The eyes of the comics, publishing, and Free Expression communities are focused on Rome, GA as the trial of Gordon Lee begins this morning.
Mr. Lee will stand trial for two misdemeanor counts of distributing harmful to minors material, and faces penalties of up to a year and prison and $1,000 in fines for each count if convicted. Lee's day in court comes after nearly three years of legal proceedings arising from the Halloween 2004 distribution of Alternative Comics #2, a Free Comic Book Day sampler which featured an excerpt from the critically acclaimed graphic novel The Salon that depicted Pablo Picasso in the nude, and was allegedly handed to a minor. The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund has spent $80,000 on Lee's defense since taking the case in early 2005, and anticipates this week's trial to cost another $20,000.
Lee's case is also being closely watched by the mainstream media for its implications on Free Expression. In the past week, stories have appeared on NPR's Morning Edition, CourtTV, and New York Magazine, joining profiles from venues including The New York Times, The Book Standard, and Publishers Weekly.
"This case has broad consequences for all retailers of First Amendment protected material," says CBLDF Executive Director Charles Brownstein. "If Gordon is found guilty, it would establish a precedent that makes the seller of any book, magazine, or film depicting non-sexual nudity vulnerable to a similar prosecution in the State of Georgia." He adds, " We're confident that Gordon is not guilty of the charges he's accused of, and that the work in question comes nowhere near the threshold the law requires to deem a work harmful to minors."
"It's appalling that these charges were brought in the first place," Brownstein says. "It's outrageous that it's taken nearly three years, a complete change of facts by the prosecution midstream, and tens of thousands of dollars for Gordon to get his day in court. Now that we're here, we have every confidence in our legal team of Alan Begner, Cory Begner, and Paul Cadle to wage the best defense on Gordon's behalf. We couldn't have done it without the overwhelming support of the comics community, whose contributions have ensured that we are able to fight back."
For a detailed summary of the case and its developments, please visit the CBLDF's website -- Gordon Lee: The Road to Trial
To make a tax-deductible contribution to the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, please visit our donations page
What is the "complete change of facts midstream" that is referred to?
As for the case... well, if the law specifically states handing out a book with a nude person in it is against the law, then it sucks to be Gordon. As the retailer, it is his responsibility to know what is going out of his store. You can try to claim artistic value on the comic, but they also claim Playboy's "artistic" and you still don't sell it to minors or else you get in trouble. If you don't like the law, work to have it changed. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a stupid law... but it's also not some obscure law that you wouldn't expect to be on the books.
Of course if the independent comic publishers would stop crying "censorship" and just label the front of their books as to whether or not it was adult material, this problem wouldn't happen now, would it? That's one of the things I've always hated about Frank Miller... I read an interview where he got offended when someone suggested that he put a mature readers blurb on the cover of a book. As a former comic shop employee, I can say that store owners do not have the time to read through every damned book that comes out in order to make sure no tittie was slipped in. Are these "you're not going to censor me" types going to pay the fines and do the jail terms of the retailer that accidentally let a book slip by? Of course not. My boss' answer was simple - he stopped ordering independant comics unless he knew they were from a company that always put a mature readers notice on the cover if necessary.
Note to Frank and any idiot that thinks like him - it's not censorship. It's helping the stores that sell and promote your god damned books.
In '04? Any chance the judge will throw it out of court for not being brought to trial in a timely manner? I mean ... two MIDEMEANORS and it took them THREE YEARS to get around to the actual trial???
Scott, I believe Peter is referring to this: http://peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/003898.html#more
Scott Bland: Of course if the independent comic publishers would stop crying "censorship" and just label the front of their books as to whether or not it was adult material, this problem wouldn't happen now, would it?
Luigi Novi: If you really believe that, then you need to read about cases like this more. Weren't the Verotik comics involved in the Planet Comics matter years ago "properly labeled"?
Yes, we've repeatedly seen such cases where the book was "properly labeled".
And I'm not sure what he means this was not some obscure law; it was a specific law that in its construction was obviously meant for materials coming by mail. And the book in question is not clearly in violation of the law.
But hey, he was charged, so he must be guilty, right? Of course, that's overlooking that everything he was originally charged with has been dropped...
As for whether these "you're not going to censor me" types are going to pay the fine... Frank Miller has given large sums (as well as donating time and product) to the group that's defending Gordon and retailers like him, giving up his money to try to see that there won't be fines or jail time.
It's laughable that three years in the process can qualify as within a person's right to a speedy trial.
Scott Bland: "What is the 'complete change of facts midstream' that is referred to?"
The original indictments against Gordon (those that weren't thrown out of court as the result of challenges from Gordon's defense team, that is) alleged that his employee gave the "objectionable" book to the elder of two young siblings. On the day his trial was to begin, the prosecution informed the court it would need to withdraw, amend, and re-file the charges to reflect that the comic in question was actually given to the younger of the two siblings.
This happened because the prosecution, by its own admission, failed to interview the complainants or the children despite the fact THAT THEY HAD NINE MONTHS TO DO SO. Instead, they relied upon police reports that turned out to be in error.
It is the most basic duty of any prosecutor to interview witnesses him or herself. This gross incompetence that took place under Floyd County DA Leigh Patterson's watch is inexcusable. She should resign in disgrace.
Scott Bland: "As for the case... well, if the law specifically states handing out a book with a nude person in it is against the law, then it sucks to be Gordon."
That's not what the law states. I'm in a hurry and don't have time to fiddle with html (I'm not good at hand-coding) so this once I'm going to suggest you click the link at the top of my post and check out the latest post in my blog. It's got links to the laws under which Gordon has been charged.
If you find this too self-promotional on my part, don't read any of the text surrounding the links. :)
Bottom line: there are books with coarse language and "mature themes" sitting on the shelves at bookstores like Barnes & Noble. Unsupervised children can easily get their hands on them and be exposed to all sorts of "naughtiness." Why should comics shops be afforded lesser First Amendment protection than big chain bookstores? Because they can't afford good representation? Guess what: that's why the CBLDF exists and why I'd urge anyone who hasn't done so already to consider making a donation.
Because some of us believe the onus of filtering children's reading material belongs with the parents, not with the government, which does a shitty job of "nanny-ing" us as it is.
Oh, and whenever I include links my posts nearly always end up in the spam filter. Normally I refuse to use others' blogs to "pimp" my blog, but I believe the more rapidly correct information about the laws under which Gordon has been charged is spread, the better.
:)
Good Christ, I just read at Newsarama that the trial has been postponed AGAIN because the damned judge is out sick! I mean, it's only been dragging on for THREE YEARS, so what's another few days, right?
This would be funny, except that it's not.
Oh, a new trial date has not yet been set. So God only knows when they'll get around to this trial. The child who received the "naughty book" could die of old age before Floyd County gets it act together!
Then they'd have to try Gordon posthumously. I wouldn't put it past them.
Ok, I know this is not relevant to the case, but here in Brazil, a case like would take at least five years to get a decision. More if there's an appeal. I have the displeasure to see law suit transfer from my father, who's retired now, to me. The Law suit it's 34 years old. I kid you not. Of course, its against the Goverment, but stil...
As for the situation at hand, I find the whole case another "I'm-too-righteous-vote-for-me-next-election" from the District Attorney. That's why I find electing someone for a position like that dangerous. Not that here in Brazil we have a better legal system (34 years Law suit? Give me a break :P ), but, there's less own political advantages to gain from this kind of case. That's my humble opinion as a brazilian attorney.
So let me get this straight - you can take your kids to see Bart's cartoon doodle and that's okay, but to have a child see a drawing of a doodle (or backside, I haven't seen the item in question) in a book is a violation of the law? In that case, all the Birds and Bees books in the local library are illegal! Last I knew, half the children in America actually owned their OWN doodle. Unless the one in question was drawn involved in an activity, what the hell's the flap about? This should have been thrown out of court years ago. A good judge will see that, and dress down the lawyer. It reeks of set-up. With all the violent crime going on in this country, with blatant graft and fraud running all the way to the top of our government, THIS is what we're tying up our courts with?? Come on America, get a life!!
campchaos, the comic that was inadvertantly given to a minor at Gordon's store depicted full frontal (male) nudity, and also contained coarse language including use of the word "masturbating."
That said, I fully agree with you. Social scientists have been unable to conclusively prove any causal link between media content and negative behavior in children. The only finding that seems to be consistent throughout the literature is that parental intervention is the single strongest variable in determining how children respond to media messages. That's why I firmly believe we should leave the burden of filtering reading material for children where it belongs: on the shoulders of parents.
I'm totally and completely for leaving the filtering in the hands of the parents. And the best way to help parents do that is what I've been arguing for a long time -- Provide them with a clear point-of-sale tool to make their determinations.
And yes, a label system may still cause headaches for retailers. A label of "Adults Only" won't save you from selling the item to an adult if you're, say, violating a zoning regulation that prohibits the sale of Adults Only merchandise.
>>>
Posted by Don at August 15, 2007 11:47 AM
It's laughable that three years in the process can qualify as within a person's right to a speedy trial.
>>>
The thing about that is, if you opt for the speedy trial, you pretty much get wrung through the ringer.
You actually have to take longer if you want your quality defense.
MikeT: "You actually have to take longer if you want your quality defense."
The delays in Gordon's case reaching trial have had nothing to do with his defense attorneys. As I stated in a prior post, the case was supposed to go to trial last year but the charges had to be re-filed due to prosecutorial incompetence and/or misconduct.
Mike, I posted a link above to the April 2006 blog entry in which Peter explained this. Just read it, and it will explain the details.
I'm totally and completely for leaving the filtering in the hands of the parents. And the best way to help parents do that is what I've been arguing for a long time -- Provide them with a clear point-of-sale tool to make their determinations.
Comics have a "clear point-of-sale tool to make [such] determinations." It's called browsing through the book. Doesn't take long. It's quite effective. Much more effective than any haphazard "ratings system" which is ultimately subjective and prone to broad over-generalization to the point of being useless (such as the movie, TV and game ratings systems).
Of course, actually checking out your child's reading material requires active participation. Allowing some stranger who's as likely to be 1000 miles away as they are to be next door to determine what is and isn't "appropriate" for your "community standards" and slap an arbitrary label on the cover requires no such effort nor activity.
Whenever I've said this, I inevitably see a counterpoint of, "But the ratings are just a guideline...a suggestion. Parents can still determine what they think is and isn't appropriate for their child individually." To which I say, "BINGO!" They not only can, but they should. So why go through the motions of the arbitrary ratings in the first place?
In all of this talk about ratings, point-of-sale systems, and the like, some of us are losing sight of something: the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. That's what this case is about. That, and the Georgia statutes that form the basis (albeit a very shaky basis) for the prosecution of one Mr. Gordon Lee.
Gordon is being charged under Georgia Statute 16-12-103, which makes it a crime to “knowingly” distribute materials to minors that are deemed “harmful to minors.” Also relevant is Georgia Statute 16-12-102, which defines the terms “knowingly,” “minor,” and “harmful to minors.”
Under Georgia law, in order to have “knowingly” distributed the comic in question, Gordon would have needed “…a general knowledge of, or reason to know, or a belief or ground for belief which warrants further inspection or inquiry of… The character and content of any material described in this part which is reasonably susceptible to examination by the defendant…” The comic handed to a minor at Gordon's shop had naught but a small "mature readers" label on the back cover where it was easily missed, and there was no hint of “naughtiness” on its cover. That doesn’t seem to provide “reason to know” that there is nudity and coarse language inside.
The nudity depicted within the comic was non-sexual, which is important because Georgia law requires that a work meet three tests in order to be considered “harmful to minors:”
“A) Taken as a whole, predominantly appeals to the prurient, shameful, or morbid interest of minors;
“(B) Is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable material for minors; and
“(C) Is, when taken as a whole, lacking in serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.”
Well, a work of historical fiction depicting famous artists from the past certainly has some “serious literary [or] artistic” value for minors, does it not? And given that the nudity in question was non-sexual, and wasn’t the sole focus of the story, I can think of no reasonable argument to support the conclusion that this book ”…taken as a whole, predominantly appeals to the prurient, shameful, or morbid interest of minors…”
If you read the text of the laws, however, you’ll see that they are worded vaguely enough as to allow for a less reasonable interpretation. If someone feels all nudity is prurient (and those people are out there, in larger numbers than I’d prefer), then this law could be interpreted to apply to Michelangelo’s Statue of David!
So what we have here is a law that was misapplied under the circumstances, and one that infringes on our First Amendment rights. And I sincerely doubt, by the way, that people who would call the police because their child received a comic-book depicting non-sexual nudity are likely to be satisfied with any kind of ratings system.
Posted by The StarWolf
In '04? Any chance the judge will throw it out of court for not being brought to trial in a timely manner? I mean ... two MIDEMEANORS and it took them THREE YEARS to get around to the actual trial???
Huh. That's nothing in Georgia, if you're a comical-book readin' PRE-vert. Over in Gwinnett County, where i used to live and work, we have Ed Kramer - who was arrested in 2000, charged with a crime he says he did not commit (i reserve judgement, though i doubt he did), held in jail for months, where he was eithe rbeaten or fell in a manner sufficient to partially cripple him and was effectively denied medical treatment ... and is still living under house arrest last i heard - whose case has never even come to trial. (Under Georgia law, if he were sentenced tomorrow to thirteen or fewer years, he'd go free on "time served"...)
To quote from the site of the Ed Kramer Legal Defense
Georgia's longest pre-trial detainee, Ed Kramer was charged on August 25, 2000 with crimes he did not commit. While jailed without bond, he saw inmates routinely beaten and tortured, and was himself a victim of a premeditated assault by a masked Sheriff's Deputy, resulting in a traumatic brain injury. Surgery was performed to avert paralysis; however, permanent neurological impairment remains. He has always maintained his innocence.
Ed is now in his 7th year of incarceration without trial (more than 13 years by Georgia’s algorithm for "time served"). A court date has been set and retracted by Gwinnett County on ten (10) separate occasions; his constitutional rights continue to be violated. Ed's legal fees to date have exceeded $200,000; his medical expenses twice that. In the past six years, Ed has received over a thousand medical treatments – more than twenty times what one person would endure in a lifetime, and has been hospitalized on six occasions; he is legally disabled from the injuries sustained in the attack.
Posted by Don
It's laughable that three years in the process can qualify as within a person's right to a speedy trial.
See previous comment.
Posted by Bill Myers
If you read the text of the laws, however, you’ll see that they are worded vaguely enough as to allow for a less reasonable interpretation. If someone feels all nudity is prurient (and those people are out there, in larger numbers than I’d prefer), then this law could be interpreted to apply to Michelangelo’s Statue of David!
The ABA used to bring its big show to Atlanta every few years. Then the Georgia Legislature passed an obscenity statute that was so badly-written that, if read strictly, it made it illegal to sell the Bible to children (or have it on display where minors could see it).
I have a Michelle Shocked album with a song called The L&N Don't Stop Here Anymore. Well, the ABA don't stop here anymore.
Mike - Those sneaky Georgians may be on to something. It brings to mind the Jim Unger HERMAN cartoon where a judges tells the defendant "The jury found you 'not guilty', but I'm going to give you two years just to be on the safe side." Delay the trial long enough and he'll have already served the time regardless of whether he's innocent or guilty or gets off on a technicality. So much for "The Land of the Free."
I brought this up in my class last night (MA/Writing) and urged everyone to join The CBLDF. They've been doing great work starting ever since the Air Pirates days.
"Bottom line: there are books with coarse language and "mature themes" sitting on the shelves at bookstores like Barnes & Noble. Unsupervised children can easily get their hands on them and be exposed to all sorts of "naughtiness." Why should comics shops be afforded lesser First Amendment protection than big chain bookstores?"
Do you think a comics/comic store was targeted deliberately?
It seems to me that even if the law in question had some legitimate purpose -- I don't know, to prevent pedophiles from distributing porn to minors -- it would still be a total waste of time to take this specific case to trial.
I will confess, despite being a First Amendment kind of guy, that I feel one should not give Michaelangelo's statue of David to a 6 year old. It's hard to picture the kid not dropping it and, at the very least, squishing his foot.
Do you think a comics/comic store was targeted deliberately?
It wouldn't be the first time, won't be the last.
What was that other case where the prosecutor made the comment that comic books are only for kids? It was in Texas, iirc.
Nat Gertler: "I will confess, despite being a First Amendment kind of guy, that I feel one should not give Michaelangelo's statue of David to a 6 year old. It's hard to picture the kid not dropping it and, at the very least, squishing his foot."
Everyone's a comedian... :P
At this point, I begin to think the the comics shop DIDN'T give the kid the book, and it is all a setup just for the publicity.
What was that other case where the prosecutor made the comment that comic books are only for kids? It was in Texas, iirc.
Correct. The Jesus Castillo case. 'Sus is the manager of the store I go to. And I feel safe in saying that, in that case, a comic store was indeed targeted specifically. In fact, the specific store was singled out, near as anyone can tell, because a mother was outraged, not at the content of any of the comics, but at the fact that the store was out of packs of domestic Pokemon cards when she came in, and only had rare, import singles, which were marked up because of these factors. In her tirade before leaving the store, she claimed to be a friend of the then-Mayor pro Tem and that she would get them shut down. Everything suggests that the undercover officer went into the store with instructions to find anything at all to make any kind of case against the store.
While I don't agree with RJ Carter's call for a comics "rating system," the link in his post upthread contains information on the case. Meanwhile, here's a link to an article on the case from the local weekly independent newspaper:
http://www.dallasobserver.com/2001-01-04/news/dirty-pictures/
Don't forget this one, guys--
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/education/30teacher.html?ei=5090&en=72efd1846b3947bd&ex=1317268800
Posted by Nytwyng
What was that other case where the prosecutor made the comment that comic books are only for kids? It was in Texas, iirc.Correct. The Jesus Castillo case. 'Sus is the manager of the store I go to. And I feel safe in saying that, in that case, a comic store was indeed targeted specifically. In fact, the specific store was singled out, near as anyone can tell, because a mother was outraged, not at the content of any of the comics, but at the fact that the store was out of packs of domestic Pokemon cards when she came in, and only had rare, import singles, which were marked up because of these factors. In her tirade before leaving the store, she claimed to be a friend of the then-Mayor pro Tem and that she would get them shut down. Everything suggests that the undercover officer went into the store with instructions to find anything at all to make any kind of case against the store.
Much the scenario in the story in the Funky Winkerbean strip a while ago - a City Councilwoman who was established as a would-be book-burner went into a comics shop to buy a gift for a kid, saw "mature content" material (displayed in a manner that made its control feasible) and sent in the plainclothes cop.
In the course of the trial, the prosecutor calls a college art prof to testify that, of course comics are for kids... and the defense calls John Byrne (who was writing/pencilling the strip at the time, filling for Batiuk) to testify as to comics' appeal to adults...
The case goes to an acquittal, and all of the shop owner's friends (including the Councilwoman's daughter, whose reaction to the news of the original arrest was "My mother is a serial idiot!") gather at Montoni's Pizza (the shop is in a basement area at Montoni's).
And everybody wonders why the city has suddenly started ripping up the streeet outside Montoni's, just at the beginning of the holiday season.
Are they going after comics because an industry that is supposedly for kids offers material that is not for kids?
Or does it reflect an even greater hostility towards comics?
Micha: "Are they going after comics because an industry that is supposedly for kids offers material that is not for kids?
"Or does it reflect an even greater hostility towards comics?"
I'm guessing the former more than the latter. But that all it is: guessing.
I can say with confidence, however, that "Mom 'n' Pop" comics shops make easier targets than retail chain bookstores. I don't know a single comics shop owner (and I know quite a few) who could could afford the legal fees needed to have a fighting chance to withstand being prosecuted for a crime.
I'm betting the Floyd County DA's office was a bit surprised when Gordon's lawyers gave them a proverbial kick between the uprights by filing pretrial motions that resulted in five of the seven counts against Gordon being dismissed, including both felony counts! That's why the CBLDF is so damned important. I don't think Gordon could've afforded this kind of legal defense on his own (hell, most of us couldn't afford such lawyers on our own, I'd warrant!).
Anybody wanting a rating system for comics should just look at how wonderful it works for the movie industry (sarcasm) and I guess to some degree the music industry.
Could you imagine Tipper Gore going after comic books?
"The debate is over... comic books are destroying our children"
Posted by: Pat Nolan
Anybody wanting a rating system for comics should just look at how wonderful it works for the movie industry (sarcasm) and I guess to some degree the music industry.
Could you imagine Tipper Gore going after comic books?
"The debate is over... comic books are destroying our children""Paging Dr Wertham! Dr Wertham, expert witness for the Floyd County DA's office, please pick up the white courtesy phone!"
Well, that's an excellent point. Unlike movies, music, or video games, the comic industry for decades went beyond a rating system and instituted a program of self-censorship, thanks to Dr. Wertham's crusade. I think we can all be thankful that the CCA is dead now.
There is at least a partial rating system in place, in which comics that contain nudity or language are labelled as being for mature readers only by the publisher.
The problem we have in this country is that, like animation, the default thinking is that if it's comics, it's for kids. That's what makes the Jesus Castillo case so infuriating. He is a guy who was convicted of selling printed material that was labeled for adults only and was racked in a section labeled for adult only to an adult! Nobody bats an eye that the local Borders sells both Playboy and Spongebob Magazine in the magazine section, but call something a comic and people immediately assume that if it's got nudity, it must be the work of pedaphiles.
The Gordon Lee case is equally frustrating, if only because the prosecution has changed their story more times than Alberto Gonzales. It's clear that there are people who don't understand the current state of the medium, but nonetheless feel perfectly qualified to judge what their target audience is.