Slashdot Mirror
Jesus Castillo, Supreme Court, And Free Speech
I've been following the Jesus Castillo case for a while. The case itself is an obscenity charge for selling an adult comic to an adult undercover police officer in Dallas. Recently, the US Supreme Court denied his appeal, with the notion that obscenity is a state-level affair, despite the First Amendment being a Federal law. There's also an interview with the head of the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, and some good ruminations from Neil Gaiman on the subject. Bad precedents for free speech - the CBDLF donations and giving to the EFF are Good Things.
The 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?
Visualize the world of wine
Since it's in Texas, will he receive the death penalty?
The case itself is an obscenity charge for selling an adult comic to an adult undercover police officer in Dallas.
At the risk of getting myself modded down for being a little clueless... Why is selling adult materials to adults in Dallas a problem? Is adult content illegal there? Or did he violate some ordinance? If it's a local thing, this should not be a big deal at all and is way out of proportion...
(if he thought said police officer was a minor, well, then I think I can understand the issue.)
Flame away...
Be excellent to each other. And... PARTY ON, DUDES!
The 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
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.
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball(TM)
> the precedent has always been that the locale of the alleged offense has the right to determine what is "patently obscene" free speech is guaranteed, but if everyone around decides that what you say is obscene you can be shut down.
IOW, there isn't really any free speech.
> I for one, believe in personal responsibility. Your right to extend your fist ends when it hits my nose
And personal responsibility suggests that you shouldn't buy naughty comic books if you don't want to see them.
This may be "normal" in the USA, but it isn't "liberty and justice for all".
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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.
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.
Karma: Excellent Birds (mostly as a result of listening to Laurie Anderson)
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.
Wow, a lucrative publishing contract! I don't have to be evil anymore. --Meteor
I'm going to apologize in advance for being picky.
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....
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.
...if its too late to let Mexico have Texas back. I hate having to say I'm from the same country as these people.
There's rape, murder, infanticide, mass killing, cult activity, genocide, supernatural beings, and talking animals. Surely these things should not be allowed!
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.
[insert randomly selected declaration of absolutist meta-moderation philosophy 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.)
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
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.
> > 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
> 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.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
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.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
So I put it to you that porn is not for either of these purposes {to mostly to allow the populace to criticize the government and other figures with power as a means of exacting political change (and) to allow one to teach one's beliefs and way of life to other people.}; it is merely for pleasure. It stands, therefore, not as a right, but rather as a privelege awarded by the majority.
So, if it feels good, it's a "privelege"? Shouldn't this be considered under the "scope of privacy" between two consentual adults.
Conversely, if it make you 'feel bad', it's protected? How does one measure 'bad' -- by the majority or by the individual?
The decision falls to the majority. Will more people be unhappy with it than happy? Then it won't be allowed.
We're at break-neck speed down that slope as ideas and concepts are being reclassified "priveleges" rather than rights, which imply that we are nothing more than border-line disobedient kids who need discipline for 'bad thoughts' rather than as adults in a free society.
Furthermore, there is a fallacy in this even for the 'free speech' parameters. Even in mild discourse, there will be disagreements which will make people happy and unhappy. The 1st Amendment specifically protects the speech (especially the political speech) that makes the majority unhappy.
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
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.