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.

Comments

Am I missing something?

[GeckoFood]

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...

Re:Am I missing something?

[mckwant]

I'm not well read on this, but I think the issue is that it's an obscene COMIC, and the DA is arguing that it shouldn't be available in a comic book store. Apparently, the store in question is also across the street from a school, which, of course, shouldn't matter at all.

This is exacerbated by the fact that, as we all know, comic book stores are populated solely by eight year olds who are really only interested in the adventures of Richie Rich, and might have their fragile minds corrupted by the mere presence of such materials.

Re: this is normal

[Black Parrot]

> 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".

Whoa, There, Cowboy! Local Obscenity Laws == Good

[RobotRunAmok]

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.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[drinkypoo]

Saying that people cannot smoke on the street is reasonable, because the street is public. Saying that people cannot smoke in a private establishment is ridiculous, because it does not belong to the people. Citing labor laws as a reason to disallow smoking in a workplace is ridiculous because people can simply choose to work for smoking or non-smoking establishments. The people will decide.

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.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[MobiusKlein]

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

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[ChaosDiscord]

Citing labor laws as a reason to disallow smoking in a workplace is ridiculous because people can simply choose to work for smoking or non-smoking establishments. The people will decide.

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).

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Zirnike]

"It stands, therefore, not as a right, but rather as a privilege awarded by the majority."

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'.