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

Cases like this are rediculous

[mjmalone]

The government needs to back off on lifestyle issues, especially when it comes to adults. If a person is making a positive contribution to society (not in jail, has a job, pays taxes, etc.) what right does anybody else have to tell them what they can and cannot say, do, smoke, eat, drink when it does affect other people. I am hoping there is more to this case than just buying an adult magazine, but according to the article the offense took place in Texas, which makes it less surprising that such a rediculous case is even being considered. I also find it interesting that his appeal was denied because obcenity charges were a state issue. Doesn't the federal court system have a certain responsiblity to step in when a state is being accused of infringing on a constitutional right?

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Lord Zerrr]

Constitutional rights? Do we have these anymore?

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Anti Frozt]

• "...what right does anybody else have to tell them what they can and cannot say, do, smoke, eat, drink when it does affect other people."

When it does affect other people?? I think the government has quite a bit of right when damaging acts such as smoking, rape, and murder adversly affect the surrounding public. I'm personally quite glad that a lot of cities in Ontario having inacted anti-smoking by-laws.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Planesdragon]

If a person is making a positive contribution to society (not in jail, has a job, pays taxes, etc.) what right does anybody else have to tell them what they can and cannot say, do, smoke, eat, drink when it does affect other people.

They're the government. Y'see, when a group of humanoids grows to a certain point, they form a goverment that helps them all get along. There's nothing wrong with this--especially since someone who really wants to go against their local gov't can just up and move, or participate and get the law changed.

I am hoping there is more to this case than just buying an adult magazine, but according to the article the offense took place in Texas, which makes it less surprising that such a rediculous case is even being considered. I also find it interesting that his appeal was denied because obcenity charges were a state issue. Doesn't the federal court system have a certain responsiblity to step in when a state is being accused of infringing on a constitutional right?

SCOTUS has ruled on obcinitly laws before, and the federal take is "it's a local issue with local standards." In one state it may be perfectly legal for women to walk around naked on the beach; in another, a woman showing even her aeriolis can be indecent exposure.

Obscinity, dangerous speach, treason, government secrets, contractual gag orders, judicial proceedings, lies, slander, and libel are all non-protected speach. Baning them will not impugn the first amendment.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[ckokotay]

Ummmm.... Not too good at context interpretation are you? He obviously meant to say 'doesn't'.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[SmallFurryCreature]

I hope this is a case of "Preview before you post" or else you are one of the most extreme liberaterians I ever saw.

what right does anybody else have to tell them what they can and cannot say, do, smoke, eat, drink when it does affect other people.

With the DO bit you seem to say that people should be free to kill, rape, mutilate other people since no one should be allowed to say they shouldn't.

So I really really hope you meant to say "what right does anybody else have to tell them what they can and cannot say, do, smoke, eat, drink when it doesn't affect other people.

This sentence is significantly different. It could for instance be used to outlaw smoking in public but not in private areas or areas that are setup for that purpose. It can be used to allow people to have whatever sexual preference just along as it is between consenting adults. IE freedom but responsible freedom.

Youre statement wich I think very few people would agree with would create anarachy.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Ignoring the fact that you or they could easily stand somewhere else if outside, and, if you live in a city, you're likely breathing in things far more dangerous than a bit of second hand smoke..

Damned right, when it affects others, the government should have the right to put an end to things.

However, when it comes to the privacy of one's own home, almost all bets should be off.

Example: You shouldn't be able to sit in the park reading the latest x-rated comic labeled, 'Commander Taco and the Three BSD Daemonettes'. The park's public property. Others might not wish to see Commander Taco getting it on with BSD chix0rz.

However, anyone should have the right to purchase and watch 'CowboyNeal and the Tentacled Sex Chixxx0r' in the privacy of their own home.

To put it another way - the government has no moral or ethical right to dictate where any consenting adult can stick it in any other consenting adult.

They perhaps have a legal right, but then, not all laws are just, moral or ethical. (*coughDMCAcough*)

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Josuah]

"...what right does anybody else have to tell them what they can and cannot say, do, smoke, eat, drink when it does affect other people."

When it does affect other people?? I think the government has quite a bit of right when damaging acts such as smoking, rape, and murder adversly affect the surrounding public.

Um, yes, but he meant when it _doesn't_ affect other people. Typo. If it wasn't a typo, then we all know someone who we should feel free to kick in the head whenever you feel like it.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Another MacHack]

Obscinity, dangerous speach, treason, government secrets, contractual gag orders, judicial proceedings, lies, slander, and libel are all non-protected speach. Baning them will not impugn the first amendment.

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?

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Xerithane]

If a person is making a positive contribution to society (not in jail, has a job, pays taxes, etc.) what right does anybody else have to tell them what they can and cannot

The community does. If 99% of the population says 1% can't do something they like that does effect the rest, even in a very minor way, that 1% loses out.

Obviously the community felt this was justified, or the community would be rallying against it. Having an adult comic book store does influence the community. You cannot be a part of the community without influencing it in some way.

I also find it interesting that his appeal was denied because obcenity charges were a state issue. Doesn't the federal court system have a certain responsiblity to step in when a state is being accused of infringing on a constitutional right?

Only when they haven't already decided on something. In this case, the obscenity bit has been decided several decades ago (1970's) to be a state issue, not a federal one.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[YomikoReadman]

Well depending on your point of view, it really is nothing more than a case of being convicted for selling adult comics. According to Anime News Network, he was tried and convicted for "selling adult comic books to adults". The catch in all of this is that the reason he was charged in the first place was because his store was located near a school. I don't know about you, but as long as the adult material was not made available, and to the best of my knowledge this is the case, I have no problem with this. Is it just me?

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

[fireboy1919]

Maybe you should question why something is covered by free speech. The intent of the idea of free speech is to mostly to allow the populace to criticize the government and other figures with power as a means of exacting political change.

As a supplement, it is to allow one to teach one's beliefs and way of life to other people.

So I put it to you that porn is not for either of these purposes; it is merely for pleasure. It stands, therefore, not as a right, but rather as a privelege awarded by the majority.

The question may be raised, then, as to why they should repress others in satisfying their desires. The answer should be simple: because the mere presence of such material is displeasurable for them. They don't want to risk their children getting it, or them seeing things in a moment of weakness.

Since
1) It does not further the intent of the free speech ammendment
2) It makes some people happy, and others unhappy.

The decision falls to the majority. Will more people be unhappy with it than happy? Then it won't be allowed.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Surak]

The community does. If 99% of the population says 1% can't do something they like that does effect the rest, even in a very minor way, that 1% loses out.

So if 99% of the population are cannibals, and they decide to eat you, part of the 1% of the population that isn't...? Is it okay that you are now lunch?

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[maxume]

Uh, the framers wrote the constitution with a big ol' anti-federalist bug up thier collective ass. The constitution was designed to prevent the federal government from trampling all over the autonomy of individual states, not individuals. That's why the fourth amendment doesn't do much against states that decide people need a license to own a pistol. This has information for each state, and doesn't seem to be horribly biased. Most states have some sort of bill of rights built into thier charters/constitutions, so we don't notice that the constitution doesn't protect us from state laws. Of course, programs that get federal funding usually have to stick to federal law, further complicating things.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[tomstdenis]

I'd like to point out that second hand smoke is very dangerous for children who have parents who smoke.

I should know I had various lung related illnesses all throughout my childhood. How many kids do you know who has had pneumonia like 6 times and bronchitis 4 times?

Tom

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Ed Drone]

> No, they didn't. They just didn't spell "ridiculous." > Aha! If you were the REAL Mrs. Truman, you'd know that it's "Harry S Truman." (You'd also be 20 years dead, or so.) So There! Ed

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Efreet]

But after the civil war the Bill of Rights was later extended to cover the states as well. I quote from the fourteenth ammendment:

"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."

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Delphiki]

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.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[illuvata]

reminds me of "democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner"

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Kombat]

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.

Great! So I suppose then that you'd support repealing the anti-workplace sexual-harassment legislation, right? I mean, after all, if a young, attractive woman doesn't like being whistled at by the gruffy, overweight contractors, and slapped on the tushy by her boss, she's free to quit and work somewhere else.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[nelsonal]

Up here in Helena we passed a law banning smoking in any public building, including bars. It was pretty nice to pop in to any bar and get a drink without any sort of crowd, but the bar owners hated it. I remember one place that was packed had three groups of people playing pool and two people went to the bar for a drink on a Friday at 10:30. Considering that we already had two bars that were smoke free before the law, (microbrew resturant pubs) you would think that those who didn't want to be exposed to second hand smoke would just go to one of those places. Happily somewhere along the line it was reversed by the courts or the state.

I was about ready to start a private smoking club that happened to sell drinks. Members only, but membership would cost $40 bucks and come with two cartons of your brand.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Surak]

Yep. Exactly. Keep in mind that I'm a libertarian. :)

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

[Waffle Iron]

It's up to the PEOPLE that frequent those places to decide whether the risk of inhaling second-hand smoke outweighs their desire to eat there rather

No, it's up to the smokers who frequent those places to decide whether the distress of fighting back their addiction for an hour outweighs their desire to eat there.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Kombat]

That's quite an extreme example, but yes.

Are you at all familiar with the concept of a "democracy?" It means "majority rules." Even if the majority decides to do something that you (a minority) might think is wrong. Suck it up, work for change, or leave. Those are your options. If 99% of the population approved of randomly eating strangers, then that would be the rule of the land. That's how democracy works, my friend.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[1u3hr]

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.

Hardly any restaurant owners want to exclude paying customers who smoke. If you work in the restaurant business you therefore had no choice but to inhale second hand smoke.

In every city that has brought in non-smoking reataurants the owners have put up a bitter battle, claiming they would go out of business, because they know that non-smoking restaurants, in competition with smoking ones, will. But, they don't whe ALL restaurants are non-smoking. People still want to eat, and when forced to choose between that and smoking, gave up smoking, at least for a while. If smokers could inject their drugs, that would be fine, but they pollute the whole room they're in. Their right to smoke conflicts with the rights of others to breathe.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Abm0raz]

Waaaaaaa ... go cry about it ...

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 ... 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.

-Ab

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Moofie]

I'm very glad, then, that we don't live in a democracy. Seems like an awful way to run a railroad.

Tyranny of the majority was /precisely/ what the founding fathers feared (nice alliteration!) when they set a representative democracy, AKA a "republic".

Majority rules with minority rights. Mob rule != justice.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[psxndc]

Or that they can make more money off of unemployment than they can by working at McDonald's, which is pretty f'ed up. By sitting on my ass, I could make more money than someone that busts their ass over a hot stove for 8 hours? That ain't right. It just ain't right.

psxndc

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[drinkypoo]

You know, there's always someone willing to apply the logic I've applied to one situation, and apply it to another. Sexual harassment is harmful to others no matter where it takes place, in part because the very name implies a target who does not welcome the advances.

Actually, my words earlier on smoking in the workplace are too harsh. I really do believe that smoking in the workplace should be restricted to eateries and bars. I think it's really amazingly stupid to not allow people to smoke in bars; A bar is a place where people go to drink and smoke. Some cities (Like Santa Cruz) have decided not to aggressively go after bars which allow smoking. For a while some places didn't have ashtrays out, but eventually a semi-official commitment to target smokers and not establishments (the police will occasionally go through bars looking for smokers there, but they will give you a chance to extinguish your cigarette before ticketing you) meant that nearly every bar in Santa Cruz started providing ashtrays again.

On the other hand, if I'm the boss of some company, I'm pretty goddamned pissed if I can't smoke in my office. That's rude. It's my company, and my office. But where do you draw the line? If the company is public, it sure doesn't belong to the CEO.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[carlos_benj]

Ignoring the fact that you or they could easily stand somewhere else if outside, and, if you live in a city, you're likely breathing in things far more dangerous than a bit of second hand smoke..

While the last statement is true, the first is not. There is no place I can stand outside a restaurant or public buiilding where smokers congregate around the door to get in their last few puffs before going inside and not be affected by the smoke. Cigarette smoke gives me a raging headache almost immediately. Cigars and pipes don't but the cigs always nail me. Second hand smoke drifts, it does not fall straight down nor does it rise straight up. Inside a building is even worse.

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) is, as you pointed out in your other examples, legitimate. Smoke at your house and I won't come over, but don't tell me I can choose to stand somewhere else in a public place.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Wordsmith]

because you don't HAVE to work for that boss, just like you don't HAVE to work for a boss who gives you long hours with little pay. You agree to a work situation in which the benefits of the job (pay, good location, good work environment) outweigh the negatives (low pay, bad locatoin, bad work environment). If you agree to one with a crummy tradeoff - say, one that allows smoking when you hate smoke - that's your own damn fault.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Moofie]

Er, that's "set UP a representative democracy blah blah words words."

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[cyb3r0ptx]

I could make more money than someone that busts their ass over a hot stove for 8 hours

Have you been in a McDonald's recently? I seriously doubt that anyone who works there is busting his ass.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[arkanes]

You know that the government does this in response to public opinion, right? It's not like theres some guy who just gets to decide these things.

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

[arkanes]

Thats because your logic doesn't support your conclusions.

Smoking in the workplace is physically and psychologically harming to anyone who doesn't smoke. There's no reasonable way the ability to withstand smoke (ie, not be bothered by it) can be consided a neccesary condition of working.

Certainly saying that "they can always work somewhere else" is moronic, unless you WANT someone to call you on it.

Here's a question for you: If I wanted to masturbate in your bar, would you mind? Would you throw me out? How about calling the police if I persist? Why? How is any more or less obnoxious than smoking? How about if I choose to keep a bucket of urine at my table instead of an ashtray?

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'.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[theglassishalf]

...I was turned down by McDonalds. (seriously.) They SAY they are always hiring, but that is just so they can keep a file in case a few people quit. Lots of places do that. I've got a feeling you don't do much work in that end of the economy.

Also, just try and survive in a metro area on a McDonalds salary. (which is not only min. wage, but also part-time!)

-Daniel

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Godeke]

Totally wrong: the right to free speech is not limited to political speech. Political speech gets extra protection *in practice* because of the things you mention, but because the distinction between different forms of speech is difficult, the *First Amendment* held all speech as free. Only later did restrictions get piled on, and those restrictions are only considered "constitutionally permissiable" if they fall within a very narrow set of rules (either because they are content neutral or consist of a "breach of peace"). Lately those rules are broadening, but that does not make any form of speech a "privledge".

The frames considered freedom to be the "natural rights" of all people, and then outlined restrictions *again* the government taking those rights away except in defined situations. If you consider you "natural rights" a "privlege", then you have accepted a completely different government than intended by our founders: the only rights you have are those granted by the government. That is exactly opposite of the original intent.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Where do you see the government granting us a permission there? I see the people restricting the government. I really wish our moderns laws were so clearly stated.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[arkanes]

This is a reasonable argument against every single form of worker protection there is. Think really hard about whether or not you want to take the position that employment should be controlled soley by the free market.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Surak]

That, sir, is why we do NOT live in a democracy. We live in a constitutionally-limited republic.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[arkanes]

I make it a point to stand beside them and blow as directly in their face as I can.

If you did that to me you'd be swallowing your cigarettes. Just because your disgusting personal habits bother people (I cough around smokers because I have scarred lungs. Put your fucking irritants somewhere else) doesn't mean you get any sort of moral high ground.

You don't DESERVE any cooperation - it's like me saying that if I want to piss in public I will, and if you say anything about it I'll just piss on you.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[meta-monkey]

*thinks really hard*

I take the position that employment should be controlled solely by the free market.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Kombat]

there's always someone willing to apply the logic I've applied to one situation, and apply it to another.

That's because the situations are analogous, and your position is hypocritical. Sexual harassment (note: big difference from sexual "assault" - I chose harassment because it closely parallels your second-hand smoke example) is harmful to others, as you state. However, SO IS SECONDHAND SMOKE!

Here in Ottawa, Ontario, we have a blanket smoking ban on all restaurants and bars, and I think it's great. For years, industries have been held accountable for the physical (and even mental!) well-being of their employees, with the sole exception of the food-service industry. On construction sites, employees must wear hard-hats and steel-toe boots. In hospitals, nurses must wear masks. In auto-painting shops, employees must wear ventilators. And yet, in bars, there was no requirement for employees to protect themselves from the smoke.

A woman in Ontario was recently awarded a large sum of money, because she developed terminal lung-cancer after working in a (smoke-filled) restaurant for 40 years. She never smoke in her entire life.

If a coal miner developed black lung, and the mine he worked for forbid employees to wear masks, don't you think it would be reasonable for the company to be held accountable? Or should he simply "quit and get another job?"

By the way, leave alcohol out of this, because no one ever got liver disease from "second-hand alcohol." They are two completely separate issues. I can sit next to you and drink alcohol without adversely affecting your health, but smoke, by nature, affects everyone around.

You may think smoking bans are ridiculous, but I, on the other hand, feel the lack of smoking bans is ridiculous. It is absurd for the food service industry to enjoy being the lone exception in workplace safety scrutiny. Staff at these establishments have every right to a safe work environment, just as everyone else in the country does. Anything else is hypocritical at best.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[IWorkForMorons]

Having an adult comic book store does influence the community.

But it wasn't an adult comic books store. It was a comic book store with an adult section. The adult section was only accessable to adults. And an adult purchased adult material. Seems simple enough to me.

I'm Canadian, and am blissfully ignorant of Texas laws (although Texas laws seem to be blissfully ignorant of logic and reasoning), but do Texas movie rental stores have an adult section? Most independant stores I know of do, and have the "18+ only" sign above the door. Even though I was curious to see what was in there as a teenager (as every teenager is, or was before the internet was popular), I knew my chances of being in there longer then 3 seconds before being tossed outside on my ass were slim to none. Then I'd have to explain to my parents why I'm not allowed at the video store anymore.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Blackknight]

I hope somebody makes it a point to kick your ass.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Abm0raz]

Well, you obviously didn't bother to read the first part where I intimated that I try my damnedest to get out of non-smokers ways. If it's an actual cough (as you seem to be saying) then I usually apologize and move or just put it out. I was quite obvious when I said the FAKE *cough cough* noise that a lot of ignorant bastards use. If you're truly offended by it, more power to you, but if you and I are in an establishment that permits the behaviour, then you are just as capable of moving as I am. To use an analogy similar to your pissing in public one, "That's like going to a strip club, then complaining there is nudity there." If it's in public (which bars, restaraunts, etc ... are NOT), then you have a valid argument.

-Ab

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Qzukk]

If 99% of the population says 1% can't do something they like that does effect the rest, even in a very minor way

Guess what: Not everything I do affects the rest of society. When I jack off in my room, God does not kill your kitten. My possession of pr0n does not make your children sprout horns or whatever the latest psychobabble bull is (By the way, I play unreal tournament, and despite what all these psycho[logist]s say, I don't camp on top of buildings blowing people's brains out and screaming "Head Shot!"). This can be applied to a lot of things that our representatives in our government thinks it needs to meddle in like homosexual marriage.

Obviously the community felt this was justified, or the community would be rallying against it.

Given the fact that a vast majority of Americans are apathetic weenies when it comes to politics, I don't see how you can provide any backup to this comment. I bet a majority of the community didn't even know there was an adult section of the comic book shop (it was a *section* not an entire store devoted to porn!). A considerable amount probably didn't even know the comic shop existed, and a significant portion probably didn't even open the newspaper on the day information about the store was published.

Even the republic our country runs on has been affected by this apathy, as "special interest groups" tell people who are either incapable of decisionmaking or just [a?]pathetic how to vote, think, and act. Of course, a majority of these special interests are more than happy to spread misinformation whenever it suits them.

This is made worse by the fact that entire groups of society are underrepresented (sometimes by choice) such as the "techy" population with their self-fulfilling prophecy that government is corrupt and won't represent them.

Here's a relevant question for you that has no extremes, no pornography, in fact, it deals with something very mundane: What color is your house? The houses in my subdivision are all an ugly shade of beige. Every single one of them. Because the majority got together and established a "homeowners' association" whose job it is to push the view of the majority onto the minority with fines, and if necessary, eviction. Now, everyone in the subdivision knows their houses are all ugly, but it is now impossible to be the first person to step forward and change the color of their house, because it would no longer match with the majority.

Now tell me, what constitutes obscenity? Not long ago, a bare ankle would have been obscenely pornographic. The public can reverse the trend of increased sexuality any time it wishes to enforce new mores, but to what end? And once it gets to the point where men and women are dressed head to toe to maintain "propriety", will it swing back again? What purpose does this serve except to make things I enjoy (my porn) illegal? And what happens when your wedding pictures become obscene because your wife's dress showed a little too much clevage?

Only when they haven't already decided on something.

The SCOTUS is always within its rights to change its mind. Thats all I'll say on whether the SCOTUS did right or wrong.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[lactose99]

No, PUBLIC places include smokers too. If you don't appreciate smoking in a public resturant (where the resturant owner has no problem offering a smoking section), which I can certainly understand, then you can choose to go to another resturant that shares your lifestyle choices or simply sit in the non-smoking section.

I'm an ex-smoker, but I find laws like this ridiculous. A resturant/pub owner should be able to make-up his own damn mind about whether or not to allow smoking on the premisses. If I put up the money to build a resturant, it should be my decision (and mine alone).

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[arkanes]

Okay. Call your boss and tell him that you're willing to sign a document that forgoes all your legal protection under all the various workers rights statues. Be sure to bring this up in every job interview you go to, too. Or, more simply, simply move to, say, Ethiopia.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Xerithane]

So if 99% of the population are cannibals, and they decide to eat you, part of the 1% of the population that isn't...? Is it okay that you are now lunch?

It's ok that they choose to do that, but I'd really have to question that 1% that is stupid enough to live there.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[GoofyBoy]

>As a supplement, it is to allow one to teach one's beliefs and way of life to other people.

Have you've SEEN how much pr0n is out there? Judging by the sheer quantity floating out there it has to be a way of life for a huge number of people.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Waffle Iron]

A resturant/pub owner should be able to make-up his own damn mind about whether or not to allow smoking on the premisses.

He's not allowed to make up his own damned mind about putting a poison like arsenic in the customers' drinking water. Why should he be be allowed to let his establishment become filled with poisonous contaminated air?

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[drinkypoo]

It's my bar, I can throw you out for any reason I like. Dumb question. You can call me on the issue about working somewhere else if you like but the fact is that what makes this country great (I know, a cheesy phrase from hell) is personal choice and personal initiative. Of course, I have very little of the latter, so I largely do as little as possible, but even that is a choice.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[maxpublic]

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.

What a bullshit argument. There is no guarantee in the Constitution, either explicit or implicit, for laws protecting 'society'. Laws in this nation have but one purpose, and one purpose alone: to protect the INDIVIDUAL.

'Society' is the fallback fantasy argument of the rampant liberal moron, serving much the same purpose as 'for the chilllldreeeen!' does for the rampant consersative moron. It's designed to shut down all argument by declaring that anyone who opposes idea/measure/proclamation X is against 'society', and is therefore the incarnation of evil.

There is no fucking 'society'. It's a fantastical construct, nothing more. Laws made to protect a non-existent entity are ridiculous in the extreme, as anyone with half a brain can see if the rub a few neurons together for longer than two or three seconds.

The laws which ban smoking purport to protect 'society', but in fact there entire purpose is to deprive others of freedom. As pointed out, when people had the freedom to smoke in bars or restaurants, non-smokers had the freedom to go elsewhere. Now non-smokers still have exactly the same freedom they had before, but smokers have been deprived of the freedoms they used to enjoy. One group has stripped the other of rights simply because the pissy little shits who have a pole up their ass about smoking enjoy making smokers miserable, no matter the ultimate application of the law.

Fucking little pricks.

Having once been in the restaurant business, I'll take the smokers over the non-smokers any day of the week. The smokers were not only far less uptight, but it being MY GODDAMN BUSINESS I'm the only one who gets to decide what the fucking rules are. If you don't like it, go eat somewhere else, you non-smoking pricks. If there are enough of you I'll go out of business, or some non-smoking restaurant will open up to accommodate your whining self-centered asses - if not, you'll just have to eat at home. And that is called CAPITALISM, you socialist jerkwads.

Goddamn, but America these days is just chock full of fuckers who insist on telling everyone else how to live, and are more than willing to pass laws punishing them (with malicious glee) if they refuse to comply with some shithead's view of How Things Should Be (TM). Soon I won't be able to scratch my ass in public without being convicted of some crime passed 'for the good of society'.

Or perhaps 'for the chiiilllldren!'. It's all the same thing.

Max

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[mosch]

and if you do that, he'll be the one living in your house after his lawyer takes it from you for assaulting him.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[drakaan]

Actually, the reason America was founded was that a bunch of Puritans that were so uptight that nobody wanted them in England anymore said "fine", and sailed across the ocean to a place that they could be chaste and angry in peace. After that, a bunch of other people with less rigid morals said "hey, it's not too bad over here...let's stay". The fight over whose way is better has been going on since then.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[gughunter]

The behavior of customers is not the issue -- it's what behavior the owner of the establishment permits, or is permitted to permit. If "Bob's Clean-Air Pissatorium" disallows smoking but encourages buckets of urine, that's for Bob to decide (and for most others to avoid like the plague).

Of course, there will always be cases where property rights have to be suspended for the public good, like when juvenile delinquents store illegal copies of songs on their computers. The government should definitely get involved there.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Surak]

So if 99% of the population are cannibals, and they decide to eat you, part of the 1% of the population that isn't...? Is it okay that you are now lunch?

It's ok that they choose to do that, but I'd really have to question that 1% that is stupid enough to live there.

No, it's not okay, and it's the reason that we do *not* live in a democracy, X. It's called the tyranny of the majority. We live in a constitutionally-limited republic, the so-called 'representative democracy'.

If we lived in an actual democracy (democracy==mob rule), there would be no such things as taxes or anything else equally unpopular, but perhaps necessary.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[ostone]

The decision falls to the majority. Will more people be unhappy with it than happy? Then it won't be allowed.

When did we simply start assuming Utilitarianism to be correct? Just because it makes some people happy, and others unhappy doesn't make it RIGHT or WRONG. Happieness is not the measure of virtue, perhaps you should pick up some classics (Aristotle or Plato would be good start) before you start assuming a system of values.
I will also point out that the assumed system of morality in our laws tends to be a modified version of Egoism. This may sound bad, but it makes for a more sane set of laws.

Ayn Rand may not be the best philosopher in the world, but she is right about some things. Heck, Ursela K. LeGuin wrote about this (The ones who walk away from Omeleas (sp?))

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[acidrain69]

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.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Mr. Slippery]

You shouldn't be able to sit in the park reading the latest x-rated comic labeled, 'Commander Taco and the Three BSD Daemonettes'. The park's public property. Others might not wish to see Commander Taco getting it on with BSD chix0rz.

Then don't look over my shoulder. Duh.

The furthest you could go with that argument is to mandate "plain brown wrappers" on covers of "adult" material.

But then, others might not want to see the cover of your copy of "Great Works of Art: Depictions of the Cruxifiction"...so who gets to draw the line over who gets to display and who goes to jail?

If you don't like it: don't look. Any law that goes further than that, is a true obscenity.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[drakaan]

The intent of the idea of free speech is to ensure that the minority have a way to express themselves without being censored. I'd say that leaves little question over whether something is free speech. Free speech (in the USA) is specifically that that doesn't infringe on the life, liberty, or pursuit of someone else's happiness.

Anything I say, for instance "Fuck off!" that does not endanger those things mentioned above (I suppose if I said it loud enough in someone's ear, it might loosely fall into the first category, but that's a biiiiig stretch) is fine, as far as the first amendment goes.

so,
1) The intent of the free speech amendment is not there to be furthered, it's there so people's speech cannot be censored
2) The unhappy people need to get the fuck over it.

The decision of the majority, insofar as it relates to rights granted by the constitution and it's amendments, can't be a matter of how many people will be unhappy. The easy (and fucking scary) way around that would be another constitutional amendment.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[acidrain69]

idiot. No one is saying people can't smoke, they are just saying you can't smoke INSIDE where it affects other people. It is one person's "freedom" encroaching on another person's right to life. Remember that "life liberty, pursuit" shit? That's the life part. Don't be a moron. No one is stopping cigarrettes from being manufactured. Troll.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Suburban Shaman]

>or simply sit in the non-smoking section.

Without seperate ventilation systems in place, a non-smoking area is like having a non-peeing area in a public pool....

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Xerithane]

No, it's not okay, and it's the reason that we do *not* live in a democracy, X. It's called the tyranny of the majority. We live in a constitutionally-limited republic, the so-called 'representative democracy'.


Tyranny of the majority? That's how almost all governments work, and it's the only way to get them to work. It's not tyranny, it's agreeing on a common good. But yet, you do need a constitution. However, I don't feel that you need to cry foul when you are doing something that isn't constitutionally protected that pisses off everybody else.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Wordsmith]

i'd be willing too if it opened up the job market further. lets say i'm not bothered by smoke, and i interview at a company where the powers-that-be insist smoke be allowed in the workplace. well, all of a sudden, i no longer have to compete with all the serious anti-smoking folks who might otherwise have applied.

likewise, they get to apply to companies with strict anti-smoking rules, and don't have to compete with smokers for those jobs. all removing a law like that would do is open up the options for both sides.

some supposed "job" protections would still apply - such as rules against sexual harassment - because, as another poster noted, that's inapropriate and arguably illegal ANYWHERE, not just in the workplace. Don't make laws apply oddball special restrictions to the workplace that don't apply to the rest of hte world - if an employer wants to create a specific environment, let 'em. and let me choose to refuse to work there if i don't like it.

people act like they have a basic right to work. if you don't like the conditions of a job, don't take it, and hope you can find something better. if you can't, then buck up and take the bad situation because its better than nothing.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Surak]

Other than a ruling from a conservative-majority Supreme Court, exactly how is this case not constitutionally-protected? Ever read the First Amendment?

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Xerithane]

Other than a ruling from a conservative-majority Supreme Court, exactly how is this case not constitutionally-protected? Ever read the First Amendment?

Yes, but it has been decided that obscenity it handled on a state wide level, and not federal. This is because what is obscene in one state is perfectly acceptable in another. For example: Prostitution is legal in Nevada, and not considered obscene. Try handing flyers for prostitution out in, say, St. George, Utah.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[maxpublic]

Hey, fuckwit, you apparently missed the point. The law doesn't grant any freedom or protection not available prior to it's passing; all it does is deprive one group of freedom in order to appease the malicious desires of another.

Here, I'll speak slowly: law - takes - away - freedom. Law - protects - no one. Law bad.

Apparently the geneticists are wrong and we did, indeed interbreed with neanderthals.

Max

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[ChuckleBug]

What a bullshit argument. There is no guarantee in the Constitution, either explicit or implicit, for laws protecting 'society'. Laws in this nation have but one purpose, and one purpose alone: to protect the INDIVIDUAL.

I realize this is just flamebait, but we have alot of cretins running around spouting this kind of crap, so I'll bite:

Let's see. The Constitution says it's there to:

- Form a more perfect union... So in your mind a union is an INDIVIDUAL?

- Establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility... So justice and domestic tranquility don't have anything to do with society, i.e. an aggregate of people who have to live together? On your bizarro "only individuals" planet, people would be saying nonsense like, "Thanks to the Constitution, I'm domestically tranquil! I'm just!"

- Provide for the common defense... Gee, that's clearly only for the INDIVIDUAL.

- Promote the general welfare... So I guess this is some guy named General Welfare?

- Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity... An awful lot of plurals for something that only applies to the INDIVIDUAL.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[MemRaven]

Luckily in California you can do that year round. In Illinois, where I grew up, you wouldn't be able to use the patio about 4 months out of the year.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[zdavek]

Zirnike wrote:

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.

No. Any right not explicitly given to the Federal goverment is EXPLICITLY given to the people OR the State governments.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Zirnike]

No, any right not given to the Fed is given to the people through the 14th amendment.

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.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[acidrain69]

True, true, but don't you people have winter clothing!? If the nicotine is that worth it, people will brave te cold.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[arkanes]

Sexual harrasment is just as much an atmosphere as smoking is. If a boss wants to make the decision that all his secretaries have to be 19-21, female, attractive, and naked, how long do you think he's going to last without a suit? (Note: strippers & such aren't sued [successfully] because physical attractiveness is a characteristic of the work done. For the same reason, someone in a wheelchair couldn't sue for not being hired to do something that required mobility - say mountain rescue or something). Why is it inappropriate and illegal anywhere, even in the workplace (Note again: It's not. I can sexually harrass women all I want in private or on my own time. The worst I'd get would be a convetional harrasment suit if I didn't leave her alone when asked).

And, actually, most people DO consider the right to work a basic human right. The UN does. Most US courts interpert "pursuit of happiness" as including the right to work. Its in the interest of society for the work market to be fair.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[acidrain69]

Really asshole? What protections were available before it's passing? How did people stop smokers before this law? Malicious? What is malicious about not wanting to die from some idiot's mistakes?

You must be jonesing for a cigarette right now. Nicotine withdrawl tends to make people act stupid. I feel sorry for your addiction. Don't push it on other people.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[IpalindromeI]

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.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Sylver Dragon]

Alright, I'm probably getting trolled, but...

Ridiculous? Of course. It's not at all analogous to sexual harassment because putting up with sexual harassment is not an inherent part of most jobs; being in a smoky environment is widely understood to be an inherent aspect of bartending. Just as driving in a 200MPH traffic jam is an inherent aspect of racing, and rushing into burning buildings is part of being a firefighter.

Why should having to breate poison be a condition of working as a bartender? There is no reason for it. By simply moving the smokers outside the health of everyone in the bar is protected, and there is no real loss in the service provided. Like you said, 200MPH traffic jams are an accepted part of racing, without them racing would be rather pointless. Rushing into firey buildings is an accepted risk of being a fire fighter, if they didn't do it, we'd have many more people dead. The hazards you cite are hazards that are unavoidable in those professions, smoke for a bartender is not. People are not going to have to go without a drink if the bartender is not stuck in a smokey environment. And as for the whole, get a different job argument, this is just absolute bullshit. The whole reason we have any sort of labor laws is that companies will abuse thier employees as much as they can get away with, and with the number of people out there, companies will be able to get away with quite a bit (and have in the past). Labor laws exist to keep companies to at least a minimum standard of treatment of employees. The smoking bans, such as ours in California, exist to protect employees from a hazard that there is no reason for them to be exposed to, and the rest of us for that matter.
This is exactly analogous to Sexual Harasment laws. There are certain behavior problems that people should never be expected to have to put up with in a work environment. By removing these behaviors from a work place, the work is in no way diminished, and usually the quality of the work is incresed. Ya, I'm sure not being able to smoke at work, or in a bar sucks, but I see no reason that I should be forced to find a different resturant because you want to poison yourself; chew your tabacco, or swallow all of the smoke down, but please don't pretend that you have a right to poison the people around you.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[WaxParadigm]

"Really asshole? What protections were available before it's passing?"

Ummm, try going to an establishment that doesn't allow smoking. That's served me pretty well as a way to protect myself from these "horrible" smokers and their exhaust.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[coebabelghoti]

I have to go along with that. I'm a student at University of Pittsburgh, and there's no smoking in any academic buildings here (including dorms). In the winter you can see smokers huddled together in the "ashtray" (patio outside our most populous dorms) braving our nasty weather just for a few drags off a deathstick.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Sylver Dragon]

i'd be willing too if it opened up the job market further. lets say i'm not bothered by sexual harasment, and i interview at a company where the powers-that-be insist sexual harasment be allowed in the workplace. well, all of a sudden, i no longer have to compete with all the serious anti-sexual harasment folks who might otherwise have applied.

likewise, they get to apply to companies with strict anti-sexual harasment rules, and don't have to compete with gropers for those jobs. all removing a law like that would do is open up the options for both sides.

some supposed "job" protections would still apply - such as rules against corporal punisment - because, as another poster noted, that's inapropriate and arguably illegal ANYWHERE, not just in the workplace. Don't make laws apply oddball special restrictions to the workplace that don't apply to the rest of hte world - if an employer wants to create a specific environment, let 'em. and let me choose to refuse to work there if i don't like it.

people act like they have a basic right to work. if you don't like the conditions of a job, don't take it, and hope you can find something better. if you can't, then buck up and take the bad situation because its better than nothing.




Its like a madlib, just fill in the appropriate blanks with any labor law you want to get rid of, and put a slightly worse offense in the lower half.
I call bullshit, You are more than free to do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't affect everyone else. Personally, I feel that if you want to shoot up heroin at work, go for it. Sure, it'll probably affect your job performance, which could get you fired, but assuming you are not operating heavy machinery, it has very little chance of affecting those around you.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Unregistered]

damn you. now i'm hungry.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[sl3xd]

Actually, the framers of the US constitution were much more careful than many people seem to believe.

First, the general consensus was that Democracy=rule of the mob. The United States is NOT a democracy; it is a republic.

If I felt so inclined, I could put up a few quotes to this extent (that the framers of the constitution avoided democracy because it is the rule of the mob.) Such individuals as Hamilton, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin (those guys on US currency) -- even if they were not physically present, they sent letters and were a apart of the process; they all firmly believed that democracy was clearly not the way to go, as it would rapidly erode into the rule of the mob.

Before certain amendments were passed, the Electoral College was chosen by the state legislature; the senate was chosen by the state legislature. We have moved towards a 'real' democracy when the Electoral College was re-defined to be the state representatives in the fed government, and are required (by law) to vote as the people vote, no matter what they feel. The mob was given even more control when the selection of senate canidates was given to a direct vote of the people.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[tomstdenis]

That's just like saying Black people don't HAVE to drink from the same foutain. Those Jews don't HAVE to live in the same neighbourhood. Those Chinks don't HAVE to goto our schools...

You seem to live a sheltered and poor life. I pity thee.

Tom

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Rob Simpson]

Ah. I've always wondered whether people like you wanted to turn back the clock to the obscene working conditions of the Industrial Revolution. Any thoughts from other libertarians?

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Wordsmith]

As bad idea as it would be, if you agree willingly to work somewhere that corporal punishment is practiced, why the hell not? Maybe I'm willing to get smacked on the wrist with a ruler every time I fuck up in exchange for a higher salary. If I'm not, I won't apply for a job there.

And as far as the sexual harassment comparison - -I- call bullshit. Those things that are legal to do outside of the workplace should be legal inside the workplace. If you're harrassing someone in an illegal way, you should be held accountable. THe rules shouldn't be stricter just because you're at your job - unless your employer choses to make them so.

If you want to work somewhere that meets XYZ, then find an employer who offers XYZ.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Enzondio]

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) is, as you pointed out in your other examples, legitimate. Smoke at your house and I won't come over, but don't tell me I can choose to stand somewhere else in a public place.

While I appreciate the logical simplicity of your stance and I do in many ways agree with it, I would point out that there is hypocrisy inherent in which activities' negative side-effects we deem to be unreasonable.

For example, why can your argument not be reasonably applied to cars as well? Car exhaust is at LEAST as damaging as second hand smoke, if not moreso. I cannot avoid car exhaust if I wish to go pretty much anywhere in a city or suburb, even if I choose not to drive a car myself (in fact I'll be MORE heavily affected if I'm walking or biking).

The response to this question is of course that people "need" their cars, but don't strictly need to smoke cigarettes. While it could be questioned if people really need to drive cars, I won't go there because of the massive change that would represent for soceity (and because I'm perfectly willing to accept some negative side-effects of otherwise useful things such as cars).

I will however note that there is no case to be made for needing to drive a car that does not meet LEV or ULEV status. Or at the very least, for new cars to not meet such standards.

Of course this is why emissions testing exists, but is it really effective at doing more than removing the most egregious offenders?

I'm not taking sides on either argument (though I have my opinions), just pointing out that we are a strange people when it comes to who and what we choose to demonize.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Darth]

Yes, but it has been decided that obscenity it handled on a state wide level, and not federal. This is because what is obscene in one state is perfectly acceptable in another.

Actually, the criteria for obscenity has 3 parts; all of which have to be satisfied for something to be obscene. The first part deals with the average community standard. The second part deals with application of state law. The third part deals generically with if the material has any redeeming social or literary value. That third part says nothing limiting it to local or state consideration for redeeming value.

If the supreme court decided that the comic expressed an idea that could be considered speech, it could be protected and could not be found to be obscene, since it would fail the third criteria of the test.

For example: Prostitution is legal in Nevada, and not considered obscene. Try handing flyers for prostitution out in, say, St. George, Utah.

actually, prostitution is not legal in all of Nevada. Nevada law makes prostitution legal in counties that have a population lower than a certain cap (i think it's 10000 people). Prostitution is not legal in Las Vegas, for example.

I dont think the prostitution thing is relevent to the discussion though. The criminalization of prostitution isnt by way of asserting it is obscene. I think it is predicated on the idea that it's a crime against nature (like bestiality and sodomy laws).

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Blondie-Wan]

How can you be sure the "cough, cough" sound is fake? You might be able to tell with 90% certainty, but you still can't guarantee it's not a real reaction. Moreover, if someone says something rude, which is what a fake cough would essentially be, you can respond by saying something in return, or do nothing; you don't have to physically attack them with your smoke (yes, I know it's not as damaging to most as a fist in the face, but it still crosses the line into something that can be considered assault), aside from which it's exceedingly boorish at the very least.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Dr Damage I]

- Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity... An awful lot of plurals for something that only applies to the INDIVIDUAL.

It's kind of difficult to reconcile "the blessings of liberty" with collectivism.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[ChuckleBug]

I don't think the only choices are collectivism (whatever that might mean) or "there is no such thing as society." Liberties always have had and always will have limits, because individual liberties sometimes conflict.

Isn't war, for example, a collective action? Just because I advocate sometimes acting collectively, I'm a collectivist?

All I'm saying is that it's wrong to say that the rights of the group are always trumped by the rights of the individual. Sometimes we have to accept some curbs on our behavior so we can all live with each other. This seems like common sense to me, but anyone who suggests it these days is labeled a commie.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[fenix down]

No fucking kidding. I am pretty fucking shocked he hasn't at least been bitch-slapped for that by now. I don't mind smoking, but that shit, even if the target was being way more of a jerk than "cough cough", will get you an "accidental" beer in the crotch from me. Considering how many people die of cigarette smoking, there's a good chance whoever you're blowing at knows one of them. I'm not going to run up to Christopher Reeve with a horse, I'm not going to wave an assault rifle at Jim Brady, and I'm not going to blow cigarette smoke at somebody because they made me feel bad. That's called being a fucking asshole.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[fenix down]

I'm also not going to wave a crucifix at Jesus, but that's just me.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Carnivorous Carrot]

> 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.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Carnivorous Carrot]

> Up here in Helena we passed a law banning
> smoking in any public building, including bars

Bars aren't public buildings. Bars are private buildings. They are open to the public, which is not the same thing at all.

This law tells society that you are prepared to kill the bar owner if he allows smoking on his own private property.

Why do people get erections at the thought of telling people what to do with their own stuff? No doubt feeling they're so damned enlightned all the while.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[ScrewMaster]

Health issues aside, you can pick on behavioral aspects of any group of people and find something offensive in them. My own opinion is that Americans should start growing thicker skins. I mean ... come on, people. Just deal with it!

Banning things (cell phones, cigarettes, pornography, whatever) is, at best, feel-good politics, and at worst, a Constitutional violation. Those that propose and pass such laws feel good about themselves and can posture in front of their constituents about how they've "done something" about the problem of {insert offensive object/behavior/whatever here}. The problem comes in when you start to make a regular habit of banning things. I'm not a smoker, and second-hand smoke makes me physically very ill. However, I'm against bans and laws regulating where and how people can smoke (or look at pictures of naked people or whatever) simply because I know that, eventually, our fearless leaders will ban something that I do care about. And then I'll be pissed. So I figure it's better to just live and let live.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Carnivorous Carrot]

> He's not allowed to make up his own damned mind
> about putting a poison like arsenic in the
> customers' drinking water. Why should he be be
> allowed to let his establishment become filled
> with poisonous contaminated air?

Let's take a little breather, so to speak, shall we?

1. Smoke is not arsenic.
2. If people had been drinking arsenic historically and enjoying it, even if some die eventually, then he would have the right to sell it, just as they do alcohol and tobacco.

It's an issue of voluntary association and the right to your own property and your own body.

If you don't like it, or don't want to assume the risk, stay the hell out. Don't whip out a gun and threaten death to the bar owner. You aren't so god damned great. What unbelievable arrogance!

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Carnivorous Carrot]

And if someone put up a sign saying, "shared peeing pool inside!", why don't you just stay the hell out if you don't like it?

What arrogance!

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[ScrewMaster]

people act like they have a basic right to work

They do have a basic right to work. Even the IRS can't take that away from you (they can't take your car, for example, if you require it to work, and they can't take your tools.) That isn't the issue. What we don't have is the right to a job that provides all the comforts of home. The problem is that Americans have decided that there's a lot of work that they're just too proud (as Americans) to have to do, so they don't. And, hey, there just happens to be this influx of workers from south of the border that are willing to take those jobs.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Carnivorous Carrot]

Well, just to play devil's advocate, at what point do you draw the line?

Put all people with HIV into quarantine because some of them might get in an accident and splatter someone with blood?

Is everything up for grabs so long as a power hungry politician can convince 50.1 percent of the people to say yes to something, locking it down as basically illegal for the next thousand years?

A legitimate, legal activity like smoking is nothing at all like a dangerous sweatshop with locked doors. It is perfectly legitimate to invite customers in to participate in legal activities.

It sickens me to see so damned many Little Lord Fauntleroys running around with woodies at the feelings of power they get forcing these asinine laws down the throats of people who want nothing to do with them.

When do you draw the line? I'll tell you, in your world view: when something YOU like is about to be outlawed. No critical thinking ability in most of you.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Carnivorous Carrot]

> For the same reason, someone in a wheelchair
> couldn't sue for not being hired to do
> something that required mobility - say mountain
> rescue or something

It ain't for lack of trying by the asses who run the country.

People can and do sue for:

1. Being a 300 lb. stewardess who is given a desk job, or fired, because they're costing a lot of money in fuel.

2. People who are physically repulsive to the majority of customers in public-facing jobs, like sales and stewardesses. I'm not talking about deformities, but things like pins through their lips and so on.

By the way, the right to work is the right to seek work. The government can't stop you.

Your version of "right to work" is socialist nonsense:

1. You can't have such a "right" if it requires someone else to give you a job.

2. When one looks at licensing, one sees it is typically used more to restrict entry into a field of work rather than "protect consumers". So much for your UN-based theory of a right to work.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Jardine]

And if Bob decides he doesn't want blacks in his bar? Or maybe he doesn't want women in his bar. What if Bob doesn't want fat people or tall people in his bar? Shouldn't he be allowed to keep people out for those reasons?

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Carnivorous Carrot]

Pre-industrial revolution: people bred like rabbits in the hopes that a few children made it to adulthood

Industrial revolution, complete with child labor: Children lived longer on average!

"Well," sayeth the critically thinkingly challenged, "we can do better than that."

Yes, we can. Thanks to the Industrial Revolution.

No thanks to you.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Carnivorous Carrot]

Unwanted socialist medicine is harmful no matter where it takes place, in part because the very name implies a target who does not want it.

Oh, and lagging technological development thanks to that will kill a lot more than it saves, ever widening as the years pass.

But a death in the hand is worth a million due to slower technology twenty years from now, eh?

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Carnivorous Carrot]

> If you work in the restaurant business you
> therefore had no choice but to inhale second
> hand smoke. ...or quit, which is what a free country of free people exercising legal activities is all about.

After all, homosexual anal sex has had a big impact (read: financial drag) just like smoking, passing costly disease, killing people by the millions. Wanna see if you can get away with making that illegal? It's the same damned argument. Hell, there are even a handful of people, like the handful from second hand smoke, who die because of it through no fault of their own.

Didn't think you did. Now take the plank out of thine own eye first.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[fireboy1919]

I was neither posing a position for or against the issue, I was merely justifying it under the logic of the law. The parent of my post indicates that the law is being applied willy-nilly, rather than being given a clear outline of usage.

As far as making it illegal to critize a non-political figure, it isn't because there is no such person. All people have political power.

However, there is some legal protection given to the individual. It is illegal to publicly declare that I stole something from you if I didn't, for example, because the would be slander or libel (depending on how you said it).

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[fireboy1919]

While what you say is true, it is also not applicable if I'm right. These are still issue's of human rights. How does a state or the government benefit from withholding pornography? Is a state more powerful because of this?

It is an issue of whether to give the privilege to NOT have to see pornography in the store to a group, or to give the privilege to buy pornography to another. They are conflicting priveleges.

Obsenity violates integrity (which I believe falls under the "pursuit of happiness" thing) of some individuals for the sake of others. Obviously someone has to lose out on priveleges (unless the surpreme court decides that integrity is not a legitimate privilege). This falls under the same category as most other laws, and gives insight into why we have them at all.

The speed limit laws limit the ability for me to go fast in my car. Does that make them illegal since speed limits are not specifically granted by the constitution? It gives others an more of a chance to have life.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[nelsonal]

I misspoke, it was any building open to the public, if it wasn't your home, you generally couln't smoke there. There were a few bars that preferred to pay the fine nightly because their business generated more profit than the fine cost. Before the final hearing the police got tired of fining them nightly and gave up enforcement from what I can tell.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[meta-monkey]

Hey, I talk to my boss all the time, because I'm self employed, and I enjoy talking to myself.

Look, if you don't like the working conditions, don't work there. It's that simple. So long as you don't infringe on anybody's rights through force or fraud, I don't care what you do.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[meta-monkey]

Ummmm...I agreed with everything you said until you took the position that a milkman could beat Wolverine's ass. What kind of crack are you smoking? Razor sharp claws, adamantanium skeleton, mutant healing factor...come on!!! Wolverine's the man!!!

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[meta-monkey]

Sorry, Tom, that's a non-sequitor. See, nobody's FORCED to work at a place where people smoke. However, you're talking about a situation where people ARE FORCED to NOT drink out of a fountain, or live in a certain neighborhood. Apples and oranges, no force vs. force, Tom...it just doesn't compare.

Your ad hominem attack fails, as well. My life is not sheltered, nor is it poor. Save your pity for somebody else.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Waffle Iron]

Let's take a little breather, so to speak, shall we?

...

If you don't like it, or don't want to assume the risk, stay the hell out. Don't whip out a gun and threaten death to the bar owner. You aren't so god damned great. What unbelievable arrogance!

You call that outburst a "breather"? You seem a little jittery. Maybe you ought to cut back a little on the smokes.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[tomstdenis]

I'll take it either you have no empathy or you yourself are smoker.

From my personal experience being around smokers is never about choice. They at my school, bus stops, malls, heck my parents are smokers. I can't really go two steps outside without walking into a smoker.

The fact that smoking is legal at any workplace is purely discrimination. There isn't any way around it. To a anti-smoker as myself [and I'm not half as nuts as the "The Truth" guys] smoking is as offensive as say sexual harassment is to females. We banned sexual misconduct legally why cannot we ban smoking?

Also again you're wrong. Currently I live at home with my parents so I do have a choice about not working with smokers. That choice may lead me to unemployement [though in all honestly I can't say that I've been looking that hard]. The point is if I didn't live at home I would be *forced* to take the first job that was offered and if that involved smokers at work I would be forced to accept it or live on the streets.

Besides that most anti-anti-smoking rhetoric is just plain false. In Ottawa they outlawed indoor smoking and bars are still open. Restaurants still booming [in fact in Kanata where I live most restaurants are packed 7 days a week].

Also as an employer banning smoking serves other purposes. It may get employees to smoke less which means they work more [or at least aren't outside every 10 mins to smoke], they're healthier, more productive and take less time off for illnesses [n.b. a free gym is also handy].

As a human being it's simple empathy to not subject other people to possibly the dumbest habit anyone could pick up. Smoking smells bad, tastes awful, looks stupid, costs money and injurs those that are around.

So unless you are going to personally drive me to school, do my shopping and give me a job I don't see how you can say otherwise w.r.t. "options".

Tom

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[tomstdenis]

Man, grammar bad at 2am....

The jist of my post is that smokers are evil, they're everywhere and they have the social majority it seems [more like most are just pushovers when it comes to dealing with smokers].

And when rent comes due you take whatever job you can find which often may include working with smokers. Not by choice but because they're seemingly allowed to smoke on premises of public places and work environments.

Smokers are just plain mean people who really ought to have their heads thoroughly examined.

Tom

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Imperial Tacohead]

In such a thoroughly middle-class society as our own, that position is tenable. Still, one must remember the reason that worker protections came to be to begin with. People who had no bread were given the choice: work a machine that might well take off your arm for twelve hours a day, or don't, and starve to death, because there are plenty of other peasants to take your place. This may have maximized efficiency, but it clashed strongly with the humanistic principles of a great deal of people. Society essentially decided that it was fundamentally unfair to ask a man trying to feed his family to make a choice like that so that the factory owner could take home the money that would otherwise be spent on safeguarding the machines or paying overtime. Granted, in this day and age, perhaps we are now wealthy enough that we can afford to be a bit more libertarian. Still, since many nations are yet in the throes of their own industrial revolution today, I would have to disagree with applying the libertarian principle across the board.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[misterpies]

And that is called CAPITALISM, you socialist jerkwads.

And if an elected legislature makes a law, whether or not you agree with, that's called DEMOCRACY. What you are advocating is not capitalism, it's anarchy.

The function of the law is to protect freedom not in the narrow sense of "letting me do whatever the hell I want", but also in the broader sense of "protecting me from jerks who think they can do whatever the hell they want and damn the consequences for others". And because societies develop, and the risks they face change, the law has to change with it.

Unfettered capitalism is not the solution to this because (and here I doubt you'll agreee with me), in the eyes of the law even people without money deserve protections. If someone has a choice between working in an unhealthy environment and not working at all, what kind of a choice is that? Especially if they have kids to bring up, old folk to look after etc. That's why politics is messier than philosophy. It has to deal with the real world, not some ideal situation in which no-one has to do anything they don't want to.

You say non-smokers have deprived you of your right to smoke. But smokers have for centuries deprived non-smokers of their rights to be free of lung cancer. Now I ask you, if the balance of choice is between preventing someone dying a needless death, and letting you enjoy a cigarette, where should the balance be drawn? As we have seen, in most democracies the people have come down on the side of restricting smokers. You may not agree with that position, but to argue that it is not merely wrong but an unjustifiable assault on your civil liberties is to misunderstand the entire issue.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[misterpies]

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.

Agreed, but what other system would you prefer? As Churchill said, democracy is the worst system of government, except for all the others.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Zirnike]

"How does a state or the government benefit from withholding pornography?"

Control is its own reward. Look at the war on drugs: It's used as a 'we need to violate your rights because of the WoD' crowbar to systematically reduce even the enumerated rights. As people become more accustomed to the gov. wielding this power over them, they become less likely to oppose new slices into freedom.

"They are conflicting privileges."

No, they are not. A person who does not wish to see pornography can go to places (like Wal-Mart) where they do not display it. Making it illegal for ANYONE to get IS a violation of basic human RIGHTS. And read the above thread again, you missed the point about them being rights, not privileges. That's an important and well documented point. I suggest you read the archives here for starters.

And don't get me started on speed limits. The only reason speed limits CAN exist is because the government owns the road and essentially 'rents' it to us. If they were properly owned by private groups like they were for years after the country was founded, then the speed limit would be dependant on the private whim of the owner. Or do you think a cop can pull onto a racetrack and pull over an F1 for reckless driving?

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[HBI]

The Court apparently thought that the Texas statute was within its guidelines for the obscenity exception to the First Amendment.

"that which appeals to the prurient interest" is the metric, last I heard. Look up prurient interest if you don't have a grasp on the concept, it's a rare one.

There are a few other exceptions, "fighting words" being one, ie, that which would make a reasonable person want to perform violence on you. Say, "your wife gives great head to me every Saturday night", for instance.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[fireboy1919]

First point:
I'm not sure about you, but where I live every gas station sells porn.

If they weren't forced to keep it behind the counter, they might not - places like Walmart might not, for example...and then it would be unavoidable, as it is in many other countries. At least, it would be unavoidable to those who want to drive and go to Walmart.

It's like putting a smoking section in most restaurants - it doesn't make any difference; smoking fills up most places and nonsmokers can't avoid it.

Point 2:
But on another point...are you saying that people have the right to buy porn?

It is not, as the naturalists have suggested, self-evident that certain "rights" are inalienable - that they are rights. Specifically, I have brought up two points - driving fast, and looking at porn - that are considered by many to be self-destructive.

Why is engaging in what is considered self-destructive behavior an enlargement of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness? What makes it an inalienable right?

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Zirnike]

First point: Not around here. Regardless, so? Don't take your kids into the building. Only go to full-serve stations. Find out which don't sell them, and frequent them, dispite the higher prices. Just like it would be your choice to buy shoes for more money that are not made by virtual slave labor, right?

And Walmart wouldn't choose to add porn to the lineup unless there was sufficient profit to be made over the loss of business that having it would bring.

And smoking sections... So? If non-smokers go out to eat when there isn't a fully non smoking resteraunt to go to, you know what? It's their fault (collectivly) for there not being one. If you don't like a resteraunt because their non-smoking section gets smoky, then actually try to make a differance and don't go. Stop trying to remake the world in your image. Smokers should be able to have someplace to eat, too.

Point 2: Why wouldn't they? I have a right to by The Prince, or even Mein Kamph if I feel like it. Either of those is probably more harmful to society than 10 tons of porn.

Oh, and the reason the Constitution guarentees rights is because the majority should NEVER, and I do mean NEVER, dictate the morals of the minority. That's why the US isn't a pure democracy.

"Why is engaging in what is considered self-destructive behavior an enlargement of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness?"

First, we were talking about porn, not self-destructive behavior. Sounds like you're one of the people who thinks that their beliefs are obviously true and ignore the fact that the majority of people know (not suspect, know) they are not. But we don't ban bungie jumping, delivery food, alchohol (we all saw how that turned out), etc. etc. Self destructive behavior is obviously an inalienable right. Who else has any right whatsoever to tell us what we can do with our lives? Answer: no one. It's our choice, not yours.

The fact is that people should be allowed to make their own choices, and the Constitution was set up to make sure that was possible. Deal with it.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[fireboy1919]

Who else has any right whatsoever to tell us what we can do with our lives?
To a limited extent, the government does it for the good of society. I believe the point that I made at first is that it isn't obvious that self-destructive behavior is an inalienable right. It only takes a single example to disprove the fact that it is obvious, and I have it: it is not obvious to me.

Beyond that, though, if it were obvious to EVERYONE then all forms of self-destructive behavior that are not harmful to other people would be legal (note that the reverse is not necessarily true because some things that are self-destructive may also have some positive purposes - enough to outweigh their negative sides). I'll give you one to work with: you're not allowed to use weed for recreational purposes even if you will never do anything for which the changes in perception will hurt someone else (such as driving) because it's self-destructive. You may disagree with this ONE point, but keep in mind that to prove the self-evidence, you're really going to have to show that there is no one to whom it is not obvious that self-destructive behavior is an inalienable right. I'll even be satisified if you can prove that I'm the only one who thinks it isn't.

I'm willing to bet you can't prove it. If it isn't obvious, so the claim that this is a right doesn't hold any water; it is merely an opinion. That being the case, and because it is not stated in the constitution as an exception to one of the other ammendments, the US government is not obligated to defend the privelege of viewing porn as an inalienable right.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[Zirnike]

"it is not obvious to me"

That does not negate its obviousness. You (and others, like the Religious Right in particular) choose to ignore it, and refute the plain wording of the Constitution. That's fine. But don't claim that you are not aware of the facts. You are choosing to make a 'moral' (and I'm using that term loosely... attempting to control the lives of others is not moral) decision override the bald statement of fact. Like all moral choices not supported by the facts, facts override them and render them immoral.

Pot: Do a bit of research. It was banned because the illegal immigrants from Mexico were using it for enjoyment, and the white people didn't want them to, and somehow thought it would 'currupt their youth', just like opium was banned because of the Chinese being frowned upon. As for the obviousness, go back and read the 9th and the 10th amendments again. Sure as hell makes it clear that we shouldn't be banning stuff that people want to be happy (that part ('pursuit of happiness', you know) is way up in the preamble... they thought it was important enough to list first).

I don't have to prove it. You have made absolutely no argument, not even a bad one, as to why we should ban pot, porn, etc. Therefore, based on this thread, the government is COMPLETELY constrained from legislating against it. Period. It's been in writing for over 200 years.

"the US government is not obligated to defend the privilege of viewing porn as an inalienable right"

Speaking of pot, what are you smoking? The government does not HAVE TO defend the RIGHT to view porn. It, in fact, has no obligation to do ANYTHING about it. And it is explicitly and VERY VERY CLEARLY PREVENTED from banning it OR supporting it. Read the preamble, 1st, 9th, 10th, and probably 1 or two other amendments that all say so, and remember the right to privacy. The government is not supposed to be an active participant in these discussions. If you don't like porn, then DON'T BUY IT. If enough people agree, there will be no market, and porn goes away. No government involvement, just like the way the country was meant to be run.

Go read this archive. Your trolling has stopped being entertaining, so I'll resort to education.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous

[carlos_benj]

Reading comprehension is an important skill. You might want to work on it. I don't stand next to the smoker, I'm affected if I'm within thirty or forty feet - and smoke doesn't cause me to cough (well, it probably would in sufficient quantities). The trouble is that smokers can't seem to self-regulate. They tend to stand right at the entrance to a non-smoking establishment (sometimes it's the fault of the proprieter for putting their ash trays at the door but even without ash trays they congregate there). Some of them just don't think, but I think most of them are just sociopaths who revel in their anti-social attitudes. You know the sort - someone who'd anonymously call someone they don't even know an assclown while demonstrating their complete ignorance of the issue at hand.

Suggestion: link to the case!

[Anonymous Coward]

The links in the summary all lead to peripheral sites, not to anything detailing the case itself.

Re:Suggestion: link to the case!

[Scalli0n]

I took your suggestion and tried to find the case.

Results so far:
google.com - nothing
news.google.com - nothing
cnn.com - nothing worthwhile
slashdot.org - nothing
washingtonpost.com - nothing
nytimes.com - nothing

What's going on here? Can anybody tell us what this case is about, because I must be out of the news or too stupid to find this case!!

Re:Suggestion: link to the case!

[1u3hr]

And what exactly was the "adult comic"? Scans, anyone, anywhere?

Re:Suggestion: link to the case!

[Catbeller]

Major media just don't care.

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

Texas

[mopslik]

Since it's in Texas, will he receive the death penalty?

Re:Texas

[saskwach]

Only if he's not retarded.

Re:Texas

[Anonymous Coward]

you mean only if he is?

Re:Texas

[MisterFancypants]

And since his name is Jesus, are they going to nail him to a cross?

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?

[ePhil_One]

Why is selling adult materials to adults in Dallas a problem?

This is comical because my big memory of my visits to Dallas for training were the abundance of "Gentleman's clubs".

Re:Am I missing something?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Texas Penal Code isn't generally thought of as a laugh-out-loud read, but Section 43.23 is an exception: "A person commits an offense if he ... possesses with intent to wholesale promote any obscene material or obscene device. A person who possesses six or more obscene devices ... is presumed to possess them with intent to promote the same."

Re:Am I missing something?

[dr_dank]

Why is selling adult materials to adults in Dallas a problem? Is adult content illegal there? Or did he violate some ordinance?

There is probably a little known ordinance against the Son of God selling smutty comics.

Re:Am I missing something?

[el-spectre]

Texas laws are bizarre... I've never been in Dallas, but Austin, the state capital, has like 20 strip clubs, as well as several 'adult book stores'.

What's really weird is that some of the clubs (and restaurants are the same way) are in 'dry' areas, so you can't buy beer, but you can bring it.

A, uh... friend, told me about an odd night sitting in a strip club where you couldn't buy a beer, but could bring in a big cooler of 'em and enjoy all you like. weirdness.

(offtopic)
Also in a dry county, sans the nude women, is The Salt Lick restaurant. They tell you on the phone you can bring in beer, and even though it's a million miles from anywhere, it is the best BBQ in the world!

[/promo] :)

Re:Am I missing something?

[frodo from middle ea]

Dude

This is the state which was electrocuting mentally handicapped inmates till about last year or so..
And if i remember my george carlin correctly, this is the same state that has the 10 commandments hanging in the state court....

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:Am I missing something?

[RancidBeef]

There was a woman who sold adult novelties driving through Texas (I think it was Texas). She had something like 17 dildos in her back seat (maybe they were samples or something). A cop pulled her over and noticed them. She was arrested and charged with felony obscenity!

Re: Am I missing something?

[Black Parrot]

> The Texas Penal Code isn't generally thought of as a laugh-out-loud read, but Section 43.23 is an exception: "A person commits an offense if he ... possesses with intent to wholesale promote any obscene material or obscene device. A person who possesses six or more obscene devices ... is presumed to possess them with intent to promote the same."

Ah, the Five Dildo Limit. Remember that when packing for a trip to Texas.

Re:Am I missing something?

[deep6d]

There is probably a little known ordinance against the Son of God selling smutty comics.

God's last name is Castillo? I never knew that.

Re:Am I missing something?

[Mikey-San]

Shit. Good thing my girlfriend and I don't live in Texas. We'd be convicted as dealers and burned at the stake.

Re: Am I missing something?

[Black Parrot]

> This is comical because my big memory of my visits to Dallas for training were the abundance of "Gentleman's clubs".

Yeah, I found it funny a few years ago when the Texas legislature was pushing some kind of anti-naughty law or other and I drove through Austin on I-35 and saw huge billboards for "gentlemen's clubs" while also within sight of the capitol building.

Re:Am I missing something?

[Noren]

He seems to have a pattern of getting in trouble with the authorities and then claiming he's being unjustly punished.

Re:Am I missing something?

[DAldredge]

From another site:

I apologize in advance to all those readers who have ties to the Lone Star State, but only in Texas would a woman get busted for possession of sex toys. Not possession of narcotics, or an open container of alcohol or even an illegal alien. Instead, Kathleen Elizabeth "Kathy" Grubbs of Longview, Texas was charged with obscenity for intent to promote "objects defined in a dictionary as having the shape and often the appearance of the male genitalia, used in sexual stimulation."

According to a Nov. 21 article in the Longview News-Journal, Grubbs, having been pulled over for driving erratically, had 17 "obscene materials and obscene devices" in her car, a felony under Texas state law. The law states that anyone possessing more than six "obscene" items at a time has intent to promote said items. This is apparently a big no-no in Texas, where there have been raids on various adult bookstores in recent months.

Grubbs, a distributor for Slumber Parties Inc., called the charges "kind of ridiculous."

Re:Am I missing something?

[WinkyN]

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.

So does this mean when these 8-year-olds walk into a convenience store that sells Club, Hustler and Playboy the convenience store is guilty of peddling obscenity, too? Or how about Borders, Barnes & Noble or Little Professor Bookstores?

Re:Am I missing something?

[zdavek]

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.

I believe the "across the street from a school" is the main problem. If I recall correctly, in Texas it is illegal to sell "obscenity" within a certain range (1000 ft?) of a school.

Re:Am I missing something?

[cpeterso]

objects defined in a dictionary as having the shape and often the appearance of the male genitalia, used in sexual stimulation

Does that mean sex toys that take the appearance of FEMALE genitalia are a-okay?

Re: Am I missing something?

[sbillard]

Ah, the Five Dildo Limit. Remember that when packing for a trip to Texas

Does my double-ended dildo count as one or two?
LOL Thanks Texas - I needed a good laugh.

Re:Am I missing something?

[Darth]

I believe the "across the street from a school" is the main problem

This shouldnt matter at all in the case. There are plenty of convenience stores selling porn across the street from schools in Texas. I think this was included for the prejudicial value it would have on public opinion and the jury.

If I recall correctly, in Texas it is illegal to sell "obscenity" within a certain range (1000 ft?) of a school.

I dont think there is any such restriction in Texas.

Re:Am I missing something?

[whitecanuck]

Acctuly the DA was suppose to have been bared from mentioning that fact, but snuck it into the closing statements. I do like what one of the defenses the CBDLF braught up, they went around and bought every porn magazine they could within like a 6 block radious. Nice way to establish community values.

Re:Am I missing something?

[IthnkImParanoid]

Similar clauses can be found in drug laws. If you have over a certain amount of drugs, an "intent to sell" is slapped onto the charges automatically.

IIRC, this is a ridiculously small amount for cocaine, something like 5 grams. We won't talk about how I know this....

Re:Am I missing something?

[RickHunter]

Actually, if I remember the case correctly, this one started because he refused to give a member of the town council a discount on Pokemon cards for her son. (Or sell her a specific card, I forget which) She then set the police on him, who decided that the material was obscene not because of the content, but because the content was in a comic book. (Which are, of course, just for children)

Of course, I could be remembering a different case. But there was one in Texas a few years back involving these circumstances.

Re:Am I missing something?

[RickHunter]

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.

Re:Am I missing something?

[mckwant]

At the very least, the name of the comic synchs up, and I can't think there are two cases in Texas involving that particular comic.

Well done. I must need to work on my googling.

Re:Am I missing something?

[RickHunter]

I only found it because I remembered reading about it a few years back. The fact that he'd gotten busted because of the PTA member for refusing to give her a discount sort of stuck in my head.

this is normal

[k3v0]

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. I for one, believe in personal responsibility. Your right to extend your fist ends when it hits my nose

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".

Re:this is normal

[chimpo13]

There's a big difference between selling adult comic books and punching someone's nose. Wasn't the US supposed to be a republic and not a democracy? In democracy the majority can force the minority to do what they want, but in a republic you can't. Not that that actually occurs (manzinar, Chinese Exclusionary Act), but it's a nice ideal to shoot for.

Re:this is normal

[SlamMan]

Sure you can in a republic. Its actually a hell of a lot easier to convince a group of 300 people to do something as opposed to the billion people they represent.

Re:this is normal

[schussat]

the precedent has always been that the locale of the alleged offense has the right to determine what is "patently obscene"

If I read the interview with the head of the CBLDF, however, it appears that the prosecution failed to do this:

The fund brought in three experts to testify on the merit of the medium, the merit of the work in question, and the community standards of Dallas while the state prosecutor brought in no experts and simply the arresting police officer...

And when the closing arguments were given, we went first and reminded the jury that the work was not proven to be Constitutionally obscene; that we have expert testimony that was not contradicted that explained the literary, artistic, and cultural value of the work in question; and without conflicting testimony they had to side with the experts.

If this is accurate, it seems very clear that arguments to obscenity weren't really made by the prosecution. While you're right that the standards are determined locally, it doesn't look like that happened in this case.

-schussat

First amendment

[fingusernames]

The first amendment is not a "federal law." It is a component of the federal constitution which restricts federal power, and through the 14th amendment, it is considered "incorporated" to restrict state power as well. This has been well-settled since shortly after the Civil War.

Larry

Re:First amendment

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

The first amendment is not a "federal law."

Well, technically,

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. (Article VI)

So in that sense it is a law. But of course it's not a law in the same sense as a typical bill passed by Congress... :)

Re:First amendment

[fingusernames]

In the broad sense, of course, it is "law." The federal constitution however predates the federal government, so it cannot be "federal" law. The point being, the first amendment is not merely a law. It is a portion of the "contract" among the people which authorizes and empowers the federal government to create law. The federal constitution as a whole is a grant of authority, binding upon government, not individuals. The people later agreed to extend protected "rights" as enumerated in the federal constitution to also be binding against action by the state governments. So the Supremes declared long ago.

Re:Thank God

[Anonymous Coward]

It's surprising in a way following Bowers v. Texas that the supreme court would refuse to rule on this -- Bowers v. Texas, in addition to protecting sodomy laws, can also be seen as protecting consensual adult activities like selling comic books.

To say nothing of the obscenity of spending taxpayer money on having the police buy comic books.

Obscenity rulings

[Anixamander]

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

Free speech is a federal issue, however the USSC decided in 1973 that the determination of obscentiy is a test in part based on community standards.
The court does not seem to be ignoring this issue as much as they are referring back to their previous ruling.

Re:Obscenity rulings

[noah_fense]

Thanks to the Miller ruling , the raunchiest community (the internet) now has the raunchiest pr0n available, without ever having the fear of being sued for obscenity.

go bless the internet

Re:Obscenity rulings

[tgibbs]

Yes, the Supreme Court is kind of stuck here, no matter what they might think of the merits of this particular case, unless they are prepared to throw out their long-standing community standards precedent. After all, there is no way that the Supreme Court is capable of ruling on whether particular material that is at least arguably obscene (i.e. it isn't a political tract) is in violation of the standards of a particular community. That's a matter for local juries. And if the jury makes an unfair decision, well, them's the breaks of the jury system.

Re:Obscenity rulings

[Darth]

I disagree that the supreme court is stuck. the community standards issue is only 1/3 of the test required to find something obscene.
All three of the requirements of the test must be satisfied for something to be obscene.

The supreme court could find that it failed either of the other two parts without ever touching the community standards issue.

Re:Obscenity rulings

[tgibbs]

I disagree that the supreme court is stuck. the community standards issue is only 1/3 of the test required to find something obscene.

Prurient interest is pretty much a gimme. We're talking tentacle-rape manga here.

That leaves "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." This is perhaps arguable--but it was argued and the jury made a judgement. The Supreme Court is just not in the business of second-guessing juries.

Re:Obscenity rulings

[Darth]

I agree that the Supreme Court is not in the business of second guessing juries in general.

The post i was replying to said they could not hear the case regardless of its merits because they'd have to throw out the community standards precedent they themselves set.

My point was that if the supreme court wanted to hear the case, they could do so without interfering with the community standards section of the definition of obscenity.

Is this a 1st amendment issue?

[GreenCrackBaby]

How does free speach come into play here?

In People -vs- Larry Flynt it was an issue because Larry was the one making the obscene stuff. This guy was charged with selling the obscene stuff...not really a speach issue, and I agree with the courts that this is probably something that is decided at a state level.

That being said, I think I'll stay far away from Texas. It's like looking back in time 100 years.

Re:Is this a 1st amendment issue?

[RancidBeef]

Actually, a strict interpretation of the US Constitution says the "Congress shall make no law...". That means the federal government cannot regulate speech. It says nothing about the states themselves passing laws regulating speech. However, if you read the Texas state constitution (I haven't), I'd bet there is a clause or amendment asserting free speech within it.

(Whoops! I can't bet... I'm in a state where gambling is illegal. The thing I find most obscene are so called "victimless crime" laws.)

Re:Is this a 1st amendment issue?

[soft_guy]

>>That being said, I think I'll stay far away from Texas. It's like looking back in time 100 years.

I moved away from Texas in 1999. I won't even change planes there now.

Re:Is this a 1st amendment issue?

[dvdeug]

In People -vs- Larry Flynt it was an issue because Larry was the one making the obscene stuff. This guy was charged with selling the obscene stuff...not really a speach issue,

Most people need to eat and pay rent; most of the major controversal books of Western literature were either written to sell, or please a patron who was paying. Given that patronage is a lot rarer these days (even if some one is working for a nonprofit, that organization is probably going to want to sell copies to raise money), most people, if they want to write books, say, opposing their government, are going to need to sell those books to continue writing. Likewise, most people prefer to read quality hardcopy, which requires money to print and distribute. If you prohibit selling, it also acts as deterrent to write and thus silencing the speech.

Re:Is this a 1st amendment issue?

[Alsee]

"Congress shall make no law...". That means the federal government cannot regulate speech. It says nothing about the states themselves passing laws regulating speech.

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.

It says that states are bound by constitutional limits as well. Including laws restricting free speech.

In my oppinion that result should have been blatently obvious from the beginning. It is just absurd to suggest that people have constitutional rights, but only the federal governement is forbiden from violating them. What good are constitutional rights if states are free to violate them?

-

Re:Is this a 1st amendment issue?

[RancidBeef]

I had not really considered the equal protection ammendment, so you are probably right. I tend to focus on the main body of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and I'm not as familiar with the rest of it as I should be. I know one of the justices cited the XIV'th amendment during the recent sodomy law case. 'Course, I think some of the amendments have done nothing but screw up the Constitution. One that comes to mind is the one that made Senators elected by popular vote rather than being appointed by the state legislatures. (Wanna know why I think this was a mistake?) Also, the income tax amendment effectively gave the federal government unlimited funding and thus unlimited power.

Re:Is this a 1st amendment issue?

[Alsee]

not as familiar with the rest of it as I should be.

Same here. The scary part is that congressmen seem totally oblivious to even the most basic things.

Senators elected by popular vote rather than being appointed by the state legislatures. (Wanna know why I think this was a mistake?)

I'll bite :)

income tax

Before that much/most of the federal funding came from import tarriffs, and that is a harmful economic practice.

The federal government does require funding, and if you have a better proposal I'm open to hearing it. Of course I agree that current income tax laws are a chaotic mess, but other than that it seems reasonable to me.

The courts managed to screw up the 14th amendment. It was primarily designed to protect the rights of blacks after the civil war. But then the supreme court ruled that corpoations were "persons" under the 14th amendment. Fifty years after the civil war court cases of corporations invoking the 14th amendment outnumbered the cases of blacks invoking it by 50 to 1. (Or maybe it was 100 to 1, I'm not sure.)

Corporations are "persons" with all the constitutuional protections as people. Sigh, idiots! Corporations should have no more rights than congress specificly chooses to GRANT them. They are an artificial creation.

-

Re:Is this a 1st amendment issue?

[RancidBeef]

>I'll bite :)

Ok. The constitution is filled with all sorts of checks and balances. Many of these we are all familiar with. Having the legislatures appoint the Senators was also an important check. While the House is directly elected by the people and directly represents them (hence the name), the Senate was to represent the states. If the federal government tried to grab too much power and usurp the states' rights, they could call their individual senators to the carpet. After the change, though, the states have no direct control over the federal governemnt. Their only choice is to go through the courts.

Re:Is this a 1st amendment issue?

[Alsee]

Hmmm, interesting. I'm not sure I agree with your concern, but I'm not sure I dissagree either.

On one hand I am a huge supporter of the checks and balances system, on the other hand state legislature-appointed senators sounds like one of the negative relics in the system from when states were essentially separate nations before they united.

I'm going to guess that you are at least vaugely familiar with the disaster of the Articles of Confederation? The states made a mess of it because they were being selfish and trying to keep their independant power power. The whole House/Senate situation is an ad-hoc compromise reflecting those same selfish state motivations.

I certainly see benefits of the split legislature - anything that slows/blocks the passage of bad law is a good thing. But a better system could have been made if was done for that purpose rather than for the purpose of appeasing state nationalism.

Can you give a better justification/explanation of how state legisature appointed senators were/would-be a more beneficial check than popular elected senators?

P.S.
I'd say the electorial college in presidential elections is another negative artifact. The current system is a bastard child of trying to dress the original system up as a popular election. We either need direct popular elections, or we need to go back to the original system of voting for electors who are free to cast an an intellegent and informed vote of their choosing. I doubt anyone would tolerate the second option now-a-days, and I can't see how to avoid having it degenerate back into electors merely announcing who they will vote for if elected. That pretty much just leaves the direct popular election option.

-

Re:Is this a 1st amendment issue?

[RancidBeef]

Well, if the pack of criminals we have as legislators here in Alabama were to select our senators, I'm not sure it would be a good thing. In general I'm a believer in states rights (remember, I'm from Alabama!). I see many of our problems today being cause by usurpation of power by the federal government. However I don't advocate a return to the government under the Articles.

As I mentioned, I think states themselves having some control over part of the Congress was an important check, if not as important as, say, the presidential veto.

I've wavered back and forth over the electoral college thing. I tend to think it is a good thing after the 2000 election fiasco. If I remember the numbers correctly, the percentage difference in the national total votes between Bush and Gore was actually less than the percentage difference between them in Florida. If we had had popular election in place then, the recounting would have gone on forever and would have been done nation-wide. So, while it might not be the most fair system, it at least means we decide who the president is in a somewhat timely fashion.

Interesting because it's from Texas

[LowellPorter]

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.

Re:Interesting because it's from Texas

[pyros]

It's not free speech because because the guy was selling it, not making it. Also, obscene speech is not protected. Obscenity is not determined at the federal level.

Re:Interesting because it's from Texas

[arkanes]

Restricting distribution (especially private distribution) of material certainly is a free speech issue. 'You're free to write whatever you want, but nobody else can see it or look at it' isn't exactrly freedom of the press.

Not so fast

[segment]

Going to jail is an article about someone going to jail for linking to bomb making plans, yet I see no mention of the EFF or ACLU. One thing I know personally about the ACLU is, they will not take a case unless it generates huge amounts of publicity for them which is sad, because there are cases which need an overseer, that will never get any attention because of the media whores such as ACLU.

Now don't get me wrong, I know they assist with many cases, but they're in it more or less for the publicity. As for EFF, slowly they are becoming the same way.

There is likely a bit more to the case than it seems so keep this in mind, and I doubt any smart prosecutor would lay his cards right out since it could alter his offense.

Re:Not so fast

[Doktor Memory]

Newsflash, jackass: legal advocacy and aid organizations can't take every case that comes in front of them. That doesn't make them "publicity whores", that just makes them "aware of reality."

When you can point to your eighty-year history of defending civil liberties, then, maybe, you can get away with calling the ACLU "whores" in a public forum. But since you can't, you're just another stone moron with an ill-designed weblog calling his betters names on slashdot.

Idiot.

Re:Not so fast

[segment]

It's obvious that they can't take every case in front of them, and I know of people whom had strong cases, whose civil liberties were trampled on by corporations and governments. I also know firsthand from dealing with them and speaking with people in the ACLU, that their attitude is geared towards media. It's how they make their revenue.

So while you can ramble on let me remind you that somewhere down the line someone has to receive a paycheck which comes via way of donations and such, which is why the ACLU doesn't take lesser known cases. Fact is fact whether you choose to see through what you may think is ethical.

I also know of people who were being assisted only to have their cases dropped simply because it wasn't attention getting enough for the ACLU so please spare me of the but the ACLU and it's 80 year history...

Re:Not so fast

[segment]

Regardless of what he said freedom of speech is freedom of speech, and if I wanted to say something extremely stupid like humans are ignorant pieces of shit who lick cow dung, I should have the right to say it. You can't have it one way or the other under any circumstance or else it would be a biased law.

Whether or not he acted on anything he posted is a different matter, however no matter what kind of moronic statements he made, under the constitution he has a right to make them.

Re:Not so fast

[Doktor Memory]

Okay, I appear to be having a political argument with someone who thinks that publishing a weblog of cut-and-paste-copied newsclippings with "zingy" one-line comments appended to the bottom makes him the second coming of Sacco and Venzetti, so I am pretty much by definition wasting my breath here...

the ACLU doesn't take lesser known cases

Oh really?

The New York State branch of the ACLU alone currently has over sixty open cases being worked. Since they're such headline-obsessed publicity whores who only work the well-known cases, obviously you should be able to name...I'll be generous here...at least 15 of them without looking at their website?

CBDLF and EFF

[Spudley]

the CBDLF donations and giving to the EFF are Good Things.

Okay. I can see how the CBDLF is relevant to this. But what possible connection does the EFF have to a case about comic books?

Re:CBDLF and EFF

[_xeno_]

But what possible connection does the EFF have to a case about comic books?

Ordering then online from Texas comic book stores?

Or maybe Slashcode automatically inserts a "donate to the EFF" statement to every Your Rights Online article. Especially those detailing Your Rights To Work As A Clerk In A Store That Sells Pornographic Comics In Dallas, Texas.

Curious

[phorm]

Is this just a local law, or one that's in a lot of states. Is such material OK, except in the form of comics?
I'm wondering as to the particulars of this law, as selling an X-rated comic book (which I'm assuming didn't touch the fringes of underage-looking characters or whatever) to an adult is not a crime in most areas, and certainly not here in Canada. How can the US uphold such a law, or is it just Texas?

What really gets me is that the store doesn't get busted for carrying the material, but the clerk does. The cop that pulled this bust should be ashamed of himself, railroading an unsuspecting clerk like that.

Re:Curious

[iantri]

It's a state law. I don't think this sort of law would hold up if it was federal, but since it is a Texan state law..

Until just recently it was illegal for gay men to have consentual sex in Texas..

It seems some Texans feel they have a right to dictate what others can and can not do even when it doesn't affect them in the least and isn't harmful.

Re:Curious

[Darth]

It's a state law. I don't think this sort of law would hold up if it was federal, but since it is a Texan state law.

Obscenity is defined in such a way that local community standards are a part of determining if something is obscene. As such, it would be hard to declare something obscene on a federal level.

Until just recently it was illegal for gay men to have consentual sex in Texas..

this was the case in many other states as well. Don't think it was just Texas. Several years ago there was a guy in Georgia who went to jail for having consentual oral sex with his wife in the privacy of their own home. Apparently, that violated the sodomy laws in Georgia.

(i know someone is going to ask how they cought/convicted him. He was getting a divorce and his wife got the DA to press charges against him for sodomy. She got immunity and testified against him. He went to jail and she was awarded all the family assets since he was a convict. Personally, I think i'd have to kill her.)

It seems some Texans feel they have a right to dictate what others can and can not do even when it doesn't affect them in the least and isn't harmful.

That has nothing to do with texas. That's a human problem.

Re:Court doc

[Babar]

That isn't the right document - that is an Immigration Law website. This was not an immigration case.

Strange...

[nebaz]

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"?

Re:Strange...

[Henry V .009]

Just think of the Supreme Court as its own perpetual constitutional convention, and the bad thoughts go away.

/works for me

Re:Strange...

[sTalking_Goat]

not at all. Too different issues all together. Like you said The second is a privacy thing the first is kinda a free speech thing. Well not really since as I understand it he was selling the stuff not making it.

Re:Court doc

[Metal_Demon]

I don't know who Castillo-Rivera is but he certainly isn't Jesus Castillo, and he is in quite a bit more trouble than dirty magazines can get you.

SPEACH

[GreenCrackBaby]

I'd like to apologize to all forced to read my horrible misspellings in the above post.

Must get more coffee...

Re:News for Nerds??

[sTalking_Goat]

Isn't everything on Slashdot really "Causes of the Editors?"

I read an interveiw once on TechTV.com I think with the slashdot guys where they basically said there criteria for posting stories is stuff they think is cool. So why are you bitching about it. If you don't like what they post start your own site or read something else. You have an enless list of choices.

Re:You missed one

[DAldredge]

When the ACLU begins to defend all of the Bill of Rights, then I will donate to them.

The first amendment does not apply here.

[Prince_Ali]

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.

Re:The first amendment does not apply here.

[MrResistor]

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.

That's funny, I don't see any exceptions to the First Amendment listed in the Constitution.

Re:The first amendment does not apply here.

[Prince_Ali]

That's funny. Slander, libel and several other things including obscenity are not protected.

Re:The first amendment does not apply here.

[Exatron]

The first amendment mentions none of those things. If you had bothered to read the constitution, you would know that.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Where in that text are obscenity, libel, and slander mentioned? Nowhere.

Re:The first amendment does not apply here.

[Prince_Ali]

Woops... Will ya lookit that! I guess you are right. I don't have to worry about being sued for libel anymore! I can publish anything about anyone regardless of its truth! You, sir, have opened my eyes.

Re:The first amendment does not apply here.

[drakaan]

It's a pointless statement...the constitution outlines what we're specifically allowed to do, not what we're prevented from doing. It also says we can do anything not expressly mentioned in the constitution or its amendments unless it's prohibited by the states. The people have the power to do X by default.

Re:The first amendment does not apply here.

[hobbesmaster]

You can slander and libel all you want and you won't get arrested by the government. The person you slander and libel can sue the hell out of you though because you're liable for your own words.

First Amendment and state courts

[MillionthMonkey]

"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.

Re:First Amendment and state courts

[Archangel Michael]

Texas is not a state. It is a Republic. Like Massachusetts and Virginia are "Commonwealths"

Re:First Amendment and state courts

[el-spectre]

Given the texan enamoration with "ol' sparky", I heard a comedian they other day claim that there's a big sign at the texan border:

"Welcome to Texas. Don't fuck up!"

Re:First Amendment and state courts

[edp]

"The First Amendment is not a 'Federal law', nor is it a law at all."

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is a law. Perhaps you mean it is not a statute.

Laws are everything in the collection of rules about governing. Statutes are laws. Bills made into law are laws even if not codified as statutes. Treaties are laws. Court decisions are laws. Regulations are laws. The Constitution is a law, or several laws. They have different force and effect and jurisdictions, but they are all laws.

Re:First Amendment and state courts

[tgibbs]

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

However, it is already well established from previous Supreme Court rulings obscenity is not protected under the First Amendment, and that the determination of what is and is not obscene is made according to local standards. So all the Supreme Court is doing is declining to overrule their own previous decisions--something that the Supreme Court is understandably reluctant to do.

Re:First Amendment and state courts

[Cpt_Kirks]

Are you a very brave yankee, or a very dumb yankee?

Is the "he needed killin'" murder defense still valid in Texas?

Re:Court doc

[Adam9]

He obviously reads adult magazines. He's a convicted felon! We conclude that Castillo's prior state conviction for being
a felon in possession of a firearm under CPC S 12021(a) con-
stitutes an aggravated felony "as an offense described in" 18
U.S.C. S 922(g)(1), pursuant to U.S.S.G. S 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)
and 8 U.S.C. S 1101(a)(43)(E)(ii). We also deny his Apprendi
challenge to the sentence enhancement imposed.

Yeah, I know the document is offtopic, I was definitely not paying attention. Whatever, it's almost Friday. Right?

Amen.

[InterruptDescriptorT]

That being said, I think I'll stay far away from Texas. It's like looking back in time 100 years.

100 is a number the figures prominently here in Texas. The temperatures always seem to be above it, while the locals' IQs average well below it.

This is probably one of the back-asswardest states in the Union and since you appear to have half a brain, I'd recommend staying the hell away from it and let it degenerate into the backwards, inbred garbage dump it is rapidly becoming.

Re:Amen.

[Cpt_Kirks]

Hell, have you ever been to Alabama?

I once saw a Doctors office sign in Alabama that was also advertising "Fireworks".

I consider Alabama an honorary third world country.

What is really scary is Alabama also has a city with the highest percentage of Engineers of an city in the US, maybe the world...

Re:Amen.

[gellenburg]

The temperatures always seem to be above it, while the locals' IQs average well below it.

That explains George Bush.

Re: News for Nerds??

[Black Parrot]

> ok, so it's a pet issue of Hemos' but does this really merit a story on slashdot?

Jesus arrested for selling pr0n, and you don't think it's news!

Umm...

[Metal_Demon]

Does anybody have more information about the crime for which he is being charged? I'm not finding anything from that first link, and I'm wondering whats wrong with adults selling adult comics to other adults, be they undercover cops or not.

Re:Umm...

[YomikoReadman]

Read the link that I posted in an above thread. You can find a short synopsis of the case here

The post in question

youth culture killed my dog

[pjack76]

I dunno. There is certainly stuff in comic books these days that's politically incorrect. The Invisibles by Grand Morrison is about a terrorist cell that goes on offensives against the United States government; the terrorists are portrayed as the heroes, the US military as mindless zombies who can't think for themselves.

I think there are two reasons that comics seem to always be under attack. (Wasn't there a whole big thing in the 50's about censoring comics?) The first of course is that children read a lot of them. Parents are probably suprised when The Invisibles in no way resembles Superman.

The second reason is that comics tend to touch on subjects that more maintstream mediums won't. You will never see a TV version of The Invisibles on CBS. I think that's the reason there's a market for adult comic books, it's really one of few places you can go to see unconventional stories.

Should Grant Morisson be thrown in jail for writing stories about attacking the US government? IMO, no. Should he be surprised when someone wants to throw him in jail? Not really. Alas, in this day and age, if you are in the public eye at all, you need a good attorney. Probably why Mr. Morisson chose invisibility as his theme.

Re:youth culture killed my dog

[IncredibleCrisis]

Unless the series was changed for overseas and the governments reversed, I thought they were up against the UK, which GM depicted as infiltrated by some transdimensional evil which I never did quite understand. And wasn't there a Invisibles TV show, albeit in England?

Re:youth culture killed my dog

[pjack76]

Unless the series was changed for overseas and the governments reversed, I thought they were up against the UK, which GM depicted as infiltrated by some transdimensional evil which I never did quite understand.

Well, not that I'm a complete comic book geek or anything, but there were three volumes of the series. The first volume took place in the UK, the second volume took place in the States, and the grand conclusion was world-wide.

And I don't think anyone ever grokked the transdimensional evil thing, Grant sure does like his drugs. :)

And wasn't there a Invisibles TV show, albeit in England?

I hope not, I don't have money for DVDs right now. :)

Re:youth culture killed my dog

[HarveyBirdman]

The Invisibles by Grand Morrison is about a terrorist cell that goes on offensives against the United States government.

Well, it was more of an uber-organization controlled by the Archons that had its fingers in most of the world's governing bodies and militaries. The heros in were fighting these subverted segments of the government and military. I know people in the military who quite liked The Invisibles.

Personally, I think HBO or Showtime could very easily do a series based on Morrison's work. You just have to make it clear that what they are fighting is the alien influence of the Archons and their human puppets. Although given the money I think I'd take a crack at Halo Jones.

Re:youth culture killed my dog

[AndroidCat]

Wasn't there a whole big thing in the 50's about censoring comics?

Sure was! The Comic Code Lots of good hoots there, scroll down to The Seduction of the Innocent... and Dr. Frederick Wertham:

He claims that the difference between comics and pornography for adults was that one was meant to attract perverts, the other, comics, was meant create them.

He claimed Batman and Robin were a homosexual couple and nothing more than propaganda. He blames the rise of open homosexuals on comics. Were he not so serious, his comments would have been quite humorous. Observe the following Wertham observations:

What a strange person!

As Much as I Love the First Amendment...

[XaProf]

I'm going to apologize in advance for being picky.

1. The First Amendment isn't law, it's a part of the Constitution. The Constitution trumps Federal Law.
2. The first words of the First Amendment say "Congress shall make no law..." That is, the First Amendment initially only restricted Congress, not state legislatures. Then, through application of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) said that the First Amendment would (kind of) apply to the states as well as the federal government.
3. But wait, free speech isn't that easy. Lots of states have crimes against fraud. But what is fraud? A lie. What is political speech (sometimes)? A lie. When can you tell one lie from another lie? This is where things get tricky.
4. Sidenote: this is why the First Amendment applied only to the Feds initially. The Founders thought that the to-and-fro of normal political action in the states would help preserve liberties, and so didn't prevent the states from doing a heck of a lot initially. They were more afraid of the federal government becoming tyrranical. Rhetorical question: ask yourself which is more tyrranical today -- the states or the feds?

So SCOTUS has now made a million itty-bitty divisions within the First Amendment. You can go to jail for burning a draft card, but it's ok to wear a jacket saying "Fuck the Draft."

The Supreme Court is busy. Very very busy. Don't think that they're the only ones who could have helped this guy, though. For his case to have gotten this far, it must have wound its way through a handful of courts and a dozen different judges.

The First Amendment is complicated. Don't get me wrong, I'm as much a foe of obscenity law as Larry Flynt; this post isn't about the underlying case, more about the way that it's been presented here. Want to make things better? Petition your state legislator to change the laws of your state. State legislators have a thankless job and would probably look forward to some feedback from one of their constituents.

And no, I'm not a legislator or a guy who knows one. I'm just a student.

Sheesh....

Re:As Much as I Love the First Amendment...

[antientropic]

The First Amendment isn't law, it's a part of the Constitution.

Actually, Article VI of the constitution says:

This Constitution [...] shall be the supreme law of the land

Re:As Much as I Love the First Amendment...

[XaProf]

Short Answer: "Supreme law of the land" is a legal term of art.

Long Answer:Yeah, I know.

But ask a million different people what Congress or their state legislature does and they're likely to say "It makes laws." But Congress (acting alone) can't change the Constitution (well, actually, depending on what you think it _could_, but that's a good topic of discussion for a "Law Geek" site, not Slashdot.)

I like to differentiate the forest from the trees. The Constitution establishes our system of government. Our system of government is about laws made under a republican form of government. Under the Constitution, the People established the Republic, and the democratically elected representatives of the people, not the People itself, make laws.

You cut this too thin, it starts to look like a where-does-hardware-stop-and-software-begin argument...

Re:As Much as I Love the First Amendment...

[rjh]

The Constitution is Federal law; if it wasn't Federal law, it couldn't be cited as an authoritative and controlling document in court cases. It is an extremely special kind of law, but to say the Constitution is not law is nonsense.

It's true the Constitution is not legislated law, but then again, neither is Common Law. That doesn't keep Common Law from being law, does it?

Re:As Much as I Love the First Amendment...

[XaProf]

Again, my apologies for the confusion. I was glossing Hemos's use of the word "law" as a layman's substitute for the lawyerSpeak "statute," since he called the First Amendment "a federal law," not merely "federal law".

Is it law? Sure. Is Linux a program? Sure. Is it more accurate to call Linux a kernel? Of course. Is it more accurate to distinguish the Constitution from that which it controls? Of course.

Re:As Much as I Love the First Amendment...

[Darth]

Is it law? Sure. Is Linux a program? Sure. Is it more accurate to call Linux a kernel? Of course. Is it more accurate to distinguish the Constitution from that which it controls? Of course.

but you stopped short of covering the point of contention. The point of contention is "if someone said linux was not a program, would that be inaccurate?" and the answer is "yes".

Again, my apologies for the confusion. I was glossing Hemos's use of the word "law" as a layman's substitute for the lawyerSpeak "statute," since he called the First Amendment "a federal law," not merely "federal law".

That is a fair point to make. However, you made the same mistake Hemos did by saying it wasnt a law at all.

Re:As Much as I Love the First Amendment...

[XaProf]

However, you made the same mistake Hemos did by saying it wasnt a law at all.

I'm still saying that it's not a law.

The Constitution is Law. Law Supreme. Law that trumps common law. Law that trumps state law. Law that trumps federal law. Big-Fucking-L Law. Ok?

But it's not a law. You know, the kinds of shit that gets revised every day. This is more than a question of terminology. Germany has something that (as far as I understand) translates as the Basic Law. I've never seen it called the German Constitution, however.

Whatever. Enough. Sorry for trying to make a subtle distinction in a place that obviously doesn't handle subtlety well.

Re:As Much as I Love the First Amendment...

[Darth]

I'm still saying that it's not a law.

but it is "a law". it falls under the classification of "law" and even calls itself "law". It's the highest law, but it's still law. It is not "a statute"

Whatever. Enough. Sorry for trying to make a subtle distinction in a place that obviously doesn't handle subtlety well.

i have no problem with the subtle distinction you were trying to make. The difference between a federal statute and the constitution is good to note.

I was merely making a subtle distinction in the same vein.

I think we do agree, though, that this is largely pointless to pursue and your original point about the distinction between federal law and the constitution is clear.

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.

Obscenity and Free Speech

[ihummel]

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.

Re:Obscenity and Free Speech

[drakaan]

"Obscenity" is a concept that was turned in to a dirty word and some associated laws by large groups of individuals that pretended to be offended by naked people. Hence, the large number of "Girls gone wild!" videos, and instances of reality TV shows with chicks in bikinis...watch the ratings when a show that features "partial nudity" shows on prime-time TV. If people could get past the old "naked=bad" thing maybe we could argue about more important things like "Why did the aliens build the pyramids?"

Re:Thank God

[Horny Smurf]

regulating commerce is a whole lot different than arresting 2 men for butt-fucking each other in their apartment, even though it's legal for a man to butt-fuck a woman.

Bowers didn't make gay prostitution legal. And it wouldn't limit a state's right to regulate commerce, set zoning laws, etc.

The law, as seen on tv

[KReilly]

The law in texas has the right to ticket or arrest anyone who is not selling without a liscense of obscene material.
I know this because

A) My sister works in a porn shop (yes, we are all proud she.. then again at least she is finally working)

B) Playboy repeadetly writes about people who get taken to jail for having porno in their car...

Recently they have been cracking down on both pornography and drug associated products (EG Pipes).. Evidently terrorist do nothing but get stoned and watch porn.

Isn't this a LITTLE ironic?

[cliffy2000]

I mean... they're really making an example out of JESUS in the name of decency and being good Christians. Morality for the sake of our good religious children. So let's jail JESUS!
(Have I made my point?)

I wonder...

[Lord_Slepnir]

...if its too late to let Mexico have Texas back. I hate having to say I'm from the same country as these people.

Re:I wonder...

[Rude Turnip]

As a resident of NJ, I'll gladly give our state back to the UK, so long as:

1. We get a real BBC channel, and not just BBC America; and

2. We give Hollywood back to the Pacific Ocean.

Re:I wonder...

[soft_guy]

>>Way to reveal your ignorance. Let's blanketly blame an entire state (of millions of people) for the actions of a few stupid people When I lived in Texas, the stupid annoying jerks outnumbered the OK people about 20 to 1. >>Most of the coutry lies west of New York and east of Hollywood. Your ignorance of this part of the country does not make those parts inferior. Actually, it doesn't when you look at population. The people in the middle are inferior. I grew up in the midwest and I can testify that the stupid ignorant jerks outnumber the OK people about 20 to 1. I live in Seattle by way of Oklahoma, Missouri, and Texas.

Re:I wonder...

[Rostin]

Texas freed itself from Mexico on its own, thankyouverymuch. Texas is the only state that did that, and it's also the only one that was its own country prior to becoming a state. Texans asked for statehood shortly after their war for independence. US refused. ~10 years later, the US was back on its doorstep begging to make it part of the Union. One concessions made to Texas as a condition of its statehood: It retains the right to leave the Union (the only state that has that right). Give it back to Mexico. Please. Remember the Alamo.

Re:I wonder...

[IWorkForMorons]

Ah hell, just let them become their own country. They pretty much are anyways. As a Canadian though, I'm just thankful Quebec is nothing like Texas. Or everything East of the Ottawa Valley would be the soverein nation of Quebec by now....

Re:I wonder...

[RobotRunAmok]

I grew up in the midwest and I can testify that the stupid ignorant jerks outnumber the OK people about 20 to 1. I live in Seattle by way of Oklahoma, Missouri, and Texas

That's fascinating. I've lived in New York all my life (which, I'm guessing by the way most of the views are being expressed in this thread, is two to three times longer then most here have been alive) but have travelled extensively and I have found that no area has a lock on intelligence, wisdom, or culture.

But I am glad you were able to find happiness in Seattle (certainly in the top three of my list of "smug" cities, but hey, that's a conversation for another time). Now think how horrible it would be for you, having finally found your niche, for the Supreme Court to overturn a whole ledger of local Seattle statutes to bring them more in line with the country's centrist-to-conservative plurality.

Pretty scary, huh? So why is anyone's knickers in a twist over the Supreme Court refusing to rule vis-a-vis local Dallas obscenity laws? If the Supremes imposed a curfew and strict blue laws in Seattle, you'd go berserk, and rightly so.

Re:I wonder...

[Alsee]

So why is anyone's knickers in a twist over the Supreme Court refusing to rule vis-a-vis local Dallas obscenity laws?

Because the entire legal notion that there is any "obscenity exemption" to the first amendment was invented out of thin air in 1957. They saw speech they didn't like and GRANTED THEMSELVES the power to criminalize it.

It's rather amusing that the 1957 invention of an obscenity exemption was ruled unconstitutional in 1975. Unfortunately they didn't chuck it entirely. They replaced it with a version that wasn't as bad, but I'd say the replacement is still unconstitutional.

The first amendment is specificly designed for forbit the government from passing any law against speech people don't like or find offensive. And that is exactly what they did - invented for themselves the ability to pass lays against speech they dont like.

-

Re:I wonder...

[Councilor Hart]

Who says they want it back?
With the possibility of a bush getting elected, I doubt it.

Ridiculous but not isolated

[Dukeofshadows]

"Crimes against Morality" are not the worst things to be dealing with. What about the "war" on drugs? Dallas is easily accessible as a waypoint for drug/contraband trafficking point due to its relative proximity to other majors cities (New Orleans, Houston) and as a transportation hub. Personally I think that if the people who have pron to look at are being distracted from criminal acts, the pron distributors shouldn't be busted at all.

Besides, who determines what "morals" are the norm? I have friends from conservative churches, mosques, and synagogues whose overall values jive somewhat but who strongly disagree over details. Some people think that dancing is too immoral for people to engage in, remember the whole episode with Indianapolis and its mayor over that issue. Some parts of this country still ban the trade of alcohol (southeast KY) and others make possession of it a misdemeanor (parts of southeast alabama) all in the name of "public good". Here in Georgia video poker was banned because it was disrupting the "public good" despite little evidence thatit did anything but make non-taxable income for the state's more remote gas stations and resembled gambling too much for the conservative Christians in state government.

This all seems to be a political distraction from the bigger issues. Why haven't the CEO of Enron or Worldcom been indicted on criminal charges yet? Could the economy be recovering more quickly under different economic policy? Why did we fight a massive war in the middle east only in an oil-rich country but gas prices keep rising?. I find that the more often people take care to focus attention on the details and the little things the more often they fail to pay attention to the big picture. Anyone have any thoughts?

Re:Ridiculous but not isolated

[Zirnike]

""Crimes against Morality" are not the worst things to be dealing with. What about the "war" on drugs?"

The 'War on (some) Drugs' IS about 'Crimes against Morality'. Go back to the last round of actually constitutionally approved prohibition, and see the arguments raised there for that amendment. And look at the arguments for expanding the WoD... It's all about some people's (to quote) 'Fear that someone, somewhere, is having fun'.

The government has no business defining morals. All we'll get is people trying to make everyone conform to their definition of 'Real American'

Fred Saberhagan has a good point... When his alien race's government created a device to determine what was the 'true race', committees got involved, religious people got involved, and a definition of appropriate morality was programmed into the machine. And what popped out of that equation? The Berserkers.

Equal Protection . . .

[Dausha]

. . . with the notion that obscenity is a state-level affair, despite the First Amendment being a Federal law.

Well, the Amendment is a Constitutional Law, not 'Federal,' but that's not my point. I thought the 14th Amendment gave equal protection, which (as I understand it, and IANALY) means that if it would be unconstitutional as a Federal Law, then it would be for a state law as well. This was the view taken to stop Texas from enforcing its Sodemy law recently.

Re:Equal Protection . . .

[Dausha]

The equal protection clause means that states can only treat people differently based on their behavior and public hazard, not irrelevant factors like race, gender, or political affiliation.

I'm sorry to have to disagree with you. The sentence (Section 1, Sentence 2), "[n]o 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." (Amendment 14) So, perhaps I misused the term "equal protection clause." However, the sentence to which that clause is mentioned understood to impose the Bill of Rights on the States. Otherwise, the Miranda Rights being read to an individual arrested under state authority would not be an obligation in the US Constitution.

Also, to quote the Wikipedia: "Prior to the adoption of [the fourteenth] amendment, the United States Bill of Rights so famously cherished by U.S. citizens acted only as a restraint on federal, not state, governments.Until that time states' control over its citizens was legally restrained only by that state's constitution and laws. "

Re:You are NOT to look upon the human body!

[Anonymous Coward]

And if God wanted us to be clothed all the time the human race would be extinct.

Re:You are NOT to look upon the human body!

[SoVi3t]

We initially WERE naked. Obviously the Lord didn't create Adam and Eve, and then hand them some GAP clothes. Humans created clothing throughout history, mainly as a way of showing wealth (more money = better clothes). Anywho, this is mainly a political discussion, not a religious one. Don't recall Jesus ever payign a visit to the Lone Star State

Justification for case against Jesus

[Anonymous Coward]

http://newsarama.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&thre adid=4953

In an argument that sets the common view of comics back a good thirty years, the Texas state prosecutor secured a guilty verdict with a closing argument in which she said, "I don't care what type of evidence or what type of testimony is out there, use your rationality, use your common sense. Comic books, traditionally what we think of, are for kids. This is in a store directly across from an elementary school and it is put in a medium, in a forum, to directly appeal to kids. That is why we are here, ladies and gentlemen. ... We're here to get this off the shelf."

The State won, and as a result, Castillo was sentenced to 180 days in jail, a year probation, and a $4,000 fine. Again - in the eyes of Texas, selling a comic book created for adults, from the adult section of the shop, to an adult was deemed a crime because, in the prosecutor's eyes, all comics are for kids.

Re:Justification for case against Jesus

[RevSmiley]

"Right across the street from an elementary school in a commic book store." A person using his brain would realize peddeling pornography in a store that would attract minors was not such a hot idea anyplace. If "Jesus" is bumbed about this he should sue his employer over this since he was working for someone else. But I bet you are one of those who figures juries are to stupid to make decisions based on the law and not some jerk asst DAs summation.

Jesus is stupid, his employer is stupid. I don't see how their lack of common sense make this a federal issue. If you want to sell hard core pr0n do it in a adult setting like a pr0n shop well away from elementary schools. Manga is hardcore pornography in the eyes of many. Maybe not your eyes or mine but that is why it's called community standards. It's pretty plain our standards are not the communities.

I am still trying to figure out how this effects my rights online?

Re:Whoa, There, Cowboy! Local Obscenity Laws == Go

[Black Parrot]

> 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!

Of course, if the fine folk in Tulsa don't want that stuff they won't buy it, and the shops will fold due to lack of business.

There's a reason this stuff was being sold in Dallas, and it ain't that nobody in Dallas wants it.

> 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.

Of course, the Feds shouldn't be worrying themselves over what is obscene at all, universally or not. The US Constitution doesn't have any "except for obscene materials" clauses in it.

> 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."

So if it was a zoning issue, why didn't they just close the shop instead of throwing an employee in jail?

> 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.

I do. We've got a sub-population in this country that's rampaging out of control, trying to get anyone who differs from them thrown in prison. You can't run a free country on that basis.

Hemos Should Get His Fact Right

[reallocate]

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.

Re:Hemos Should Get His Fact Right

[DesScorp]

"...but it is certainly indicative of the kind of audience Slashdot draws: Adults Who Read Comic Books"

You forgot to add "Porno Comic Books".

Nothing says "taste" like western girls, drawn by Japanese artists, getting tentacle-raped by some fiend from outer space. High quality slashdot entertainment at it's best. I'm only surprised that Slashdot hasn't added a Hentai section yet.

Re:Hemos Should Get His Fact Right

[quantaman]

the threat to the republic posed by getting in trouble reading dirty comic books.

Yeah no harm in not letting people read types of literature because we don't like its content. Hey I seem to recall To Kill A Mocking Bird has been disliked by a lot of people (better not let any people read that one either). All those people critisising the government too, I mean that's even more disruptive then dirty comic books! This is VERY disturbing both the story and your non-reaction to it. Please try to recognize when your rights are evaporating before it's too late.

Re:Hemos Should Get His Fact Right

[reallocate]

THe right to free speech is not absolute. A community has the right to criminalize "literature" it considers obscene. People have a right to disagree with that,but that right doesn't absolve them of responsibility to obey the law or pay the consequences if they don't.

Frankly, the republic is threatened less by states that prosecute people for possessing pornography than it is by geeks who like to read it.

Re:Hemos Should Get His Fact Right

[Alsee]

A community has the right to criminalize "literature" it considers obscene.

That "right" was invented by the supreme court in 1957. Amusingly the 1957 descision was ruled an unconstituional violation of teh first amendment in 1975, and they invented a replacement for it. I'd say the replacement is still unconstitutional.

No matter how you look at it, it boils down to doing exactly what the first amendment was designed to prohibit - passing a law against speech for the sole reason that you don't like it and find it offensive.

the republic is threatened less by states that prosecute people for possessing pornography than it is by geeks who like to read it.

Pray tell, exactly how do geeks reading pron threaten the republic? I'm sure I'll find your answer most amusing.

-

Re:Hemos Should Get His Fact Right

[reallocate]

I don't need the Supreme Court to tell me what I believe is right and wrong. The First Amendment does not guarantee absolute free speech.

It is hard for to me to understand how you can't see pornography -- the deliberate degradation of individuals -- as a threat to any society premised on the right of an individual to live a free and nurturing life. Pornographers are criminal scum, like drug dealers.

Re:Hemos Should Get His Fact Right

[Alsee]

Of course that law doesn't apply to hate speech against conservative thinkers, the religous and unpopular right wing political movements.

Of course it does. The first amendemt SPECIFICLLY protects even them most idiotic and offensive speech. It protects conservative thinkers and the religous right wing just like it protects the KKK.

You may censor, ban and fire it's practioners with out fear of 1st Amemdment troubles. Right?

First of all "firing" has nothing to do with the first amendment. That is a separate issue.

Secondly I have not seen ANY law cesoring or banning conservative speech or religios speech or right wing speech. Perhaps you are complaining that some people are choosing not to include such speech in pblications/broadcast that belong to them. You have no more right to force someone to carry your speech than I have a right to force you to publish my porn.

Or perhaps you are complaining about people critisizing such speech and telling you to go away. They have as much right to critisize it and toll you to go away as you have a right to say what you want, and you have the right to critisize someone else and thell them to go away.

The first amendment only applys to LAWS that FORBID speech.

Most /.ers would say that would be correct and the "Right Thing" to do. Funny how fucked up in the head liberals are.

Any "liberal" who tries to pass a law censoring or banning "conservatives" is an idiot. However I doubt there exist many doing what you claim. You just don't like them calling you an idiot. That is NOT a first amendment violation.

-

Re:Hemos Should Get His Fact Right

[Alsee]

I don't need the Supreme Court to tell me what I believe is right and wrong

True. Are you free to believe whatever you like.

That does not mean you have any right to imprison people who dissagree.

The First Amendment does not guarantee absolute free speech.

It doesn't? Which word do you NOT understand? "Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech."

Congress can make it a crime to offer $5,000 to kill someone because even though that is "speech", the law is written to prohibit efforts to kill somebody.

It is hard for to me to understand how you can't see pornography -- the deliberate degradation of individuals

And I take it that people who take pornographic pictures/video of themselves are degrading themselves? Generally the people involved don't consider it degrading in the least. And even if they do, you have no right to PROHIBIT them from degrading themselves if that is what they want to do.

It all comes down whether YOU have any right to stop someone else from doing what they think is right and what they want to do. You have no right to use force and imprison people for doing things you don't like or you find offensive.

a threat to any society premised on the right of an individual to live a free and nurturing life.

And you would deny people the freedom to make/view porn to those who want to do so?

As for "nurturing" not exactly the sort of word you see in constitutional rights, but it is roughly comparable to "life, liberty, and the persuit of happyness". If you don't find it "nurturing" to you to make view porn that's fine, don't do that. But *I* don't think it's "nurturing" to me to go listen to some windbag preach at church. Fine, I won't do that. That doesn't give me any right to prevent you from going to church.

The people who choose to make/view porn in some sence consider it "nurturing" to them. People can certainly make a living at it. Some people genuinely enjoy doing so. Life, liberty, persuit of happyness. And peope who choose to view porn certainly consider it an issue of liberty and persuit of happyness chuckle.

You can certainly dissagree with it and avoid it yourself, but you have no right to deny them their freedom unless they violate your rights.

Pornographers are criminal scum, like drug dealers.

I'd say churches are criminal scum taking people's money and peddling the brainwashing "drug" of religion. If you claim the ability to use force to prohibit people from spreading information (porn) that you think is harmfull then *I* claim the right yo use that exact same force to prohibit people from spreading information (religion) that *I* think is harmfull.

I say neither of us has that right.The first amendment protects religion and porn equally. The law has no place trying to just what information is "good" and what information is "bad".

-

Re:Hemos Should Get His Fact Right

[reallocate]

Feel better, now?

>> Congress can make it a crime to offer $5,000 to kill someone because even though that is "speech", the law is written to prohibit efforts to kill somebody.

Interesting logic. Then it follows that a society can prohibit and punish speech that incites any behavior it considers criminal.

>> ...people who choose to make/view porn in some sence consider it "nurturing" to them.

Society has no obligation to protect the "right" of individuals to do things that threaten that society. Some people are comfortable selling drugs to kids. Other people are comfortable killing people whose ancestors were born in the "wrong" place. Some people are comfortable robbing banks. Criminal behavior threatens a society, and every society is free to define criminal behavior as it chooses. That doesn't eliminate an individual's range of choices, it just alters the risk of certain behavior.

In other words, the rights of an individual do not absolve that individual from the repercussions of engaging in anything that society considers criminal behavior. There's a lot of ranting to the contrary here, but it's just like all ranting: pointless and stupid.

Re:Hemos Should Get His Fact Right

[Alsee]

Interesting logic.

I didn't just make up my own logic. The day before yesterday I happened to read a DOJ report to the senate about first amendment limits on passing a law against publishing bomb making information. The DOJ explains it in detail. If you want I'll dig up a link. That "interesting logic" is a functional part of the US legal system.

Then it follows that a society can prohibit and punish speech that incites any behavior it considers criminal.

Close. You must have specific intent to cause a crime to occur. And of course that intended crime has to be a real and non-speech based crime.

The DOJ stated that congress CANNOT prohibit the publishing of bomb making information even when the author knows that some random person may use the information to comit some random crime. The only law they could pass - and the law they did pass - made it criminal to do so with the active intent of acheiving a non-speech crime.

How to make Nitroglycerine: All you have to do is mix glycerine (easily obtainable at a drugstore), concentrated sulfuric acid (you can easitly obtain dilute sulfuric acid from a car battery and distill it to concentrated form), and concentrated nitric acid. Nitric acid is isn't common, but it's not hard to get either. Get it in a college lab, or make it yourself. Nitric acid is the main component of acid rain, not hard to make. Check Google.

You just mix the three ingredients very very carefully and keep them very very cold while you do it. The reaction generates heat, so mix it very slowly in an ice bath. Nitroglycerie will form as an oily brown liquid on top.

Telling you all that can ONLY be a crime if I do so as part of an attempt to help you kill someone or similar. I have no intent to kill anyone here. Congress is INCAPABLE of passing any law imprisoning me for what I did. Well, congress can vote through a bill saying anything they like, but it isn't actually a law. As soon as it hits the courts it is declared null and void.

Society has no obligation to protect the "right" of individuals to do things that threaten that society

Right, but people who make/view porn are NOT violating anyone else's rights. You reffer to "killing people whose ancestors were born in the 'wrong' place". It is a violation of someone's right to life to kill them. You can use force/imprison someone who vilolates (or tries to violate) someone else's right to life (or any other right).

Some people are comfortable robbing banks.

Banks and the people in them have a right not to be robbed. The police are (pretty much) free to kill someone who tries to violate that right.

You merely find porn offensive. You do NOT have any right to be protected against being offended. I find your comments offensive and dangerous to free society. You are trying to deny people their first amendment rights. If you have some right/power to censor porn then I have the same right to censor your offensive and dangerous attempt to censor porn. Better yet I want to censor offensive and dangerous religion.

every society is free to define criminal behavior as it chooses

Short of a constitutional amendment, you CANNOT define it to be criminal for a black man to vote.

The constitution states that everyone has a variety of rights. Congress has no power or authority to violate those rights.

just like all ranting: pointless and stupid.

Yep. There is a constitutional guaranteed right to comminicate information/expression. Making/veiwing porn does not violate anyone's rights.

-

Why the hell isn't the Bible challenged?

[fudgefactor7]

There's rape, murder, infanticide, mass killing, cult activity, genocide, supernatural beings, and talking animals. Surely these things should not be allowed!

Re:Why the hell isn't the Bible challenged?

[fudgefactor7]

My favorite is Deuteronomy 23:2...God won't let bastards attend church. Neither can the sons or daughters of bastards "even to the tenth generation." So if you plan to attend church next Sunday be ready to prove that your genitals are intact and don't forget your birth certificate and genealogical records for at least the last ten generations. Don't laugh. This stuff is important to God.

Re:Why the hell isn't the Bible challenged?

[fudgefactor7]

ro read that section fo Duteronomy, it's right there in front of you. That's "God's words" not mine. Plus I cut-n-pasted from the skeptic's site, so don't be pulling your AC shit with me, fartknocker.

Re:Why the hell isn't the Bible challenged?

[fudgefactor7]

There was considerable debate with the ranks of the Apostles themselves over all those things and they only came to the conclusions they did because they needed "fresh blood" or their little cult would have died. It seems that necessity is also the mother of religion as well as invention.

Re:Why the hell isn't the Bible challenged?

[praedor]

Heh. The rules/laws would only need to be revoked if they were wrong in the first place. Since they were "God's laws" they can't be wrong, but since they were revoked by Gawd, they were wrong and God made a boo-boo. "Oops, sorry guys, my bad. All that killing, raping, discrimination, etc, all on my say so. I've had a change of heart. We'll just revoke all that previous stuff...sorry about your da and ma who got creamed by my mistaken previous laws."

Re:Why the hell isn't the Bible challenged?

[Kjella]

It doesn't come with illustrations, so it's not a comic.

Kjella

Re:Why the hell isn't the Bible challenged?

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

It has been. I wish I could remember specifics, but there was a case in Canada in which a conservative preacher took out a newspaper ad consisting solely of Bible quotes against homosexuality. He got charged with hate speech. I never heard what the outcome was.

Also, notice the incident Neil Gaiman mentioned in his journal. He retold a story from the Book of Judges and his Swedish publisher almost went to prison.

Re:Why the hell isn't the Bible challenged?

[Alsee]

a lot of rules from the Old Testament were overturned/revoked by Jesus or by God through the apostles.

Yep, and I'm a New Apostle, and a lot of current rules are about to be overturned by God through Me. I think I'll start with that one about adultery...

-

Re:Why the hell isn't the Bible challenged?

[fudgefactor7]

Ohh, will you fix that whole no multiple wife thing too? That would rock! Do that and you're my Apostle! :)

Re:Why the hell isn't the Bible challenged?

[Alsee]

Do that and you're my Apostle! :)

Cool. I never considered becomeing a cult leader before, but this could be fun :)

will you fix that whole no multiple wife thing too?

God's rules are fair and equal. That means multiple husbands are fair game too.

Hmmm, now to go find myself a couple of redhead cult-babes as sex-slaves err... I mean wives :)

-

Re:Texas - obSimpsons(mis?)quote

[DoNotTauntHappyFunBa]

Bart is playing a videogame. After committing a few unlawful acts his character is arrested and must stand trial.
Bart: (hitting button) Change of venue! Change of venue!
Videogame: **TEXAS** (electric chair graphic)
Bart: Oh man!

Re:You Rights --Online--???

[MImeKillEr]

There is no need to for hardcore pornography in a modern society.

Again, its all a matter of preference. You don't prefer it, while I do.

If we're going the 'modern society' route - let's do away with religion too, since all people of a 'modern society' would surely realize that an invisible man living in the sky who controls the fate of each and every one of us would be quite assinine to believe in.

And yet, we still have religion - despite the fact that believing in such things goes against an evolved, modern society.

Nobody knows why the Court refused to hear case.

[Glassbear]

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.

But the Supreme Court didn't actually say that, or anything of the kind. Read the linked article. Castillo thinks the Supreme Court refused to hear his case because Castillo thinks the Court thinks it's a question for the states. But the Court itself didn't say one word about why it refused to hear Castillo's case, so we have no way to know whether his belief about their reasons is an accurate belief or not. The Court gets asked to hear thousands of cases every year and actually hears fewer than a hundred of them. The Court generally doesn't offer any explanation of why it takes, or fails to take, any particular case -- and its order denying Castillo's petition says nothing about why they decided not to hear it.

Community Standards

[Blue Stone]

It's a shame that Judge's rulings and punishments aren't also subject to compliance with "community standards:"

In 1994, underground cartoonist Mike Diana was thrown in jail for 4 days without bail on obscenity charges, for publishing, advertising, and selling his zine BOILED ANGEL. Mike was on probation for 3 years, terms of which included fines of $3000, no contact with children under 18 (or within 10 feet of a minor), 1280 hours of community service, maintain full time employment, and at his expense, see a psychiatrist and take journalism courses at his own expense; AND no drawing for his own personal use... his home was subject to unannounced searches by local police to make sure he was complying. Mike Diana is now serving another 2 years of probation, including $2000 in fines, and the same probationary terms.

On June 4, 1996, a ruling issued by Largo, Florida, Circuit Judge Douglas Baird declared Mike Diana's zines, Boiled Angel #7 and #ATE as obscene. The judge emphasized throughout Mike's ruling that he personally found Diana's comics "patently offensive." Referring to Diana as "the appellant," and stated, "The evident goal of the appellant's publication is to portray shocking and graphic pictures of sexual conduct so it will be noticed. If the message is about victimization and that horrible things are happening in our society, as the appellant alleges, the appellant SHOULD HAVE created a vehicle to send his message that was not obscene."

From here.

The judgement seems to me to be entirely obsecene. I mean, "AND no drawing for his own personal use... his home was subject to unannounced searches by local police to make sure he was complying."

Sounds more like something people experienced during the Chinese Revolution than SHOUL BE the case in modern America (or any civilized society.)

Re:Community Standards

[Blue Stone]

Ok, which moderator-on-crack modded this as off-topic?

Meta Modders?

[krysith]

Dear Moderators,

Why is this currently modded 0, Offtopic?

Whether you agree with the posters statement that the ACLU is an equivalent to the EFF or CBDLF, it certainly is germane to a discussion in which donations are suggested to the two organizations mentioned. Just because you disagree with a poster doesn't make the post offtopic. Instead, reply with a rebuttal, please.

For christ's sake

[cyber_rigger]

It's some paper with ink on it. I think we need a reality check here.

Still

[Metal_Demon]

Essentially it sounds as if his crime isn't one that he committed but more like one that he could have committed. Why should it be illegal to sell pr0n to adults in any format in the vecinity of children? I should be able to run an arcade that sells comic book pr0n as long as I keep it away from the kiddies. I have seen many a sperm & split (thats kum & go to most of you) across the street from schools. While they sell things more along the lines of Playboy and Penthouse I wouldn't see any reason for the to not sell it in comic book form. Hell if the'll sell comic pr0n on an Air Force Base they should be able to sell it anywhere.

Troll Alarm!

[op00to]

DING DING! He compares smoking to rape and murder. One is a lifestyle choice, the others are felonious crimes. Apples and oranges, my friend. C'mon, try harder next time, fool.

Re:Troll Alarm!

[BrookHarty]

DING DING! He compares smoking to rape and murder. One is a lifestyle choice, the others are felonious crimes. Apples and oranges, my friend. C'mon, try harder next time, fool.

You Sir are Correct!

These "Ethics" crimes are all based on Morality. While Smoking, Rape and Murder Physically hurt another citizen.

While there are grey areas of these laws, that might have some physical harm, it still should be the choice of the person(s) to take part in self inflicting actions. Where is the wisdom that you can look at a topic, and see both sides of the argument and come up with a solution that is equal in grey areas.

Take the public ban on smoking. While Yes, I don't care for smoke while I'm eating, people should be allowed to have clubs that allow smoking. I just won't go to those clubs. Seems a win/win for everyone. Just make sure you post it on the door so everyone knows.

Call the laws what they are, "Nanny Laws", people think they know whats best for you. Good little boy/girl, be happy, heres a tax refund, vote for bush.

Re:This may be 'normal' in those there parts ...

[Chess_the_cat]

...but it is an offense and an affront to everything our founding fathers stood for, and it is categorically unamerican

I'm so tired of hearing what the Founding Fathers would find offensive because 9 times out of 10 it's wrong anyway. I'd bet my life that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would be much more offended by a tentacle-rape comic named Demon Beast Invasion then they ever would be by having that comic banned from sale. When the Founding Fathers wrote the First Amendment they were thinking "How can we be sure that the government won't be able to stop us from printing our pamphlet 'Why the Stamp Act is a Bad Thing.'" They certainly weren't thinking "How can we protect depictions of rape and murder in popular culture?" The Founding Fathers would probably barf at what's available on the supermarket magazine rack. So all I'm saying is don't tell me what they would or would not have found offensive or what the One True Meaning of the Constitution is. If it was that clear there wouldn't be any constitutional lawyers.

how the supreme court thinks:

[supernova87a]

Many people have the misperception that the Supreme Court stands ready and willing (or unwilling) to intervene whenever someone's specific case comes to their attention. This is simply not true. The criteria for the Supreme Court are quite different from those of the lower regular courts, because its job is not to decide individual cases, but to weigh the fairness of laws themselves.

The Supreme Court's charge is "to ensure the uniformity of judgments". It is not to correct individual cases that may have merely been decided wrongly -- the Court spends its time on cases that will have the most effect, to the most people. The Supreme Court is said to weigh these issues before even accepting a case:

does the case bring up substantial questions of law?

has the case been decided in conflicting ways by lower courts?

is the case a good test case to issue a decision on a matter of law?

are many people affected by it?

Does this guy's case satisfy any of these requirements? Remember, not all speech is protected speech. Obscenities, or material of purely prurient nature, is not protected, and probably there's no reason for them to intervene in a case like this.

Odd standards

[TroyFoley]

I can now have sex with another man in... interesting orifices, but I can't sell pictures of it to other adults?

Re:You are NOT to look upon the human body!

[mangu]

If Christ the LORD wanted us to look at naked humans all the time, ...

Jesus obviously wants us to. Jesus Castillo, that is.

Constitution and Federal Laws

[norwoodites]

The Constitution (and the Amendments) is above any Federal Law, in fact any Federal Law that violates the Constitution can be stuck down (we all should know that, DMCA and such go against the Constitution). The Constitution gives powers to the Federal Government, in fact right now the Federal Government is over stepping it bounds in terms of powers with the DMCA and the PATRIOT Act.

Re:you said it, man

[smclean]

8 year olds, dude.

Re:Whoa, There, Cowboy! Local Obscenity Laws == Go

[el-spectre]

if you're gonna troll, you might as well make it interesting man...

Re:Whoa, There, Cowboy! Local Obscenity Laws == Go

[mangu]

Start washing cars in your restaurant and you get a fine. Start selling porn and you go to jail. No, I don't think it's the same thing as zoning.

I couldn't agree more.

[Safety State]

Obscenity and other forms of dangerous speech (split infinitives, sentence fragments, etc.) are unprotected -- and rightfully so.

Ask someone who knows. I've been speaking and hearing speech for close to my entire life, and nothing dismays me more than a bit of speech that endangers all of humanity.

Re:You Rights --Online--???

[IWorkForMorons]

A modern society lets you choose to believe in an invisible man in the sky. A modern society also lets you choose to read dirty comics if that's what you want to do.

That being said, are we really living in a modern society, or just a technologically advanced one?

Re:Whoa, There, Cowboy! Local Obscenity Laws == Go

[el-spectre]

It's getting scarier every day. We now have a president who's official statements are bible quotes... Given how uber-conservative the current administration/congress is trying to make the country, the backlash in a couple of years is going to be interesting... presuming that we are still allowed to have opinions of our own by then...

Hey...

[Scalli0n]

Hey, his name is Jesus, he can't be wrong!

Lessons

[Seanasy]

When I have children, I will teach them to look both ways before crossing the street, to not talk to strangers and to stay the hell out of Texas.

Re:Lessons

[Frobnicator]

I don't know about that. I think being in a section of the store that is visibly marked as "Adults only", having drawings of a naked lady on the cover, and various warnings about adult content and "NOT FOR SALE TO MINORS" on it would be sufficient warning to anyone who can read.

Even if you can't read, just glancing at the cover would be suffient in this case.

frob

Re:Whoa, There, Cowboy! Local Obscenity Laws == Go

[mugnyte]

By this argument, does it make sense to put an airport next to a library? The coal plant next to the grade school? Cemetary next to the swimming hole?

Zoning laws are for appearance, logic and other subjctive concepts. Thus, they are local only.

FYI: Texas has no zoning laws. Houston has strip bars next to elementary schools.

Re:Whoa, There, Cowboy! Local Obscenity Laws == Go

[RobotRunAmok]

Of course, if the fine folk in Tulsa don't want that stuff they won't buy it, and the shops will fold due to lack of business.

They may want it. I think they might be a bit abnormal if they did not. They just don't want it sold locally. Some people don't want to live next to a power plant, but they still use electricity. They can move away from the power plant, campaign to establish the apropos zoning laws (and pay higher taxes as consequence), or not. Free Country.

Of course, the Feds shouldn't be worrying themselves over what is obscene at all, universally or not. The US Constitution doesn't have any "except for obscene materials" clauses in it.

See the discussion about the Constitution and Free Speech and Obscenity above. What the Founding Fathers *did* intend was for states' sovereignity to be better respected.

So if it was a zoning issue, why didn't they just close the shop instead of throwing an employee in jail?

I'm using Local Zoning as a metaphor, but as no one has posted any real links of any substance regarding the case, I don't know what the practice is in Dallas.

I do. We've got a sub-population in this country that's rampaging out of control, trying to get anyone who differs from them thrown in prison. You can't run a free country on that basis.

You're right, although I suspect my rampaging sub-population differs somewhat from yours. Thankfully, it's a big country, with plenty of diversity cherished and protected at the neighborhood level. Hopefully, no Supreme Court judge legislating from the bench will seek to homogenize any of us anytime soon.

The Constitution?

[WalterDGeranios]

The US Constitution doesn't have any "except for obscene materials" clauses in it.

I find this kind of argument strange. Why does the freedom of speech necessarily cover local sales of adult manga? The US Constitution doesn't guarantee the "freedom to distribute racy Japanese comics for a profit at any locale." Yet that's what the guy is in trouble for, not for his speech.

It seems to me that freedom of speech doesn't arbitrarily mean freedom of expression -- after all, any crime could be construed as an expression.

I don't think this porn vendor's right to express ideas has been unduly circumscribed. Most likely he could have legally communicated whatever idea that he may have had.

Re:The Constitution?

[Darth]

you seem to have the issue a little confused here.

the free speech issue is not about the vendor's speech rights. it is about the comic's right to protection as speech.

The way this affects the vendor is that he is convicted of selling obscene material. If the material is protected speech, it is not obscene (by the legal criteria for finding things to be obscene) and he cannot be guilty of selling obscene material.

This has nothing to do with the vendor's speech rights and everything to do with the freedom of expression of the artist and the comic that was sold.

Re:The Constitution?

[WalterDGeranios]

you seem to have the issue a little confused here.

Funny you should say so . . .

the free speech issue is not about the vendor's speech rights.

. . . because that's the point I was making . . .

and he cannot be guilty of selling obscene material.

. . . and he can, because it is not protected speech, because the state considers it obscene. Miller Vs. California, 1973, the Court determined that obscenity can be measured by state, rather than national, standards.

Re:The Constitution?

[Darth]

in the original post, you said :

I find this kind of argument strange. Why does the freedom of speech necessarily cover local sales of adult manga? The US Constitution doesn't guarantee the "freedom to distribute racy Japanese comics for a profit at any locale." Yet that's what the guy is in trouble for, not for his speech.

to which i said that the issue of free speech is about the merits of the material and it's qualification as being obscene. The distribution of the material is irrelevent to wether it is actually obscene.

in your original post, you also said :

I don't think this porn vendor's right to express ideas has been unduly circumscribed. Most likely he could have legally communicated whatever idea that he may have had.

I agree that it has nothing to do with his right to express ideas, but that isnt what the free speech issue in this case is about.

Your whole argument in your first post is that the vendor's free speech rights are not affected. We agree on that.

The point of the whole free speech angle is that if the manga itself is protected speech, then it fails to me part 3 of the criteria to be found obscene. (part 3 is not constrained to community standards. only part 1 is)
if the material fails the definition of obscenity, he cannot be convicted of peddling obscene material.

and he can, because it is not protected speech, because the state considers it obscene. Miller Vs. California, 1973, the Court determined that obscenity can be measured by state, rather than national, standards.

absolutely true, however, part 3 of the criteria that is listed in Miller Vs. California requires that the material have no redeeming social or political content. That criteria isnt constrained to the opinions of the community. The community standard only applies to part 1 of the obscenity definition.

The free speech issue wouldnt attack the community standards argument, or even the state law argument, it would attack the idea that the material itself has no other redeeming value, and that is irrelevent to the community in which it is sold.

Re:The Constitution?

[WalterDGeranios]

Your whole argument in your first post is that the vendor's free speech rights are not affected.

In part, but only in making the more general argument that obscene material isn't necessarily protected speech. This is what the poster I quoted had taken issue with, saying that there were no obscenity clauses in the Constitution.

part 3 of the criteria that is listed in Miller Vs. California requires that the material have no redeeming social or political content.

Actually, this case struck down the test of "utterly without redeeming social value." The new test was whether the work did not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The example given in the decision of this "serious value" was medical books which use graphic illustrations and descriptions of human anatomy as a necessary tool for education.

Re:The Constitution?

[Darth]

In part, but only in making the more general argument that obscene material isn't necessarily protected speech. This is what the poster I quoted had taken issue with, saying that there were no obscenity clauses in the Constitution.

i agree that obscene material isnt necessarily protected speech.

Actually, this case struck down the test of "utterly without redeeming social value." The new test was whether the work did not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The example given in the decision of this "serious value" was medical books which use graphic illustrations and descriptions of human anatomy as a necessary tool for education.

my error. i seriously misworded my statement. (it was late, i was tired, insert any excuse that'll get me off the hook for screwing up here)

The Court's Opinion

[psiphiorg]

I don't see anybody linking to the 5th District Court of Appeals's opinion yet, so rather than relying on the biased CBLDF perspective on what the ruling means, why not read the Court's opinion and get it straight from the source? The Majority Opinion is from two of the three judges, and the Dissenting Opinion is from the other. davidh

Re:The Court's Opinion

[chrystoph]

When reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Chambers v. State, 866 S.W.2d 9, 15 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993).

Gotta love this. The appelate court just admitted to discriminating in favor of the previous court. The emphasis is my own.

Re:The Court's Opinion

[psiphiorg]

"The appelate court just admitted to discriminating in favor of the previous court."

This is the stance that the appellate court is supposed to take in every case. Their job is not to re-try the case, but rather to see if there was an error in how the trial was conducted. A vertict is only supposed to be overturned, remanded, etc. if even in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational trier of fact could not have found the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

In the trial court, the burden of proof is on the state to prove beyond a resonable doubt that the accused is guilty. In the appellate court, "innocent until proven guilty" applies: no longer innocent because they have been proven guilty. Now the burden of proof to show that there was an error at the trial court falls on the defendant's shoulders.

davidh

Sorry!

[Black Parrot]

> > The Texas Penal Code isn't generally thought of as a laugh-out-loud read, but Section 43.23 is an exception: "A person commits an offense if he ... possesses with intent to wholesale promote any obscene material or obscene device. A person who possesses six or more obscene devices ... is presumed to possess them with intent to promote the same."

> Ah, the Five Dildo Limit. Remember that when packing for a trip to Texas.

Ehrm, maybe "packing" wasn't the best choice of words in that context.

Re:Sorry!

[Abcd1234]

LOL! Man, nice one. :)

Some Background

[_xeno_]

The links Hemos gave did little to establish background for the "Jesus Castillo case" so I'll try and do it based on some brief research and what I found through Google.

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.

Re:Some Background

[Alsee]

Cover art: Demon Beast Invasion

-

Re:yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

laws regulate what you or I can do. Constitutions regulate what gov'ts can do.

First Amendmend is NOT a Federal Law

[tellezj]

The statement "despite the First Amendment being a Federal law" is not strictly correct. The First Amendment is a restriction on what Federal laws can do. That is why it says "Congress shall make no law..."

Re:You Rights --Online--???

[Phoenix]

"Why is porn a "News for nerds?" If this happend online, maybe I could see the point. However, this happened in the meat. This story has no technology component and is just a standard porn issue."

Because Slashdot is a forum dedicated to the things that facinates us members of the 'geek' or 'nerd' community. As comics are getting more involved with plot, character development and much better stories,(certainly the opposite trend of today's Television), something like is 'news for nerds' as many of us will have an interest. There are several things that get reported that have bugger all to do with the internet, but we read, comment and debate them to our hearts content.

"I am a geek that happens to not care about porn."

More power to you for that. Everyone has his/her own likes and dislikes and that is a good thing.

"I wouldn't mind obscenity laws being even stricter. There is no need to for hardcore pornography in a modern society."

I remember a line in "Dogma", specificly that scene where Bartelby is dropping people from great heights and Loki trying to explain the repressed anger that he's trying to get out "If only they'd allow jerk off"

Porn is a sexual outlet for people of all genders (some more so than others). Many people enjoy it as an aid to a relationship. I know that after watching some adult movies, there are couples that have an ever more enjoyable sexual experience. For others, it's a release of sexual tension when a partner is unavailable (either due to absence or stereotypical geek inability to acquire such.

Banning hardcore porn isn't an answer or even a viable option. Look at what happened during prohibition or the current 'war on drugs'. The more you ban something, the more it comes back...usually stronger.

Now on the one hand I deem that there should and must be limits as to what is considered legal. Sexual contact with minors is the current biggy out there today. I for one am against it. However on the other hand it's a grey area when you're talking about drawing a fictional scene of under age contact.

It is still abhorrent to me to consider such, but there are people who derive pleasure from it and would it really be so bad if they get it out of thier systems with a few colored pencils and a sheet of paper instead of doing it for real?

Granted there are the arguements of the people who can't just leave it in the fictional world and will step over in to the 'real' world and do it...this is why I consider it a grey area.

In a way it's like reading Stephen King. That man thinks like a serial killer but channels it in the safe and legal area of writing, but I doubt *he'll* become one in real life...others might not be so safe and cross over.

It has a place here, it's something to debate and gives us something to do while we're waiting foe something to download (in my case Linux Distro's)

Oh my god

[originalTMAN]

IOW, there isn't really any free speech... This may be "normal" in the USA, but it isn't "liberty and justice for all". shut the hell up! I am sick and tired of people continuously saying "there is no free speech in America". My country has will and continually defends my right to criticize every institution of government. I'm not going to be shot or put in jail for saying things like the Patriot act won't make me safe or George Bush is a bigger threat to this nation than Al-qaeda and the so called Axis of Evil. So what if precedent says the case doesn't need to be heard in the highest court? The law was decided to benefit the majority in the most specific way and if need be the law will change to benefit the majority in the most specific way. If you don't like it don't post crap. Write your reps and put substance in the letter.

Re:Oh my god

[Catbeller]

"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.

Re: Oh my god

[Black Parrot]

> shut the hell up! I am sick and tired of people continuously saying "there is no free speech in America". My country has will and continually defends my right to criticize every institution of government.

But not your right to enjoy erotic material that the "moral" majority don't approve of?

> The law was decided to benefit the majority in the most specific way and if need be the law will change to benefit the majority in the most specific way.

Letting the majority censor the minority is a wholly different concept from free speech.

Also, what if the hardliners who run run Texas decide to declare that Howard Dean's anti-Bush commercials that started running there this week are "obscene". Should the SCOTUS still bug out, on the basis that obscenity is best defined parochially?

There's a reason the Bill of Rights insisted on various forms of freedom of expression.

Re:Oh my god

[deanj]

So many myths, and all in one post. Let's see here:

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.

Fortunately, the people of Iraq and Afganistan are now free of the tyrants that the "peace protesters" so desperately wanted to keep in power.

He's deactivated at least four amendments to the Bill of Rights.

None of the amendments of the Bill of Rights have been "deactivated".

He's established that he is not subject to any court.

Uh...where did you get that one? We're talking about Bush here, not Clinton, right? What ARE you talking about?

He can make any of us disappear at any time.

Phew...ok...even farther off the deep end....

We are not permitted to protest in his holy presence.

The just want where those little shin-digs those pro-Saddam activists were having in various parts of the country before the war?

He and his people are looting the Treasury.

Bzzzt! Wrong again, thanks for playing. If you're so against tax cuts, by all means, rip that check up, or send more money next time tax season rolls around. Can't bring yourself to do that... Hmm...at least we know where you draw the line now.

He will make destitute millions of people when the U.S. won't have the money to pay Social Security.

Faulty prediction.... or is that just wishful thinking, so you have someone to blame?

He is the worst, most clueless, most arrogant president we have ever had.

No, that would be that the impreached Mr. Clinton.

And he wasn't even elected.

Certainly he was. Got the majority of the electoral votes in this country, and that's how it works. Gore repeatedly try to count votes until he got a vote total he was happy with (and with some help of the Democrat-controlled Supreme Court), and steal that election. Period. End of Story. This is as stupid as the "Gore got the majority of the votes in the country" argument. Presidents are elected through the electoral college for a damn good reason, so every state in the country has a say in who gets elected president, not just the most populous states.

Look, we get the idea that you hate Bush. If you want to convince people with arguments, at least state facts, not made up things, things that you wish had happened, or out and out lies. People will be much more interested in that, and much less likely to blow off what you have to say.

Re:Oh my god

[cpeterso]

He invaded the wrong two countries

I'm curious, which were the RIGHT two countries to invade?

Re: Oh my god

[originalTMAN]

But not your right to enjoy erotic material that the "moral" majority don't approve of?

My point is that those rights are guaranteed yet people- like you did in the post that was my parent- continuously give off the idea that the constitution is and always has been nothing but a piece of paper in this country. Look, whether you like it or not morality has been at the core of all our laws and for what ever reason (think religion- and please, for the love of God don't flame for this) obscenity is perceived to be a threat to our society as big as rape and murder. Letting the majority censor the minority is a wholly different concept from free speech.

Dude, I know that. I didn't tell you to write your rep for nothing. Also, what if the hardliners who run run Texas decide to declare that Howard Dean's anti-Bush commercials that started running there this week are "obscene". Should the SCOTUS still bug out, on the basis that obscenity is best defined parochially?

Now sorry if I'm too blunt but that's just bullshit. We don't have hundreds of counties, cities, and states (well there aren't a hudred of those...) writing nullification laws on the PATRIOT act for nothing. We don't have a king for President. There's a reason the Bill of Rights insisted on various forms of freedom of expression.

um... no, it didn't. It insisted that the people can petition government, assemble for any reason, and practice any form of religion without interference/support from the state (and please don't start an argument about those other things, i.e. the faith-based initiative. I'm not illiterate. and I want to keep this on topic.) This why we have the courts in the first place... to interpret the law.

Re:Oh my god

[originalTMAN]

I'm not going to waste my energy quoting you off. Hopefully you read your own damn post because you cleary didn't read mine (past the shut up part- wasn't the most tactful way to reply. Oh well). While I agree with some of your off topic points. I posted what I did for the simple reason that I'm sick of the America bashing done here (but I don't mind the Bush Bashing too much). There is free speech here and if people have a problem with the way its implemented they should do something about it that's more constructive than posting crap.

It is federal law, and other misconceptions

[DirtyCowboy]

I'm posting this as a general reply so I don't have to reply to each person who has said "The First Amendment isn't federl law!!!" The Constitution is a "Federal law," as are it's Amendments. It just happens to be the supreme law of the land, meaning that it is superior to all other law (statutes, regulations, common law, etc.).

While I certainly feel for Mr. Castillo, the Supreme Court has long ruled that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment. See Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973). This does not apply to speech that only rises to the level of "indecent." Whether something is obscene or not is determined based on local community standards. While I personally think that obscenity should be protected by the First Amendment (it says "Congress shall make no law..."), that's the law as it stands now ( and yes, case law is law too).

Also, I AM a lawyer.

Re:It is federal law, and other misconceptions

[ProfMoriarty]

that's the law as it stands now ( and yes, case law is law too).

While you claim to be a lawyer ... you state that case law is law ... but it is NOT.

What case law is, is a judges' opinion on the current case in front of him at the time. This is precisely why we have several layers of appeals courts.

Now, many lawyers USE prior arguements ("case law") to bolster their pleadings/arguements, the court does NOT need to recognize them. In fact, since we have many Curcuits of appeal, there have been times when they don't provide the same interpretation of the same law (real law, not "case law"). The short of it is, that judges use "case law" to help them decide what decision to make, and giving the appearance of applying the law equally.

In fact, there are times when a jury can vacate a (real) law by using "jury nullification". For more info on that go to: Fully Informed Jury Association. PS, judges can do this as well, but rarely do so for political reasons.

The appearance of law must be upheld, especially when it's being broken. - Gangs of New York.

Re:It is federal law, and other misconceptions

[ProfMoriarty]

DOH ... hate to reply to myself, but the whole Constitution/Seperation of powers thing as well ...

Legislative ... creates the law

Judicial ... interprets the law

Executive ... enforces the law

Free speech

[germinatoras]

That's right guys, keep branding criminal activity as Free Speech. Pretty soon we'll lose it entirely.

He broke the law, he got caught, now he's paying the price. Should I argue against my speeding ticket because I was excersicing my first ammendment right to speak out against the speed limit? Should I willfully break copyright law just to "speak out" against the RIAA? First ammendment rights are not an excuse for criminal behaviour, and I refuse to feel anything but contempt for those who think that way.

Laws don't change in the breaking, except in rare, extreme cases which this isn't. Laws change by voting for representatives on election day or writing to your governor/senator/etc.

Well there goes my "excellent" karma. It was fun while it lasted.

Re:Free speech

[crashfrog]

That's right guys, keep branding criminal activity as Free Speech. Pretty soon we'll lose it entirely.

I'm sorry, what criminal activity? It's illegal to sell adult material to adults? If it is, then it is a free speech issue, because comics are speech. Or do you disagree?

The reason we have free speech is to protect certain kinds of speech from becoming criminal activity. And when a type of speech becomes inappropriately criminialized, it's appropriate to use the First Amendment to recitfy the situation.

Not so fast, my friend....

[DesScorp]

"Of course, if the fine folk in Tulsa don't want that stuff they won't buy it, and the shops will fold due to lack of business."

There's a market for crack and murder in Tulsa too....should that be legal? Just because there's something people are willing to pay for, doesn't mean it should be legally available.

"The US Constitution doesn't have any "except for obscene materials" clauses in it."

That's because George Washington and Co. never dreamed that "hot young teen pussies for you!" would be openly sold in markets. It's a bit of a stretch to say the founders expicitly wanted obscene matierial to have legal protection. They never included it because the mores of the day forbid such things publicly, and it obviously never crossed their minds to ban it via the law. While they had skeletons in their closets too, I think it's safe to say none of them would endorse the public sale of porn.

"We've got a sub-population in this country that's rampaging out of control, trying to get anyone who differs from them thrown in prison. "

That's a gross exageration and hysterical nonsense. You're pissed because the country isn't going your way right now, and you comfort yourself by telling yourself it's a big conspiracy by a small minority. If the "sub-population" you're speaking of consists of center-right and right leaning people, you're sadly mistaken; in that case, YOU'RE the minority.

You can disagree with me on this, but this is a fairly conservative country. There are pockets of liberalism/leftism, but they're highly concentrated on the coasts. Texas is smack in the middle of that conservative voting zone. Why is anyone surprised at this? If you don't like the way things in Texas are, then move to a place more of your liking. You don't have to right to change the laws of the state agaisnt the wishes of the majority because you want things differently, with few exceptions. That's the atmosphere they want there. Look at the voting record in Texas over the past couple of decades. Is anyone SERIOUSLY going to contend that it's not a conservative state?

The Supreme Court ruled that local community standards for obscenity would rule the day. This has been the way things have been done for decades. Again, if you don't like it, try to change the minds of the populace. If they still want different obscenity standards than you, hey, San Francisco and Los Angelas are calling your name. Go there. Buy Porn. Make fun of the middle America yokels. Be happy. They'll probably be just as happy that YOU left.

Re: Not so fast, my friend....

[Black Parrot]

> > Of course, if the fine folk in Tulsa don't want that stuff they won't buy it, and the shops will fold due to lack of business.

> There's a market for crack and murder in Tulsa too....should that be legal? Just because there's something people are willing to pay for, doesn't mean it should be legally available.

Nice attempt to twist the argument. No one is saying that tolerance for crack and murder are or ought to be matters of local decision. The point was that if the fine folk of Tulsa didn't want porn there wouldn't be a market for it in Tulsa.

All this is nothing more than rationalization for a majority enforcing their sexual mores on everyone else in spite of the words of the Constitution and the principles enshrined in it.

Re:Not so fast, my friend....

[cpeterso]

yes, crack should be legal. It is harming no except the consenting user. Murder should not be legal because it harms unconsenting people.

(am I going straight to Hell now?)

Re:Not so fast, my friend....

[drakaan]

Actually, I think crack might as well be legal (tax the shit out of it, and government regulate it, like booze and cigarettes). Murder is definitely not a first amendment issue...the right to life is pretty clearly spelled out as one of the inalienable ones that are supposed to be self-evident, so I don't know where you're going with that argument.

G.W. ancd Co. explicitly didn't prohibit any kind of speech because they were fed up with being told what they couldn't say. I can think of a few paintings that pre-date the USA that you would probably deem inappropriate for children to see because of nudity.

If you don't like porn, don't buy any. Nobody said the guy got arrested for hanging mags with "Hot Teen Pussies" splashed across the front of them out for all to see. I doubt you could find many (if any) places where this is the case except for those establishments that trade solely in adult-oriented material.

I consider my self to be a moderate...people on both sides of things routinely piss me off, and that's just the thing...the US isn't full of liberals or conservatives...most of us fall pretty much in the middle, with some differences on particular issues. That said, the majority was explicitly denied the right to force the minority to keep quiet. The fact that I live in Texas, can do so without fear of recrimination or legal woes, but still disagree on one or more points with most of the people around me is a testament to the foresight of our founding fathers in this matter.

The fact that the founding fathers left obscenity up to the states was another stroke of genius, because it ensures that people of differing viewpoints could live places where there were others of a similar mindset. Obscenity tends to be the kind of issue that gets people all riled up, and because of that, different places have different standards on the matter. The problem is (and there's still not enough info that I've seen to speak clearly on this), *if* all the person in question did was to sell an adult magazine to an adult, why was he arrested? It's legal to buy porn in Texas...I know...there are billboards for "adult megastore!" scattered throughout Dallas. There are even *more* billboards for the various men's clubs around the city. No need to change the minds of the populace here, they already support a variety of enterprizes that center around naked people and sex.

Re:Not so fast, my friend....

[Alsee]

The fact that the founding fathers left obscenity up to the states was another stroke of genius

No, the founding fathers never used the word obscenity. They simply stated that no law may be created restricting free speech. They did not grant any exemption allowing the restriction of obscene speech.

As far as I can tell the obscenity rule was first created by the supreme court in 1957. They saw free speech that they didn't like - they didn't like it so much that they decided to invent an obscenity exemption out of thin air to GRANT THEMSELVES the ability to make it illegal.

The 1957 standard was STUCK DOWN AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL by the supreme court in 1975 and replaced with a more limited version.

While the 1975 test is better, I'd still say it's unconstitutional. They are making law against speech they find offensive - and that is precisely what the first amendment was supposed to prohibit. They fact that you don't like something - the fact that it is offensive - is NEVER justification for making something illegal.

Defending free speech means defending unpopular and offensive speech.

-

Re:Not so fast, my friend....

[drakaan]

As far as I can tell the obscenity rule was first created by the supreme court in 1957. They saw free speech that they didn't like - they didn't like it so much that they decided to invent an obscenity exemption out of thin air to GRANT THEMSELVES the ability to make it illegal.

Well, shit. I hate misspeaking, or being wrong (who doesn't). I hope if you read all of my post that you understand I'm definitely a first amendment advocate. I agree with your point of view, and I think speech should be free irrespective of people's individual views.
I got a little too irritated with the post I was replying to, and lost some of my ability to think rationally...I'm sure it'll happen again, but I'll try to keep it to a minimum.

Re:Not so fast, my friend....

[Alsee]

I do believe that you are confusing the legislature with the judiciary.

Nope. The legistature is entirely subservient to the constitution and the judiciary's power to interpert it. The legislature has no ability to meddle with the first amendment except through the amendment process.

In a 6-to-3 decision written by Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., the Court held that obscenity was not "within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press." ...Brennan later reversed his position on this issue in Miller v. California (1973).

As far as I have found that is the first case of "obscenity" being carved out and denied first amendment protection.

Yeah, a legislature passed the law in question first, but before that supreme court ruling the law was clearly unconstitutional.

-

Re:Not so fast, my friend....

[Alsee]

Sorry if it sounded like I was directing that at you. We are both irritated at the same people :D

I just meant to write an un-critical correction on that one point. Only the 2 or 3 sentences were a "reply" to you. I didn't want to make an unsupported statement so I did some googling for details and the supporting information/argument came flooding out :) All of that was a contribution to the general discussion. I was kinda pleased to have uncovered another good argument against "them". I was rather irritated at the supreme court for granting themselves the power to violate the first amenment just because they didn't like what they saw.

Near the end I realized you might see it they way you did. I considered saying something to acknowledge that we're "on the same side", but I was really tired and I couldn't think of a good way to say it. I just sorta gave up and hit "submit".

-

A big waste.

[Agent R]

in the eyes of Texas, selling a comic book created for adults, from the adult section of the shop, to an adult was deemed a crime because, in the prosecutor's eyes, all comics are for kids

This has got to be one of the most STUPID cases yet. (Not to mention a big waste of taxpayer's money.) Not all comics are for kids and are not read by kids. (i.e. graphic novels). Considering that the adult books was cordoned off from kids and Castillo sold it to an adult.. I don't see where the law was broken.

Too many lawyers on this planet seeking to screw (no pun intended..) anyone just so they can probably get their name recognized.

Re:A big waste.

[RevSmiley]

King Henry,VI part III act IV ii,86
"The first thing we do, lets kill all the lawyers."

Re:What is this bush league psych out shit?

[evel aka matt]

Could you have quoted that a little more incorrectly? "A dios me"?

Re:What is this bush league psych out shit?

[Abm0raz]

If you are going to try and appear hispanic and "in 'da hood", at least spell pendejo correctly. Por otro lado, aperaces tanto.

Hasta luego,

-Ab

Only in Texas? Not true....

[DesScorp]

Here in Alabama, vibrators were (and maybe still are) illegal. The attorney general ruled that "women do not have a constitutional right to pleasure inducing devices".

It ain't just Texas.

Re:Only in Texas? Not true....

[dragon8x4x]

You've got to be kidding!!!

Re:Only in Texas? Not true....

[magarity]

Does that mean he thinks the state of Alabama has the constitutional right to deny women pleasure inducing devices?

Re:Only in Texas? Not true....

[RancidBeef]

Yep. I'm in Alabama too and I remember this law (it also outlawed nude dancing, which killed one of my new hobbies - watching the dancing, not doing it myself :-) I think the law was tossed out, but not for the reasons it should have been.

The AG (Bill Pryor - who is currently a Bush nominee for a federal judgeship) made that ridiculous "no constitutional right" statement even though Alabama has the following beautiful section:

SECTION 35

Objective of government.

That the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression.

If obtaining sex toys isn't "enjoyment of life, liberty, and property," I don't know what is!

Re:Only in Texas? Not true....

[leelapolis]

As Molly Ivins sometimes says, Sometime the only good time about Texas is we're ahead of Alabama...

Re:Only in Texas? Not true....

[dargaud]

"women do not have a constitutional right to pleasure inducing devices"

Listen to this prank call: it's (more or less) on topic and hilarious...

Re:Only in Texas? Not true....

[RancidBeef]

Hehe... that's funny, we Alabamians say the same thing about Mississippi :-)

'Priveleged ' to be Free?

[LittleGuy]

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.

Re:'Priveleged ' to be Free?

[Planesdragon]

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.

You DO realize that "slippery slope" is one of the rhetorical fallicies, right?

Someone else noted a case in 1973 about obsinity at the SCOTUS--obcinities were decided thirty years ago to be a local concern.

Now, for eveyone complaining about speech--this isn't a speech issue. It's a trade issue.

Re:'Priveleged ' to be Free?

[AllDigital]

Let's keep in mind that you can not have it both ways....If you think that the Federal Government should stay out of such issues...then it means that they will let the states decide. (The states may not have the same protections provided as in the U.S. Constitution) You can not kick the feds out without being willing to put up w what the states want. But on the positive side...it is easier to enact change on a state level than on a federal one.

Re:'Priveleged ' to be Free?

[LMariachi]

You DO realize that "slippery slope" is one of the rhetorical fallicies, right?

Hey, I read that web page too! And I even remembered how to spell "fallacies!"

Rhetorical fallacy sometimes, but in the world of jurisprudence not at all, since courts lend plenty of weight to precedent in making their decisions.

Re:'Priveleged ' to be Free?

[Planesdragon]

Rhetorical fallacy sometimes, but in the world of jurisprudence not at all, since courts lend plenty of weight to precedent in making their decisions.

*sigh*

Go back and read the web page again. ;) Setting of precedent is not slippery slope--in fact, it's a very valid rhetorical argument.

A slippery slope is "if we do X, then we'll have to do Y, and then Z!" not "If we do X now, we'll always have to do X."

Re:'Priveleged ' to be Free?

[LMariachi]

More like if I get my foot in the door with X, it's only a little further to Y, and from there a short hop to Z, whereas skipping X and Y to go directly to Z would be impossible. For instance, the recent affirmative action ruling opens the way for future cases that may be broader in scope.

Re:'Priveleged ' to be Free?

[yerricde]

to which TWO consenting adults are you referring?

I assume the two adults in this case are the person who sells the magazine and the person who buys a magazine.

SCO

[1s44c]

Did this comic feature Darl McBride getting rogered by a large blue elephant?

Just wondered.

Scary part

[chrystoph]

The worst part in my mind isn't that the case was brought, although that is definitely bad, but that the court/DA prosecuted for a book that specifically states on the cover:

Warning: Absolutely Not for Children

http://store6.yimg.com/I/tisinc99_1751_26791046

The logic used was that the comic book is children's literature. Hmmm...

Yet, the adult comic industry has been labelling such books for at least ten years.

Re:Scary part

[robsimmon]

and the fact that the book carried a warning counted AGAINST Mr. Castillo, because it suggested he knew it contained explicit sexual content

Not quite....

[DesScorp]

"We initially WERE naked. Obviously the Lord didn't create Adam and Eve, and then hand them some GAP clothes. Humans created clothing throughout history, mainly as a way of showing wealth"

Strictly in a Biblical Context, man started wearing clothing (if you can call a fig leaf clothing) after he (and she) partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, and knew good and evil, and became aware of the naked bodies, and became ashamed. Hey, you and the previous poster brought God into this....

And scientifically, we got tired of freezing to death, so we figured we could use those animal skins more than they could...besides, the animals were mighty tasty. Style or wealth probably didn't have a lot to do with things at first.

So just how bad was it?

[AndroidCat]

Any description of the material anywhere so I can judge for myself just how obscene it was? I'd ask if there was a web site for it, but I guess someone in Butthole, state of Wheretheheck (Pop 23.5) would have got it shutdown if there was.

Re:What is this bush league psych out shit?

[cats]

Considering the Jesus don't even give a fuck how to pronounce his name properly, why should I give a fuck how to spell?

P.S. - Eat my sack you crusty little maggot...tu madre es puta!

I disagree.

[Irvu]

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.

Re:I disagree.

[RLW]

The first amendment was originally considered to cover political speech. The early writings of the constitutional framers particularly in the federalist papers will confirm this. Subsequently the courts have generally held that political speech is more protected than other forms of speech, like advertising. If free speech were universally protected then there would be no room for disclosure laws as applied to marketing. Take advertisements for prescription drugs, these ads must include side effects and must be accurate and not make claims which these drugs can not provide.

The other point to remember about the first amendment is it limits *Congress's* power to enact laws that abridge free speech. The subsequent amendment (the 14th) that many quote as applying these restrictions to the states is somewhat ambiguous and has a mixed bag of rulings from the courts on how to apply it to the states. The supreme court has been on a states rights tilt recently so they interpret the meaning of the 1st amendment in terms of how it is applied by the 14th to the state of Texas and decided that the pornography laws in Texas do not abridge the rights of free speech as pornography in the eyes of the courts and the law is considered worthless speech or speech of very little value. What constitutes pornography has changed over time but basically it has always been considered any sexually explicit material of little or no political, scientific or artistic worth.

If this comic book had portrayed president having sex with an intern and as a result having some sort of impact on the legal landscape then maybe an argument could have been made this is indeed political speech and therefore entitled to the highest level of protection.

While I generally hold that adults should be allowed to make their own choices there are consequences to the choices each individual makes each of which impacts the rest of society to varying degrees. It is our collective will as expressed through the political system to decide what choices we as a whole will tolerate. Here is an excellent link about the results of generally available pornography.

Re:I disagree.

[Irvu]

I am neither asserting that there are no limits on speech (Shouting fire in a crowded theatre being the best example), nor that there shouldn't be any. My point was and remains (even after reading your helpful link) that what limits there are should be carefully crafted and brought only in cases where a clear and present danger to the public exists.

I argue this for three reasons. Firstly, as your own link points out ideas about sexuality are political and affect the way that we as a society treat each other. No speech is "purely" apolitical.

Secondly that simply voting away things that we (or worse children) don't like would condemn us to removing many good (but unpleasant) ideas or topics from discussion. Moreover the rules would be subject to changing political fortunes possibly diverging radicaly from one election to the next. How would we do as a society if we never discussed the holocoust or worse, the part that many U.S. companies and individuals played in supporting it? There are those who would do what they could to hide it.

Moreover, what incentive would I as a writer have to produce a challenging book such as Lolita or The Grapes of Wrath if I thought that It might land me in jail after the next election? One could certainly make an argument that Lolita feeds into fantasies about pedophelia but I would still argue that the novel itself should be allowed to exist.

Thirldy, we as a society have (as I mentioned in my last post) built a great deal of our public identities around sexul mores (I am not saying that we are alone on this). If a pure electorate was allowed to ban any speech that is generally thought to be harmful or unpleasant than many important things would be hidden, and many groups would be denied access to the public sphere. Homosexuals are one example but here is another one, desegregationists.

Consider that, at one time caucasians and African-Americans were not allowed to appear on the same stage at the same time. Historians have shown that images of black men as sexual predators fed into the lynchings and still do feed into our politics (look up Willie Horton for one example). There were times when the thought of integrated couples would have been met with revulsion in this country and it still is in many areas. Alabama only repealed their ban on interracial marraiges in 2000. I submit to you that the door swings both ways. It is possible (though unlikely) that we might acheive a ban on images of predatory black men that feed into the kind of politics that surrounded Willie Horton. But it is as much or more likely that many states would (even today) ban or severely bar any book depicting interracial couples for fear of offending some thus erecting more arbitrary barriers.

Make no mistake, I am revolted by much of the crap that is out there. But I think that turning our public discourse on any subject over to the results of any single election is the worst of all possible solutions.

Re:I disagree.

[Dyolf Knip]

By god, I wish I had some mod points. That was so very excellently written.

Re:What is this bush league psych out shit?

[cats]

HOw about this quote...

"suck my frothy testicles until you choke and die."

did I get that correct fuckface?

perhaps you'd like some cock with that balls? mmmmm?
Oh yeah, you're even better than that Taco fuck...I just might make you my prison bitch!

Re:Cases like this are rediculous [ot]

[FroMan]

areolus is what you meant?

Anyways, I'd say that would still fit indecent as far as general public goes. If you feel the need to be displaying your breasts to other folks, do it at home or a private place. Not in general public.

ACLU

[IronyChef]

Right, the ACLU would seem to be a more relevant organization...

CBLDF, not CBDLF

[Noren]

It's the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund.

The US Constitution

[cc_pirate]

Is no longer worth the paper it is printed on. Everytime the US government finds a "compelling need", it uses that to trump the Constitution.

Anyone who thinks the US Constitution IS worth the paper it is written on is either an idiot or so naive they need to climb out of the baby crib they've been put into.

Re:What is this bush league psych out shit?

[Abm0raz]

once again, it's "Tu madre es una puta!" It's gringo's like you that give the rest a bad name.

-Ab

Re:This may be 'normal' in those there parts ...

[arkanes]

You actually would be really amazed by the kinds of things colonials got up to behind closed doors. On the other hand, you're probably 100% correct that they wouldn't defend anyones right to sell those things, since doing naughty things in private while decrying them in public was something of a hallmark of the era.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous [ot]

[Planesdragon]

Yeah, that's them.

Thanks a bundle.

I agree that it should be kept in private, but I wanted to give a conservitive example.

Article misstates what the Supreme Court did

[CaptainStormfield]

The article implies that the U.S. Supreme Court made some sort of ruling about Castillo's case--perhaps that obscenity is a matter for the states to work out. This is totally incorrect. All that the Supreme Court did is deny certiorari in this case (their ruling reads, in its entirety, that "Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, denied.") [Couldn't find this ruling in a free on-line database, or I'd post a link.]

The U.S. Supreme court receives THOUSANDS of petitions for certiorari each year. From that, they pick a handful where (a) there is an opportunity to "claify" important areas of the law, and (b) the facts of the case provide a good setting in which to do the clarifying. The fact that they denied Castillo's petition does not imply that they took any position on the merits of his case. By necessity, the Supreme Court denies cert. in many meritorious cases each year; unlike the federal courts of appeal, the Supreme Court's job is not primarily error correction.

This post is not intended to constitute legal advice. If you need such advice, see your lawyer, not Slashdot!

Re:Whoa, There, Cowboy! Local Obscenity Laws == Go

[FroMan]

All fine and good, until you realize that the President has the right to his own opinions too. Toss out the ol' free speech when it comes to Bible quotes, eh? Just so long as you get your porn.

Hipocracy at it's finest

[acidrain69]

funny how freedom of speech, one of the oldest federal rights, becomes a state issue. Then you look at California and their marijuana laws and the government case there. Federal law trumping state law. What a mess the US government is.

Re:Hipocracy at it's finest

[GrayCalx]

Its the civil war all over again. Cept without all that slavery stuff...

Re:Whoa, There, Cowboy! Local Obscenity Laws == Go

[MobileC]

"There's a Big Big World West of the Beltway and East of Hollywood."

There's an even bigger world than the USA out there.

No really!

Have a look at a map sometime.
And don't just look for countries to invade.

Re:Yes, but

[tgibbs]

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...?

Yes, local determination of obscenity is on the whole, a good thing. But I have no doubt that you could walk into any porn store in Dallas and pick up nastier porn--with photos of real people, not drawings--than anything in the comic. Castillo is simply the victim of prejudice: Comics are for kids, so anybody drawing pornographic pictures for comic books is giving porn to kids, and that's obscene.

Probably, Castillo was just unlucky in the jury selection, or the prosecutor was better than Castillo's lawyer, and was able to exclude from the jury anybody smart enough to understand that comics aren't necessarily for kids.

How refreshing that the Supreme Court is repsecting state statute on this one.

Actually, what they're respecting is their own precedents, which hold that the determination of what is and is not obscene is a matter of community standards.

silly rabiit! comics are for kids!

[luigi6699]

The Texas jury's decision was that comics are a medium designed for kids, so selling pornographic comics in any proximity to kids (in this case, near an elementary school) is equivalent to peddling porn to minors. This fellow is liable EVEN THOUGH he sold the comic in a separate, adults-only section, and EVEN THOUGH he sold these comics only to adults.

THEREFORE:

1) the 7-11 up the street from my high school cannot sell playboy to adults.

2) pornographic movies or movies with sexual content cannot be screened, EVER, since movies are also a medium for kids.

3) throw TV in there too, no sexual content on TV, since TV is for kids!

4) because a significant portion of internet users are kids, pornography CANNOT be allowed on the internet.

Amazing what happens once you let the government dictate what is morally acceptable, isn't it?

Re:Whoa, There, Cowboy! Local Obscenity Laws == Go

[Black Parrot]

> All fine and good, until you realize that the President has the right to his own opinions too. Toss out the ol' free speech when it comes to Bible quotes, eh? Just so long as you get your porn.

Notice that he didn't claim the president broke the law; he claimed that the president's behavior is scary.

And IMO having a bible-thumper at the helm of a superpower is every bit as scary as having the competing extremists in Iran get their hands on their own nukes.

Community standards

[Hamster Lover]

I've never understood how the Supreme Court derived the "community standard" from the Constitution.

Imagine if your other rights varied based on community standards- you may or may not have the right to remain silent, privacy, right to vote, etc. It seems utterly illogical and nothing less than a cop out. What if the community found Democratic election signs obscene, but not Republican? It may sound ridiculous, but most obscenity provisions are so vague that it may be entirely possible.

I find a lot of the crime comics downright evil, but when confronted by images and themes that offend me I am forced to think and that is something I value far more than whatever temporary revulsion I might have. My opinion of what they are or aren't should not affect the right of someone else to buy and enjoy them.

Re:Whoa, There, Cowboy! Local Obscenity Laws == Go

[RobotRunAmok]

There's an even bigger world than the USA out there

Yeah, and I've probably seen more of it than you ever will unless you join the Peace Corps. What point are you trying to make?

Same Jesus?

[GrayCalx]

Is this the same jesus that was arrested in 99 (or 2002 I'm an idiot) for indecent assualt and battery on a 14year old?
http://www.socialaw.com/appslip/appAug02d.html

If so... I dunno... I'm all for free speech, but if its the same guy it makes me feel icky.

populist thinking

[dh003i]

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.

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 ,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.

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.

yes, and the judges who decided that were

[dh003i]

obviously morons.

Having such a vague standard as to let it vary from one state to another, or one town to another, and depend on nothing more than the "moral consensus of the community" (or whatever the vague bullshit was that the USSC said) is non-sense, and makes a mockery out of our justice system.

We might as well say that rape is wrong in one state, but if you step accross the border to another, it's ok.

Legal standards cannot be vague bullshit like "I'll know it when I see it", or "accorfding to the moral sensibility of the community". Also, no-one has to go into a store of pornography, or look at any of the magazines inside...they may very well see the words "X-Rated Magazines" on the store, but they also hear about obscenity in those vague terms from all the zealots who oppose it.

Re:Yes, but

[RobotRunAmok]

You make some excellent points. Unfortunatelty, we are still debating in something of a vacuum here, as none of the links provided any detail on Dallas statutes. Are the obscenity laws in Dallas more stringent than, say, Ft. Worth? Houston? Salt Lake City? Are there areas -- "red light districts" -- specific to such trade, or not?

What this whole thread comes down to is a discussion re the scope of a local south Texas law, and our opinions re whether it's enforcement has been overly zealous or severe. Where "Free Speech" and "Our Rights Online" came into this, I have no idea.

Oh, yeah, the original poster. ....who is also a slashdot editor.

Huh?

(Hey, Hemos, no dig intended, bro. Besides, ya got a Hemos Hat-Trick: You managed to mention Comics, the EFF, and Neil Gaiman in a single post! Does it get any better than that?)

if they don't like it, they can vote

[dh003i]

with their wallets. If there is little demand for what the store is offering, it will have to close down. If there is enough demand to keep it open, then obviously it's providing a valuable service to enough people, and shutting it down because "those other people who don't shop there don't like it" is tantamount to communism. If you don't like the store being there, then *don't go to the store*.

I'm an atheist. I don't much like religion. So let's say I live in a town that's mostly atheist, with a few religious people who open a small church. Just because we all get together and say that we don't like the church doesn't mean we get to close it down. No-one's forcing us or anyone else to go to the church, and you cannot make a reasonable argument that it is violating our rights. Thus, there is no justification to shut it down. Likewise for the pornography case in the main article.

Re:if they don't like it, they can vote

[Xerithane]

Just because we all get together and say that we don't like the church doesn't mean we get to close it down.

Did you forget about the part where this guy sold overage material that required identification to be sold to someone without requiring identification?

It's not about religion. It's about selling overage obscene material to someone without verifying age. They do this with everything with legal limits. Only when it's posted on Slashdot does everybody go up in arms about the man.

We had a night club that got busted for selling to underage people and people without IDs. Where's your support for them?

Re:if they don't like it, they can vote

[dh003i]

What's underage? 5, 10, 17? Even so, if the community doesn't like it, everyone can vote with their wallets. If there isn't enough demand, the store will have to close.

This isn't specifically about being "of age to view pornography" (whatever that means anyways). This is about your continued insistence that might makes right.

Re:if they don't like it, they can vote

[Xerithane]

Even so, if the community doesn't like it, everyone can vote with their wallets. If there isn't enough demand, the store will have to close.

The community already has voted on obscenities, at a state level. This is merely what is happening.

This isn't specifically about being "of age to view pornography" (whatever that means anyways). This is about your continued insistence that might makes right.

No, I'm insisting that there is no rights violation. He did something that has a statute against it. He is being brought up on charges for it. That's called the law. If you break a law, you can't bitch about getting caught. Well, you can, but I won't give you any sympathy.

Re:Whoa, There, Cowboy! Local Obscenity Laws == Go

[Darth]

What the Founding Fathers *did* intend was for states' sovereignity to be better respected.

This is true, but it is also true that the Founding Fathers explicitly intended that the expression and dissemination of unpleasant and unpopular ideas should be protected from interference from government (federal and local).

Ridiculous argument

[tgibbs]

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?

That's a pretty foolish argument. The addictive effects of smoking are due to nicotine, and require a relatively high dose. The harmful effects of smoke are (mostly) due to other components of smoke, many of which are more potent.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous[sic]

[radishthegreat]

In every city that has brought in non-smoking reataurants the owners have put up a bitter battle, claiming they would go out of business, because they know that non-smoking restaurants, in competition with smoking ones, will.

I don't think that's really true. I think that's a convenient excuse for poor restaurants...there are local restaurants I love that are totally smoke-free--by choice, not by gov't fiat--where the food is good and there's usually an hour wait for a table if you have more than two people in your group. Meanwhile, chain restaurants--with smoking sections--across the street have closed a year after opening.

And I live in a redneck/white trash part of the States, yo. Lotsa smokers.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous [ot]

[Sylver Dragon]

Anyways, I'd say that would still fit indecent as far as general public goes. If you feel the need to be displaying your breasts to other folks, do it at home or a private place. Not in general public.

One of those things that has always bothered me, its ok for a male to walk around without his shirt, but not for a female, why? Seems just a bit like a double standard. Sure, females tend to have hangy bits underneath their shirt, though so do a lot of males these days. What is it, that is so inherently wrong with a woman with her shirt off?

With the recent SC sodomy decision,

[Lord Kano]

this sends a mixed message.

Now, all a bible belt state has to do to reinstitute a ban on sodomy is to classify it as "Committing an obscene act."

Since obscenity is now just a state's rights issue.

LK

Re:silly rabiit! comics are for kids!

[cranos]

Congratulations you've just discovered the secret plan of the Christian Right.

Not really an obscenity case

[Kirby]

There's not a lot of debate that the comic in question (which was a Manga based off of Urotsukidoji (Legend of the Overfiend), a "classic" tentacle-porn thing) is reasonably classified as pornography. It's obscene, right along with your Playboys and whatnot. It's perfectly reasonable, under generally accepted U.S. law and custom, that it would be illegal to sell this material to children.

That's not the point.

The point is that the clerk (not the store owner or the creator, the sales clerk) is getting a criminal record (on probation and a hefty fine) for selling porn that was in a restricted adults-only section to an adult. Thankfully, the CBLDF has raised enough money to pay his fine - comic store clerks are not exactly on the fast track to fortune.

The prosecution actually used the argument that Comic Books were by definition for kids, and anyone selling Adult Comics was therefore selling Porn For Kids. And they won with that case!

It's going to be a _lot_ harder for adults in Texas to buy drawn porn. Not kids - there was no allegation in this case of selling porn to kids - adults. I don't care if comic porn is your thing or not - this is not rational.

And it's not just an 'Only In Texas' thing. How many states have groups pressuring law enforcement to engage in censorship? 50. And not just the U.S., though we're more culturally hung up on sex than many Western nations. It's not at all uncommon for comics to be held up at customs in many countries for a variety of reasons, usually involving sex and violence.

Debating about the first amendment and what is obscene and such is probably pretty valuable, but the issues in this particular case are _much_ simpler, and it's a tragic miscarriage of justice.

Re:Whoa, There, Cowboy! Local Obscenity Laws == Go

[lrucker]

FYI: Texas has no zoning laws. Houston has strip bars next to elementary schools.

Texas has no state-wide zoning laws. Most cities have local laws, though not Houston.

Nice to note, too

[morven2]

from reading the court's opinions, that showing the court that one can walk into any porn store in Dallas -- and a bunch of liquor stores -- and find worse -- isn't a defence. Even though in the real world it proves that the community sanctions it, since those places are still open, the judges on the appeal court are of the opinion that, to paraphrase, showing that others break the law too isn't a defence.

Attention metamoderators

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Take a look at the link before you decide that "Troll" was "Unfair". Don't follow it, just look at what it would do if you did.

One Question Please

[Insipid Trunculance]

Just one thing surprises me that the supreme court says it's a state matter.The World over the rights of the citizen entitle him/her to equality before the law.This is certainly not the case in US where the same crime in different states can often carry unequal punishments.What do people from US think about this?

Re:This may be 'normal' in those there parts ...

[Blondie-Wan]

since doing naughty things in private while decrying them in public was something of a hallmark of the era.

In what era didn't (or doesn't) that kind of thing happen?

Re:Whoa, There, Cowboy! Local Obscenity Laws == Go

[Alsee]

Houston has strip bars next to elementary schools.

I guess I went to the wrong elementary school, nutz!

-

blah, blah

[aggieben]

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.

It's been legally established for a long time that states get to make their own obscenity laws. This could easily lead off into a tangent about what the limits of the first amendment are (and I think there are several), but I'm going to touch on a couple of the things that I think are abused: (1) the 1st amendment was primarily intended to protect political speech, not to give everyone the right to say whatever they want, whenever they want, and in whatever format that want (2) it doesn't say "freedom of expression". Free speech != do anything you want. At any rate, even if the Feds wanted to step in, they would have to get laws in the book that specifically give that power to the federal government. The constitution explicitly states that any powers not specifically granted to the federal government fall to the states, except those that are restricted (such as minting currency, etc).

Bad precedents for free speech

No, bad precedents for perverts, and precedents that have been around for a long time.

the CBDLF donations and giving to the EFF are Good Things.

Ok, I'll go along with that.

Re:blah, blah

[aggieben]

This could easily lead off into a tangent about what the limits of the first amendment are (and I think there are several), but I'm going to touch on a couple of the things that I think are abused: (1) the 1st amendment was primarily intended to protect political speech, not to give everyone the right to say whatever they want, whenever they want, and in whatever format that want (2) it doesn't say "freedom of expression". Free speech != do anything you want.

This is lame, I know, but I must correct myself. The first amendmend doesn't grant rights to the individual, but rather places limitations on the power of government. Therefore, even though the amendment was intended for political speech, it must apply to all speech. The government is not allowed to censor speech. The people, however, can censor whatever they like (e.g., a company can choose not to air views it doesn't like, etc). The tricky part how to determine what is "speech" and what isn't. I, for one, would be all for a very literal interpretation of speech that would be almost strictly limited to audible speech and the written word.

Re:Cases like this are ridiculous

[1u3hr]

After all, homosexual anal sex has had a big impact (read: financial drag) just like smoking, passing costly disease, killing people by the millions. Wanna see if you can get away with making that illegal? It's the same damned argument.

No, it's a stupid damned "argument".

Anal sex affects only those who indulge in it, and there are few jobs (sailors, gay hookers) that make it unavoidable. Like I said earlier, if nicotine addicts shot up with needles or pills, that would be fine with me, just don't share you poison with everyone in the vicinity.

Re:Whoa, There, Cowboy! Local Obscenity Laws == Go

[RobotRunAmok]

Let's have a common sense break here, shall we?

If you had said to the Founding Fathers that you were going to take their "Freedom of Speech" language and use it to allow someone to sell tentacle-sex manga in a comic book store nextdoor to Liberty Hall in Philly, they would have taken you behind the Liberty Bell and beaten the shit out of you with the sticks from their butter churns.

Which is not to say they would forbid its sale in their new nation, or that they would not fight to the death for your right to sell it (especially Ben Franklin, who was, by all accounts, a hound dog). They would be looking for a little common sense on your part, and a little direction to be provided on the local level if that common sense was shown lacking. And a little enforcement if that direction was ignored.

Ever been to Amsterdam? Great city. My favorite in Northern Europe. Their Red Light District is amazing. But there must be some kind of statutes on the books there that keeps the vice trade confined to certain geographical borders. I'm reasonably certain that a strip club that opened next to a church uptown would be shut down pretty quickly -- even in "liberal" Amsterdam. Again, I have not seen the Dallas statutes, but if a law was broken, a law was broken. If it's a bad law, if the people of Dallas want it changed, let them petition their legislators to change it (*Legislators*, not judges). But please, in the name of Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin and all that's Holy, let's keep the federal government out of it!

Thank You!

[Irvu]

Thank you!

his name is Josh

[yerricde]

There is probably a little known ordinance against the Son of God selling smutty comics.

I don't think enough End Times events have occurred to confirm Mr. Castillo as the Son of God.

Seriously, the name "Jesus" (hay-SOOS) is roughly Spanish for "Joshua".

Re:Whoa, There, Cowboy! Local Obscenity Laws == Go

[Darth]

The founding fathers also understood that society and morals change over time. They set in place a system to facilitate that change and allow the government to evolve with it.

Challenging laws and free speech issues in the court system is part of the process of the evolution of government. I think the founding fathers would prefer people to be agressive in defending their position against agressive government interference; after all, that's basically how this country got started.

with respect to amsterdam, lots of places have zoning laws that would do the same thing as what you describe. I'm not sure if Dallas has zoning laws to taht effect, but it is really irrelevent to the issue at hand. He wasnt convicted of selling adult comics next to a church. he was convicted of selling obscene material (regardless of where he sold it).

To be honest (and i dont mean this as an attack, though it might sound like one), your argument about Amsterdam would sound better if it wasnt just random speculation on your part. It would still be irrelevent, but it'd sound more convincing.

All I can say is:

[jasonditz]

Jesus H. Castillo, when will you authoritarians learn?

small note

[kramer2718]

From the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Note that the declaration of independence although highly respected is not actual law and as such can't be enforce by the judiciary.

Re:Cases like this are rediculous [ot]

[mink]

Come to Ohio. A few years ago it was ruled it is not illegal for a woman to go toples if she so desires.
I never have seen anyone choosing to do so, but aparently you can if you want to.

Re:one is private, the other is public

[TroyFoley]

Take the term "public" away from "sale" (which, I could be mistaken on, is entirely possible to implement) and you have the "sale of material deemed inappropriate..." The sale portion can be, you know, a "private action between two people," but pray tell, what did you really mean by "there are differences"?