PeterDavid.net

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

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.

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?)

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.

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...

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

'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?

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

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

"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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

"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

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.

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?

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...

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

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.

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.

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

"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

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

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!

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?

"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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

"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

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

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.

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”.

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.

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.

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

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."

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

"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

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

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

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

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

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.

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)...

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

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?

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.

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.

What Marionette said.

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.

[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?

Ooops, screwed up the tag.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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

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.

"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

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! :)

"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...

" 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)

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

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).

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.

"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.

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.

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. :-)

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.

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?

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'."

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.

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..."

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?

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

"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.

"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?

// 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.

// 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.

>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: 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.

"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.

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...

"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?

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.

"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

"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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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!

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.

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 rec