Slashdot Mirror

The summary says most of the challenges are NOT about public libraries, but about school curriculum. One example being ELEMENTARY school having kids read about a transgender child.

However, many of books in the ban list are ABOUT PUBLIC LIBRARIES. You are looking at only one link (with top 10 in 2016 ban books) and then conflate it to the whole list (a bigger list link or better yet here).

Multiple books on the list were about transgender children, presenting that as normal.

Hmm... Half of the top 10 ban list are about LGBTQ, and two of them are about transgender child. That's only from the "top banned in 2016" list. I don't disagree that these books shouldn't be read by children "alone" but rather being approved by their parents. However, you are conflating (again) the number of books about trangender children in order to support your bias.

If you (and anyone) really want to check on banned books from public schools & libraries (mostly in Canada & USA), here is the list of those books in different years. Below, I listed what

From the link:
2015-2016 -- 2 out of 45 books (7 LGBTQ books)
2014-2015 -- 0 out of 33 books (4 LGBTQ books)
2013-2014 -- 0 out of 28 books (0 LGBTQ book)
2012-2013 -- 0 out of 44 books (3 LGBTQ books)
2011-2012 -- 0 out of 42 books (4 LGBTQ books)
... and so on ...

It could well be argued that parents shouldn't be putting their children through multiple surgeries and heavy doses of unnatural hormones to turn a boy into a girl or vice versa, in the vast majority of cases. That's the kind of thing a person ought to decide for themselves, making an informed decision when they are an adult, some would say.

I wouldn't go that far. You are making an assumption about what the content of the book is. You are making an assumption how transgender children become. If you haven't read the book, you have no right to assume about parents making/allowing the decision. It is similar to someone writing a review on a restaurant where the person has never been to before. The person is unqualified to write criticism about the restaurant.

I don't care to argue for or against on any of these issues, but they are certainly issues on which reasonable people may disagree. On such issues, perhaps the government schools shouldn't be forcing this stuff on grade-school kids. If you want to teach your kids that it's normal to chop off a little boys penis, you can do that, but I don't see that you have a need or a right to force that on every other family.

I agree that government should never force the kind of book reading on kids, but I disagree that you or a few people have the right to forbid others to read the book either (ban from public libraries). If you look at the list of banned book, you should at least see that this is NOT about public school ONLY but rather on the whole society in the sense of "family" or "children" relation.

In conclusion, I agree on the part that no one should have the right to force or forbid on kids reading books. The decision should be on their parents. Thus, some books should be banned from public schools but no book should be banned from public libraries.

Why do you think "his case is pretty clear cut"? What facts and case law do you rely on in that judgment? Are you aware that determining whether something is copyright infringement "can be maddeningly complex, and frustratingly (or entertainingly) fact specific"?

Did Furie's targets copy an image to the extent that his Pepe "really constitutes the story being told" by their uses? Has he defeated the fair use factors that supported 2 Live Crew when they were sued over Pretty Woman ?

If Furie was bringing a trademark lawsuit, his case would be pretty strong, but the DMCA does not allow take-down notices over alleged trademark infringement, and sending a take-down notice with the intention of pursuing trademark claims would be a blatant violation of the "good faith" claim required in the DMCA takedown notice. That's the kind of thing that can lead to a judge throwing a plaintiff's complaint right out of court.

I read through the documents filed by the lawyers, trying to understand what was confusing the border inspectors. I found it, buried in the document here: http://cbldf.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Charter-Notice.pdf

I'm not going to post the filename here.. you'll have to dig it out yourself. but I googled it.. and My jaw fell open in astonishment. They threw Matheson in jail for 5 days over this?

It's really time to have that TrueCrypt dual password system installed on all portable devices now. This is crazy.

If that image is child pornography, then So's "love is"

The actual cost of his defense was $75K. The other $30K was paid by the two legal defense funds.

The defendant's personal statement about the case is worth reading: rather chilling: http://cbldf.org/homepage/ryan-mathesons-personal-statement/

Most importantly, donate to the CBDL to help pay the bills! http://cbldf.org/

given the rush to deprecate privacy, to criminalise the abuse of imaginary children, and so forth, I wouldn't classify the UK as "highly free"

Because of course, this would never happen in the US.

This has already happened, article here. Basically the dude ordered some manga from Japan, and the postal inspector had a look at it when it arrived in the US. When the guy went to pick up his delivery, police followed him home, seized his comics and charged him with possession of child porn.

The days of moral panic about the contents of comics seem to be long gone, though. 2000AD used to upset our moral guardians back in the eighties, when kids started coming home with Judge Dredd instead of Desperate Dan. But since then... Well, there's been Sandman, Preacher, Hellblazer, Lucifer, and God knows what else. These make the old 'Tales from the Crypt' comics that caused so much upset look feeble, but nobody minds because they're plainly intended for adults, and that idea's more or less got through now.

I would agree with you, mostly, except that the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund still has plenty of work to do. I will agree, though, that there have been leaps and bounds there in the last twenty years. It's almost -- ALMOST -- a non-issue.

This may sound like a strange argument, but I think that what's going to bring society-at-large around on gaming is going to be getting the women more involved. And there's progress there, slowly. (Disclosure: speaking a an adult female gamer, myself.) But the "won't somebody think of the children" argument against media (or against anything), though hardly exclusively female (Jack Thompson, shut your trap) is historically either dominated by or geared towards mothers. Mamas, protect your babies from scum and filth!

Indeed, in the world as it stands now, its my female peers who think less of me for gaming. In men, the unspoken theory runs, it's acceptable because theirs is the domain of all things immature, juvenile, and boorish -- the category into which gaming inevitably falls. Why don't you know better?

But then, there was no pink DS Lite in the 1970s or 1980s. And there was no Nintendo console specifically generating widespread advertising featuring non-traditional (parents, the elderly) gamers. And there wasn't a computer in most homes, let alone more than one per person. The times, they are indeed a-changing and I am pretty confident that by the time I have grandkids, 30 or 40 years from now, the gaming world will have had the same transition that film, comics, and television have had, and the concept of "material in this medium for grown-ups only" will be well understood.

If everyone stopped submitting their games to the ESRB, and we pink slipped those censor's like they badly deserve, would anyone even notice?

Okay. First of all: I've been lucky enough to meet face-to-face and to chat with several ESRB employees in charge of ratings, and to a man they are all vehemently anti-censorship. They believe -- and I am inclined to agree -- that the ratings system, while flawed, actually protects game designers and game retail. With a system that "laymen" can understand in place, at least parents and other theoretcially "for the children" prude groups aren't (usually) demanding a ban on all digital entertainment.

In fact, it IS very similar to the problems surrounding the comic book industry: you have a set of creators and consumers making art and entertainment for a target population (i.e., adults over 17 who can enjoy their sex and violence if they damn well want to) squaring off against a set of "concerned individuals" who believe that the medium in question, because it is also consumed by children, is only meant for children and should therefore not contain any "inappropriate" material or "adult themes."

I happen to think their argument is rubbish, of course, as an adult consumer of comics, games, and other media, but their argument is there and it's not going away. That's why we have organizations like the CBLDF. But unfortunately, a self-imposed regulatory board, as contrary as it may seem, is about the only tool currently working AGAINST people with such (prudish and misguided) beliefs.

It's very like the MPAA. An "unrated" movie may simply not have gone through the process, or it may be two frames away from unmitigated pornographic rubbish, but either way it's not going to get distribution. The real "cure" for this sort of misunderstanding of games lies, I think, in the next 10-20 years. The first kids to have an NES in their homes growing up are now starting to become parents. That generation has a much better and more realistic understanding than their parents did, and that will go on over time.

The world needs to know!

So - you would be in favor of ratings on books?

They've had them on comic books for about 50 years.

Look up the Comics Code Authority sometime. In the mid-1950s, comics were in the same position that video games are today: blamed for all manner of juvenile delinquency. A moral crusade was launched, congressional hearings were held, and in order to protect their business, the comic book industry put together the code. Newsstands wouldn't stock any comics without the Code seal on them, and to get that seal, the book had to be the equivalent of a PG rating. Maybe a G by today's standards.

The end result was that only G-rated comic books survived outside the underground publishing circuit. Crime and horror genres disappeared entirely. EC comics, known for titles like Tales from the Crypt and True Crime, had to drop their entire line, leaving behind only Mad Magazine (now owned by Time Warner).

Keep in mind that this all happened without actual government legislation. Just hearings and hysteria.

In the late 1970s, after some rewrites of the Comics Code, the major publishers started to experiment with non-approved books. There was a Spider-Man story that involved drug use -- portrayed negatively, of course, but just portraying it would have violated the code -- which went out without the seal and still managed to get onto the stands and into the hands of readers. By the mid-1980s, even DC started selling some comics labeled "For mature readers only," later collecting those series into the launch of the Vertigo label. The Code has been relaxed again and again, and Marvel even dropped it in the late 1990s in favor of its own rating system, which featured movie-style PG labels and a music-style "parental advisory" for their 18+ comics.

It took 30 years to for the comic book industry to start climbing out of the PG-only ghetto, end even now, 50 years later, you still find people who will challenge an obviously-not-for-kids comic book because it has material inappropriate for kids. Check out the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund for more info on that fight.

... it was comics "[1] [2].

Seems like there will always be a "scary bogeyman" "corrupting our children".

5. Since you can't compete with the big stores on price, you have to have some sort of differentiator that make people come to your store instead. Arcades might be a solution, I dunno. I actually think the idea of an "Adults Only" section is worth a try; you can stock it with a bunch of Japanese adult "dating sim" titles and charge high prices for them.

Fund board member Neil Gaiman says, "I think the hardest thing to believe is that Jesus was found guilty of selling an adult comic, from the adult section of the store, to an adult police officer, and convicted because the DA convinced the jury that all comics are really intended for children. I can't imagine a world in which the same argument would have worked for books or for films -- and I'm afraid that highlights why comics retailers (and artists and writers and publishers) still need a Defense Fund, and still need to be defended."

The Supreme Court let this stand, so the First Amendment doesn't apply to comic books anymore and I'd imagine by extension to any medium that is seen as "for kids." The video games rating system might offer protection but I'd still think twice about it.

It happened with comic books. Now it's happening with games. Ultimately, some new form of entertainment will come along that will attract the eyes of moral crusaders, and the game industry will spend less time in the spotlight.

Less time, sure... but it won't escape entirely for quite a while. You could replace every instance of "video game" with "comci book" (and change the examples to match) and you'd still have a largely factual article. Neil Gaiman made a great comment a few weeks ago about how mainstream coverage of comics books alternates between "Wham! Bam! Comics have grown up!" (which is 20-year old news) and "OMG! This comic book not meant for kids has material unsuitable for kids in it!"

There's an advocacy organization, the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, that works to raise awareness and raise funds to help defend comic book authors, artists, retailers etc. from attacks against freedom of expression. Retailers have been arrested for selling adult comics to adults. Artists and publishers get sued for parodies. It doesn't get as much covereage as video games anymore, but what coverage it gets is still as biased as it was in the 1950s.

In the 1950s, comics were targeted about the same as video games are being targeted today. (Horror comics would turn kids into delinquents, and Batman and Robin would turn them gay. I'm serious, these arguments were put forth. Google for "Seduction of the Innocent.") In order to avoid government regulation, all the publishers put together the Comics Code Authority, which basically meant all comics had to be G or PG. In theory you could publish a comic without the code seal, but no one would be willing to sell it.

25 years later, a Spider-Man (?) comic had a storyline about drugs. Obviously the drugs were bad in the story, but just *having* them violated the code. They decided to print it without the seal, and times had changed enough that they were able to sell it.

The 1980s saw a resurgence of horror comics, aimed at a slightly older audience and not rated by the Comics Code. Alan Moore's run on Swamp Thing opened the door, which was followed by Neil Gaiman's Sandman, Grant Morrison's Invisibles, etc. At this point there were basically three tiers of mainstream comics: Code-approved, non-approved, and "Mature Readers," which basically translated to PG, PG-13 and R.

Around 2000, Marvel decided that the code was outdated, and they started printing movie-like ratings on their covers instead (even putting a "parental advisory" notice on their mature readers titles.)

Meanwhile, other publishers have chosen various ways to rate -- or not rate -- their own books. Some only label their "mature readers" books, with the idea that people can figure out whether the regular books are appropriate for their kids or not.

And of course, "underground" comics never really went away.

Unfortunately, even today a lot of people subscribe to the long-outdated "Comics are for kids!" belief, and people have actually been prosecuted -- and convicted -- for selling mature or adult comics to adults because they're obviously trying to corrupt children! There's actually an organization, the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, dedicated to protecting artists, writers, store owners, etc. from this kind of attack. They've also weighed in on defamation and publicity suits -- there was one case involving a couple of parody characters who were the basis of a lawsuit by the people being parodied.

Once there's laws enforcing these restrictions, there'll be calls for tighter and tighter controls. People are just now doing this with the MPAA movie ratings, whining about how the PG-13 movies are so violent. (I bet the star wars "blood bath" will throw more ewoks on the fire).

Eventually, movies and games will be rated "G" for "Good Christian Audiences" and "H" for "You are all going to Hell! HELL!", and most stores will only carry the G-rated titles to keep the fundies from raising a stink.

Also, if you think fundies will stop once they have minors banned from buying the mature games, you're wrong. Even if its marked not for children, even if people are carded just to walk into the same room as it, SOME fundie is going to get their panties in a knot over its existance and start throwing a lawyer-tantrum.

Ask Jesus Castillo...

The details of the case:

1. Jesus Castillo managed a comic book store which had an "Adults Only" section.

2. Some concerned citizens in the area decided to make an example out of him. They sent a Vice Squad cop in to buy a copy of the Legend of the Overfiend manga.

3. Jesus Castillo was arrested for obscenity. His case wended it's way through the courts. The Supreme Court denied his last appeal.

4. As of August 5th, 2003 Castillo was still on probation for his conviction on an obscenity charge.

No retailer wants this kind of heat unless they are in the adult services industry and are used to it. (Even then they don't want it.)

More references...

Dirty Pictures

a bad precedent: Texas v. Castillo

Dude calm down. It's not like it's going to be called the "USS Bennigan's," it isn't even an advertisement. Someone gets to choose the name and the proceeds go to the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund. Simple as that.

From his site mentioned in summary:
...are you going to be keeping veto power over the name?

I think we can burn that bridge when we come to it....it's remotely possible that someone at Miramax or Lamy Pens or TeaDirect Tea may decide that this is a heaven-sent opportunity for cheap product placement, and it'll suddenly become the USS Latest Lindsay Lohan Movie or the SS TIVO RULES. But I sort of doubt it'll happen like that.

Sounds like he could be setting himself up for a lot of hurt.

Other than that, here is an interview with Neil Gaiman talking about this book and his previous one called American Gods and here is Google's Print of American Gods.

As for the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, here is a site with some highlights of cases that they have helped.

I think it would be neat if Stan would give a monster chunk of that money to the CBLDF.

I mean, Stan already gets $1 mil/year from Marvel. The guy's richer than hell. He could make a big donation and drum up a lot of press, and CBLDF could probably use the publicity.

Check out their site. If you like the First Amendment, you'll like this organization.

And if this doesn't outrage you, nothing will. Freedom lost that one.

I think it would be neat if Stan would give a monster chunk of that money to the CBLDF.

I mean, Stan already gets $1 mil/year from Marvel. The guy's richer than hell. He could make a big donation and drum up a lot of press, and CBLDF could probably use the publicity.

Check out their site. If you like the First Amendment, you'll like this organization.

And if this doesn't outrage you, nothing will. Freedom lost that one.

I think it would be neat if Stan would give a monster chunk of that money to the CBLDF.

I mean, Stan already gets $1 mil/year from Marvel. The guy's richer than hell. He could make a big donation and drum up a lot of press, and CBLDF could probably use the publicity.

Check out their site. If you like the First Amendment, you'll like this organization.

And if this doesn't outrage you, nothing will. Freedom lost that one.

I think it would be neat if Stan would give a monster chunk of that money to the CBLDF.

I mean, Stan already gets $1 mil/year from Marvel. The guy's richer than hell. He could make a big donation and drum up a lot of press, and CBLDF could probably use the publicity.

Check out their site. If you like the First Amendment, you'll like this organization.

And if this doesn't outrage you, nothing will. Freedom lost that one.

POW! WHAM!

Honestly, you might want to try the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund. They may not be protecting the kind of stuff you're talking about, but I would think that a victory for freedom of expression in comics would carry over to photographs and so forth.

three-year probation, during which time his residence is subject to inspection, without warning or warrant, to determine if he is in possession of, or is creating obscene material. He is to have no contact with children under 18, undergo psychological testing, enroll in a journalistic ethics course, pay a $3,000 fine, and perform 1,248 hours of community service

I found that line... amusing. Because we all know that American comics are "just for kids," right?

"You don't force changes in perception... you make people want to change."

One of my usual rants is that no matter how bold, bright, or flashy you might make warning text, some people have the type of capacity to ignore/miss that information, and undoubtedly, many of those people will get angry once they DO realise what they've stumbled onto.

Some seem to do it on purpose, in order to expose things that they -- personally -- find objectionable, but don't have the rationale to support with an effective argument.

"Would somebody PLEASE think of the CHILDREN!?"

For example, a man named Jesus Castillo was arrested and charged with two counts of obscenity for selling adult comics to adults. ... To quote the prosecutor's main statement, "I don't care what type of evidence or...testimony is out there...; Comic books...are for kids." (The full story + quote is here: http://www.cbldf.org/pr/archives/000146.shtml )

Also, an anonymous man in West Virginia was arrested and eventually pardoned for selling copies of Elfquest, a comic about nature elves which depicts idealised forms of all human interaction, including sexuality, and in this case, childbirth, to minors. ( http://www.cbldf.org/pr/991218-elfquest.shtml )

When things are marketted as "adult," people also tend to imagine tentacle rape or very strong violence, which might not necessarily be the case. "Friends" is marketted towards the younger spectrum of the adult audience, but isn't considered smutty or obscene (most of the time); however, when hearing the actual TERM "adult" as a maturity rating, people assume the worst, and even those adults who might enjoy certain animated features more than kid's films won't risk it.

There are a lot of barriers to the release, distribution, and common interest in expanding the use of previously child-based forms of media in the US, especially since we have so many different perspectives on the matter. In Seattle, it's not so much of a problem. In West Virginia, apparently, it is.

"You don't force changes in perception... you make people want to change."

One of my usual rants is that no matter how bold, bright, or flashy you might make warning text, some people have the type of capacity to ignore/miss that information, and undoubtedly, many of those people will get angry once they DO realise what they've stumbled onto.

Some seem to do it on purpose, in order to expose things that they -- personally -- find objectionable, but don't have the rationale to support with an effective argument.

"Would somebody PLEASE think of the CHILDREN!?"

For example, a man named Jesus Castillo was arrested and charged with two counts of obscenity for selling adult comics to adults. ... To quote the prosecutor's main statement, "I don't care what type of evidence or...testimony is out there...; Comic books...are for kids." (The full story + quote is here: http://www.cbldf.org/pr/archives/000146.shtml )

Also, an anonymous man in West Virginia was arrested and eventually pardoned for selling copies of Elfquest, a comic about nature elves which depicts idealised forms of all human interaction, including sexuality, and in this case, childbirth, to minors. ( http://www.cbldf.org/pr/991218-elfquest.shtml )

When things are marketted as "adult," people also tend to imagine tentacle rape or very strong violence, which might not necessarily be the case. "Friends" is marketted towards the younger spectrum of the adult audience, but isn't considered smutty or obscene (most of the time); however, when hearing the actual TERM "adult" as a maturity rating, people assume the worst, and even those adults who might enjoy certain animated features more than kid's films won't risk it.

There are a lot of barriers to the release, distribution, and common interest in expanding the use of previously child-based forms of media in the US, especially since we have so many different perspectives on the matter. In Seattle, it's not so much of a problem. In West Virginia, apparently, it is.

Ah, here we go. Found the original story on the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund site. Not sure if this is the same owner or not - the owner doesn't get named in that story.

Major media just don't care.

But you can find all the links at The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund.

Basically, during the month September 1999, an undercover police officer purchased a collection of adult comics from a store called "Keith's Comics" in Dallas. He then looked through them to try and determine comics that would be considered obscene by community standards. (This is a normal part of vice operations anywhere.)

The comics chosen where Demon Beast Invasion: The Fallen and Legend of the Overfiend (links to Google searches). At trial the second one was dropped and only "Demon Beast Invasion" was considered as being an obscene book sold to the officer. (Funny quote from the Dallas Observer article: "There was no test here to show the clerk knew what was in there. You can't judge a book by its cover." (Said by Castillo's attorney, working for the CBLDF.) Look at the Demon Beast Invasion cover. I think you probably can judge that book by its cover. Just look at the Google links above. Enough editorializing...)

The defense basically argued that the books were not legally obscene because they did not "taken as a whole, lacks any serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value." Scott McCloud (OT: one of my father's childhood friends was his older brother) testified about the artistic values, and Susan Napier, an associate professor in UT-Austin's Department of Asian Studies, testified about the cultural value in relation to Japanese culture.

Castillo was found guilty, and both appeals in the Texas legal system failed to overturn the verdict. The Supreme Court was the last resort, and they have declined the case. He has already paid his $4000 fine and began his 180-day probation.

City wages war against violent video games

Basically, with this law in effect, depending on the size of your arcade, you might have to rent a larger builing if you wanted to stock Tekken. I think it was even ambiguous if you could create an "adult's only" arcade.

It wasn't really aimed at retail stores as much:

"It would be an odd conception of the First Amendment that would allow a state to prevent a boy from purchasing a magazine containing pictures of topless women in provocative poses, but give the same boy a constitutional right to train to become a sniper at the local arcade without his parents' permission," U.S. District Judge David Hamilton said at the time.

First They Take Vice City, Then They Take Berlin: Video Game Legislation Offers Hard Lessons For Comic Books

The main point is that this was censorship, of a very specific kind. By imposing harsh restrictions on arcade owners that would cost money to meet, they basically could cause arcade owners to stop stocking certain games. Arcade owners are mostly interested in making money, not in idealistically protecting the right of the public to have the choice of playing the video games they want. (It's exactly the same purpose as the Castillo case, really, just swap out comic books for video games.)

The main thing that comes through in these cases is that the people putting these bans in place don't like video games at all and don't think kids (or adults) ought to be playing them, period. They go after them where they are weakest, the only reason they don't try for a blanket ban on all video games is because this is not Afghanistan and it wouldn't hold up. It's very reminiscent of the anti-Dungeons & Dragons crusades of years past, if these same people had stated right out why they didn't like D&D they would not have been listened to. So instead, they linked it to suicide and homicidal rampages among teenagers, even if the link was tenuous or an urban legend.

First They Take Vice City, Then They Take Berlin: Video Game Legislation Offers Hard Lessons For Comic Books

(You might want to make sure your pop-up blocker is working before clicking...)

Are you a Red Dupe?

Oh, and this may inspire donations to the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund.

I looks like they're seeking legal aid from the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund. If the little guy can't defend himself in court against the big boys, then there should be someone else who can. They also protect Japanese and American manga artists and sellers. I joined, and so should you.

I looks like they're seeking legal aid from the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund. If the little guy can't defend himself in court against the big boys, then there should be someone else who can. They also protect Japanese and American manga artists and sellers. I joined, and so should you.

What's your opinion on the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund (anti-censorhip organisation of comics writers & of people working in this field) ?

Furthermore, do you think that clear and direct political content can be present and "efficient" (i.e. thought provoking) in *mainstream* comics ?

Hey, rent all the hentai you want, just be sure to stay away from manga, especially if you live near an elementary school.

Me, I think anime's a legitimate style that's only recently coming into its own and transcending what traditional animation can do for you. Two words: Cowboy Bebop.

Scott

While I haven't been reading comics since Krazy Kat, it seemed to me that once upon a time comics were violent and simple, kind of like video games. In an effort to get parents not so worried about thier kids reading them, they established the "Comic Book Code Authority" or something (I'm doing this all from memory, bear with me!) and it basically was huge self imposed censorship board. And Wal-mart was not going to sell your comic without the stamp of approval they would give.

While we don't have all that, you can still understand the point: comics, at one point (and even now) were considered debase and not "art". Now, no one can deny that some comics are incredible works of art (finding examples are left as an exercise for the reader, because they no doubt will not be the same examples as mine) although there are still comics getting in trouble for being "obscene".

Personally, I think video games are going to follow a similar path. I can point at "Zork" and say "art!" or if you say that's not a video game, then I point at "Battlegirl" (awesome game for the mac) or "Escape Velocity Overdrive" and say "art!"

Remember, kiddies, send your spare bills to the Comic Book Legal Defense fund, and when the Video Game Legal Defense fund comes into existance, let me know. Some poor kid who makes a nifty-cool game in his basement is going to get sued for offending sensibilities and causing violence in the wrong town.

• I don't think [comic books with minors in "compromising situation" are] illegal in Japan/ul>

  Age of consent in Japan is 14.

  • What about similar comic books produced in the US? Is there a precedent? I'm sure it would apply to computerized pron

  Actually, the precedent is draconian. Comics were demonised back in the 1950's in the same way that the 'net is now, and it was decided that This Must Stop. If you want a laugh, read the original text of the Comics Code Authority and then have a look at the Comic Book Legal Defence Fund that it necessitated.

A great organization would be the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund.

Besides protecting free speech for comic books they also delve into the video game violence vs. real violence debate, as well as censorship on the internet. Very strong advocates of the First Amendment in general.

-FM

Read the Judge's paper; It's quite fascinating and an in-depth description of the 1st Amendment, written remarkably clearly. The section on how games are produced is a better description than you will ever find in Game Developer's Magazine.

From what I gather from reading the article, courts are not so concerned about whether or not it has been proved that video games can cause harm to childen; It is more concerned with the possibility of harm. While I can imagine many arguments both for and against, and personally believe that violent or sexual video games do *not* harm children (I would cite Japan's media history as a primary example, as well as the Brother's Grim for the European history), the courts hold that as long as there is a possibility, that it is sufficient to allow communities to regulate.

Note that if the focus of the game and the primary value derived from the game was a political idea, a specific message, or artistic value, that violence and nudity are both allowed, and the game is protected under the 1st amendment.

I highly recommend reading the judge's well informed "opinion", and making your own mind up after having read it in it's entirety.

Having formed your opinion, make a contribution to the comic book legal defence fund.

He isn't allowed to draw.

Officers at any time can search his stuff to make sure

He has to work 40hours/week public service, without pay.

He also has to pay a huge fine, necessitating he keep working

Which is difficult since he cannot talk to minors.

Check here in case you don't believe me.