask? Because, as I said, I think part of it is the perception that ALL cartoons are for kids as well.

If you can't understand that by now, then I'm not going to repeat myself again, and you'll have to make more baseless assumptions about me. Have fun.

Posted by: JamesLynch at February 9, 2005 01:09 PM

Regarding the coffee lawsuit, I recommend anyone interested in the case check out the issue of TOO MUCH COFFEE MAN -- I think it's called The Lawsuit Issue -- which covered this lawsuit. He lays out the facts of the case, from the damage (the woman did suffer third-degree burns in her crotch, which led to her getting skin grafts (so anyone who thinks this is a frivolous lawsuit should try to imagine the pain that caused) to the media's wildly incorrect reporting of the verdict (amazing, in a day of fact-checking).

Posted by: Daniel M. Suh at February 9, 2005 01:24 PM

Nytwyng wrote:

Sorry, but I can't buy into this.

It's coffee. It's supposed to be hot. Had it not been, she'd have been complaining that she bought coffee, and it was cold. (Unless, of course, she chose to sue them over that, too.)

Take a look at the actual facts of the case if you're not convinced:

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

To quote one of my friends when he first read it:

I have looked, and saw nothing remotely ridiculous. That poor woman was completely in the right--by serving her coffee that was 50 degrees hotter than the ordinary household or restaurant temperature, McDonald's presented her with a dangerous defective product, by their own word "unsafe for human consumption." It would have been no different than if they had laced it with strychnine.

Posted by: Daniel M. Suh at February 9, 2005 01:26 PM

Whoops, that should've read as:

Nytwyng wrote:

Sorry, but I can't buy into this.

It's coffee. It's supposed to be hot. Had it not been, she'd have been complaining that she bought coffee, and it was cold. (Unless, of course, she chose to sue them over that, too.)

Just wanted to make it clear which text was Nytwyng's.

Posted by: Powell Pugh at February 9, 2005 01:52 PM

Well, this convo has certainly been derailed.

Posted by: Rick Keating at February 9, 2005 01:59 PM

Regarding the McDonald's coffee incident, from everything I've read, the woman was a _passenger_ in the car, not the driver. So she couldn't have accelerated her car with a cup of hot coffee between her thighs as a previous poster suggests she did.

A quick Google search turned up some links about the case.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html

http://knoxlawyers.tripod.com/McDonalds.htm

As to the current CBLDF case, I agree that a statute outlawing the depiction of nudity of _any kind_ is ridiculous. And the charges against the retailer definitely fall under the category of overkill, in my opinon.

Now, if he had a history of providing obscene material to minors (stuff that _does_ meet the Miller test), that would be different. But if he did have that history, I'm sure the prosecution would be playing it up in the press. I haven't read anything to suggest this retailer has engaged in such behaviors.

Rick


Posted by: Nytwyng at February 9, 2005 02:34 PM

To all who posted regarding the temp of the coffee, yes...I've heard that particular point many times.

And, my POV remains: coffee is supposed to be hot, and likewise, is not intended to be held between the thighs, particularly in an accellerating vehicle.

(I did, however, forget that it was a family member behind the wheel. Of course, since the driver's as much to blame as McDonalds and the "victim," she named him in the suit as well, right?)

By applying the same logic that justifies the suit and places all responsibility on McDonald's, if I were to ignite a lighter and place it - ignited - behind my ear, resulting in my hair catching fire and third degree burns to my head...well, that's Bic's fault, not mine.

Posted by: Jerome Maida at February 9, 2005 02:36 PM

Craig Ries,

'It is something intimate and by making it common it cheapens it'

"You're worrying about a comic book cheapening nudity? Ohman, now I know what's wrong with our society."

You figured it out? Wow! Good for you. Seriously, though, weren't you one of the ones bitching about Greg Horn's early "Emma Frost" covers, claiming that they have an "unhealthy" impact on young girls?
So showing nudity is fine, but showing Emma's ample assets in all their glory helps destroys young girls' self-esteem, leads to them being anorexic and bulimic, etc.
It is hardly conservatives who want to shut people up "for our children". And it is almost always wrong.

Posted by: Jerome Maida at February 9, 2005 02:39 PM

I meant to say : "It is not ONLY conservatives" in the above post My bad

Posted by: malvito at February 9, 2005 02:55 PM

//When I was a kid, you didn't need any of these things. There was a special button on the TV, radio, stereo, etc. It was called the "OFF" button, and all my parents had to do was tell me "turn that OFF."//

Thank you, Bunch, I quite agree. My point was not that we should have to rely on these things, but that they do, indeed, exist, so timorous parents can and should employ them rather than trying to make it impossible for me to access materials to which they might object.

// And just because some people claim it wasn't harmful to them, it may indeed be harmful, they just don't consider it harm (you have to accept objective harm isn't always subjective harm to agree, so YMMV).//

That, Robbnn, is a condescending load of crap. And so is your answer to Lis. (Sorry to have to use names here; an unfortunate necessity when addressing two posters.)

Basically, you are saying that something is harmful because YOU say it is, despite the fact I indulge in something you don't approve of without become either a menace to, or burden on, society. And, given your stated disapproval, the idea that your view is 'objective' is ludicrous.

Whilst you write //I didn't say I was the judge of it//, you also write //I would love it if it all disappeared//, which appears, objectively speaking, fairly contradictory. Of course, you may say that I am hardly being objective about this; while you would probably be right, I don't accept your claims towards objectivity, either.

And please clarify the meaning of YMMV ... while not exactly new to blogging, this is one I've never read before; since you are insisting that I have to accept you terms, I'd like to know what they are.

Posted by: Iowa Jim at February 9, 2005 02:56 PM

Scavenger is right, look for the next Columbine in Iowa... or maybe Georgia...

Actually, Bladestar, it is my wife's persian cat that everyone should be worried about . . .

;-)

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Carl at February 9, 2005 02:59 PM

Welp, Den, I looked at that link and also snopes.com on Urban Legends. There's like 3 different versions, that Ashcroft ordered it, it was already in the process of being done to he knew nothing about-it was his staff's orders. So, outside of I know I would be pissed if the press ran 1000s of photos to humilate me, I believe that there's no clear proof that he ordered it out being a conservative prude...

Posted by: Daniel M. Suh at February 9, 2005 03:23 PM

[i]And, my POV remains: coffee is supposed to be hot, and likewise, is not intended to be held between the thighs, particularly in an accellerating vehicle.[/i]

Coffee spills happen all the time. It's part of life. There's probably not a single person out there who hasn't spilled coffee on themselves at least once.

However, you're still ignoring the salient point---that the McDonald's coffee served to the unfortunate woman was a [i][b]whopping 50 degrees hotter than normal[/b][/i]. Do you not see how that would make the product "unsafe for human consumption"? Even if she hadn't spilled it, can you imagine what would have occurred if she drank it?

Tell me, would [b]YOU[/B] accept coffee that was 50 degrees hotter than normal? Would you drink it?

[i]By applying the same logic that justifies the suit and places all responsibility on McDonald's, if I were to ignite a lighter and place it - ignited - behind my ear, resulting in my hair catching fire and third degree burns to my head...well, that's Bic's fault, not mine.[/i]

There's no logic to that comparison at all. Different product, intended for different use, made by a different company, and placed in contact with a different part of the body. You're making what's called a straw-man argument, and it's not helping you one bit.

Posted by: Fred Chamberlain at February 9, 2005 03:34 PM

Nytwyng:

>And, my POV remains: coffee is supposed to be hot, and likewise, is not intended to be held between the thighs, particularly in an accellerating vehicle.

I don't recall ever seeing a warning that coffee is not intended to be held between the thighs. I actually place my cup between my legs every morning on my way to work. It is more secure than the holders in most cars.

>(I did, however, forget that it was a family member behind the wheel. Of course, since the driver's as much to blame as McDonalds and the "victim," she named him in the suit as well, right?)

Nope. The driver didn't heat the coffee up to a ridiculously high temperature. Aslo, as long as the driver was not driving in a reckless manner, there is no fault there.

>By applying the same logic that justifies the suit and places all responsibility on McDonald's, if I were to ignite a lighter and place it - ignited - behind my ear, resulting in my hair catching fire and third degree burns to my head...well, that's Bic's fault, not mine.

Your analogy would work if the lighter was intended to be used as a body warmer of some sort. Lighters are utilized to ignite objects. Coffee is utilized as a beverage. It is common sense to expect that spills occur. Heck, I spill my coffee while walking to my car at least once a month. The coffee in question was too hot even for safe consumption, muchless for contact on skin. The incident could just as easily have centered around a person who spilled it while attempting to drink it.

Fred

Posted by: bryan white at February 9, 2005 03:38 PM

YMMV Your Mileage May Vary


Basically, you are saying that something is harmful because YOU say it is, despite the fact I indulge in something you don't approve of without become either a menace to, or burden on, society.

Since I'm pretty sure someone, somewhere, is going to have issues due to something (nudity, 2nd hand smoke, not wearing a seat belt, being forced to say the pledge of alliegnece, etc) and that person ends up being a menace to or a burden on society would it be wrong then? and who should pay for the society burden?

Posted by: bryan white at February 9, 2005 03:43 PM

sorry I must have messed up a quote mark

YMMV Your Mileage May Vary

quote start
Basically, you are saying that something is harmful because YOU say it is, despite the fact I indulge in something you don't approve of without become either a menace to, or burden on, society.
quote end

Since I'm pretty sure someone, somewhere, is going to have issues due to something (nudity, 2nd hand smoke, not wearing a seat belt, being forced to say the pledge of alliegnece, etc) and that person ends up being a menace to or a burden on society would it be wrong then? and who should pay for the society burden?

Posted by: Bladestar at February 9, 2005 03:50 PM

Cat has an attitude, eh?

I've noticed that in Purebred cats...

Posted by: Rick Keating at February 9, 2005 04:42 PM

Just to follow up about the coffee incident, according to that first link I posted, the car was _not_ in motion when the coffee spilled.

For whatever that's worth.

Rick

Posted by: Den at February 9, 2005 04:45 PM

So, outside of I know I would be pissed if the press ran 1000s of photos to humilate me, I believe that there's no clear proof that he ordered it out being a conservative prude...

Does that really make a difference? Whether he did it to cover naughty parts or because of the juvenile antics of some photographers, it comes across as petty and childish. Either way, I think he made himself look foolish.

So again, I stand by the point that if even Ed Meese has the maturity not be worried about being photographed next to a pair of bronze knockers, Asscroft needs to just grow up.

Posted by: Robbnn at February 9, 2005 05:03 PM

Mal,

"Whilst you write //I didn't say I was the judge of it//, you also write //I would love it if it all disappeared//, which appears, objectively speaking, fairly contradictory. Of course, you may say that I am hardly being objective about this; while you would probably be right, I don't accept your claims towards objectivity, either.

And please clarify the meaning of YMMV ... while not exactly new to blogging, this is one I've never read before; since you are insisting that I have to accept you terms, I'd like to know what they are."

Okay, I'm clearly messing up my anticedants. In order:
* I won't be the judge of the harm someone may experience (it's not my call to make direct, uninvited judgments on individuals; I think it's okay to make general comments, though, not aimed at any one individual)

* I, PERSONALLY, would love it if all porn (which I do think is bad - and therefore don't indulge... but I'd LIKE to, in somewhat the same manner an alcoholic would like a beer) dried up and blew away. If you want to indulge, knock yourself out.

I don't believe the comment is condescending, though. People make harmful choices all the time. Denial is something we all practice. We don't have to agree on what constitutes harm, I suppose, but we could both look into each other's lives and come up with things that we think might be harming the other. Self-destruction is a common problem.

YMMV, as noted above, means Your Mileage May Vary, in other words you don't have to agree. I meant "you would have to accept that objective harm exists to agree with me, but if you don't, you don't have to agree. It's a free country."

* "Objective" means something along the lines of "true for everyone" "reality". I didn't say I was objective, or that if I thought something is harm then it ipso facto is harm. I'll leave that to God. I stated my bias up front: I'm a conservative and a Christian.

My basic tenant is, live by your convictions and test them often. Living up to MY standards (or down as the case may be) if you don't believe in them would suck for you. I believe there is objective truth, and I also believe that no one lives up to it, but it will catch up to all of us. We're all the great unwashed, and we are responsible for our own choices and actions. I fall horribly short and look to God to make up the gap. He offers that to everyone. Again: YMMV.


Posted by: Craig J. Ries at February 9, 2005 05:13 PM

Seriously, though, weren't you one of the ones bitching about Greg Horn's early "Emma Frost" covers, claiming that they have an "unhealthy" impact on young girls?

There's a difference:

The series was targetted for young girls (apparently), but the covers suggested something else entirely - something horny young guys should be reading.

While I don't think this comic store owner should get in any trouble for what happened, the comic that was handed out clearly wasn't targetted specifically to get into that kid's hands, either.

If a parent got the comic and felt it was ok for the kid to read, fine.

Posted by: Fred Chamberlain at February 9, 2005 05:46 PM

Robnn:

>* I, PERSONALLY, would love it if all porn (which I do think is bad - and therefore don't indulge... but I'd LIKE to, in somewhat the same manner an alcoholic would like a beer) dried up and blew away. If you want to indulge, knock yourself out.

Now that's an image that I really didn't need put into my mind. Knocking oneself out may be overindulging.... overlyenthusiastic at the very least.

Posted by: malvito at February 9, 2005 05:48 PM

Thank you, Bryan and Robbnn, for clarifying the YMMV thing for me. Way cool new one to use on my Livejournal entries.

Robbnn, I still disagree with you and see a level of condescension that you either do not see or had not intended. I appreciate you noting your own bias. I'm happy to say that it is not one with which I am cursed.

Posted by: Lis Riba at February 9, 2005 06:22 PM

The McDonalds coffee case again?
Here's an investigation I wrote up about it

McDonalds served their coffee at temperatures that were too hot to be drinkable -- hot enough to cause full thickness burns in 2 to 7 seconds. Before Ms. Liebeck's injury, McDonalds already knew of over 700 people who had been burned by their coffee, and had ignored previous requests to store its coffee at normal restaurant temperatures.

Despite all this, McDonalds chose profits over customer safety, which is why the jury awarded punitive damages worth two days coffee sales before the judge later lowered it.

When you read the actual factual details, the only thing that seems unreasonable is McDonalds' actions.

Posted by: Jarissa at February 9, 2005 06:33 PM
Posted by Scavenger at February 8, 2005 07:39 PM, in response to my proposal of a possible hitch in Iowa Jim's reactions:
Don't try to understand, explain, rationalize, or condone what a hypocrite thinks.

He's a die hard Republican, for smaller governemnt and all of that, but he thinks that the first thing to be done isn't to confront the issue, but to report someone to the Goverment. It's not what a rational being does, it's not what a true Christian does, and it's not what a man does.

Heh. For a minute there, I was wondering if I needed to apologize for whatever got me shrouded; now I know that Iowa Jim's either ignoring me or has no constructive response to me, but B. Zedan referenced me on the seventh so I'm not in THAT much trouble -- thank you kindly, B. Zedan! And then Scavenger quoted me, so that's two who know I exist. Keen. I feel better.

Meanwhile, Scavenger, I refer you to the Book of James, Chapter 3, verses thirteen through eighteen:

Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good life let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom. But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth. This wisdom is not such as comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, devilish. For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice. But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, without uncertainty or insincerity. And the harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.

In other words, if you would define the actions of a "true Christian", you should disagree with others respectively and constructively, not by insult and braggadocio. All you've accomplished here is that Iowa Jim isn't going to be reacting usefully to your example any more than he is to mine -- at least I am reading all of his posts, and trying to understand his own meaning rather than assuming that he's the opposite of me. Reacting humorously, perhaps -- that bit going back and forth between him and Bladestar about Jim's wife's cat was great!

And, after all, what we're upset about today is how some folks in Georgia are setting examples for others.

-----Warning! Thread hijacking imminent! -----

In unrelated matters: Does anyone else find that the Post a Comment box, right after one signs in in order to post, already has the content of a "1" in it? Or is it just my own computer acting weird again? Thanks!

Posted by: Carl at February 9, 2005 06:49 PM

So again, I stand by the point that if even Ed Meese has the maturity not be worried about being photographed next to a pair of bronze knockers, Asscroft needs to just grow up.
--------
Hmmmmm, so many replies but I will settle for this one. One that uses a such a "highly mature" play on a person's name while claiming that person needs to grow up, sheesh, how much plainer could it be that someone else needs to grow up much worse? I mean, c'mon Den, Asscroft, wow, I bet you thought that up all by yourself, right?
Thanks for the laugh anyway...

Posted by: Jeff Mason at February 9, 2005 06:57 PM

Here's cartoonist Nick Bertozzi's response: http://www.comicsreporter.com/index.php/nick_bertozzi_on_situation_in_rome_ga/

Posted by: Darren J Hudak at February 9, 2005 07:23 PM

/// The McDonalds coffee case again?
Here's an investigation I wrote up about it

McDonalds served their coffee at temperatures that were too hot to be drinkable -- hot enough to cause full thickness burns in 2 to 7 seconds. Before Ms. Liebeck's injury, McDonalds already knew of over 700 people who had been burned by their coffee, and had ignored previous requests to store its coffee at normal restaurant temperatures.

Despite all this, McDonalds chose profits over customer safety, which is why the jury awarded punitive damages worth two days coffee sales before the judge later lowered it.

When you read the actual factual details, the only thing that seems unreasonable is McDonalds' actions. //

When you read the factual details maybe, I've read all this and I've read it all before, (everytime this debate comes up actually), and I'm still of the "it's hot" opinion. This is not based on flipancy, I know of several people personally who have been burned by coffee, (3rd degree burns in one case) and not one of them ever went "hey lets sue". I know of members of my own family who take coffee from the Mr Coffee and put it in the microwave for a minute or two because, they say, "Coffee is best served as hot as phsyically possible". I also know of at least one person who would go out of they way in the morning to get coffee at McDonalds but it was known to have the "hottest coffee around". (And were annoyed as hell when they had to turn down the heat on the coffee). So yeah, I think coffee's supposed to be hot, super hot, buring molten liquid hot, because that is what people who drink coffee, (I don't BTW, in fact I've never understood the idea of drinking "hot" liquid but to each thier own), tell me it's supposed to be. And I also think if you spill something on yourself that is hot, super hot, buring molten liquid hot, it will burn you really, really bad, and to try to blame that on someone else, no matter how badly burned you are, is stupid. If you don't want to get burned by coffee don't drink coffee.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at February 9, 2005 07:27 PM

McDonalds served their coffee at temperatures that were too hot to be drinkable -- hot enough to cause full thickness burns in 2 to 7 seconds. Before Ms. Liebeck's injury, McDonalds already knew of over 700 people who had been burned by their coffee, and had ignored previous requests to store its coffee at normal restaurant temperatures.

Despite all this, McDonalds chose profits over customer safety, which is why the jury awarded punitive damages worth two days coffee sales before the judge later lowered it.

I think your analysis is correct--McDonalds was at fault here. But my question is this--how the hell was serving undrinkably hot coffee supposed to be good for profits???

Posted by: Nytwyng at February 9, 2005 07:57 PM

Tell me, would YOU accept coffee that was 50 degrees hotter than normal? Would you drink it?

If you really mean the specific "me" and not the hypothetical "me," then...no. Not because it's "50 degrees hotter than normal." But rather, because I don't drink coffee regardless of the temperature. Don't care for the taste of the stuff. (Well, not entirely true...when I was younger, I used to drink it in a 50% coffee/50% milk & sugar ratio. That brought it down to well below "normal" temperatures, but at least gave it a taste I enjoyed.)

There's no logic to that comparison at all. Different product, intended for different use, made by a different company, and placed in contact with a different part of the body

Here's why I draw the comparison:
The coffee is not intended to be stored between the legs in an accellerating vehicle. By storing it in such a fashion, the "victim" must accept some culpability in the outcome. Likewise, the hypothetical lighter is not intended to be stored behind the ear while ignited. By storing it in such a fashion, "I" must accept some culpability in the outcome.

Lest anyone think otherwise, I feel it's a shame the woman in question was injured. However, for her to absolve herself of any and all responsibility for what happened when she was handling the coffee improperly, I feel was wrong.

Posted by: Lis Riba at February 9, 2005 07:58 PM

Darren, have any of your friends needed $20,000 medical care for the burns they suffered?
All Liebeck originally asked for was for McDonalds to help with her medical costs. When they refused, in (stories say) a rather insulting manner, only then did she go to the courts.

Bill, the rationale I heard was that by keeping the coffee hotter it stayed fresh longer, so they would have to brew coffee fewer times during the day and save money on supplies.

Posted by: Lis Riba at February 9, 2005 08:01 PM

The coffee is not intended to be stored between the legs in an accellerating vehicle. By storing it in such a fashion, the "victim" must accept some culpability in the outcome. ... her to absolve herself of any and all responsibility for what happened when she was handling the coffee improperly, I feel was wrong.

Well, guess what! Liebeck did accept some culpability and never absolved herself of all responsibility. Nor did the jury.

Quoting LectLaw:
"The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill."

Posted by: Mike Taylor at February 9, 2005 08:13 PM

I've been out of the state for the last nine years (was born and raised in Georgia), but I find this case particularly troublesome. My hope is that the CBLDF will win this case. Otherwise, things could start looking pretty grim for fandom in the South. Peter, thank you for making me aware of this.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at February 9, 2005 08:55 PM

"Bill, the rationale I heard was that by keeping the coffee hotter it stayed fresh longer, so they would have to brew coffee fewer times during the day and save money on supplies."

Thanks, that's interesting...my own taste in coffee has more to do with strength than heat. I like finely powdered mexican expresso, so strong it sends my parents, terminal Chock Full O Nuts fans, fleeing in terror. Don't really like it hot, since that just burns my tasebuds so that I can't taste the bitter expresso goodness. Frankly, I'm surprised that Mickie Dees thinks that heating it to lava temperatures makes it taste better longer but their stuff is so far removed from my idea of coffee I have to yield to their expertise in the matter.

Now Starbucks...very sweet, a bit on the acidic side, but good. They don't seem to need to make solar flares jump out of the cups to turn a tidy profit either...

Posted by: shane at February 9, 2005 08:56 PM

The "mature readers" label on a comic is

a) voluntary
b) a choice made by the publisher and/or creator (not by a third party as is the case with film ratings and music labels)
c) subject to definition (Those making the decision to use the label define what is mature content. The seller and purchaser define who is considered a mature reader.)
d) intended as an advisory, not a warning (It is mainly describing a demographic of the intended audience.)
e) Not age-specific
f) Not the same thing as an "adults only" label
g) Generally the equivalent of "parental guidance suggested"

Giving a minor a copy of a mature readers that contains nudity is no worse than letting a minor attend a preview screening of a PG film that has a nude scene (as some PG films do). Even in communities where ratings are enforced by law, this is not illegal.

Posted by: Darren J Hudak at February 9, 2005 08:58 PM

// Darren, have any of your friends needed $20,000 medical care for the burns they suffered? //

Don't know how much the medical bills were, don't really think it's really think it's realavnt actually.


// All Liebeck originally asked for was for McDonalds to help with her medical costs. When they refused, in (stories say) a rather insulting manner, only then did she go to the courts. //

Hey I admit, it would have been nice if they gave her some dough. If nothing else it would have been good customer relations, but I don't think they were under an obligation to do so. Coffee is a hot liquid, hot liquid when spilled on human skin will burn. The fact that you can willingly buy hot liquid from someplace, spill it on yourself and turn around and expect the people you, of your own free will, brought said liquid from to pay for your injuries is IMO, absurd. The fact that a court entertained this suit, and she won such a huge settlement is also absurd. Mind you, I have no huge love for the McDonalds corporation, I think the way they treat thier employees, the way they prepare thier food, and the absolutly arrogent way they sometimes act are evil, and I'd like nothing better then to see them go down but in this case I just don't think they're wrong. I would not be surprised if some in the jury voted the way they did simply because McDonalds is the big evil corporation and this was a little old woman. It happens, but I just can't do that. In my mind it would be hyprocritical to do that.

Posted by: shane at February 9, 2005 09:03 PM

Giving a minor a copy of a mature readers that contains nudity

That should say "Giving a minor a copy of a mature readers comic"

Posted by: Darren J Hudak at February 9, 2005 09:06 PM

// The coffee is not intended to be stored between the legs in an accellerating vehicle. By storing it in such a fashion, the "victim" must accept some culpability in the outcome. ... her to absolve herself of any and all responsibility for what happened when she was handling the coffee improperly, I feel was wrong.

Well, guess what! Liebeck did accept some culpability and never absolved herself of all responsibility. Nor did the jury.

Quoting LectLaw:
"The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill." //

See and that's just what I can't get around. In my mind she was 90-95% at fault, and McDonalds was about 5-10%. The idea that the person spilling the liquid on themselves bears the minority of responciblity is just out of wack. It doesn't matter how "overheated" the coffee might have been, the fact that you spilled it on yourself automatically makes you 90-100% responcible. Now if this was a case of a McDonalds employee spilling it on themselves that would be different.

Posted by: Roger Tang at February 9, 2005 09:10 PM

Don't know how much the medical bills were, don't really think it's really think it's realavnt actually.

Well, actually, they ARE quite relevant.

Bascially, you're just arguing the facts and details are irrelevant, because my mind is made up.

And if that sounds insulting, I'm sorry, but I think that's an acccurate representation of your rhetoric.

Posted by: Darren J Hudak at February 9, 2005 09:29 PM

// Don't know how much the medical bills were, don't really think it's really think it's realavnt actually. //

// Well, actually, they ARE quite relevant. //

No they're not.

// Bascially, you're just arguing the facts and details are irrelevant, because my mind is made up. //

No, I'm arguing that some facts are irrelevent, lawyers do this all the time in court. The only difference here is that this isn't a court, there's no judge and I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV. That said, I'm still entitled to my educated opinion, as are you. My educated opinion is that the cost of the medical bills don't matter, the fact that she spilt coffee on herself automatically makes her 90-100% responcible for her injuries. We wouldn't be having this discussion if a McDonald's employee spilt it on her, (and even then I might think the final dollar amount a bit excessive). Obviously the courts, (and you), disagree with me. It happens. There are many times when I disagree with court decisions I read about, I'd be surprised if you didn't as well. Hell, there are many times where I thought the corporations really should have had it handed to them by the courts, this just isn't one of those times.

// And if that sounds insulting, I'm sorry, but I think that's an acccurate representation of your rhetoric. //

And you're wrong, but I take no offence. :-)

Posted by: Mark Walsh at February 9, 2005 09:29 PM

I think we're going for a record number of posts here, people.

Posted by: Darren J Hudak at February 9, 2005 09:37 PM

// Despite all this, McDonalds chose profits over customer safety, which is why the jury awarded punitive damages worth two days coffee sales before the judge later lowered it.

I think your analysis is correct--McDonalds was at fault here. But my question is this--how the hell was serving undrinkably hot coffee supposed to be good for profits??? //

Well as I said, I know someone who used to go out of thier way to get McDonalds coffee in the morning because it was so hot. I have no reason to believe they were the only one who did, (although maybe they were), so it's possible people did drink McDonalds coffee for no other reason then it was the hottest around. If enought people did so I could see it being good for the profits.

Posted by: Roger Tang at February 9, 2005 09:40 PM

No, I'm arguing that some facts are irrelevent, lawyers do this all the time in court. The only difference here is that this isn't a court, there's no judge and I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV.

That's pretty evident. Nothing close to law; it's simply that your mind's made up and nothing's going to change it.

You're just being silly. Coffee ain't supposed to be hot enough to cause burns....and certainly not third degree burns...You're not even THINKING about what that means.

Posted by: Darren J Hudak at February 9, 2005 10:00 PM

// No, I'm arguing that some facts are irrelevent, lawyers do this all the time in court. The only difference here is that this isn't a court, there's no judge and I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV.

That's pretty evident. Nothing close to law; it's simply that your mind's made up and nothing's going to change it. //

You're wrong. And, as a wise man once said, "the law is an ass". Courts make bad decisions all the time, no two people will probably ever agree on just what are the bad decision VS what are the good decisions but that's what makes the world go around. (Hell even lawyers and judges don't always agree). I think this was a bad decision. I've said why I think it was a bad decision. Obviously you disagree. That's fine, I'm cool with that. But your attempts at mindreading are annoying and wrong.

// You're just being silly. //

No I'm actually being quite serious.

// Coffee ain't supposed to be hot enough to cause burns....and certainly not third degree burns...You're not even THINKING about what that means. //

Yes I am. I don't drink coffee, people who do tell me, that is exactly how coffee is supposed to be prepared. My sister takes coffee off of the Mr Coffee machine and puts it in the microwave because it's not hot enough, (I've seen people in my office do exactly the same thing, every day actually). My sister's burnt her lip on coffee many a time, It's yet to occur to her to sue the makers of the microwave. I said I don't drink coffe, (or anything hot) and that's true, but I do eat soup and I like said soup hot, really hot, steaming hot. Resturaunts used to serve soup steaming hot, after the McDonalds decision I've noticed that the soup at some resturaunts is no longer as hot as it used to be, (and therefor no longer as good IMO), can't help but think that's not a coincidence.

Posted by: Lis Riba at February 9, 2005 10:10 PM

You're still not getting it.

A third degree burn is one that destroys all the layers of skin, with damage deeper than hair follicles. They're sometimes referred to as a full thickness burn. Treatment often requires skin grafts (as it did in the case of Ms. Liebeck).

Food is not supposed to be served at such temperatures and I doubt any of your friends have suffered these kinds of hospitalization-requiring injuries from their food.

Posted by: David Hunt at February 9, 2005 10:12 PM

"You're just being silly. Coffee ain't supposed to be hot enough to cause burns....and certainly not third degree burns...You're not even THINKING about what that means."

Roger, first I'll say that I admit to total ignorance of the McDonalds Coffee case. That said, I'd think that if coffee was hot enough to cause third degree burns, it would impossible to drink without serious injury. Third degree burns go beyond even blisters.

What am I missing, here?

Posted by: Roger Tang at February 9, 2005 10:26 PM

Yes I am. I don't drink coffee, people who do tell me, that is exactly how coffee is supposed to be prepared.

No. It. Isn't.

THINK!!!!

If it was supposed to be that hot, then it was meant to be hot enough TO CAUSE THIRD DEGREE BURNS WHEN YOU DRINK IT.

Sorry, but that's really not the case.

Moreover, THIRD DEGREE burns are really, really, really beyond the pale to occur to a customer. They're very serious and their cause would entail a different level of handling than would a source of first degree burns.

And it's not mindreading...you just basically said the facts don't matter. You may not think that, but you said that the extent of damage was irrelevant...when the amount of damage was the key to establishing both the culpability of Macdonalds and the extent of damages to be paid.

Posted by: Roger Tang at February 9, 2005 10:33 PM

Roger, first I'll say that I admit to total ignorance of the McDonalds Coffee case. That said, I'd think that if coffee was hot enough to cause third degree burns, it would impossible to drink without serious injury. Third degree burns go beyond even blisters.

Yeah, I think that's the case. All burns are not the same (well, that's why they classify them first, second and third degree), and it's sloppy thinking to treat them the same. As Lis mentioned, you're talking about serious level injuries here, not just something that can be treated with a little Bactine and a band aid. That kind of injury requires a serious heat source and that just doesn't make coffee drinkable....

Posted by: Mark L at February 9, 2005 10:40 PM

Wow, the things you miss while traveling abroad (Tel Aviv is a bit chilly this time of year in case you are interested)...

Anyway, it's going back a few days on the posts but one of PAD's comments caught my eye:

One of the fundamentals of criminal law is state of mind. The accused has to be intending to commit a crime. But if the material isn't outlawed at the time of sale, then there would seem to be no possible criminal intent.

Besides criminal intent, there is also criminal neglect. That's how you end up with prosecutions for involuntary manslaughter and child endangerment. This case seems to be one not of intent, but neglect.

From my layman's perspective, this doesn't seem to rise to criminal neglect - unless of the several thousand comics several hundred of them were "mature" or "obscene". I don't know who was being given comics, but Halloween is generally for pre-teens, so that would be the one detail in all this that might be the most relevant.

Beyond that, this looks like a pretty silly case.

Posted by: toby at February 9, 2005 10:43 PM

Darren, I agree with you in theory that the woman holds a major chunk of responsibilty for spilling the coffee on herself, but when you factor in the coffee being so hot as to cause major physical damage, that sort of goes out the window.

I personally don't drink coffee. I actually can't physically bring myself to drink any hot liquid, and in fact I prefer all my foods, including soup, to be luke warm at best. But since you mentioned that you like extremely hot soup, think about this scenario. You order a piping hot bowl of turkey lip soup from your favorite restaurant. When it's placed in front of you, you excitedly pull your chair in closer and pick up your spoon, but in the process you bump the table and spill the entire bowl on your lap. The soup then proceeds to completely burn away your pants and undergarments, and then eats away the flesh of your thighs and naughty bits leaving large puss-filled gaping craters. IF you had actually ingested the soup, it would have disintegrated your esophogus.

Now tell me that's not different from your soup/coffee being "super hot". Super hot may turn your skin red, or cause some blistering, but it won't eat your flesh away. I've personally experienced the flesh-craters caused by a sever burn back in art school when I had a mishap with a glue gun (completely my stupidity. I pulled the trigger and the gun was jammed, so I flipped it around and pushed on the glue stick hanging out the back, which then became molten as it dripped out the nozzle onto the back of my hand. In the crater left behind I could almost make out the various layers of my skin like a cross-section of soil) and it just ain't the same as hot soup.

Monkeys.

Posted by: toby at February 9, 2005 10:55 PM

The hotness issue also comes down to a matter of expectations. I could be wrong, but I beleive there is some legal term for it all, but basically when the consumer buys something, there are certain expectations that the seller is held accountable for. For example, when you buy a car, the buyer expects the car will work unless the seller indicates otherwise before the sale. If you buy the car and it turns out it doesn't work (and you're buying it from a new/used dealership and not a scrap yard), the seller can be held accountable for that. When you buy hot foods/liquids, you expect them to be hot, in some cases hot enough to cause a MINOR burn, but not hot enough to eat your flesh away (I seem to like that phrase). Again, there is a world of difference between a minor burn and a burn that requires skin grafts and surgery. If coffee is not ordinarily that hot (too hot to be physically drinkable without causing major damage), the seller of the coffee has to indicate just how dangerous it is.

I think I'm beginning to babble again.

Monkeys.

Posted by: Darren J Hudak at February 9, 2005 10:57 PM

/// Yes I am. I don't drink coffee, people who do tell me, that is exactly how coffee is supposed to be prepared.

No. It. Isn't. //

And you may be right, other people say you're wrong. I don't drink coffee so I really have no opinion on how it should be prepared one way or the other but but I know enought people who've told me it should be that way to realize that's there's a sizable amount of people out there who like it that way, and it doesn't seem wrong to me that McDonalds sold coffee to people who like it that way.

// If it was supposed to be that hot, then it was meant to be hot enough TO CAUSE THIRD DEGREE BURNS WHEN YOU DRINK IT. //

How about a THINK back at ya. Did you ever see that sign outside of McDonalds, the one that says Billions served? (And I'm old enought to remember when that sign actually had a number on it that went up every couple of months, but I digress). If even only 10% of those served ordered a coffee, 700 complaints is still a really low number. The majority of people who brought coffee at McDonalds apparently had no issue drinking it. Hell, I knew someone who went out of thier way in the morning for the piping hot McDonalds coffee. For that matter, were there any other complant that day, from the other people who brought coffee at that McDonalds? Most McDonalds I know of do a lot of bussness at breakfast time, a lot of other people must of brought coffee from the same pot that same day yet nothing I've ever read showed any other customers that day coming forward to complain even after the lawsuit. Would seem to me that other people had no problem drinking that super hot coffee.

// Moreover, THIRD DEGREE burns are really, really, really beyond the pale to occur to a customer. They're very serious and their cause would entail a different level of handling than would a source of first degree burns. //

I know what third degree burns are, I've even said that it would have been good customer relations if McDonalds paid the womans bills. I just don't think they should have been required to by law. That's where you and I disagree.

// And it's not mindreading...you just basically said the facts don't matter. //

Really, where exactly did I say that? I said that some facts are irrealvent, IMO, (or at least not as realivent as other fact). Our legal system does that all the time. Lawyers argue that evidence isn't relevent, testomony isn't relevent, etc. Sometimes the judge and juries agree with them, sometimes they don't.

// You may not think that, but you said that the extent of damage was irrelevant...//

You're taking what I said out of context. I said the damage was irrelevent because she spilt the coffee on herself. To me the important part of that sentence is the part about spilling the coffee on herself. That's an accident, a regrettable one and I'm sorry the woman was injured, but I honestly do not believe McDonalds was to blame for her injuries. It would have been nice if McDonalds paid the woman and I would have been the first one to applaud them if they did, but I honestly do not think they should have been forced by a court to pay her. Obviously you disagree with that, fine, agree to disagree and let's move on.

Posted by: Darren J Hudak at February 9, 2005 11:09 PM

// Darren, I agree with you in theory that the woman holds a major chunk of responsibilty for spilling the coffee on herself, but when you factor in the coffee being so hot as to cause major physical damage, that sort of goes out the window.

I personally don't drink coffee. I actually can't physically bring myself to drink any hot liquid, and in fact I prefer all my foods, including soup, to be luke warm at best. But since you mentioned that you like extremely hot soup, think about this scenario. You order a piping hot bowl of turkey lip soup from your favorite restaurant. When it's placed in front of you, you excitedly pull your chair in closer and pick up your spoon, but in the process you bump the table and spill the entire bowl on your lap. The soup then proceeds to completely burn away your pants and undergarments, and then eats away the flesh of your thighs and naughty bits leaving large puss-filled gaping craters. IF you had actually ingested the soup, it would have disintegrated your esophogus.

Now tell me that's not different from your soup/coffee being "super hot". Super hot may turn your skin red, or cause some blistering, but it won't eat your flesh away. I've personally experienced the flesh-craters caused by a sever burn back in art school when I had a mishap with a glue gun (completely my stupidity. I pulled the trigger and the gun was jammed, so I flipped it around and pushed on the glue stick hanging out the back, which then became molten as it dripped out the nozzle onto the back of my hand. In the crater left behind I could almost make out the various layers of my skin like a cross-section of soil) and it just ain't the same as hot soup. //

The situation you describe would be an accident and totally my fault. Soup, served properly, IMO, should be boiling hot (or hotter) and cool in front of you and take a damm long time to eat for just that reason. I know you probaly think I'm making this up but that is indeed how I cook it myself. (I eat microavable soup at lunch, the container says to cook it for 2 minutes, I cook it for 4-5, takes me a good 45 minutes to eat it. And I am very, very carful carrying said soup back to my desk, so I don't burn myself or others).

Posted by: Darren J Hudak at February 9, 2005 11:15 PM

//

A third degree burn is one that destroys all the layers of skin, with damage deeper than hair follicles. They're sometimes referred to as a full thickness burn. Treatment often requires skin grafts (as it did in the case of Ms. Liebeck). //

I know what a 3rd degree burn is. I still don't agree with you.


// Food is not supposed to be served at such temperatures and I doubt any of your friends have suffered these kinds of hospitalization-requiring injuries from their food. //

A former co-worker got a third degree burn on her leg after dropping a coffee pot and was rushed to the emergancy room, she was out of work for weeks. She didn't sue the office but then again they paid her bills. Doesn't change the fact that I still disagree with you and the courts.

Posted by: Darren J Hudak at February 9, 2005 11:31 PM

// The hotness issue also comes down to a matter of expectations. I could be wrong, but I beleive there is some legal term for it all, but basically when the consumer buys something, there are certain expectations that the seller is held accountable for. For example, when you buy a car, the buyer expects the car will work unless the seller indicates otherwise before the sale. If you buy the car and it turns out it doesn't work (and you're buying it from a new/used dealership and not a scrap yard), the seller can be held accountable for that. When you buy hot foods/liquids, you expect them to be hot, in some cases hot enough to cause a MINOR burn, but not hot enough to eat your flesh away (I seem to like that phrase). Again, there is a world of difference between a minor burn and a burn that requires skin grafts and surgery. If coffee is not ordinarily that hot (too hot to be physically drinkable without causing major damage), the seller of the coffee has to indicate just how dangerous it is. //

Well, I've been told that it was known that McDonalds had the hottest coffee around, (and didn't they didn't used to have an advertisement to that effect at one point way back when). But I see your point. I would still argue that the woman bears the majority of the responciblity you may have made me rethink the percentages.

Posted by: Daniel M. Suh at February 10, 2005 12:10 AM

And you may be right, other people say you're wrong. I don't drink coffee so I really have no opinion on how it should be prepared one way or the other but but I know enought people who've told me it should be that way to realize that's there's a sizable amount of people out there who like it that way, and it doesn't seem wrong to me that McDonalds sold coffee to people who like it that way.

Having once worked in a restaurant for several years, I can assure you that restaurants and fast food establishments are indeed liable for the items they serve to customers. Coffee or soup hot enough to cause third degree burns on a person's body is every bit as dangerous and accountable as meat infested with salmonella. It's like serving cyanide or Drano to a customer. It's completely stupid and dangerous and any restaurant that does so deserves to be sued.

How about a THINK back at ya. Did you ever see that sign outside of McDonalds, the one that says Billions served?

Please don't tell me you actually accept that slogan as truth.

If even only 10% of those served ordered a coffee, 700 complaints is still a really low number..

How many complaints do there have to be? One horrific incident is more than enough, as any restaurant owner or lawyer will gladly tell you.

You're taking what I said out of context. I said the damage was irrelevent because she spilt the coffee on herself. To me the important part of that sentence is the part about spilling the coffee on herself.

And the restaurant patron who consumes expired meat and ends up being rushed to the E.R. with food poisoning ate that meat himself, so it's all his own fault too, right? God forbid the restaurant be held accountable for the items it serves.

Posted by: Joe Krolik at February 10, 2005 01:10 AM

I read the first 20 or so postings regarding this matter. I will read the rest later but for the time being I'd like to play devil's advocate and make 2 points:
1.) Has it occurred to anyone that the act of charging Gordon could have been deliberate on the part of person or persons? I bring this up only because the minor is not identified which would lead me to believe that the parent(s) is (are) not identified. If this is the case, how can the complainant prove that he or she was in fact in the store on that date and that his or her child was given the book as opposed to just taking it from a table? Or is there a more sinister motive going on here? I find it extremely difficult to believe that even the most conservative parent would go to this length in such a situation.
This seems to be a case of "he said, she said" but with far-reaching consequences.

which brings point 2: Aside from the possible legal implications and of course the impact on Gordon's life and livelihood, another very sad prospect comes from the fact that the general public might likely perceive ALL comic books and related material to be unsuitable or worse. You must remember that we who comment on this blog, whether liberal or conservative, agreeing or disagreeing on the law's premise, are comics fans. Our perception is colored by this fact. The layman reading of this case in the paper or seeing it on the nightly news (if it gets to that) might have a far different perception. If the population as a whole could be correctly drawn along conservative and liberal lines with reference to the election, that's one heck of a lot of folks who might paint comics with one big negative brush. Somewhere Dr. Wertham is probably chuckling at this very moment.....

Posted by: Novafan at February 10, 2005 01:13 AM

So let me get this straight.

Picasso's penis was melted by hot McDonalds coffee, which is why CBLDF is defending the Comic book store owner.

Man, Peter is really selective in the cases they represent nowadays.

:0)

Posted by: Jeff In NC at February 10, 2005 05:08 AM

No, no, no. A "parent" saw a comic book with a penis in it, spilled their coffee and made a crater out of their child while some people argued that Juan Valdez should be sued because he picked the coffee beans.

Chances are, he'll lose his ass.

Sorry...it's been a long day.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at February 10, 2005 06:42 AM

I thought the story was that John Ashcroft's penis accidentally knocked over a hot cup of coffee on some kid's comic book. Probably his copy of Watchmen. Well, I'd be pissed too...

Posted by: Darren J Hudak at February 10, 2005 07:17 AM

/// How about a THINK back at ya. Did you ever see that sign outside of McDonalds, the one that says Billions served?

Please don't tell me you actually accept that slogan as truth. //

In this case yes actually I do. Consider MD's is the biggest resturaunt chain in the world. I've never liked McDonalds all that much, (even as a kid, I always perfered Burger King or KFC), but even I couldn't begin to count the amount of times I've eaten in a McDonalds over the course of my lifetime. If I had to take a guess I would say over a 100 times easily. Someone who actually likes MD's could easily have eaten there 2-3 maybe even 10 times as much over the course of thier lifetimes. Multiply that over a few million people, over dozens of countries in the world and you can easily come to a number of several billion. Plus, as I've said, I'm old enought to remember when that sign didn't say billions served, there was an actual number that went up periodically. When they got to a billion, (sometime in the 80's if memory serves) they stopped counting and it became a billion, sometime later it became billions. At some time you get so big you don't bother to count anymore.

Posted by: Den at February 10, 2005 08:55 AM

One that uses a such a "highly mature" play on a person's name while claiming that person needs to grow up, sheesh, how much plainer could it be that someone else needs to grow up much worse?

But you see, I'm not the AG, nor am I spending thousands of taxpayers money just so I don't have to be photographed in front of a naughty bronze statue. I don't claim to be anything other than just another obnoxious net-geek with an opinion.

Posted by: Bladestar at February 10, 2005 09:14 AM

So what is he called him "Asscroft"? Granted the position of S and H on the standard keyboard make it highly unlikely that it was a simple typo, but also rebmember this about Pope Asshole, er, Ashcroft:

The man LOST an election on his home turf...TO A DEAD MAN!

Ashcroft has no business in any government position. He was failure at getting elected, so his buddy GW did an end run around the elction system and took him national in an appointed (non-elected) position...)

Posted by: Bobb at February 10, 2005 09:43 AM

I miss a day and find a trainwreck....some derailment, indeed. Let me help...

Implied warranty of merchantability is the legal term that says that goods put on the market are assummed to be in good working order, and safe for their intended use. In the case of food, I'd say that comsumability without fear of potentially life-threatening injury is one of the things people assume of their food.

The "harmful substance" test mentioned above is something I've never heard before, and I don't think it works. Let me switch products to test it.

Say you go to Sears to purchase an appliance. You end up buying an oven range. The first time you use it, you unintentionally place you hand on the burner, suffering injury. Under the "harmful substance" test, Sears would be partially liable. They could have sold you a dishwasher, washer/dryer, or refridgerator, each of which would not have caused the injury the range did. Thus, Sears "injected" the element of danger (there as some problems with this as a parallel, as McD heated the coffee, while the range owner turned on the heat).

A better test is a concept courts call proximate cause. You basically start with the injury, and look backwards in time until you find some intervening event that ends the chain of liability. Was it a reasonable conclusion that, if McDs served coffee 50 degrees hotter than allows safe consumption, someone might spill it on themselves and suffer serious burns? If yes, then McDs can be held liable. The chain starts with McDs, as most would say that the coffee supplier has a reasonable expectation that McDs will not serve dangerous coffee.

Proximate cause also can (and in this case seems it was) be used to assign proportionate liability. The woman in this case was deemed to be 20% liable, probably because she knew that coffee is normally served hot, and she was in a car, and thus assumed some responsibility to handle the coffee carefully in order to prevent it from spilling. Only 20% because McDs serving temperature was unreasonable.

And to the suggestion that she could or should have named the relative driving the car? She *could* have. And the jury would have been well within their rights to asign some liability to the driver (and in fact may have, in coming up with that 20% figure). But the point is, as a plaintiff, you get to choose who you sue. Only very rarely would a third party get added. McD's could have countersued the driver, I supposed, but can you imagine the press that would get? About as much positive press the City of Chicago is getting for suing a survivor of last year's porch collapse.

Posted by: Robbnn at February 10, 2005 11:25 AM

Boy, I'm glad I wasn't on that jury. I can see both sides of the argument and both have merit. I haven't eaten a hot meal at McDonald's in 8 years, because by the time I get my kids settled with their meals, my fries are cold (best fries in the world when hot, worst ten minutes later when cold). I don't drink coffee, however. Apparently, though, if I ordered coffee, got my kids settled in (or drove home/to work) my coffee would still be hot. So McD's keeps it hot.

I don't drive anywhere with hot liquid between my legs, but then, my car has cup holders.

Still, spilling was an accident, a stupid-but-understandable accident.

Eh, I'd probably award doctor and lawyer bills with no punitive... but she was an old lady, if memory serves, so maybe I would go punitive.

And a lot of people are now drinking tepid coffee at McD's (and I can't get a super-sized meal anymore, either, so I can have A LOT of cold fries)...

There's good reason I've never been awarded jury duty...

Posted by: cliff biggers at February 10, 2005 03:05 PM

I didn't post or say anything about this until I was able to track down a few more facts. I spoke with the Rome, GA, district attorney today, and got some more information. First, the child who received the book was nine years old, and the book was allegedly given directly to the child during a "Trick or Treat on Broad Street" event that evening and was not given to a parent or an intermediary ( I had seen some questions about that). Second, it has been reported in some places the Gordon's earlier conviction for distribution of obscene materials was reversed on appeal, but the DA said that is not the case, and has forwarded Lexis/Nexis documents verifying that the conviction was upheld.

I know Gordon, and I like Gordon; I think he made a mistake in distributing this book. I don't think it was intentional, by any means. However, I can say quite honestly that I would not want this book placed into the hands of a young child, and I would never have considered distributing it in a Halloween giveaway. WE give out hundreds of comics every Halloween, and I we have three different employees sort through those books to verify taht the material we are giving out is all ages appropriate; we also offer an assortment of books to each child to allow him/her to choose a book that he/she would like.

The fact that Gordon has an earlier conviction for distributing obscene materials may have led to the decision to arrest him once this complaint was made; that is entirely my speculation, and is not based on anything that Ms. Patterson, the district attorney, had to say. It seems logical, though, that the police would be more likely to respond to a case involving a store whose owner has already been convicted in the past of distributing obscene materials.

No decision to arraign has been made as of this time, I was told.

I do not have a copy of the Alternative Press comic in question in front of me, but I am told by a third party who has a book that there is a blurb or balloon in one point in the book referring to something sexual and that there is either a reference or a comment about masturbation in the book as well. Can anyone verify, dismiss, or elucidate on those claims?

Posted by: Ken at February 10, 2005 03:38 PM

To see a copy of the part that Cliff is referencing go to www.comicon.com/pulse .

It is definitely pornographic, if not obscene, and should never have been given to a child.

Posted by: Powell Pugh at February 10, 2005 04:11 PM

So what was the obscene material that Gordon was convicted of distributing before? The only reference I can find is a bibliography note of The Comics Journal #175, which came out in 1995.

Posted by: Mark at February 10, 2005 05:06 PM

Cliff: Thanks for taking the initiative and doing some homework on this case. The facts you provided certainly give us a better picture of what happened, which makes things sound more problematic for Mr. Lee. A nine year old was given this dreck? Pathetic.

To see the panels of the story that are [i]thuoght[/i] to be at issue, I've pasted a link below. As you know, there's stuff that some may find offensive, so consider yourself warned:

http://www.comicon.com/pulse/images_ts/altcomics_salonpage.gif

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at February 10, 2005 05:08 PM

I don't see how the panels in question could be considered pornographic or obscene. Definitely a bone headed thing to give to a 9 year old but I don't think anyone is disputing that. A mistake was made but one that could be easily corrected without anyone going to jail. Jeeze, give the kid a lifetime subscription to Archie Presents: Veronica or something, unless there's some chance taht a copy of Cherry Poptart will accidentally be given to him.

So what was the obscene material that Gordon was convicted of distributing before? The only reference I can find is a bibliography note of The Comics Journal #175, which came out in 1995.

According to the site given above:
In 1993, he was found guilty of "distributing obscene materials" for selling copies of the Aircel comics Final Tabu and Debbie Does Dallas to adult customers. That conviction was successfully reversed on appeal

Those proabbaly WOULD be considered porno comics but if an adult wants them, so be it. I don't think that bogus case should have any bearing on this one.

Posted by: Powell Pugh at February 10, 2005 05:13 PM

Nevermind. Comicon was down for a while but I got my answer. Gordon's 1993 case was one of adult comics being sold to adults, whereas this is a matter of an adult comic being accidentally given to a kid.

Seems to me like this is just people being struck with massive a case of the dumb-ass. Not only Georgia's antiquated and arbitrarily applied "nudity=obscenity" law, and Gordon's letting something like this slip through the cracks (especially after a previous smack from the smut police), but also on Jeff Mason's part for putting material of that explicit nature into a free promotional giveaway in the first place.

I don't buy the excuse of doing so because "it's the nature of our line." Many retailers aren't going to pay attention to disclaimers, or even screen the actual comics, and just set out whatever they're given. Watch the disclaimer before movie trailers: "The following PREVIEW has been approved for all audiences." Even in the trailers for R-rated movies there are no f-bombs and no tits or dicks flopping around. It's just common sense.

What a shame that a retailer has to take all the heat for such an irresponsible publisher and untalented cartoonist.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at February 10, 2005 05:36 PM

Here's what the article on Comicon.com say:

"This new course of events is also the second CBLDF case involving Gordon Lee. In 1993, he was found guilty of "distributing obscene materials" for selling copies of the Aircel comics Final Tabu and Debbie Does Dallas to adult customers. That conviction was successfully reversed on appeal."

Distributing obscene materials to adults? Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Posted by: Iowa Jim at February 10, 2005 06:35 PM

Thanks, Ken, for posting the link that gave far more details and a copy of the panels in question. While the pictures are not of a graphic act, when combined with the text, it is far more than just a portrayal of a male who happens to be nude. This is NOT just a case of a kid being handed a picture of a simple nude male (such as can be found in a science textbook, pictures of great art, a dictionary, or even some issues of National Geographic), and to compare it to such a work is to divorce the picture from its context. This is a comic book that clearly had strong sexual content.

While a case can be made that a mature adult should have the freedom to buy such a comic book, this particular case did not come about because of such an event. While I take the owner at his word that this was an accident, it is still his responsibility to make sure a mature comic is not handed out to a kid. (I am sorry, the excuse that he was giving out thousands is just that -- an excuse. It does not change the fact that it was his responsibility.)

While some of you would not care if your 9 year old kid saw this comic book, there are many reasonable, rational, sane parents who would disagree. To make this into a true threat to free speech is to blow this case out of proportion and to miss its original context.

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Jonathan (the other one) at February 10, 2005 07:16 PM

"Strong sexual content"???

If you mean the line about "masturbating", 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 masturbation". If you mean the nudity, for crying out loud, grow up already!!

Now, I will say that if Gordon knew at the time that these panels were present in the book, he should have been careful to pull all the copies from the offer, given that the offer was apparently specifically to children. However, it is entirely possible that he had not in fact read the book, and was unaware that it contained drawings of nekkid folkses and a mildly naughty word (as well as a slightly stronger one, albeit in Spanish...). It should have been sufficient for the parent in question to come to the store, demand to see the manager, shake the book in his face, then perhaps throw it dramatically while exiting. Involving the police was unnecessary. The charges preferred by the DA, of course, are merely ludicrous.

Posted by: Ken at February 10, 2005 07:59 PM

If you mean the line about "masturbating", it seems pretty obvious to me from context that it was the model's sarcastic commentary on Picasso's painting style,

The panel has a building full of naked people, one with a child on his back, the lady says,"Follow the sound. He's in there masterbating.", then in the same panel the sounds coming from that room are "ENHHH... ENHHHH..." , leading us to believe that he is doing what she just claimed he is doing.

a mildly naughty word

Since when is the f-word a mildly naughty word??? Seems to me that it is at the top of the strongly offensive word list.

I think, whether you believe it just or not, the prosecution's case is strong.

Posted by: Roger Tang at February 10, 2005 08:47 PM

I think, whether you believe it just or not, the prosecution's case is strong.

Hm. I've come across ERZNOZNIK v. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, which specifically says that banning nudity for minors is not an allowable state power, because you have to show that it's obscene, and not just objectionable.

Posted by: cliff biggers at February 10, 2005 09:16 PM

Hmm... I've read Erzoznik v. City of Jacksonville, and that's not what it says at all, based on my reading. It says that a municipality cannot ban a drive-in theater from showing films banning nudity simply because it is possible that said nudity might be viewed from a public area. The only mention of minors is found here: "Nor can the ordinance be justified as an exercise of the city's police power for the protection of children against viewing the films. Even assuming that such is its purpose, the restriction is broader than permissible. since it is not directed against sexually explicit nudity or otherwise limited..." I'm not a lawyer, but I would guess the nuances of the two cases would determine that this would not set a precedent. I've also been told that the Georgia law barring unsolicited distribution of material featuring nudity, etc., has been upheld in other rulings, although I haven't verified that and I can't cite cases. Can anyone offer any legal information regarding that?

cliff biggers

Posted by: Darren J Hudak at February 10, 2005 09:35 PM

// a mildly naughty word

Since when is the f-word a mildly naughty word??? Seems to me that it is at the top of the strongly offensive word list. //

It was knocked off the top of the list by the N Word in 1995 and currently has the number three spot right behind the C Word. Conservitive viewers are really hoping the L word makes it up to the top 10 this year but it would have to jump over the S word which has been steadily moving up in recent years.

Posted by: wolfmanzoz at February 10, 2005 09:59 PM

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.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at February 10, 2005 10:23 PM

Conservitive viewers are really hoping the L word makes it up to the top 10 this year

Which one? Lesbian or liberal? :)

Posted by: Lis Riba at February 10, 2005 10:58 PM

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.

Posted by: Eric Qel-Droma at February 10, 2005 10:59 PM

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? Hell, 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

Posted by: Roger Tang at February 10, 2005 11:08 PM

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.

Posted by: Iowa Jim at February 11, 2005 12:23 AM

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? Hell, 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

Posted by: Eric Qel-Droma at February 11, 2005 01:23 AM

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

Posted by: Eric Qel-Droma at February 11, 2005 01:24 AM

"It was dumb" is meant to refer to Gordon's mistake, just to clarify.

Posted by: Joe Krolik at February 11, 2005 01:36 AM

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: mike weber at February 11, 2005 05:31 AM

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.

Posted by: Darren J Hudak at February 11, 2005 05:44 AM

// 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.

Posted by: Den at February 11, 2005 08:42 AM

(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

Posted by: Bobb at February 11, 2005 08:58 AM

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.

Posted by: Brad at February 11, 2005 09:24 AM

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.

Posted by: Robbnn at February 11, 2005 09:30 AM

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."

Posted by: Bobb at February 11, 2005 10:20 AM

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.

Posted by: Eric Qel-Droma at February 11, 2005 11:38 AM

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.

Posted by: JosephW at February 11, 2005 12:11 PM

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 dicks 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 dicks" 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).

Posted by: Iowa Jim at February 11, 2005 01:39 PM

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

Posted by: Iowa Jim at February 11, 2005 02:05 PM

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

Posted by: Bobb at February 11, 2005 02:24 PM

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.

Posted by: Bobb at February 11, 2005 02:30 PM

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.

Posted by: Nytwyng at February 11, 2005 02:44 PM

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."

Posted by: Eric Qel-Droma at February 11, 2005 02:54 PM

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

Posted by: Eric Qel-Droma at February 11, 2005 03:05 PM

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

Posted by: Roger Tang at February 11, 2005 03:51 PM

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?

Posted by: Roger Tang at February 11, 2005 04:00 PM

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]   v. Des Moines School Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969), and only in relatively narrow and well-defined circumstances may government bar public dissemination of protected materials to them. See, e. g., Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 390 U.S. 676, 1968 ); Rabeck v. New York, 391 U.S. 462 (1968).

In this case, assuming the ordinance is aimed at prohibiting youths from viewing the films, the restriction is broader than permissible. The ordinance is not directed against sexually explicit nudity, nor is it otherwise limited. Rather, it sweepingly forbids display of all films containing any uncovered buttocks or breasts, irrespective of context or pervasiveness. Thus it would bar a film containing a picture of a baby's buttocks, the nude body of a war victim, or scenes from a culture in which nudity is indigenous. The ordinance also might prohibit newsreel scenes of the opening of an art exhibit as well as shots of bathers on a beach. Clearly all nudity cannot be deemed obscene even as to minors. See Ginsberg v. New York, supra. 10 Nor can such a broad restriction be justified by any other governmental interest pertaining to minors. Speech that is neither obscene as to youths nor subject to some other legitimate proscription cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable [422 U.S. 205, 214]   for them. In most circumstances, 11 the values protected by the First Amendment are no less applicable when government seeks to control the flow of information to minors. See Tinker v. Des Moines School Dist., supra. Cf. West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943). Thus, if Jacksonville's ordinance is intended to regulate expression accessible to minors it is overbroad in its proscription. 12  

Posted by: Bobb at February 11, 2005 04:21 PM

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.

Posted by: Iowa Jim at February 11, 2005 04:30 PM

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

Posted by: Iowa Jim at February 11, 2005 04:34 PM

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

Posted by: Eric Qel-Droma at February 11, 2005 04:35 PM

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

Posted by: Eric Qel-Droma at February 11, 2005 04:37 PM

Playboy isn't really the issue here.

That's what I meant.

Posted by: Iowa Jim at February 11, 2005 04:42 PM

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

Posted by: Iowa jim at February 11, 2005 04:49 PM

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

Posted by: Eric Qel-Droma at February 11, 2005 06:24 PM

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

Posted by: eclark1849 at February 11, 2005 06:50 PM

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.

Posted by: Bobb at February 11, 2005 07:35 PM

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.

Posted by: Nytwyng at February 12, 2005 02:51 AM

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?"

Posted by: Bobb at February 12, 2005 08:04 AM

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.

Posted by: eclark1849 at February 12, 2005 08:27 AM

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".

Posted by: eclark1849 at February 12, 2005 08:31 AM

I should point out that the previous is only my opinion, of course. I could be wrong.

Posted by: wayena at February 12, 2005 10:11 AM

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.

Posted by: Nytwyng at February 12, 2005 10:25 AM

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.)

Posted by: Novafan at February 12, 2005 12:04 PM

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.

Posted by: Mark L. at February 12, 2005 01:13 PM

If you mean the line about "masturbating", 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 masturbation". 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.

Posted by: Nytwyng at February 12, 2005 02:13 PM

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?

Posted by: Iowa Jim at February 12, 2005 02:21 PM

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

Posted by: Powell Pugh at February 12, 2005 06:27 PM

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.

Posted by: eclark1849 at February 12, 2005 07:56 PM

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?

Posted by: Ram at February 12, 2005 09:57 PM

that is the biggest load of shit i have ever heard

Posted by: Nytwyng at February 12, 2005 11:30 PM

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.

I get what you're saying, but my question doesn't pertain to the content...it pertains to whether the book (regardless of content) was - as the law being misapplied states - "unsolicited." If one attends a promoted, giveaway, "trick-or-treat" event, and receives the advertised giveaway, even if it's ultimately taken away as "inappropriate," was that giveaway "unsolicited."

(In the "Boo at the Zoo" example, while we did indeed turn down at least one item that was plainly and foreseablyl obnoxious, I'd say that, even with that blasted whistle declined, it wasn't "unsolicited," as we took our son to "Boo at the Zoo" specifically for the trick-or-treat "loot.")

Particularly in the case of "trick-or-treat" events, it would appear that most parents (ourselves included, for better or for worse) opt to get all the "loot," then weed out the proverbial chaff at home and pass the rest along to the little ones. (I don't recall from any of the articles...did the parents in this case call the police during such a "weeding" process, or did they catch a glimpse while the 9-year-old was perusing the book?)

Short form (I know...too late), I'm just curious as to whether one can simultaneously expect to receive (or at least be offered) an item (in this case, a free comic) and maintain that it was unsolicited when/if the situation goes south.

Posted by: eclark1849 at February 12, 2005 11:34 PM

Hey, if you want to be civil, point out what you disagree with and we can debate. If not, its my opinion, not yours, so screw you.

Posted by: Iowa Jim at February 13, 2005 12:07 AM

Short form (I know...too late), I'm just curious as to whether one can simultaneously expect to receive (or at least be offered) an item (in this case, a free comic) and maintain that it was unsolicited when/if the situation goes south.

Since I get all sorts of unsolicited other junk in the mail, my guess is that the answer is yes. The law was not saying you could not receive anything unsolicited, but was clearly aimed at the consumer not being given sexual content and/or nudity unsolicited.

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Nytwyng at February 13, 2005 02:36 AM

Since I get all sorts of unsolicited other junk in the mail, my guess is that the answer is yes. The law was not saying you could not receive anything unsolicited, but was clearly aimed at the consumer not being given sexual content and/or nudity unsolicited.

I get that's what it's saying. But that's where my question comes in. (Maybe I'm just not getting the core of the question out properly. It happens. ) If the material - regardless of the content - is received as part of a publicized giveaway promotion, that the recipient attended specifically or primarily so as to receive the giveaway(s) offered (and, again, I don't recall anything to say that the 9-year-old in question was or was not necessarily there for that reason...I'm mainly just thinkin' "out loud"), can we really say the receipt of the item was "unsolicited." After all...the recipient went with the intent of receiving the giveaway.

(Hey, if the DA's gonna split hairs about it, selectively and creatively interpreting the law in question, why not us, too? )

Posted by: Jon at February 13, 2005 02:44 AM

And just to throw this conversation even more off topic...

Anyone remember awhile ago that there was a bet made on this board that the draft would be reinstated?

Apparantly it's getting close.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/6862691?pageid=rs.Politics&pageregion=single4&rnd=1108279324953&has-player=true&version=6.0.8.1024

Posted by: Mitch Evans at February 13, 2005 10:36 AM

Personally, I would find Mr. Gordon Lee guilty. Guilty of being an imperfect human being that sometimes makes mistakes just like every other human being. I'd sentence him to a thorough talking to about monitoring the content made available at these events.

The prosecutor, on the other hand, would be utterly chided for throwing a handfull of charges at the wall to see what sticks.

What I see in this case is a symptom of a bigger problem. The Cult of the Child* (CotC)is at it again. Children are treated by this cult as a political tool and as if they are the most fragile things in existance. Children are constantly underestimated in their ability to cope with new situations and information. I'm willing to bet that, more often than not, a nine-year-old accidentally exposed to something like the comic book in question will understand it's context better than over-protective adults would like to believe. Hell, the kid will probably get a chuckle out of it!

But hey, far better to put blinders on the childs eyes lest they are exposed to something they likely already know about. The CotC, I believe, consists of people who are affraid to let children grow and learn from experience. This is why we have mandatory bicycle helmets and play dates.

I'm not suggesting that children have free reign or that we, as adults, expose them to all manner of material. But, dammit, do we have to constantly berate them by our actions? The child in question probably thinks his parents don't trust him now. I bet that hurts.

Hey, the child in question is READING!!Wouldn't that be a step in the right direction? Hell, alot of the adults I know don't read and can't spell worth a damn.

Here's something to think about: Does anyone else remember a time when parents needed their kids to operate the VCR? Did these parents also have trouble operating an audio cassette player? Children aren't stupid. They do, however, run the risk of being kept ignorant for far too long by people who would shelter instead of nurture. Then when the world hits that kid like a brick in the face they can just say "Life isn't easy."

So, yeah, let's blind the child.

And shame on Mr. Lee for getting involved in an event would bring the community together for whatever reason. (WARNING: Sarcasm Ahead) This kind of activity cannot be allowed to continue. Mr. Lee must be sacrificed in the name of the CotC. After we ruin his bussines financially we must break out the windows and torch his merchandise. Then we can find his home, burn a cross on his front lawn**, and have him and his family deported to Michigan. Then our children will be safe. Except from us.

*Thanks to George carlin for coining the phrase "Cult of the Child."

**Thanks to religous extremists in the KKK for makeing cross burning a popular visualization. Nah... Screw the KKK and all they stand for.

Posted by: Loren at February 13, 2005 10:50 AM

[b]But if it held, and he's convicted again, and the jury is allowed to consider prior convictions, then a harsher sentence is likely.[/b]

Juries don't sentence defendants. Judges do.

And actual jail time is highly unlikely. Even if Mr. Lee were convicted, most any judge would give him probation, at the most. Probation is incredibly common in Georgia in lieu of jailtime.

[b]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.

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.[/b]

It wasn't. You're confusing two different statutes. The prior conviction was for "Distributing Obscene Materials" (OCGA 16-12-80, a misdemeanor). The "Unsolicited Mailing of Nudity" statute is 16-12-81, a felony. Different laws, different standards.

And the "Distribution to a Minor" statute is a THIRD law, 16-12-103.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at February 13, 2005 10:51 AM

Anyone remember awhile ago that there was a bet made on this board that the draft would be reinstated?

Apparantly it's getting close.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/6862691?pageid=rs.Politics&pageregion=single4&rnd=1108279324953&has-player=true&version=6.0.8.1024


Nothing much new there...when someone with a little more clout than Charlie Rangel starts pushing for it I'll listen. Until then, I'd say the ones betting against the reinstatement are on solid ground right now.

All paranoia and Bush Bashing aside, since there is an election every two years, when exactly do you think that the Republicans are going to try to get something as unpopular as the draft through congress? Where are the votes going to come from?

Not. Gonna. Happen.

Posted by: Iowa Jim at February 13, 2005 01:36 PM

Juries don't sentence defendants. Judges do.

I don't know Georgia, but in other states (such as Texas), the jury does at least recommend a sentence. So the jury can have a say in the matter.

And actual jail time is highly unlikely. Even if Mr. Lee were convicted, most any judge would give him probation, at the most. Probation is incredibly common in Georgia in lieu of jailtime.

Based on the stated facts of the case, I would think there would be no jail time. Having just read a story where a drunk driver hit a womoan, leaving her forever harmed and unable to talk for 20 years, and he only got 6 months, clearly a sentence of 3 years would not fit the "crime."

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Iowa Jim at February 13, 2005 01:41 PM

What I see in this case is a symptom of a bigger problem. The Cult of the Child* (CotC)is at it again. Children are treated by this cult as a political tool and as if they are the most fragile things in existance. Children are constantly underestimated in their ability to cope with new situations and information.

I can see your point. But I also see the other side. I have dealt with the victims of abuse. And the sexual abuse can start with something as simple as showing a kid a nude picture. The fact that the law is perhaps misapplied in this case does not mean a law protecting kids is a bad idea. In fact, they are an essential tool in protecting kids from true predators. The harm done, even in the early stages of abuse, does not easily go away.

Iowa Jim

Posted by: bryan white at February 13, 2005 01:48 PM

Mitch Evans wrote

....and have him and his family deported to Michigan. ....

Why would deporting someone to Michigan make everyone else safe? I like it here

bryan (who doesn't think he was deported to Michigan)

Posted by: eclark1849 at February 13, 2005 03:29 PM

I get what you're saying, but my question doesn't pertain to the content...it pertains to whether the book (regardless of content) was - as the law being misapplied states - "unsolicited." If one attends a promoted, giveaway, "trick-or-treat" event, and receives the advertised giveaway, even if it's ultimately taken away as "inappropriate," was that giveaway "unsolicited."

Nytwing, there's an easy enough standard to apply to answer your question. Ask yourself why are you there? If you were just shopping for comic books and you probably would have been there anyway regardless of the giveaway, then the answer is "yes", it was unsolicited. If you are there specifically because of the giveaway, in other words, absent the incentive of the giveaway you either would not shop or otherwise be in that store, then the answer is "no" the giveaway is not unsolicited. Hope that helps.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at February 13, 2005 05:32 PM

Not. Gonna. Happen.

Keep telling yourself that and maybe one day you'll believe it.

But then, it's YOUR President that has threatened military action against Iran (regardless of what little Condi, filling in for Powell, says).

Posted by: Mitch Evans at February 13, 2005 06:30 PM

Iowa Jim: "I can see your point. But I also see the other side. I have dealt with the victims of abuse. And the sexual abuse can start with something as simple as showing a kid a nude picture. The fact that the law is perhaps misapplied in this case does not mean a law protecting kids is a bad idea. In fact, they are an essential tool in protecting kids from true predators. The harm done, even in the early stages of abuse, does not easily go away."

Hiya Jim,

I don't disagree with protecting children from predators at all. I recognize that such laws prevent harm. Rather I take issue with the CotC zealots whose actions make such laws more a burden on society than a tool to keep children safe. Let us assume that this case goes too far and Mr. Lee is found guilty. Would he then be put in a sex offender database and then required to register every three months? Would that be justice or extremism?

I believe, and if I'm understanding your position correctly you do as well, that this case started with what may have been a disproportionate response, either by the childs parents or by the prosecutor (hard to say without witnessing it). A disproportionate response by people with power, such as a judge, could turn this case into a gross miscarriage of justice. All "for the children." We wouldn't be protecting children. We'd be punishing a man for making an honest mistake. That is what I would like to see avoided.

And Jim, you're right when you say it can begin with a nudie picture. If it's in the hand of a mental defective with the intention to harm a child. By itself the picture won't do that level of harm. I have never heard of a case of child abuse where the child saw a picture in a book and then said child sought out a molester. What I'm trying to say is that it's a matter of intent. And I think you'll agree that Mr. Lee, from what little we know, does not appear to have the level of intent required to harm a child nor is there evidence to suggest that Mr. Lee was trying to lure a child with dirty pictures into some back room like an episode of Law & Order: SVU.

I agree with you that some laws are needed to protect children. Hell, I even believe that we need more laws so we can have greater penalties for the people that protect the abuser. By overprotecting children we are stiffling them in ways that are quite serious. We've created a mentallity that says no one can fail. Take kids in school, for example. Everyone plays a soccer game, but there is no scoring and those incharge reinforce the idea that everyone did a great job. Now Tommy thinks he's a great soccer player which is cool because he REALLY loves to play soccer. In reality Tommy sucks at soccer and we've robbed him of that knowledge and, to compound that crime, we continue to make him play. Years later Tommy will learn how bad he plays soccer and will be made fun of by classmates and BOOM!! No self esteem. Therefore he stops trying altogether. As it turns out Tommy could have been the next Peter David or Andy LaRoque or Matt Thompson... pick a name. But by overprotecting him he was robbed of the knowledge that his energies should have been spent persuing something that he loved AND was good at.

Dammit, Jim (I've always wanted to say that!) I've gone all long-winded again. I hope my point didn't get lost in the astounding amount of hypotheticals above.

By the way...
I salute you for standing your ground without losing your civility.

Seeya around.

Posted by: Mitch Evans at February 13, 2005 06:39 PM

Bryan White:"Why would deporting someone to Michigan make everyone else safe? I like it here

bryan (who doesn't think he was deported to Michigan)"

Hi Bryan,

I'm in Michigan too. You must be in the part where irony isn't dead yet. Where I'm at things are pretty bad. Almost everyone I encounter is a racist substance abuser with no ability to think outside of that particular box. I'm not exagerating. It's made me something of a shut-in untill I have the money leave.

Catch you later.

Posted by: Loren at February 13, 2005 06:47 PM

I don't know Georgia, but in other states (such as Texas), the jury does at least recommend a sentence.

Hmm, I didn't know that. But in Georgia, I'm pretty sure the only time the jury has a say in sentencing is when it's a death penalty case. It's a standard jury instruction that jurors shouldn't consider punishment during deliberations.

Posted by: Joe Krolik at February 13, 2005 07:44 PM

[i]Anyone remember awhile ago that there was a bet made on this board that the draft would be reinstated?

Apparantly (sic) it's getting close.[/i]

It was I and I didn't bet it. I predicted it. The article is very correct.

Posted by: Joe Krolik at February 13, 2005 07:45 PM

I messed up the italics. How do you do those things again?

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at February 13, 2005 08:01 PM

Not. Gonna. Happen.

"Keep telling yourself that and maybe one day you'll believe it."

Um, I DO believe it, Craig. I could be wrong, of course, and if I am you can remind me of my statement and point out how wrong I was. But to speculate that I really don't believe it...is odd. So you think that I really do believe that the draft is coming soon but I'm saying that I don't because...ok, I'm not clear on the reason but I guess you must think that there is one.

Most puzzling.

Posted by: Mark L. at February 13, 2005 08:58 PM

Joe,

You have to put the italics for each paragraph. Close the first italics after "reinstated?"

Posted by: Jon at February 13, 2005 09:44 PM

I stand chastened for my poor spelling. You can draft me now.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at February 13, 2005 10:34 PM

Um, I DO believe it, Craig.

You're right, you must believe it.

Because it's utterly insane to think it won't happen.

Just for the hell of it, another Bushism that should scare the living shit out of everybody:

The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else. That is one of the main differences between us and our enemies."
- 2005 State of the Union address, Washington, D.C., Feb. 2, 2005

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at February 13, 2005 10:36 PM

Oh, here's another reason to cry for the future.

I'd suggest laughing, but, damn, this is just too mind boggling to do anything OTHER than cry:

"This is one of the most intellectually gifted presidents we've had." - Karl Rove, "Hardball," MSNBC, Jan. 19, 2005

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at February 14, 2005 07:21 AM

So, out of curiosity, just how soon do you see the draft coming back? Just so I know when I can stop doubting my sanity.

I've already said why I think we won't get a draft. It is politically untenable. the majority party seems to have no desire to implement it. Only a few members of the minority party have advokated it. So where are the votes going to come from?

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at February 14, 2005 08:41 AM

I've already said why I think we won't get a draft. It is politically untenable. the majority party seems to have no desire to implement it. Only a few members of the minority party have advokated it. So where are the votes going to come from?

The votes will have to come when Bush puts this country in yet another war when our military is already stretched thin. If Bush wants it, anybody else voting against it is an unpatriotic Commie bastard, you know.

Bush has already shown he doesn't care how many body bags it takes, whether from the US military or Iraqi civilians, democracy will prevail... but it won't be forced on anybody or anything.

Right now, Bush is just trying to push buttons at random (N Korea, Iran, Syria) to see who will take the bait and do something so Bush has an excuse to invade somebody else.

And it wouldn't surprise me in the least to Bush sacrifice the political careers of every Republican in the house to carry on his little Crusade against oil-rich Islamic Middle East countries who don't do exactly as they are told.

Posted by: Nytwyng at February 14, 2005 09:05 AM

Nytwing, there's an easy enough standard to apply to answer your question. Ask yourself why are you there? If you were just shopping for comic books and you probably would have been there anyway regardless of the giveaway, then the answer is "yes", it was unsolicited. If you are there specifically because of the giveaway, in other words, absent the incentive of the giveaway you either would not shop or otherwise be in that store, then the answer is "no" the giveaway is not unsolicited. Hope that helps.

Kinda sorta, yes. Thank you!

Personally, I'd also expand to include awareness of the promotion.

(Ex. I go to a store not knowing there was a special promotion - sale, giveaway, whatever - until I see signage about it as I go in. Since I'm now apprised of the promotion, and expect to receive its benefits, I'd consider myself as having soliciited those benefits.)

But, even with only the "Why are you there?" standard...might be worth checking out in this case. :-)

Posted by: bryan white at February 14, 2005 11:23 AM

Mitch quote:
Bryan White:"Why would deporting someone to Michigan make everyone else safe? I like it here

bryan (who doesn't think he was deported to Michigan)"

Hi Bryan,

I'm in Michigan too. You must be in the part where irony isn't dead yet. Where I'm at things are pretty bad. Almost everyone I encounter is a racist substance abuser with no ability to think outside of that particular box. I'm not exagerating. It's made me something of a shut-in untill I have the money leave.

Catch you later.
end quote

Hi Mitch,

don't know where you in MI, but the Ann Arbor area seems to give you a bit of everything, might be more to your liking

Good luck

Posted by: Fred Chamberlain at February 14, 2005 12:42 PM

Mitch:
>I'm in Michigan too. You must be in the part where irony isn't dead yet. Where I'm at things are pretty bad. Almost everyone I encounter is a racist substance abuser with no ability to think outside of that particular box. I'm not exagerating.

Maybe you want to try hanging out at a different bar...? ;)

Posted by: Iowa Jim at February 14, 2005 01:05 PM

By overprotecting children we are stiffling them in ways that are quite serious.

Your point was made quite well. As a child who was overprotected (no surprise, I am sure, to some of you), I do understand the problems.

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Iowa Jim at February 14, 2005 01:13 PM

The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else. That is one of the main differences between us and our enemies."

Why, exactly, should this statement scare me?

Right now, Bush is just trying to push buttons at random (N Korea, Iran, Syria) to see who will take the bait and do something so Bush has an excuse to invade somebody else.

I understand you are convinced of this point. So I will just check back with you in 4 years to see which one of is right. I, personally, do not think Bush has any desire to invade anyone else. I also think he has smart enough advisors to know that to invade 2 of the 3 countries you mention (N Korea and Iran) would not accomplish anything and would cause more harm than good. And invading Syria is just pointless.

Do we want to influence them? Absolutely. Invade them? Absolutely not. (And despite the fact that some of you consider us blind idiots, most Republican supporters of Bush would not endorse or support the invasion of another country without good reason. Iraq was a convergence of a number of circumstances that made invasion something a Republican would support. Those circumstances do not exist in another country, and Bush cannot artificially manufacture those circumstances.)

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Mitch Evans at February 14, 2005 01:15 PM

Hi Bryan,

Thanks for the scoop. As it turns out I am not too far from Ann Arbor. I'm in Muskegon county, in a little "cow town" called Ravenna. It's... enlightening. Thanks again for the scoop. I might just look into it.

Hasta la Seeya!

Posted by: Bobb at February 14, 2005 01:15 PM

There's the issue: we want to protect children from harm, but OVER protection itself can harm a child. We strive for balance. And as each child is unique, most "one size fits all" rule will never be a good solution for all folks.

With this case in particular, there are also adult issues and morals that come into play. The only reason the pictures and words in question are regulated at all is because adults have decided to place such importance on them. Children learn how to react to various stimuli by watching adults, and if they see adults making a big deal over nudity and sexual references, then they are themselves going to develop similar reactions.

Posted by: Mitch Evans at February 14, 2005 01:23 PM

Fred Chamberlain: "Maybe you want to try hanging out at a different bar...? ;)"

Hi Fred,

The truth of the matter is that I don't go to bars. Well, not much at least.

Las week I went to lunch with a former co-worker at a bar and witnessed two UAW guys get into a fight over car keys.

Two thoughts occurred to me while watching the show:

1) These people make out-sourcing look REALLY good.

2) This would make great reality T.V.

Catch you on the flip side.


Posted by: Bobb at February 14, 2005 01:24 PM

Jim, I have to admit that I'm a little surprised to your casual reaction to Bush's statement from the SotU address. If he truly feels that the US has no right to impose our form of government on other countries, then why is he stumping around claiming a victory in Iqar because we (the US) brought democracy to them?

We toppled their government, and then basically installed a US appointed interim government, which then held elections to create a constitutional conference to draft a government. How is that not an imposition of a US based government system?

Posted by: Howard Price at February 14, 2005 01:25 PM

The "Mature Audiences" is a vague tag, intended as a tool for both parents and retailers (when a parent is not present) to use to gauge the proper audience for a sale. It can mean anywhere from a PG13 to an NC-17 in comparison to movie terms.

What is really needed (as I've contended for some time now) is a graduated scale version of the CCA. Marvel took the lead on this one--and unfortunately had to do away with the tags they had because they lifted them whole cloth from the MPAA and then replaced them with something not readily understandable to anyone (a bit of marketing is needed to expand public awareness of this, Marvel-folks.)

Posted by: Mitch Evans at February 14, 2005 01:29 PM

Thanks Jim.

I was worried that my point got lost while I was stabbing away at the keyboard. It happens sometimes.

Gab at you later.


Posted by: Mitch Evans at February 14, 2005 01:37 PM

Hi Bobb,

Sure. Go ahead and reduce my take on this to two paragraphs and make my point better than I did.

In my best Charleton Heston voice:

"Damn you, Bobb with three B's!!"

;)

Enjoy!

Posted by: Mark L at February 14, 2005 01:50 PM

Jim, I have to admit that I'm a little surprised to your casual reaction to Bush's statement from the SotU address. If he truly feels that the US has no right to impose our form of government on other countries, then why is he stumping around claiming a victory in Iqar because we (the US) brought democracy to them?

We aren't imposing a constitutional republic with three branches and separation of church and state - we are allowing them to form their own democracy. We have freed them from a dictator to allow them to make those decisions of the form of their government.

The Islamic terrorists have said that what they want is a church-based government based on the Koran, and off with the heads of the rest of the infidels. That's a pretty big difference if you ask me.

Posted by: Bobb at February 14, 2005 02:01 PM

Mark, what you're suggesting is that the US doesn't feel that it has the right to bring a 3 tiered constitutional government with oversight of national issues while allowing local units of goverments (states) to establish parallel governments, etc. etc. etc. HOWEVER, the US is free to attack, when warranted (or when the appearance of a justification exists) and remove governments that the US opposes and force the people of that country to reform their government?

If that's the case, that's hogwash. If we don't have a right to impose our government on others, we don't have the right to tell them they "got it wrong," and use force to get them to reconstitute.

A dictatorships is just as valid as a form of government as a democracy. Maybe the former is more prone to individual corruption, while the latter is more prone to institutional corruption. But both systems have the possibility of bringing peace, stability, and prosperity to a country. And if run correctly, the dictatorship can do so with a lot lower administrative costs.

The militant islamist position is irrelevant to Bush's statement. If they want that form of government, and that is what they ELECT to use, then Bush's statement would dictate that the US has no right or intention of hitting the Giant Governmental Reset Button. If that state were to attack US interests in pursuit of their "off with their heads" policy, of course the US would be compelled to react.

The fact that we aren't carrying a copy of the Constitution with us to Iraq is an irrelevant point. Bush's actions and his words of the past are in direct conflict with the words he used in the SotU address.

Posted by: Bobb at February 14, 2005 02:03 PM

Mitch, sorry to 1-up you. I skimmed through the weekend's posts, as I try not to repeat what others have said.

Does this mean I have to keep my paws off you?

And I really, REALLY hope you get that reference...

Posted by: bryan white at February 14, 2005 02:04 PM

Hiya Mitch,

looked you up on the map .... sorry dude :-)

I'm not as liberal as many on this blog and I don't know much about that area, other than I probably wouldn't want to live there. I have a friend over there (Grand Rapids) and she loves it.

And I'd be bummed about the car key fight.

Best Regards from your travelogue,

bryan

Posted by: Fred Chamberlain at February 14, 2005 02:08 PM

Mitch:

>Las week I went to lunch with a former co-worker at a bar and witnessed two UAW guys get into a fight over car keys.

>Two thoughts occurred to me while watching the show:

>1) These people make out-sourcing look REALLY good.

>2) This would make great reality T.V.

An immediate #3 would be that this is a perfect example of Darwinism at work.

Good luck in your quest for intelligent life, Mitch. I've no doubt that it is there even if you are having some time finding it.

*Just out of curiosity, was the fight due to a friend being concerned over an intoxicated pal driving? If so, sounds reasonable.* This thread is going wayyyy to far off-topic. heh

Posted by: Mark L at February 14, 2005 02:24 PM

A dictatorships is just as valid as a form of government as a democracy. Maybe the former is more prone to individual corruption, while the latter is more prone to institutional corruption. But both systems have the possibility of bringing peace, stability, and prosperity to a country. And if run correctly, the dictatorship can do so with a lot lower administrative costs.

So, you view an oppressive regime with no property or individual rights as equal to a democracy by the consent of the governed? Sorry, but I don't buy into that sort of relativistic thinking.

I'll take the US Republic over the zealots in Iran, the anarchy in many of the African nations or the military-run Korea any day of the week.

Posted by: Nytwyng at February 14, 2005 02:29 PM

What is really needed (as I've contended for some time now) is a graduated scale version of the CCA. Marvel took the lead on this one--and unfortunately had to do away with the tags they had because they lifted them whole cloth from the MPAA and then replaced them with something not readily understandable to anyone (a bit of marketing is needed to expand public awareness of this, Marvel-folks.)

See, I disagree that a stringent "ratings system" is anything remotely like "what's needed." Prose novels seem to have no problem reaching their intended target audiences without such a system. No reason comics can't, either.

Aside, of course, from that pesky incorrect preconceived notion (mentioned earlier) among the "mainstream" of American society that all comics are and should be "kids' stuff." In my view, all such a ratings system would accomplish (in regards to that incorrect perception, at least) is reinforce it...essentially saying, "Comics are kids' stuff...except for stuff with this rating."

Posted by: Bobb at February 14, 2005 02:33 PM

No, Mark, and nothing I posted would have lead you to observe that about me. Saddam's dictatorship is by no means one I would use as an example of how such a regime could lead to a successful country. But that's not because it was a dictatorship: it's because Saddam was a power-hungry masochist that used fear, torture, and genocide as a means to attain and retain his power. And which form of government you prefer as an idividual really stems from your point of view. The people Saddam was killing? Probably very happy to see him gone. The folks that have died since Saddam was toppled, but were mostly left alone before then? Maybe not so happy.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at February 14, 2005 02:49 PM

We aren't imposing a constitutional republic with three branches and separation of church and state - we are allowing them to form their own democracy.

Actually, a little bit further down in said same SotU address, Bush said that we gave Iraq democracy.

But, no, that's not forcing it on them or anything.

And if you think that their idea of self-government is really democracy, you're only kidding yourself.

It won't be Saddam's government, but, as you can see, we don't approve of Iran's government, and lo and behold, Saudi Arabia just had "democratic" elections while denying women the right to vote!

Such an improvement we've made!

At any rate, our "three branch" government right now is a joke - not when all three branches are controlled by the same set of nut jobs.

Posted by: Howard at February 14, 2005 02:56 PM

Prose novels are not comics. Comics are a visual medium that are puts them closer to movies than to novels.

Movies have a guideline rating system. Hasn't seemed to chill their output any.

Posted by: Fred Chamberlain at February 14, 2005 03:05 PM

Howard:

>Movies have a guideline rating system. Hasn't seemed to chill their output any.

It has had huge changes on many of the films that are seen by the public. Pick up any entertainment magazine or trade mag on a regular basis and you'll be amazed by how much a small group who can't even agree with one another can arbitrarily put an inconsistant stamp on a piece of art..... leaving the creators of the project with 2 options:

1) Change the content of their work to meet a "more acceptable rating".

2) Leave the content as is and not only limit the number of people who will see the film due to theatre distribution, but very likely leave them at a financial loss.

Comics are much more managable in the sense of being easily reviewed by parents or shop owners before they are seen by the kiddies than films are.

Fred

Posted by: Bobb at February 14, 2005 03:13 PM

Howard, can't disagree more. There are people who's entire jobs with a studio is to view edits of movies and send back notes, with the intent to achieve or avoid a certain rating. And then there's the ratings board itself. This is the same august body that forced the Makers of Team America to edit a sex scene with marrionetes 11 times before it was toned down enough for an R rating. As in, puppets, anatomically worse than Barbie, strings, joints, and all.

And put aside for the moment that, aside from one joke that my friends have adopted as our own, Team America probably should never have been released because it was plain BAD, and those are 60 minutes I'll never, ever have back. It still changed the way the creators wanted to film to be.

And take a look at most movies that are PG-13 these days. Studios will request a random swear word, or maybe some "brief nudity" to get the PG-13 rating, which attracts the teem audience, because teens think if G and PG movies as kids films. The rating system totally impacts the content of the films.

Posted by: Iowa Jim at February 14, 2005 03:18 PM

Jim, I have to admit that I'm a little surprised to your casual reaction to Bush's statement from the SotU address. If he truly feels that the US has no right to impose our form of government on other countries, then why is he stumping around claiming a victory in Iqar because we (the US) brought democracy to them?

We toppled their government, and then basically installed a US appointed interim government, which then held elections to create a constitutional conference to draft a government. How is that not an imposition of a US based government system?

First, you completely leave out the fact that Saddam started the ball rolling by invading another country. Saddam actually did what you are now accusing Bush of wanting to do. Saddam did not invade to free Kuwait but to take over its resources (something we clearly have NOT done either time we have entered Iraq). The roots to the current invasion cannot be divorced from the fact that Saddam DID try to take over another sovereign country.

Second, the fact that the current outcome or our invasion is a constitutional deomcracy does not mean we imposed it on them. The reality is, there has been a significant segment in Iraq who want such a government for some time now. We did remove a ruthless dictator. We then allowed them to run their own campaign. We are currently allowing them to design their own government. The fact that the most thriving economies in the world for the last 50 years have primarily been constitutional democracies obviously could influence their decision to go in that direction.

Bottom line, "democracy" is not an exclusively American value or concept. For Japan, Germany, England, etc., to have a form of a "democratic" government does not mean we forced an American system on them anymore than we have on Iraq. Furthermore, I believe than any form of government that truly suppresses the people is immoral. Communism as it existed in Russia was an immoral system. Yes, you can have a benevolent dictator, but without a form of checks and balances, you will always end up at some point with a malevolent dictator. That is why our system, while not perfect, is a model to other countries. There are built in checks and balances to prevent one person from having undue influence over everyone. As much as some of you may disagree with virtually everything Bush does, he by no means has a free hand to do anything he wants. And I think that is a very good thing.

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Howard at February 14, 2005 03:21 PM

Fred:

I agree that there are occassions where a movie maker disagrees with the MPAA rating assigned to the movie (with the e-zine I write for, I have rather good contacts within the entertainment industry.) It's not that large of a percentage, and it mostly has an impact when the target audience of a movie is younger than the final rating would allow for.

I disagree that it's easier for retailers to preview every comic each week to make a determination. I try my best to alert my retailer when something questionable comes about (the recent Intimates #4 cover springs to mind.) Retailers need tools to make their job easier. Because if something slips past the retailer and makes the news, it ain't gonna be the publisher or the creator who takes the brunt of it.

Posted by: Mark L at February 14, 2005 03:21 PM

No, Mark, and nothing I posted would have lead you to observe that about me.

The fact that you said a dictatorship is "just as valid" as a democracy leads me to just that conclusion.

Posted by: Iowa Jim at February 14, 2005 03:26 PM

Furthermore, I believe than any form of government that truly suppresses the people is immoral.

Before someone misinterprets my words, let me clarify that this statement is not a justification for invading another country. It is simply stating the belief that our very country was founded on the belief that every individual has inalienable rights (even if it did take us years to actually apply this to every citizen). That is a core belief that I would hope everyone on this site would agree with. And when we are helping Iraq, it is a core value that I would hope they would adopt. HOW that looks in practice does not mean they have to adopt our current system. But it does mean that any system that would deny this core value will inevitably lead to disaster down the road.

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Bobb at February 14, 2005 03:31 PM

Mark, only if "dictatorship" means in each and every instance a suppresive, hostile regime that seeks to keep the populace repressed an living in fear.

Which, I'm pretty sure it doesn't. It may be the kind of dictatorship Saddam ran, but it by no means is something integral to the concept of a dictatorship.

Posted by: Iowa Jim at February 14, 2005 03:51 PM

At any rate, our "three branch" government right now is a joke - not when all three branches are controlled by the same set of nut jobs.

Two out of the three branches were chosen by the people to be Republican. So while you may disagree with the Republican agenda, they are in place due to the choice of the people. (And don't bother raising the issue that less than 50% voted for them. The fact that some didn't bother to vote is irrelevant. They could have and chose not to do so. A choice not to vote is still a democratic choice (even though I think it is a stupid one).)

With regard to the Supreme Court, it is far more evenly divided than you portray. A truly "nutjob" court would never have struck down the law against sodomy, to give just one of many examples. Yes, one or two key appointments by Bush would move it more clearly into "republican" / "conservative" territory, but that is the future, not the present reality.

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Bobb at February 14, 2005 03:54 PM

Jim, a lot of what you say is true. But how does any of that justify our invasion on the pretense of self defense and the destruction of the established Iraqi government. Whether we cared for it or not, Saddam had been the leader of Iraq for over 20 years. His attempted invasion of Kuwait was 12 years prior to our attack on Iraq. Russia once attempted to invade Afghanistan...if the current Russian government some day decides to play expansionist at some point, will we use Iraq as a precedent to destroy the Russion government and structure elections?

I guess, here's to point I have with the SotU statement. We now know that Iraq did not have WMDs, and was probably 20 years or more away from being able to produce them. There's never been a solid, factual piece of evidence linking Saddam to the terrorists that attacked on 9/11. And there's no solide evidence supporting the idea that Saddam allowed or encouraged or even tolerated terrorst training activities within Iraq's borders. So the whole justification for invading Iraq has failed to materialize.

Despite this, Bush stated that invading Iraq and toppling Saddam was the "right thing to do." In the absence of all other justification, the only thing remaining that prevents the war from being one big, huge, whopping mistake is if the US has some inherant right of invasion.

Which Bush flatly stated in the SotU address that the US does not.

Posted by: Bobb at February 14, 2005 03:59 PM

Agree with Jim on our government working as intended. I may not like the direction the current leadership is taking us, but it appears that this is what the majority of voters want. If our founders thought that a split party government was the way to go, they'd have said so in the Constitution. And I'd not really want that. I know some think sole-party control is a bad thing, but what will happen, and I think has already started to happen, is that those the divisions within the party will start to show.

Rebulicans are by no means a coherant bunch, composed of various groups wanting sometimes conflicting things, just as democrats are. And now that the Republicans have "won" for the next 2 years, those invidual groups are going to want to see their own iterests met. I'd predict that in some ways, sole-party control of both executive and legislative branches will be less effective than a split of power.

Posted by: Robbnn at February 14, 2005 04:28 PM

Bobb,

Could you name a few examples of positive "dictatorships" or non-democratic countries (I suspect the former is easier than the latter).

My, admittedly limited, understanding is that democratic/republic and capitalistic systems are the only ones that truly 'work'. But I'm always open to learning (and you seem like a very patient teacher).

Posted by: Iowa Jim at February 14, 2005 04:42 PM

Jim, a lot of what you say is true. But how does any of that justify our invasion on the pretense of self defense and the destruction of the established Iraqi government.

Well, when you put it that way . . .

Obviously from my previous points, I do think the invasion was justified based on what we knew at the time. But I can see your point even though I disagree with it.

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Bobb at February 14, 2005 04:48 PM

Robbnn,

You have to go back a ways. Benign feudal kings, Charlemagne, Arthur...ok, he wasn't real.

I'd be the first to admit, and I think I have, that dictatorships are more prone to corruption than elected forms of government. But the corruption is of the individual, rather than systematic corruption. You're trading one poison for another. And at least with a corrupt dictator, you only have to remove one person in order to address the corruption. Republics tending toward corruption get their very systems of operation corrupted, where removing a few corrupt individuals does little to address the corruption.

The point being, it's not necessarily the form of government that is bad, but the people running it. Given human nature, I think history has proven Jim correct, in that all dictatorial regimes ended in corruption and revolution. And that may be a by-product of the dictatorship. In a republic, there's always the chance to reform through elective change.

Posted by: Bobb at February 14, 2005 04:49 PM

Jim, fair enough.

Good points, btw, especially on such a de-railed thread as this.

Posted by: eclark1849 at February 14, 2005 05:56 PM

Bobb wrote:
You have to go back a ways. Benign feudal kings, Charlemagne, Arthur...ok, he wasn't real.

I'm going to admit that I'm uncertain of what I am about to say so please just take it at face value. I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

There's an intrinsic difference between somone like a king, and a dictator. For one, a king is not a benign dictator. His power usually derives from the consent of the people to be ruled by him, and they are usually free to go or stay as they wish. Dictators on the other hand derive their power from strength and have usually overthrown the previous form of government.

You also have to define "benign". To the Sunnis in Iraq, Saddam was a benevolent ruler who most of them loved. they had good jobs, land, and plenty of money. To the Shia's and the Kurds, he was a despot who's troops came into houses and took fathers, sons, children and even whole families away and either tortured or killed them and dumped their bodies in mass graves.

Posted by: Peter David at February 14, 2005 08:20 PM

"So, out of curiosity, just how soon do you see the draft coming back?"

Within sixty days after something else large on US soil gets blown up.

PAD

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at February 14, 2005 08:25 PM

His power usually derives from the consent of the people to be ruled by him, and they are usually free to go or stay as they wish.

See, I don't know if I get that impression from a monarchy.

Really, the difference I see is that a monarchy claims to rule by the hand of god, while a dictator does not.

I mean, take the French Revolution. The people overthrew the monarchy... so, in such a case, would you view the monarchy is just that, or a dictatorship, by virtue of the fact that the French monarchy didn't care what the people thought, they just wanted to be in control of the country.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at February 14, 2005 08:49 PM

"So, out of curiosity, just how soon do you see the draft coming back?"

Within sixty days after something else large on US soil gets blown up.

See, I still don't see it happening even then. The two most likely areas of future war involving us (assuming the Chinese don't totally lose their minds and invade Taiwan) would be Iran or North Korea. Both could be better handled with either surgical strikes (Iran) or just massive nukes ahoy (Korea). There's no reason to invade either one. Iran has plenty of people waiting to take it over--they're called Iranians. If Bush wants to gamble on Iran he could drop some bunker busters on their nuke sites and send lots of stinger missiles to the local Junior Highs. I've always thought that we have seriously underestimated the destabilizing effect of 14 year olds with weapons.

As far as Korea goes, we should just tell the Chinese that it's all theirs to do with as they wish. Kim could probably fall ill on the way back from a high level meeting in China. There aren't too many places where domination by the Communist Chinese would be like a flowering of freedom but North Korea is one such place.

But anyway, neither scenario, and I seriously doubt both, requires more USA troops.

Posted by: Roger Tang at February 14, 2005 11:55 PM

As far as Korea goes, we should just tell the Chinese that it's all theirs to do with as they wish. Kim could probably fall ill on the way back from a high level meeting in China. There aren't too many places where domination by the Communist Chinese would be like a flowering of freedom but North Korea is one such place.

Bwa-hah-hah! Funny, but true (and, ergo, the kind I like best...)

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at February 15, 2005 12:31 AM

Both could be better handled with either surgical strikes (Iran) or just massive nukes ahoy (Korea).

And yet, that obviously isn't Bush's style.

Saddam has WMD that he'll use at a moment's notice? Carpet bomb and send in +100k US troops.

Why expect Bush to do any different?

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at February 15, 2005 07:19 AM

Craig,

Well, arguing about the near future is pointless, since all we have to do is nothing and time itself will quickly determine who is right and who is wrong.

We've both got long memories so if the draft returns you can quote me and mock my feeble powers of prognostication. I, on the other hand, will take the high road and, should I prove to be correct, merely write "Neener neener neener" in large bold type 50 or 60 times.

Posted by: eclark1849 at February 15, 2005 08:55 AM

Really, the difference I see is that a monarchy claims to rule by the hand of god, while a dictator does not.

If the people don't believe the hand of God is involved, I don't see a king hanging on to his throne. Don't forget, the American colonists offered to make George Washington their king. After previously rising up against their old king.

I mean, take the French Revolution. The people overthrew the monarchy... so, in such a case, would you view the monarchy is just that, or a dictatorship, by virtue of the fact that the French monarchy didn't care what the people thought, they just wanted to be in control of the country.

A monarchy. but as most governments do, it grew corrupt and the people revolted. dictatorships, even so-called "benign" ones are already corrupt. They took over without the consent of the people and by force.

Posted by: eclark1849 at February 15, 2005 09:01 AM

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...

Technically, wouldn't that mean they're not naked? I mean, I'm just saying... 8^)

Posted by: Nytwyng at February 15, 2005 09:33 AM

Prose novels are not comics. Comics are a visual medium that are puts them closer to movies than to novels.

Movies have a guideline rating system. Hasn't seemed to chill their output any.

Well, Fred & Bobb pretty much read my mind on this, but to add my own couple o' pennies....

I suppose that depends on your definition of "chilling their output." With the ratings system in place, the resulting box office plusses and minuses that go along with each rating and the preferred audience(s) of the studios...film production normally begins with a specific rating already in mind, causing the production - from start to finish - to be shoehorned into the guidelines of the rating the studio wants, rather than simply making the film and letting its promotion and marketing find its intended audience.

Likewise, while comics are a visual medium, it's still possible for parents (or, for that matter, anyone wondering if the comic in question seems to be in line with their tastes) to flip through the comic in the store to determine whether it's going home with them or not. As most of us here are (or have been) comics readers, surely we're familiar with the "flip test" to see if a book sparks our interest. With films, however, there is no comparable "flip test." (Unless, that is, one waits 'til the movie's out on video/DVD, rents it and fast-forwards through it...but, there's still cost associated with that, unlike the comic or novel "flip test.") Personally, if I had my druthers the actual movie rating system would fall by the wayside, as well.

Posted by: Bobb at February 15, 2005 10:58 AM

I don't really see voluntary rating systems as a means of, as some have suggested, passing on parental responsibilty to others. Rather, it's a market response to a demand by concerned parents (and others) for more information about what they consume. The movie ratings system is supposed to help guide movie goers in general, but specifically parents, decide which movies they want to see.

But now movie studios are aiming for certain ratings, because they are somewhat tied to revenue. PG-13 movies do better than PG movies, on average.

I think there is a need in some communities for a law regulating unsolicited distribution of material that many would find objectionable or offensive. Assigning penalties harsher than some felonies seems out of place. Getting back to the event that started this thread, one of the keys here is whether the material can be considered unsolicited. Going beck to movies as an example, if kids sneak into a movie theater to see an R rated movie, that can hardly be classified as unsolicited. But what if they sneak into what they think is a PG movie, and end up with an R?

This is where I think this case will hinge: even if the child involved (and whether his parent(s) were present with him or not is also important) went to the store to get the free comic, is it reasonable to assume that the expectation of that free comic included mature content, including nudity? While we as comic consumers might understand that some comics have very adult and mature themes, including nudity, sex, profanity, and violence, young children might not share that expectation. And I think many of us would agree that a comic given to a child should be free of those more adult themes.

Posted by: Fred Chamberlain at February 15, 2005 11:12 AM

Howard:

>I disagree that it's easier for retailers to preview every comic each week to make a determination. I try my best to alert my retailer when something questionable comes about (the recent Intimates #4 cover springs to mind.) Retailers need tools to make their job easier. Because if something slips past the retailer and makes the news, it ain't gonna be the publisher or the creator who takes the brunt of it.

Howard, I speaking in the context of the statement regarding reviewing comic content as being synonymous with film content. It being easier to review material in a comic over reviewing a film (or a novel). I wouldn't expect a retailer to review every comic the comes into his or her store as Spider-Man stories don't tend to have wagging penises in their pages. I don't think that it is unreasonable to have unknown independent books flipped through quickly to ensure that 7 year olds don't walk out with them or, as many shops do, have them in a seperate section not easily accessable to the lil ones.

BTW, from the info that I've seen, looks like Gordan dropped the ball on this one..... but jalitime? I'd have an issue with that.

Fred

Posted by: Howard at February 15, 2005 01:02 PM

Going beck to movies as an example, if kids sneak into a movie theater to see an R rated movie, that can hardly be classified as unsolicited. But what if they sneak into what they think is a PG movie, and end up with an R?

I think the theater owner would be off the hook on this one; the comic book equivalent of this scenario would be if some kid went into a comic shop and was somehow able to shoplift a mature rated comic.

Movies do have flip-tests, by the way, in the form of movie trailers.

Further, I see nothing wrong with some of the aspects of gearing a film toward a specific rating / target audience. I think that comics already do this. You won't see certain things in Superman or Spider-Man because the writers already know the audience they're gearing the story toward (and if they don't, hopefully the editors will do their job and remind them.)

(That doesn't mean I'm for gutting a creative work to lessen the rating, mind you. The rating system is still voluntary, and I think we'll see less of this gutting as the DVD market gets stronger and "Director's Cuts" have become so prevalent.)

Posted by: Bobb at February 15, 2005 01:16 PM

Actually, Howard, I think we'll more impact of ratings with the advent of direct market DVDs. Studios and ratings boards will be more inclined to tone down content, because they can always include it in the DVD. That way, that portion of the audience that wants to see the deleted material can do so, by buying the DVD and watching the special features.

Posted by: Howard at February 15, 2005 01:28 PM

Bobb:

You're right. That would be a more natural course of action, allowing for maximum audience in theaters and maintaining the original integrity of the piece.

Posted by: Robbnn at February 15, 2005 02:29 PM

Ratings on movies or comics or anything else does not curtail free speech.
If a creator wants to speak freely, there are always independent publishers and self-publishing. If the creator wants to speak freely AND have avenues to commercial success assured, he or she is mixing apples and oranges. To have one, a compromise may have to be worked with the other.

(Note, I'm not sure if anyone is advocating if ratings hamper free speech or not; just wanted to clarify.)

Posted by: Nytwyng at February 15, 2005 02:33 PM

Movies do have flip-tests, by the way, in the form of movie trailers.

I'm not sure I see them as equivalent. I'd consider a trailer to be closer to future solicitations for comics, in that it's a promotional tool put together by the studio/publisher intended to entice the viewer/reader. As such, the studio gets to pick and choose which elements it wants to expose you to in advance.

The comics "flip test" gives a prospective reader access to the full content of the book to spot-check as the potential reader sees fit.

Posted by: Bobb at February 15, 2005 02:54 PM

Robbnn's right, the rating's don't curtail free speech. But when people use ratings to dictate, rather than recommend, what people can and can't see, that is a restriction on free speech.

Whether it's a prohibited restriction or not is another matter entirely.

Posted by: Robbnn at February 16, 2005 01:24 PM

Why not, Bobb? I'm not saying it's a good thing, necessarily (though sometimes; porn to kids is never a good thing, and that's dictated).

Unless I'm missing something, "dictated ratings" apply only to children, not adults (right?), and that would only be X and NC-17 (R and the PG's are recommendations)

Posted by: Howard Price at February 16, 2005 01:59 PM

'R' is a recommendation to the parent, but a dictate to the theater owners. Parents can bring their children if they want to, but theater owners are prohibited from allowing access to unaccompanied children.

As it should be.

Posted by: Bobb at February 16, 2005 03:06 PM

I don't think the R rating is a mandatory restriction in most places. Local ordinances might enforce them, but I don't know of any state or higher law that requires a theater to follow the MPAA ratings' recomendations. A lot of theaters won't carry NC-17 or X films, basically because there's less profit in such films. With X rated, it also might be to accomodate public opinion and such, or even to comply with a local ordinance.

Robbnn, I think I don't understand what your "why not" refers to. That the ratings don't, by themselves, restrict free speech? Because they are essentially guidelines (arrgh), not rules (with local exceptions excluded). They might have some impact on the full range of expression, as most film distributors won't take a film that has been assigned an MPAA rating, and some theaters won't show films without them, so there is an access issue.

Posted by: Den at February 16, 2005 03:31 PM

The MPAA ratings system is a purely voluntary. There is no state or federal law requiring movie theaters to comply with the restrictions (ie, not allowing children under 17 in without a parent or guardian).

Also, the X rating doesn't really exist anymore. The MPAA replaced it with the NC-17 because the producers of movies with very mature content such as "The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover" that were considered "art" films didn't want the stigma of the X.

In practice, though, the NC-17 rating is considered the kiss of death at the box office, since it cuts off the most lucrative film going audience: teenagers. The only movie to deliberatelyl court the NC-17 rating was "Showgirls" and we all know how successful that was.

Movies that initially get slapped with the NC-17 rating usually end up being re-edited so they can get an R rating.

Ironically, despite its title as "Bigger, Longer, and Uncut," the Southpark movie was initially given an NC-17 rating and had to be re-edited. One of the things the MPAA objected to was the Terence and Philips song, originally called, "Mother F**ker." Stone and Parker changed it to "Uncle F**ker," which for reason, was considered less offensive.

Go figure.

Posted by: Iowa Jim at February 16, 2005 06:11 PM

It is official. The sky really is falling. The first case from the new Bush Attorney General is an appeal to stop porn. Free speech as we know it is dead.

For those who haven't guessed, I say this with tongue firmly planted in cheek. I don't know enough of the case in question to have an opinion yet, but it is ironic that this is the first case under the new Bush AG. I can guess, though, how some of you will respond, so figured I would go ahead and mention it.

Here is the story: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050216/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/obscenity_appeal_3

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at February 16, 2005 11:41 PM

I can guess, though, how some of you will respond, so figured I would go ahead and mention it.

What, he's not going to execute some mentally handicapped kid first instead?

Maybe torture some Gitmo prisoners?

Posted by: Den at February 17, 2005 08:45 AM

Of course, left undefined in the article is exactly what it was in those materials that makes them "obscene." Was it hardcore adult action, kiddie porn, or bestiality?

Which is the main problem I have with these obscenity cases. When somebody comes up with a better definition for obscenity than, "I know it when I see it," maybe I'll be more supportive.

Everybody has a different definition of what's "obscene." Some might find a naked drawing of Picasso obscene. Personally, I find sending over 1500 young Americans to die chasing fictitious WMDs obscene, but somehow I doubt Gonzales will take that case up.

Posted by: Bobb at February 17, 2005 09:14 AM

Fine, I'll bite.

There's not many facts in the news piece on the case. Basically, the tapes involved were purchased, and depict rape and murder. I'm assuming they're fictional tapes, and not real snuff films, as they aren't prosecuting them for murder, etc.

It's just another attempt to legislate morality. It relies on a community definition of obscenity. As far as can be determined from the news, the material was sent to people that purchased it, so it's not unsolicited, it's not uncontrolled, and it's being viewed by people that want to view it. Seems to me that it's a blatant attempt by the federal gov't to regulate what people view in the privacy of their own homes.

I think it's telling that the judge in part relied on the Texas decision striking down laws that would effectively prohibit gay sex because it was an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Isn't it interesting how the party that's supposed to favor smaller government and less intrusions into private lives keeps trying to regulate private activity?

Posted by: Robbnn at February 17, 2005 09:14 AM

The 'why' refers to "when people use ratings to dictate.... what people can and can't see, that is a restriction on free speech." Free speech doesn't include access to a particular market segment or medium.

Michael Moore can spout whatever nonsense he wants, but if movie theaters refused to carry it, he hasn't been denied free speech, he's just been denied distribution. Nothing prevents him from building his own theater, or renting town halls and a projector. No one is arresting him. Aren't we conflating two different issues?


Posted by: Bobb at February 17, 2005 09:21 AM

Robbnn, thanks for the clarification.

We're starting to drift back into the difference between the spirit and the law regarding free speech. Laws prohibiting the showing of certain movies might be an unconstitutional restriction of speech. A theater or chain or distributor isn't. I guess instead of "people" I should have used "legislators."

Posted by: Iowa Jim at February 17, 2005 10:27 AM

What, he's not going to execute some mentally handicapped kid first instead? Maybe torture some Gitmo prisoners?

Craig, Ok, I admit that was not one of the responses I expected!

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Iowa Jim at February 17, 2005 10:31 AM

It's just another attempt to legislate morality. It relies on a community definition of obscenity. As far as can be determined from the news, the material was sent to people that purchased it, so it's not unsolicited, it's not uncontrolled, and it's being viewed by people that want to view it. Seems to me that it's a blatant attempt by the federal gov't to regulate what people view in the privacy of their own homes.

I am curious: Is there any limit to what can be depicted? Assume, for the moment, that the person(s) being filmed do it of their own free will (and are not actually harmed) and the person watching it chooses to do so. Is there any act or simulation of an act that goes too far?

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Fred Chamberlain at February 17, 2005 10:38 AM

Iowa Jim:

>>It's just another attempt to legislate morality. It relies on a community definition of obscenity. As far as can be determined from the news, the material was sent to people that purchased it, so it's not unsolicited, it's not uncontrolled, and it's being viewed by people that want to view it. Seems to me that it's a blatant attempt by the federal gov't to regulate what people view in the privacy of their own homes.

>I am curious: Is there any limit to what can be depicted? Assume, for the moment, that the person(s) being filmed do it of their own free will (and are not actually harmed) and the person watching it chooses to do so. Is there any act or simulation of an act that goes too far?


Hockey. I find this to be one of the most offensive subjects ever to be filmed. I would never want someone to not have the option of seeing it should they choose to.

Fred

Posted by: Robbnn at February 17, 2005 11:11 AM

"Hockey. I find this to be one of the most offensive subjects ever to be filmed. I would never want someone to not have the option of seeing it should they choose to."

Ah-HA! So you're the one behind the NHL being canceled this year!

Posted by: Bobb at February 17, 2005 11:12 AM

Jim, clearly there are limits, but they are not based upon community definitions of obscene. Child pornagraphy, for instance. While I'm sure most would agree that such images, even re-creations, are offensive, that's not the reason such material is prohibited: it's primarily to protect children from being exploited. I'm not sure how a court would view a film using adult actors to portray children would be viewed, but my guess would be to lean toward regulation.

Otherwise, I fail to see how it can be fair to regulate such sales (assuming they don't run afoul of such notice laws, such as the one in GA that started this thread) if they are made by consenting adults, and do not otherwise depict prohibited acts (child porn). Absent some clear indication that a distinct class (children) are placed in increased risk because of the act, there is no justification outside of community norms to prohibit the expression/film.

What class is put at risk because of the creation/sale of adult sex film, even those that depict murder and rape?

Posted by: Den at February 17, 2005 11:20 AM

I am curious: Is there any limit to what can be depicted? Assume, for the moment, that the person(s) being filmed do it of their own free will (and are not actually harmed) and the person watching it chooses to do so. Is there any act or simulation of an act that goes too far?

For my own tastes? Absolutely. Do I think that my personal tastes should be the standard by which things should be seen by other adults? No.

Now, let's look at the reason these materials were declared "obscene": Depictions of rape and murder. Is any movie that depicts rape or murder automatically obscene or is there some kind gore/brutality rating that pushes it over the top? Again, we're assuming that the participants are willing and not actually harmed. If they were, then the producers of the film should be charged with rape/murder.

Now, if you want an example of something I found offensive, I thought the scene in the "Passion of the Christ" where Jesus was whipped to the point where his rib was exposed was too graphic and there was no reason it had to be that graphic (and no, I don't care if that's how "it really was", I'm talking about from a purely artistic standpoint). Yet thousands of people had no problem taking their children to see it. So, does the fact that I found that scene offensive mean that Mel Gibson should be charged with obscenity?

Posted by: Bobb at February 17, 2005 11:25 AM

Den's making the exact point why cases like this are generally a bad idea: You can't know until after the public views your product whether it violates the law or not. And something that might be considered obscene 20 years ago might not be labled obscene today. Or worse, the east coast might find a violation where the west coast might not. This is a Federal law, and if it can't be applied uniformly or with any level of predictability, than it is nothing more than an arbitrary application of moral standards.

Posted by: Robbnn at February 17, 2005 12:30 PM

Hmmm. I admit to not having thought this one through yet, but I'm thinking about this kind of thing in conjunction with hate crime legislation (which, personally, I'm against since all crime is hate crime, but it is an issue to some on the left)... if motives make a crime more abhorant, doesn't graphic dipiction of such a crime that promotes enjoyment of a hate crime -- as opposed to displaying it as a negative thing -- make that obscene? For example, there are porn movies that are clearly meant to titilate with rape scenes. That's encouraging hate, as I understand it. So, I could see an argument classifying anything meant for purient interest that dipicts a sex crime (i.e., you're meant to enjoy the sex crime) as being obscene (still a lot of grey area, though).

Despite the claims that movies doen't encourage behavior, I think common sense shows that it does (or advertizers wouldn't spend so much money on commercials).

Posted by: Wolfman at February 17, 2005 12:41 PM

If movies depicting rape and murder are now going to be considered obscene and punishable by jail time, Hollywood is going to become a penal colony.

Posted by: Iowa Jim at February 17, 2005 12:45 PM

Despite the claims that movies doen't encourage behavior, I think common sense shows that it does (or advertizers wouldn't spend so much money on commercials).

This is my point: I am convinced (partially based on evidence, partially based on opinion) that seeing an act DOES have an influence. However, that act must be taken within its context.

The example from The Passion of the Christ is a valid one. For most who saw it, the context did portray the reality and in no way left me enticed to mimic it or relive it for "purient" interests. But I can respect the view of those who say that it did not have to be that graphic to get the point across.

When you get into porn films that depict rape, it is not the same as watching a rape enactment on CSI, and that is not because the porn film is more sexually explicit. There is no question in my mind that watching a depiction of rape where the perpetrator is left satisfied and the "hero" does desensitize the viewer. They may not ever commit an act of rape, but I am certain that they will be abusive and demeaning to women in other ways.

Bottom line, the definition of "obscene" is not just that I happen to be disgusted by watching it. I don't watch Fear Factor because the things they make people eat would make me throw-up just watching it. The reason there does have to be a limit is because the images and message does impact people.

How do we judge this? Obviously, if we do want to allow as much freedom of speech as possible, then there will always be a "gray" area. The best way in our society is for there to be some assesment of the public's view of what is obscene. While it may not be as strict as some want, or as open as others want, it is the best compromise that prevents one person or small minority from "imposing" their morality on another group from either side of the issue.

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Iowa Jim at February 17, 2005 12:57 PM

I'm not sure how a court would view a film using adult actors to portray children would be viewed, but my guess would be to lean toward regulation.

Actually, lately, they have gone the other way. Which is a huge problem. Allowing someone to buy a film that "depicts" a child having sex with an adult (even though the "child" is legally of age) only serves to arouse their desire to engage in such an act. You then have either a very sexually frustrated person, or more likely, you have someone who commits an act of sexual abuse on a minor or child.

Bottom line, it doesn't matter what the "law" says. Watching pornography that depicts abuse, rape, murder, acts of violence, etc., DOES hurt our society. The problem today is not a question of whether a law calling such porn films obscene is an issue. The problem today is that for me to even say such films DO cause harm is to be called intollerant and imposing my morality on another. If it is wrong to actually commit the act, then why is it wrong to say that films glorifying someone committing the act is harmful and destructive? Again, you must take context into account. Schindler's List did not cause most decent people to be drawn to acts of violence. Pornographic films, on the other hand, are fantasies designed to glorify the actions so that you can live them vicariously. It is a gross mistake to confuse the two types of movies. The fact that a movie contains a rape or murder or child abuse is not the problem. When the film does not portray these things as bad is when there is a problem.

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Bobb at February 17, 2005 01:12 PM

Jim, I know you didn't state this, but it sounds like you favor a criminal regulation acting as the mechanism by which society controls what can and cannot be created, effectively setting the bar of obscenity.

I'd say that society already has a mechanism in place to regulate that: the market. Oversight would be needed to protect those specific classes in need of protection (children). Otherwise, demand would dictate supply. You don't see major studios like WB or United releasing porn: the economic impact they'd take deters them from doing so. So specialty studios cater to a smaller segment of society that desires a more graphic product.

I'll admit that movies and images you see on screen can influence the viewer. I think the Passion example is a good one: Jim points out that he in no way feels influenced to repeat the scene. But take a hypothetical child. Upon seeing Passion, he decides one day to "play Jesus" with his friends. (If this post cuts off mid-sentence, it's because of the lightning botl striking me)

Anyway, little kid and his friends go about playing Jesus based on what they see in Passion. One thing leads to another, and soon they've made a whip and are flogging the poor child who has to be Jesus. My point is a little outrageous, but I think it serves as an example that what one person finds influential, another may not. And yes, I'm aware that any group of children that play at the Crucifiction are probably in need of at least counseling.

If the standard is that film cannot show the perpetrator of a rape exhibiting some satisfaction over the act, doesn't that mean that no realistic protrayal of rape would be allowed? Would it only be permissable to show scenes of rape where the perpetrator exhibits remorse/guilt/indifference?

Granted, from the brief description of these films, they seem to appeal to what I hope isan extrememly small audience. But that does not change my opinion that this is a level of control that I think can only be seen as an impermissalbe restriction of free speech.

Now, if it can be shown that a large percentage of the audience of these films turn out to be murderers and rapists, that changes things. At that point, you've got some evidence that there is a harm to society related to these films, and that would provide at least some legal justification to regulate them.

Posted by: Bobb at February 17, 2005 01:23 PM

Jim, I see your point. It's hard for me to argue against it, because I do feel that at some level, for some people, films like the type targeted by the US Atty Gen. do have a negative impact/influence.

But your argument that how those acts are depicted doesn't carry through. It matters less what the film is, and matters more who the viewer is. The Columbine shooters were heavily influenced by the Matrix and games like Doom. The Matrix (mostly) involved shooting the bad guy, and Doom is all about shooting demons. Yet a pair of twisted kids took that and went about killing people.

There were millions of other kids that were exposed to those same images, and didn't go on shooting sprees. If the images were really powerful enough to incite someone to act, there'd be a lot more incidents. The blame lies not so much with the movie, but with something wrong with the people watching the movie.

I bet that you could do a study of viewers of violent porn. You'd probably find that some of that test group might turn to violent acts in reality. I bet you'd also find that some were in fact deterred or stopped from committing those acts in reality, because the films provide them an outlet for such impulses. And there's probably be a whole bunch more that are unaffected either way by the film, meaning that some remain law-abiding whether they see the film or not, and some that act violently whether the see the film or not.

To say that these films can cause harm is most likely true. It is also likely true that these films, improbable as it may seem, may actually prevent some harm from occurring.

Posted by: Mark L at February 17, 2005 01:24 PM

Isn't it interesting how the party that's supposed to favor smaller government and less intrusions into private lives keeps trying to regulate private activity?

Yes, and the party that favors government regulations over food, education and guns starts talking about individual rights in situations like this.

Both parties have their share of hypocrisy.

Posted by: Bobb at February 17, 2005 01:39 PM

Your point, Mark? That because both parties embrace hypocrisy, we should ignore it? Give me some concrete examples of democrats acting contrary to their professed position, and I'll criticize them just as much. The point I was making is that republicans garnered votes from people on the platform of smaller government, less regulation, and more freedom for individuals. They must have left out the part that said "only so long as we approve of the ways you use that freedom."

Posted by: Den at February 17, 2005 02:16 PM

Bobb makes the poin that the "people may imitate it" standard really isn't by itself a good standard to use. In my experience, no matter how stupid an idea my sound in real life, there's always some yahoo who will think it'd be fun to try.

As for the idea of not depicting a rapist being "satisfied," how realistic is that? Rape by its very definition is a crime of imposing one's own personal gratification on another person. Not many rapists walk away from their victim thinking, "aw gee, maybe I shouldn't have done that." So, if a story requires a depiction of rape, the realistic portrayal is one in which the rapist appears sastified with his actions.

Finally, for Mark L: I work for the Pennsylvania Department of Health. After witnessing the largest outbreak of Hepatitis A in US history in 2003 (650+ cases) caused by contaminated onions served at a restaurant, you aren't going to convince me that some government regulation of food is a bad thing.

Posted by: Nytwyng at February 17, 2005 02:36 PM

Actually, lately, they have gone the other way. Which is a huge problem. Allowing someone to buy a film that "depicts" a child having sex with an adult (even though the "child" is legally of age) only serves to arouse their desire to engage in such an act. You then have either a very sexually frustrated person, or more likely, you have someone who commits an act of sexual abuse on a minor or child.

Yet such depitctions aren't limited to the adult entertainment industry. It's storytelling, pure and simple. Is it a particular style or content of of storytelling that everyone's going to enjoy? Of course not. But, has anyone considered that the vast majority of folks watching the videos in question are perfectly capable of separating reality from fiction and do so?

Posted by: Mitch Evans at February 17, 2005 02:56 PM

Why should my right to choose be infringed upon?

I've seen my share of pornography. I've even enjoyed it. I have never committed a sexually violent act and I have quite a bit of respect for women.

It seems to me that those who have such sexually violent tendancies should be punished. Not me. It's one of the costs of freedom that people are free to make the wrong choices. Those wrong choices often have tragic results and while I would like to see such crimes eliminated punishing the innocent in the name of preventing those crimes means that we're all guilty untill proven innocent. Is that the world we want to create?

By the way, the events at Columbine were also influenced by the bullying tactics of that group called "jocks." But since saying that out loud doesn't get votes....

Posted by: Mark L at February 17, 2005 05:19 PM

Bobb,

Everyone has their stories about government regulation, pro or con. I saw my father go back and forth to DC every month for two years because of EPA regulation of the chemical he and his company were selling. After all the litigation and lost business it turned out the EPA studies on the toxicity of the chemical were flawed. However, you don't get to sue Uncle Sam for lost revenue.

So, yes, I'm a bit of a skeptic sometimes of government regulation of business.

Posted by: Jon at February 17, 2005 08:50 PM

"I'm not sure how a court would view a film using adult actors to portray children would be viewed, but my guess would be to lean toward regulation.

Actually, lately, they have gone the other way. Which is a huge problem. Allowing someone to buy a film that "depicts" a child having sex with an adult (even though the "child" is legally of age) only serves to arouse their desire to engage in such an act. You then have either a very sexually frustrated person, or more likely, you have someone who commits an act of sexual abuse on a minor or child. "

Darn, there goes Romeo and Juliet...

Posted by: Robbnn at February 18, 2005 09:42 AM

I've been trying to frame good examples about movies that cross the line and those that don't, but it ultimately is a subjective view, so it proves nothing. It just comes down to the unsatisfying "I know it when I see it." *sigh*

As an aside, in The Passion, there is good reason for the extended flogging scene. It has to do with how many lashes were given. The law said 100, but normally only 99 were given (just to make sure it didn't go over; to do so had significant meaning) and Jesus received 101, as I recall. Extra-biblical, but the contempt it showed for both Jesus and the Jews was the point. Also, the fact that He took each 'stripe' for us made it worth showing (I never expected many unbelievers to see that movie; that they did fascinates me).

Posted by: Bobb at February 18, 2005 10:21 AM

Mark, I sympathize with you. When I worked for the EPA, I had to pretty much watch as FIFRA regulations put a hard-working company out of business. It's not easy. But those regulations exist for a reason, and that's the protection of the public at large. Anyone living in today's world understands that there's a cost to security, and it usually involved giving up some freedom to act how you will, when you will. Try asking the folks that had relatives die while taking Metabolife if they want the government to require more testing of food products. Or Vioxx. Any any of the hundreds of other products that were rushed to market that later proved to be dangerous. You can either have your quick profits, and compare that to the injury and death tied to that product, or you can have regulation and testing, which may delay your product coming to market, but might save some lives.

Posted by: Mark L at February 18, 2005 11:21 AM

Bobb,

I'm not disagreeing with you. I was a Seldane user for about 10 years. It was one of the best medications I took for allergies and was about to go OTC but was then pulled for potential heart risks even for prescription. Now, I see drug companies (and consumers) pushing to have products made OTC 3-4 years after introduction. I don't think it's long enough.

I understand the need for government regulation, but it's a mixed bag - just like life in general (or political parties which is what we were initially talking about).

Posted by: Roger Tang at February 18, 2005 11:21 AM

Hm. When I was a social scientist, the best available research indicated that porn did not cause an increase in violence or anti social behavior. At best, the existence of both sexually explicit and violent material caused an exciter effect, where it amplified current behavior.

Not that it stopped conservative idealogues from distorting the data and actually lying about it (Meese, Dobson, et al).

Posted by: Bobb at February 18, 2005 11:46 AM

I agree that sometimes you have to take the good with the bad in gov't regulation, and there are genuine cases of "casualties" during the process. The product I dealt with at EPA, from everything our experts could tell, posed no threat whatsoever to humans, plants, animals, or anyone. But there was no way for us to sneak it through the system given the law and regulations we had to work with. In effect, the safety net was too big. Such is part of the cost of safety.

The same can be applied to attempts to regulate obscenity. You want to prevent images that truly do cause harm, but in your efforts to capture all those truly harmful images, you're going to sweep up a few that aren't harmful. There's going to be a cost either way: either harm from material you don't stop, or harm to someone that's really innocent. The question is, is it better to have the government be the perpetrator of the harm, or the criminal? Regulations tend to swing back and forth seeking a balance.

Posted by: eclark1849 at February 18, 2005 01:45 PM

The question is, is it better to have the government be the perpetrator of the harm, or the criminal?

Hmm, I gotta go with the criminal on this one. As you've pointed out, government regulations don't always use common sense and they tend to be wide-ranging. At least a criminal only robs one house at a time. Also, a criminal tends to run some risks, and when they get caught they have to pay for their mistakes. When governments get caught, their budgets get increased because the mistakes were obviously caused by not enough money.

Posted by: Peter David at February 18, 2005 02:12 PM

Responding to various postings:

"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."

On the other hand, what if instead of a nude Picasso, it had been a nude Doctor Manhattan or one of the several sex scenes depicted in "Watchmen?" Sequences that run afoul of the same laws Gordon is being persecuted under. That's what it comes down to, and what some simply can't grasp: As soon as you stop defending the material that doesn't appeal to you, you leave vulnerable the material that does.

"Despite the claims that movies doen't encourage behavior, I think common sense shows that it does (or advertizers wouldn't spend so much money on commercials)."

The question isn't whether advertising encourages behavior. It's whether it encourages behavior that specific people wouldn't engage in unless exposed to it. Show me repeated ads for a particular type of computer, and next time I'm in the market for one, I may well check it out. Show me repeated images of men raping women, and I'm not going to go out and commit rape. If people were that strongly influenced by what they read that it affected them negatively, then obviously it was all those tales of Soddom and Gamorrah that caused adherrent behavior in certain Catholic priests who read their Bibles too much. Perhaps we should excise inflammatory sections of the Bible immediately...ideally before an increasingly religion-conscious America is swept with a wave of brothers killing brothers.

"If movies depicting rape and murder are now going to be considered obscene and punishable by jail time, Hollywood is going to become a penal colony."

I'll go you one further: If we're going to imprison everyone who ever makes a simple mistake that results in no demonstrable harm to anyone, then we might as well just throw up a huge fence around the entire country and jail the lot of us...a move that, I'd wager, a lot of countries would support.

PAD

Posted by: Roger Tang at February 18, 2005 02:23 PM

Despite the claims that movies doen't encourage behavior, I think common sense shows that it does (or advertizers wouldn't spend so much money on commercials)

Oh, god...this is WAAAYYYYY too simplistic.

The implicit model that underlies this statement is the magic bullet theory of communications; that is, there's a simple stimulus response type of behavior in media. We see a media message, we act because of it.

Early years of communications research disproved that pretty quickly. Viewer response to stuff in the media is enourmously more complex than this. Advertising works because it DOES influence behavior, but not in a simple way; it raises awareness, so that people will buy items that they are aware of. It also can inform; informative advertising CAN affect buying of big ticket items (but even there, it's only a kickoff for more intensive research by consumers).

People HAVE looked into the effects of violence and porn on individuals, and it's just simply a lot more complex than the ideolouges would have you think. There is very little evidence that it's harmful in the immediate sense; there's some (but not very much) evidence that it provides a catharsis effect; there's substantially more to show that it allows more people to consider violence as an acceptable response, there's substantially more to show violence (but not sex) has a great effect on developing personalities (like children).


But there's no definitive answers here, except to say that it's just not as cut and dried as people think.

Posted by: Roger Tang at February 18, 2005 02:26 PM

Not that I suppose anyone will listen; this is such a volatile subject that people will ignore evidence in favor of their prejudice.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at February 18, 2005 03:21 PM

this is such a volatile subject that people will ignore evidence in favor of their prejudice.

Then most subjects are volatile.

Posted by: eclark1849 at February 18, 2005 03:38 PM


On the other hand, what if instead of a nude Picasso, it had been a nude Doctor Manhattan or one of the several sex scenes depicted in "Watchmen?" Sequences that run afoul of the same laws Gordon is being persecuted under. That's what it comes down to, and what some simply can't grasp: As soon as you stop defending the material that doesn't appeal to you, you leave vulnerable the material that does.

This comes as no shock, I suppose, butg while I see your point and even agree with you to an extent, I can't go all the way with you. (Eww, let me rephrase that) I don't completely agree.

I'm not opposed to people viewing or producing whatever material they wish. I am opposed to it being seen by inappropriate parties meaning children and people who just don't want to see, read or hear the material. There's no first amendment right to an audience.

I'd drop the second charge against Gordon Lee. You're right, it is stupid, but I'd probably let the first charge proceed to court. If nothing else, it will probably set a precedent.

Posted by: Bobb at February 18, 2005 03:43 PM

eclark, does that mean that anytime someone exposes.....er, shows an image of the nude body to a child, they should be arrested? What's the standard? At what point does the depiction of nudity cross over into the realm of obscenity? And how do you legislate such a law so that it is clear to people where that line lies?

This is the problem with laws like this. In some cases you can't tell that you've broken the law until after you act. Such laws are rarely deemed fair, and often struck down for vagueness and uncertainty. It's not the role of the courts to determine what is and is not appropriate. The legislature is tasked with that responsibility. Courts merely apply the laws. And if a court cannot determine a clear line based on the law, the court is obligated to dismiss the case.

Posted by: Powell Pugh at February 18, 2005 04:02 PM

PAD:
"That's what it comes down to, and what some simply can't grasp: As soon as you stop defending the material that doesn't appeal to you, you leave vulnerable the material that does."

Gordon is being charged with the distribution of nudity thing. Which, yes, makes no sense if 7-11 can sell Hustler.

Then he's also being charged with distributing obscene materials to a minor. Which is apparently going to be argued based on the definition of the word "obscene," rather than the effect on the minor. You want the law changed to say "inappropriate" instead? The point is the relation to the minor, not whether or not the work contains the requisite amount of naughty bits to be properly classified as "obscene." But if the CBLDF wants to pay some failed-actor-turned-lawyer to flail around the courtroom and attempt to characterize a parent's overreaction to Gorodn's boneheaded mistake as an attack on the First Amendment... whatever.

But what it really comes down to, and what some simply can't grasp: Nick Bertozzi can't draw and Jeff Mason publishes bad comics. Now please leave Watchmen and Will Eisner out of it.

Posted by: Bobb at February 18, 2005 04:16 PM

I disagree, Powell. The distribution of obscene material to a minor has three parts: The material must be "obscene," whatever that is; the material must be "distributed," whatever that is; and it must have been distributed to a minor.

The third has been alleged, and I don't think any one's really discounting this. However, if facts indicate that the minor's parent or legal guardian, or even another adult, was the initial recipiant of the comic, Gordan is off the hook. Arguably, that other adult could then be charged, even if that other adult turned out to be the child's parent.

The second part of the law is also in question. The way I've seen it written, it applies to material sent through the mail.

But I think the biggest factor in this case is the definition of obscene. Even if the GA legislature included a description of what constitutes obscene, I've yet to see any written description that makes it clear, without seeing examples, of what obscene really is. Which brings us back to a vaguely written law that, when enforced, ends up tromping on someone's right of free speech.

I think we'd all love to leave Watchmen out of this. But the point is, if we don't act now, then next year, some comic retailer is going to see a Watchmen Trade to some 14 year old, and his mom is going to find the flashback scenes with Rorschach and call the police. And if this case isn't defended, and it ends up on the books, it's going to create a legal precedent that will make defending Watchmen all the more difficult.

Posted by: Roger Tang at February 18, 2005 05:10 PM

Even if the GA legislature included a description of what constitutes obscene, I've yet to see any written description that makes it clear, without seeing examples, of what obscene really is. Which brings us back to a vaguely written law that, when enforced, ends up tromping on someone's right of free speech.

There's a definition of obscenity out there; this particular comic doesn't really fit it, however.

Not that this particular Supreme Court would let that fact stop them from declaring this case to be dealing with obscenity, however....(If people like Scalia see nothing wrong with allowing creationism to be taught, then I'd put nothing past this court).

Posted by: Iowa Jim at February 18, 2005 11:59 PM

If people were that strongly influenced by what they read that it affected them negatively, then obviously it was all those tales of Soddom and Gamorrah that caused adherrent behavior in certain Catholic priests who read their Bibles too much. Perhaps we should excise inflammatory sections of the Bible immediately...ideally before an increasingly religion-conscious America is swept with a wave of brothers killing brothers.

First, I believe there is a clear difference between what people see and what they read. There is a reason why they say "a picture is worth a thousand words."

Second, it also depends on how something is protrayed. The biblical stories can be very graphic at times, but no more than most historical books or everyday speech. I repeat, the context and consequences of a given event DOES make a differenc.

Third, your comment about America being swept by a wave of brothers killing brothers is uncalled for. While you and I may disagree on the line for what we might label inappropriate/wrong/obscene (whatever), I don't hear people on either side calling for the killing of someone on the other, except for a very small minority on either side.

Finally, there are times when two different values conflict. There can be a difference between policing thoughts/ideas/philosophies and policing behavior that is harmful to others. I don't believe the actual events in Gordon's case warrant the action taken against him. However, if the material was of a more graphic sexual nature and it was given deliberately to a minor, I would. That is not because I do not value free speech. It is because I also value protecting children from being sexually harmed by others.

Let me give one example: It is wrong for a guy to post pictures of nude women, much less pornographic pictures, at his desk at work where the rest of his coworkers have to see them. That is not because I would deny him free speech, but because doing so violates others in his office (particularly other women he works with). There are some things that can be enjoyed privately, but are inappropriate to put on display for others.

By all means, defend free speech. But it is not a right that trumps all others.

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Iowa Jim at February 19, 2005 12:09 AM

If the standard is that film cannot show the perpetrator of a rape exhibiting some satisfaction over the act, doesn't that mean that no realistic protrayal of rape would be allowed? Would it only be permissable to show scenes of rape where the perpetrator exhibits remorse/guilt/indifference?

I understand your point. I do think children are the primary group that need to be protected. I am not primarily interested in there being a law against these portrayals as much as there being a restoration of the belief system that some things ARE wrong to view. We may disagree to a certain degree on where to draw the line, and should be very slow to ever make that line a legal line, but it is clear that to even suggest there should be a line today is believed by some to be abhorent.

In regards to your example, I think the entire context needs to be taken into account. Most movies would not meet the criteria I suggested. They show negative consequences to the action of rape. Even if the person is not caught, you tend to get the point. The problem is when the fantasy is built that rape is a good thing. Based on what was described in the article, these pornographic films go far beyond just depicting rape.

Bottom line, there IS evidence that watching violent pornography does lead to violence with some viewers. No, not everyone, but far more than just a crazy few. Most do not actually commit rape, etc., but go spend time at a women's shelter and you will see the effects that a pornographic addiction can have. To deny there is such a link is to deny reality. You can argue that since not everyone who watches it engages in such activity, it should not be illegal for everyone. Perhaps. But that is a rather weak argument for someone getting pleasure out of seeing others be abused or worse.

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Iowa Jim at February 19, 2005 12:22 AM

Yet such depitctions aren't limited to the adult entertainment industry. It's storytelling, pure and simple. Is it a particular style or content of of storytelling that everyone's going to enjoy? Of course not. But, has anyone considered that the vast majority of folks watching the videos in question are perfectly capable of separating reality from fiction and do so?

There is a very large difference between a movie that has a sex scene in it, and a pornographic movie whose sole purpose is to engage you in the fantasy that you are a part of the sex. I know, that is a little simplistic, but it gets to the heart of your point. Someone may be able to separate fact from fiction, but the point of porn is to blur that very line.

There is a point that seems to be left out of all of this. Stories tell a point, and they tell it for a reason. That is basic Lit Class 101. There may be disagreements at times about the point, but in most cases, we get the core idea.

Let's change the scenario. Two stories can tell a tale about a gay man who is brutally beaten and murdered. One version glorifies the beating. The author clearly wants others to go and do likewise. The other version causes you to identify the victim. The author clearly wants you to stop it from ever happening again. The purpose and context of the story will make all of the difference in how you react.

I agree that most of humanity will not read any story or see any movie and be "programmed" to go do or not do something. But we most certainly are influenced. Sometimes we can be influenced in the opposite way the author intended, but if the story is any good at all, you are influenced.

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at February 19, 2005 11:03 AM

Let me give one example: It is wrong for a guy to post pictures of nude women, much less pornographic pictures, at his desk at work where the rest of his coworkers have to see them. That is not because I would deny him free speech, but because doing so violates others in his office (particularly other women he works with). There are some things that can be enjoyed privately, but are inappropriate to put on display for others.

Iowa Jim, not for the first time, raises a very interesting point. I'm pretty much a free speech absolutist, especially when it comes to visual media. However, as jim points out, anyone who thinks that they have a right to read or view anything they wish has never spent time in a corporate office or at a University. Hell, write a politically incorrect letter to the editor and you may find yourself facing forced enrollment in a sensitivity class or some other indoctrination.

So where do we draw the line? And please rwecognize, if we don't draw a line, some idiot will do something that so poisons the atmosphetre that the line will end up being drawn WAY closer to home than we would want. Yeah, it's silly to imagine someone being arrested for handing out pictures of Da Vinci art to schoolkids but you just KNOW that some moron will eventually be right at the front gate passing out copies of Hustler if they can get away with it.

I have litle probalem with pornography, other than the bad lighting, subpar sound quality, and sadly limited plotlines. But now I have a classroom where virtually all of the boys have practically been raised on the stuff, as opposed to the logical progression we old timers had to go through (national Geographic-->Vampirella-->sneaking a look at a playboy-->getting into a R rated movie--->actually getting a girlfriend---> seeing a Vanessa Del Rio stag loop at buddies bachelor party). Now these 14 year olds have gone straight from collecting Pokemon cards to downloading The Best of Jenna Jameson or the nauseating stuff from Extreme Associates.

The only good news is that some of these guys now have such an incredibly warped idea of what women are like that they are very very unlikely to ever actually have sex.

Posted by: Mitch Evans at February 19, 2005 03:34 PM

Iowa Jim: "Bottom line, there IS evidence that watching violent pornography does lead to violence with some viewers. No, not everyone, but far more than just a crazy few. Most do not actually commit rape, etc., but go spend time at a women's shelter and you will see the effects that a pornographic addiction can have. To deny there is such a link is to deny reality. You can argue that since not everyone who watches it engages in such activity, it should not be illegal for everyone. Perhaps. But that is a rather weak argument for someone getting pleasure out of seeing others be abused or worse."

Hi again Jim,

I must respectfully disagree. You state, "violent pornography does lead to violence with some viewers." If it could be proven that that violent pornography leads to violece in ALL viewers or even in MOST viewers then I'd be on the same page as you. Maybe not the same paragraph but the same page.

Also in your statement ", but go spend time at a women's shelter and you will see the effects that a pornographic addiction can have." CAN have, not DOES have.

I hope I word this right so that it does't come off as insulting. I beleive that the ideas that you are putting forth abdicate abusers of personal responsibility by assiging blame to violent pornography. "The devil made me do it" so to speak. Honestly I do not believe that you are suggesting that abusers are free of the responsibilty for their actions. I also agree with you that their are some things that should be kept out of the hands of children. Adults, however, are free to watch what entertains them (obvious exceptions being child-porn and suff films). In pornography the participans are willing. There are also women who enjoy porn, and there are women who have "rape fantasies." I dated one. We were both able to separate the fantasy from the reality.

"Someone may be able to separate fact from fiction, but the point of porn is to blur that very line."

I don't believe so. Porn is just entertainment. The events that take place in pornagrapghy are not real in that their portrayal is often beyond ridiculous. The blurring of that line happens more in peoples heads than it does by virtue of the intent of the film maker. If someone stats skinning people and he happened to see 'Silence of the Lambs' a month ealier, who should we place under arrest?
After all, wasn't he infuenced by the film maker?

I beleive that by punishing people because of what MIGHT happen is wrong. Only by punishing the guily can justice be done. I'm all for preventing crime just not at the cost of individual rights. For example, I'm not looking to close down all the churches just to keep children safe. I'd far prefer that people be free to worship as they wish and have more adults present within the youth activities so that they (adults) can monitor each others actions. And that's with inarguable links to children coming to harm!

Like I said, I hope that I didn't come off as insulting. Personally, I think it's good that we disagree. It means that if a solution is offered that we both agree with then it will probably be a good one.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at February 19, 2005 03:53 PM

Bottom line, there IS evidence that watching violent pornography does lead to violence with some viewers.

This is like trying to claim that what one person deems is "violent" music leads people to become violent, or kids that play D&D and video games will go and commit murders.

The problem with the stuff you're saying is that the "some" are going to be violent, regardless of what they see or hear.

Posted by: Iowa Jim at February 19, 2005 04:56 PM

I beleive that the ideas that you are putting forth abdicate abusers of personal responsibility by assiging blame to violent pornography. "The devil made me do it" so to speak. Honestly I do not believe that you are suggesting that abusers are free of the responsibilty for their actions.

I agree with you that watching porn does not abdicate the abuser from responsibility. However, that does not mean watching porn does not have a strong influence. I am sure 99% of those who watch porn will never engage in illegal activity. I also believe that watching porn dehumanizes the act of sex in a way that is harmful.

If someone is on a diet, it does not "excuse them" from overeating if you put food in front of them, but it is stupid to not acknowledge that putting food in front of them is "feeding" their problem (pun intended).

I am extremely slow to make a law against such things except in the extreme cases. Not because the law then cuts both ways, but because making a law never solves the flaw in a person. At the same time, I do not give ground on the concept that watching porn, while pleasureable, is also demeaning, dehumanizing, and harmful. You may disagree. I do not want to make a law to keep you from viewing porn, but I do want to convince you that it is unhealthy.

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Iowa Jim at February 19, 2005 05:07 PM

The problem with the stuff you're saying is that the "some" are going to be violent, regardless of what they see or hear.

That is not necessarily true. We are not "programmed robots" who have no responsibility for our actions. But it is equally absurd to think viewing violent porn does not effect us at all. The problem is that porn is very addictive to a lot of people. If I wanted to make money tomorrow, I should start an internet porn site. People do not log on for just 5 minutes. Most users get stuck for hours at a time. I never suggested seeing one image or one movie would spark an immediate act of sexual violence. But watched repeatedly, you do get desensitized in ways that you don't even realize.

I don't think there will ever be "concrete" evidence about this either way because people are so different. But when you look at the combination of studies, it does seem reasonable to conclude that viewing porn regularly does have a deep impact on the viewer. Viewing in regularly can bring out a side of a person that might otherwise not have been exhibited. Yes, there are some extreme cases that watching a G rated Disney movie would cause an act of violence. But that does not mean others may well have avoided it if they had not been inflamed by violent pornography.

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Mitch Evans at February 19, 2005 09:41 PM

Here we are again Jim!!

You know, it's funny that we agree on alot of nuances in this matter and yet stand our respective ground.

For example, I believe that religion, when taken as gospel (pun back at ya, buddy!), can be harmful. The Branch Davidians and the Heaven's Gate cult made that pretty clear.

I also believe that porn, junk food, and even love can be dangerous when one overindulges.

In the case of porn I believe that it's most often about the fun aspects of sex and it's the varying fetish aspects of it that, when taken to extremes, can be detrimental to already unstable minds.

For the record, just as you don't want to outlaw it for me, I don't want it forced upon you.

I think you and I are in agreement for the most part and our difference of opinion really stems from the fact that we aproach the issue from different standpoints. Me from the position of individual rights and you from the position of keeping people physically safe. I bet most would agree that both positions are good ones.

And, really, in a discussion on porn I've used to word 'position' way too much.

Smiles, everyone, smiles!

Posted by: Iowa Jim at February 20, 2005 12:20 AM

For example, I believe that religion, when taken as gospel (pun back at ya, buddy!), can be harmful. The Branch Davidians and the Heaven's Gate cult made that pretty clear.

I hear you. However, both examples you cite were way out of the mainstream of Christianity. The problem is not necessarily believing ones religion is true, it is the content of that religion. But that is a topic for another thread.

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Robbnn at February 24, 2005 09:41 AM

What a great thread this has been; thank you to all concerned, it has been quite enjoyable.

Roger pointed out that porn can have an exciter effect (no pun intended) and push current behavior to a further extreme (paraphrased, of course). And that is my point. For the most part, we're all on the same side: nobody on this thread wants to make porn illegal; some of us see it as harmful.

I don't know that anyone thinks Gordon should be charged with this law over a mistake, but he could have shown a little more responsibility by not allowing the mistake to be made (and I'm sure he's learned his lesson, even without the arrest; he doesn't strike me as someone unconcerned about his client base, just someone who'se busy like the rest of us).

Thanks again.

Posted by: Kirby Miller at March 12, 2005 04:09 PM

The start of this thread, the legal attack on someone for distributing a comic with the presumeably, small and therefore largely indistinct depiction of genitals, is offensive in the highest degree and should be thrown out of court. Hell, if it was a male child that received the book, he's already SEEN - even OWNS - a penis himself. If it was a female child, if she is old enough to read comics, then she should already have some idea what they look like anyway.

On the 'controversy' of whether the store owner is responsible for anticipating the 'damage' that such a depiction might cause... let's look at a parallel example.

Let's say the store owner gave out Snickers bars for Halloween instead of comics. So... some 'underage' person goes ahead and eats the Snickers. Problem is, their PARENTS have an allergy to peanuts, so the kid's good-night kiss becomes 'toxic' to the parent. The store owner is CLEARLY responsible for the damage caused by the parents not monitoring the candy coming into their house and making sure thier child isn't ingesting something that the PARENTS have a problem with, aren't they?

The comic book is just the same. Whether peanuts or penis, it was ONLY 'toxic' to the parents. The kid - if the parents had reacted reasonably to the depiction of Picasso's penis - would not be affected to any significant degree.

For those not interested in the discussion on the "McDonald's coffee" front, you may skip the rest of this post.

OK... the argument was put out, "well, it was her responsibility for burning herself for spilling it". So... it is coffee, not meant to be 'spilled', but meant to be 'drunk'. Let's follow that train of thought, shall we?

So we have coffee hot enough to cause third degree burns on NORMAL skin (MUCH tougher than mucous membranes). If she drank it as it was presented to her, and it burned away her taste buds (from my bachelor's in biology, irreplaceable I believe, at 3rd-degree-burn depths), burned away her soft palate, and she needed reconstructive surgery to approximate 'gums' to hold her teeth and such (which of course would give permanent future problems, since there would be no way to allow for the salivary ducts that would come through the now-missing tissue). Then whose fault would it be? She did what was SUPPOSED to be done with a "drink" she 'drank' it.

So, no, the temperature of the coffee is NOT irrelevant and should NOT be 'thrown out', and the 'responsibility' is not hers for not knowing that this coffee was FAR more dangerous than 'average' coffee without it being communicated to her. She was, most likely, like the overwhelming majority of the rest of mankind who do NOT microwave our just-brewed coffee, and has likely had 'drinkable' coffee from most every restaurant she'd ever been to ('drinkable' meaning just the temperature, I'm ignoring taste here).


Let's switch from coffee to something else for a TRUE comparison (rather than the inane 'lit lighter behind the ear' one brought up previously).

Let's say that, once every few hundred yards in a reasonably populated area there was another 'Novelty, Gag and Gift' shop where one could buy old-fashioned 'joy buzzers' (the type that used a 9 or 12 volt charge rather than a vibration). Virtually all the stores across the country sold their joy buzzers with the same 'charge'.

So you go into Mac's Gags and buy a joy buzzer. You take it home, but, before trying it on your neighbor you want to see what it is like. You KNOW that they are 'uncomfortable' and some people find joy buzzers 'painful', so you want to see 'how bad it is'. So you try it on yourself.

And are hit with a charge equivalent to a police stun-gun.

You have a heart attack from the jolt, spend a few days in the hospital and spend months in rehab.

Now... you "did this" to yourself, as you applied it to your own body. So that absolves anyone else from responsibility for what the unexpectedly great charge did?

No. Since "joy buzzers" are presumed by most people to be 'uncomfortable but not seriously dangerous' you are NOT responsible for the degree of damage caused by this joy buzzer, the person selling/making it is, as they made no effort to say, "by the way, this joy buzzer of ours is a 'super' joy buzzer and has a MUCH bigger charge to it than what everyone else sells."

THAT is comparable to the McDonald's case: the POTENTIAL damage from McDonald's coffee was SIGNIFICANTLY greater than the vast majority of other restaurants selling coffee, with NO indication of that. Had she known that the coffee was FAR hotter than other coffee she'd had in the past, then there would be some question as to 'how much' responsibility she had. The truth is: she had the 'responsibility' of first-degree burns to her lap as that would be expected from 'normal' hot coffee, McDonald's had the 'other two' degrees of responsibility (in other words: they were responsible for both of the 'degrees-of-burn' which require medical attention).

Posted by: Jennifer at August 23, 2005 02:38 AM

Jim,

I am a mother first off. Second, why is it inaproppriate for a child to see a naked body? In this particular instance, the man depicted had taken off his clothes simply because he was hot. CHILDREN do this all the time! Or do you not remember when your kids were toddlers? "cheapening nudity" hmm. not sure what you mean by that. If people see a naked person more often this will somehow upset their sense of modesty? The human body is not a prize anymore than an animal's naked body is. what are you talking about nudity being intimate for? when my nephew ran around the house after shedding his diaper one afternoon, his mother and I didn't find it "intimate" at all (that'd be kind of creepy), but it was darn funny! And if my daughter were to barge in on me while I was dressing, no intimate factor there. I'm not sure what you as a parent are hoping to protect your child from. Nudity is not in and of itself dangerous or harmful to children, though maybe embarrassing to those of us more accustomed to wearing clothing. Remember, a kid can understand a man being hot and taking off his clothes....they do it themselves. That kind of behavior isn't exactly something you need to be "mature" to understand. lol I respect that you're trying to watch out for your kids, but might I suggest you save your worrying for something actually harmful?