Slashdot Mirror
Jesus Castillo, Supreme Court, And Free Speech
I've been following the Jesus Castillo case for a while. The case itself is an obscenity charge for selling an adult comic to an adult undercover police officer in Dallas. Recently, the US Supreme Court denied his appeal, with the notion that obscenity is a state-level affair, despite the First Amendment being a Federal law. There's also an interview with the head of the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, and some good ruminations from Neil Gaiman on the subject. Bad precedents for free speech - the CBDLF donations and giving to the EFF are Good Things.
The links in the summary all lead to peripheral sites, not to anything detailing the case itself.
The case itself is an obscenity charge for selling an adult comic to an adult undercover police officer in Dallas.
At the risk of getting myself modded down for being a little clueless... Why is selling adult materials to adults in Dallas a problem? Is adult content illegal there? Or did he violate some ordinance? If it's a local thing, this should not be a big deal at all and is way out of proportion...
(if he thought said police officer was a minor, well, then I think I can understand the issue.)
Flame away...
Be excellent to each other. And... PARTY ON, DUDES!
The recent ruling by the supreme court on homosexual ruling basically nullified the state law agaisnt it. This is the Supreme Court getting involved in a state law case. This one is no different than that one and even has greater implications since it's a free speech/1st ammendment case and the other wasn't.
> the precedent has always been that the locale of the alleged offense has the right to determine what is "patently obscene" free speech is guaranteed, but if everyone around decides that what you say is obscene you can be shut down.
IOW, there isn't really any free speech.
> I for one, believe in personal responsibility. Your right to extend your fist ends when it hits my nose
And personal responsibility suggests that you shouldn't buy naughty comic books if you don't want to see them.
This may be "normal" in the USA, but it isn't "liberty and justice for all".
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Doesn't it seem a bit strange that the Supreme Court
basically upholds the right of a state to determine what it considers "obscene" right after they overturn a Texas sodomy law due to the "right to privacy"?
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
When the ACLU begins to defend all of the Bill of Rights, then I will donate to them.
The first amendment does not apply to obscenity. I'm going to get flamed for this, but it is true. You can look it up.
Slashdotter are stupid and biased.
"Recently, the US Supreme Court denied his appeal, with the notion that obscenity is a state-level affair, despite the First Amendment being a Federal law."
The First Amendment is not a "Federal law", nor is it a law at all. It defines rights guaranteed to citizens which cannot be abrogated by the federal government, nor the states, nor local governments.
Except in Texas. Don't mess with Texas.
That's a tautology. Of course banning non-protected speech doesn't "impugn the first ammendment"; "protected" refers to first ammendment protection. It's still legitimate to question WHY so-called "obscene" material isn't deserving of protection when its production doesn't require that a crime have been comitted.
Publication is protected even if it's unpopular unless it might give someone a woody?
I followed the links, but got no information re what the local obscenity laws are in Dallas. Did the comic sold violate them? If so, then what's the issue...?
Lookit, laws re obscenity and speed limits and such are made on the state and local levels Because That Makes Sense! The people in downtown Tulsa don't want L.A.-style porn shops opening in their area, and the people in L.A. don't want to live in a Tulsa-esque climate. Fine! Great! Makes perfect sense! If the Fed comes in to determine what is "universally" obscene or not, folks in both Oklahoma and California aren't going to be happy by the compromise.
Hey, this is America, Land of Opportunity, and if I want to get rich with a chain of Car Washes, I can go for it. But if I try to open one next to your suburban golf course or grammar school, I'm going to be denied. Why? Cuz of the local zoning laws. So I go elsewhere to pursue my "opportunity." Makes sense to me, and the people with the kids in the local school. Some guy selling some explicit tentacle-sex manga is cuffed in Dallas. That makes sense too.
How refreshing that the Supreme Court is repsecting state statute on this one. I really do not want the Federal Goverment involving themselves with local lifestyle laws. There's a Big Big World West of the Beltway and East of Hollywood.
Obscenity is not considered free speech as protected under the first amendment. Therefore it is left to the state and local level to decide if and how to regulate obscenity, as obscenity is judged by the local community standards.
Similarly but not at all identically, outlawing the sales (or at least the display of pornographic publications at a newsstand is reasonable, because it's in the public eye, but outlawing the sales or display of pornographic publications inside of a shop is just plain stupid and clearly a violation of the first amendment. If you don't like it, don't shop there.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Hemos should at least get his facts right before he goes off on a tangent about the threat to the republic posed by getting in trouble reading dirty comic books.
The First Amendment is part of the U.S. Constitution. It isn't a state law or a federal law; it's part of the framework which gives Congress the power to legislate and the Supreme Court te power to judge.
God knows what this has to do with computing, but it is certainly indicative of the kind of audience Slashdot draws: Adults Who Read Comic Books. Now, there's something that can threaten the republic.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
You are correct in a legal sense, but in a moral sense I find this sort of thinking reprehensible. That the majority of people should be able to ban something because they don't like it, without any justification like that it will violate one of their basic rights (life, property, etc), is one of the worst aspects of the democratic system. Why should one group dictate the behavior of another just because there is more of them? And you can't always get away from it, so arguing that you can leave a community doesn't cut it. Tell me where in the US a same sex couple can go to have a legitimate marriage? Civil unions as in Vermont aren't even legally the same as marriages. People act like if it's not spelled out letter for letter in the constitution then you should feel lukcy if you have that particular "privilege". If you aren't killing, injuring, or stealing from anyone then you shuldn't need to ask the government or the majority for permission.
Feel free to mod me "-1 - Angry Jerk".
To the contrary, 'Porn' aka 'Free Love' is a way of life for some. Many a hippy commune was founded on the idea of Free Love.
The mere 'pursuit of happiness' was one of the reasons America was founded, if you recall.
rbb
Waaaaaaa ... go cry about it ...
... that's life. I've bummed thousands of cigs to "non-smokers" at bars. I'm not against non-smoking bars, but I think that should be the bar's option, not the gov't's. Prohibition has never worked. Not against alcohol, it's not working against drugs, and when they try it on tobacco, it won't work then, either.
We all know that smoking is highly addictive and if second hand smoke is so prevalent, why aren't there millions of people addicted to second hand smoke? There aren't.
I'll admit, I'm a smoker. I find second hand smoke annoying as all hell. If I'm around non-smokers, I make a concious effort to smoke down wind so my smoke doesn't blow in their face, to smoke elsewhere, or not to smoke at all. But the second anyone makes an smartassed comment like "smoking kills" or one of those fake *cough cough* sounds, I make it a point to stand beside them and blow as directly in their face as I can.
I try to be a polite smoker. I try, all I ask is some co-operation in return. People smoke when they drink
-Ab
Nothing fails quite like prayer.
So I put it to you that porn is not for either of these purposes {to mostly to allow the populace to criticize the government and other figures with power as a means of exacting political change (and) to allow one to teach one's beliefs and way of life to other people.}; it is merely for pleasure. It stands, therefore, not as a right, but rather as a privelege awarded by the majority.
So, if it feels good, it's a "privelege"? Shouldn't this be considered under the "scope of privacy" between two consentual adults.
Conversely, if it make you 'feel bad', it's protected? How does one measure 'bad' -- by the majority or by the individual?
The decision falls to the majority. Will more people be unhappy with it than happy? Then it won't be allowed.
We're at break-neck speed down that slope as ideas and concepts are being reclassified "priveleges" rather than rights, which imply that we are nothing more than border-line disobedient kids who need discipline for 'bad thoughts' rather than as adults in a free society.
Furthermore, there is a fallacy in this even for the 'free speech' parameters. Even in mild discourse, there will be disagreements which will make people happy and unhappy. The 1st Amendment specifically protects the speech (especially the political speech) that makes the majority unhappy.
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
Similarlly, labor laws that disallow running machines in dangerous ways likely to injure and kill workers are ridiculous. People can simply choose to work for non-employee mangling establishments. The same with laws that prohibit sexually harassment my employers, those chicks can find themselves a non-ass groping establishment. Don't like my unsanitary kitchen? Let people chose between sanitary and unsanitary restaurants.
Personally, I'd rather live in a country where sometimes a community (be it a township or the entire nation) decides that certain activities cost society too much. These restrictions need to be made very carefully, the risk of overregulation is very serious. You definately need an emergency valve to protect essential freedoms (the Bill of Rights does an okay job at this).
Search 2010 Gen Con events
Bull. 10 seconds with google would have given you this tidbit:
Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
How clear can you get? Any right not explicitly given to the government is EXPLICITLY given to the people. People like you have constantly ignored these two amendments, and in the process, slashed away at the rights given to us by our existence. Not by the government, inherent rights.
If a woman wants to express herself by getting nude and getting paid for it, it's her call, and no one else's, except in that we don't have to buy a copy of 'Janet Reno, nude!' if we don't want to.
Oh, regarding: "The decision falls to the majority. Will more people be unhappy with it than happy? Then it won't be allowed."
In case you hadn't noticed, the majority of people do not need to be protected by the majority. The Constitution is set up to make sure that minorities cannot be repressed by the Fed (and the States). A white (non-Yankee) male does not have to be protected to get a job as sheriff in the deep south. A black woman just might. The Constitution protects against the 'Tyranny of the Majority'.
I'm not shy, I'm stalking my prey
Free speech, and the accomptying freedoms of religion are not soley about politics, and pornography is not apolitical. Sex, how we have it (consider the Mormons), if we have it (some early American communities banned it outright), what we think about it, and who we have it forms a foundation of our "way of life" as you put it.
Consider the issue of women's liberation. in the 1800's, even in the 1950's the expectation was that women were meant to stay in the home and have children because that was their lot in life. Sex, issues such as homosexuality, etc were not discussed. As a result the nature of public life, and of politics was different.
If you want a more palpable idea consider the issue of homosexuality. Until recently it was illegal in Texas (and still is in many other areas). Banning homosexuality and the discussion of it allows for homosexuals to be denied access to the public sphere (unless they hide who they are). That in turn changes politics. Even in the early 1980's Man conservatives were able to stymie research into AIDS and public health initiatives dealing with it by arguing that "it was a homosexual disease" and therefore didn't affect "the rest" of us. It was only through the gorwing realization that heterosexuals were contracting it in increasing numbers combined with a growing homosexual lobby that brought it to the forefront.
To take a non-sex issue, consider the muslim religion. For many muslims wearing beards and turbans is part of their religion or at least their culture. Should we ban those, as well as the public call to prayer because they remind many people (uncomfortably) of 9/11? After all the freedom of religion still stands, we are merely banning something that gives them "pleasure".
I say no, the right to dress as such and walk freely without hiding who you are is a necessary part of this country. It is also very very political. To deny people the right to dress as they want for fear of offending others is to deny them the right (again as with homosexuals) to access the public (and thus political) sphere on their own terms. To do so would skew the public debate in this country by making it possible for one group to oust another or at least limit their public presence (and thus influence) on the most subjective of grounds, that of comfort.
With regards to your comments about children. We have laws to protect them. The constitutional definition of obscenity is very narrow and should remain that way. In the case of Jesus, he sold the materials to an adult. If they wound up in the hands of a child then the adult who bought them would have been the one giving them. Moreover the supreme court has held (correctly in my view) that the function of laws to protect children cannot be to force adults to act like them. If we have the right to ban things that may reach children then adults can never yhave a public conversation about adult issues such as sex, AIDS, WAR, and so on.
There are a great deal of things that make me uncomfortable including LEgend of the Overfiend (the comic book that Jesus was arrested for selling) but I am willing to give up my ability to ban them in echange for the agreement that they not ban me.
As easy as the nee-jerk answer feels I believe that it is the wrong one.
"shut the hell up!"
No, Bill O'Reilly Brownshirt. We won't shut up. And you can't shut off our microphone. Or threaten us with violence if we don't get out.
And Bush is a bigger threat than Al Qaeda. He invaded the wrong two countries, turned the entire Islamic world against us, humiliated and alienated everyone else, and let all the bad guys get away. He's deactivated at least four amendments to the Bill of Rights. He's established that he is not subject to any court. He can make any of us disappear at any time. We are not permitted to protest in his holy presence. He and his people are looting the Treasury. He will make destitute millions of people when the U.S. won't have the money to pay Social Security. He is the worst, most clueless, most arrogant president we have ever had. And he wasn't even elected.
All Al Qaeda can do is kill our bodies. Bush is killing the soul of America.
bullshit. Smokers are the minority. It's a proven health risk, and you are going to force it on people? Having been a smoker and quit, I can attest that once you quit, smoke becomes more offensive to you.
California has has a smoking ban for a while now, and when I visited there I was a smoker. You know how bars got around it? They have patios, and everyone masses on the patio to smoke. Inside is supposed to be smoke free. What is so bad about this? If you want to kill yourself, go do it outside where there is proper ventilation, not a closed-system AC environment.
-- Having a Creationist Museum is like having an Atheist place of worship
Amendment XIV: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Sorry, I assumed you would have read any of the half dozen comments that mentioned it already. This amendment says, when you get down to it, that you can take the 'rights' bit of the constitution, change 'Federal Government' to 'State Government' and it'll still be the law of the land. The State can not have more rights within its own borders than the Fed has within ITS borders.
I'm not shy, I'm stalking my prey
Might does not make morally right. Nor does numbers. Just a couple hundred years ago, it could be argued that the majority of the population thought that African Americans didn't deserve rights. That makes it a popular position, not a right one.
,which in all cases supercede any other laws, and nullify those laws which are in conflict. It's pretty clear that adult comic books, and other x-rated material, is protected under the First Amendment.
Selling pornography doesn't violate anyone's rights. In fact, you can't make a reasonable case for it harming anyone, since no-one has to buy it or look at it. That's a different matter from walking down a public street naked, something that it's unavoidable to look at.
Of course, there's also this silly litle thing called the US Constitution and Amerndment's
Your populist thinking is disturbing, because it goes against the very principles that we think of when we talk about human rights, one of which is freedom of speech. According to you, if a community felt like it, they would be right in forcing a husband and wife to have sex in a specified way, or in forbidding sex on Sundays, or at a specific time of the day.
It is clear that you have little or no respect for human rights, if you think that we are justified in violating them every time we can convince a majority of the people that that's "ok".
It's also nice to know that the cops are making good use of our tax dollars by prosecuting victimless crimes, such as pornography, prostitution, and drug-use, instead of going after real criminals, like rapists, murderers, and child-molesters.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
The only reason that being in a smokey environment is "widely understood" to be an inherent part of bartending is because when smoking became a popular pasttime, and companion to drinking, it wasn't known to be unhealthy. In fact, many people believed it was good for you. Therefore it gained wide popularity and people just had to put up with it if they didn't like it. If everyone had known from the start how unhealthy it is, it would never have become as popular as it is, and it certainly wouldn't be thought of as "inherent" to bartending. I doubt you could make the case that people didn't realize from the beginning that driving 200mph, falling off of high buildings, catching and arresting criminals, or rushing into burning buildings were dangerous.
--
Promoting critical thinking since 1994.
> If you want to abuse your lungs that way I have
> no problem with it, but enacting laws to limit
> where the activity can take place (to protect
> those of us who are affected)
It is legitimate for a democracy to decide how much pollution of public areas (air, e.g.) is ok to pollute, e.g. cars.
However, for cigarette smoke, that should be up to the private property owner. If a restaraunt wants to have smoking sections, or smoking everywhere, that's up to them.
I find it reprehensible that various cities are flat-out banning smoking in private establishments. If you, dear person who doesn't like smoke, and has tantrums over it, take your business elsewhere.
Don't pull out a gun and demand someone stop smoking on their own property (or with the permission of the owner.)
And no, I don't smoke.
BTW, until humanity gives up on this sickening desire to whip out the dictatorial gun and stop pointing it at other people doing things they don't like, we'll never move past the animal stage.
"Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart