Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Government Privacy The Courts Your Rights Online News

Jesus Castillo, Supreme Court, And Free Speech 578

Posted by Hemos from the bad-precedents dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Jesus Castillo, Supreme Court, And Free Speech More

Jesus Castillo, Supreme Court, And Free Speech

Comments Filter:

  • Cases like this are rediculous (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mjmalone ( 677326 ) * on Thursday August 07, 2003 @01:42PM (#6636630) Homepage
    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?
    • 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 particip
      • 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 be

        • 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 majorit

          • Re:Cases like this are rediculous (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Delphiki ( 646425 ) on Thursday August 07, 2003 @02:31PM (#6637285)
            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 (Score:4, Insightful)

            by MobiusKlein ( 58188 ) on Thursday August 07, 2003 @02:39PM (#6637449)
            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

          • 'Priveleged ' to be Free? (Score:4, Insightful)

            by LittleGuy ( 267282 ) on Thursday August 07, 2003 @03:04PM (#6637829)
            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:Cases like this are rediculous (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Zirnike ( 640152 ) on Thursday August 07, 2003 @03:12PM (#6637932) Journal
            "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'.

          • I disagree. (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Irvu ( 248207 ) on Thursday August 07, 2003 @03:18PM (#6638013)
            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.
      • 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.
    • 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 cann

    • 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

      • Re:Cases like this are rediculous (Score:5, Funny)

        by Surak ( 18578 ) * <surak&mailblocks,com> on Thursday August 07, 2003 @02:17PM (#6637112) Homepage Journal
        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?

      • populist thinking (Score:3, Insightful)

        by dh003i ( 203189 )
        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
    • "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

  • Suggestion: link to the case! (Score:2, Insightful)

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

  • Texas (Score:4, Funny)

    by mopslik ( 688435 ) on Thursday August 07, 2003 @01:46PM (#6636686)
    Since it's in Texas, will he receive the death penalty?

  • Am I missing something? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GeckoFood ( 585211 ) <geckofood@nosPAM.gmail.com> on Thursday August 07, 2003 @01:47PM (#6636694) Journal

    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...

    • 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".


      • > 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? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 07, 2003 @01:53PM (#6636778)
      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? (Score:5, Funny)

        by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Thursday August 07, 2003 @02:16PM (#6637095)


        > 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.

        • Sorry! (Score:3, Funny)

          by Black Parrot ( 19622 )

          > > 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.

      • 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? (Score:4, Funny)

      by dr_dank ( 472072 ) on Thursday August 07, 2003 @01:56PM (#6636825) Homepage Journal
      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.
    • 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 nud

    • Re:Am I missing something? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mckwant ( 65143 ) on Thursday August 07, 2003 @02:06PM (#6636981)
      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.
    • 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? (Score:5, Informative)

        by DAldredge ( 2353 ) <SlashdotEmail@GMail.Com> on Thursday August 07, 2003 @02:28PM (#6637250) Journal
        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."
  • 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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Thursday August 07, 2003 @01:52PM (#6636749)


      > 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".

    • 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.
      • 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.

  • First amendment (Score:5, Informative)

    by fingusernames ( 695699 ) on Thursday August 07, 2003 @01:47PM (#6636698) Homepage
    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 (Score:3, Informative)

      by gilroy ( 155262 )
      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

  • Obscenity rulings (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anixamander ( 448308 ) on Thursday August 07, 2003 @01:50PM (#6636727) Journal
    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. [wikipedia.org]
    The court does not seem to be ignoring this issue as much as they are referring back to their previous ruling.

    • Community Standards (Score:4, Informative)

      by Blue Stone ( 582566 ) on Thursday August 07, 2003 @02:17PM (#6637108) Homepage Journal
      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 [testicle.com].

      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.)


    • 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

  • Is this a 1st amendment issue? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by GreenCrackBaby ( 203293 ) on Thursday August 07, 2003 @01:51PM (#6636743) Homepage
    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.

    • Amen. (Score:5, Funny)

      by InterruptDescriptorT ( 531083 ) on Thursday August 07, 2003 @01:56PM (#6636828) Homepage
      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.

  • Interesting because it's from Texas (Score:3, Insightful)

    by LowellPorter ( 466257 ) on Thursday August 07, 2003 @01:52PM (#6636748) Journal
    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.

  • Not so fast (Score:2, Interesting)

    by segment ( 695309 )
    Going to jail [cnn.com] 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

    • 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 [aclu.org] 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.

  • CBDLF and EFF (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Spudley ( 171066 ) on Thursday August 07, 2003 @01:52PM (#6636759) Homepage Journal
    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?

  • Strange... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by nebaz ( 453974 )
    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"?
  • 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.

  • First Amendment and state courts (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MillionthMonkey ( 240664 ) on Thursday August 07, 2003 @01:55PM (#6636814)
    "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.

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

  • youth culture killed my dog (Score:3, Interesting)

    by pjack76 ( 682382 ) on Thursday August 07, 2003 @01:58PM (#6636865)
    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.

    • 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 ju

  • As Much as I Love the First Amendment... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by XaProf ( 553425 ) on Thursday August 07, 2003 @01:59PM (#6636873)

    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....

  • Whoa, There, Cowboy! Local Obscenity Laws == Good (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RobotRunAmok ( 595286 ) * on Thursday August 07, 2003 @02:01PM (#6636907)
    I followed the links, but got no information re what the local obscenity laws are in Dallas. Did the comic sold violate them? If so, then what's the issue...?

    Lookit, laws re obscenity and speed limits and such are made on the state and local levels Because That Makes Sense! The people in downtown Tulsa don't want L.A.-style porn shops opening in their area, and the people in L.A. don't want to live in a Tulsa-esque climate. Fine! Great! Makes perfect sense! If the Fed comes in to determine what is "universally" obscene or not, folks in both Oklahoma and California aren't going to be happy by the compromise.

    Hey, this is America, Land of Opportunity, and if I want to get rich with a chain of Car Washes, I can go for it. But if I try to open one next to your suburban golf course or grammar school, I'm going to be denied. Why? Cuz of the local zoning laws. So I go elsewhere to pursue my "opportunity." Makes sense to me, and the people with the kids in the local school. Some guy selling some explicit tentacle-sex manga is cuffed in Dallas. That makes sense too.

    How refreshing that the Supreme Court is repsecting state statute on this one. I really do not want the Federal Goverment involving themselves with local lifestyle laws. There's a Big Big World West of the Beltway and East of Hollywood.
  • Obscenity is not considered free speech as protected under the first amendment. Therefore it is left to the state and local level to decide if and how to regulate obscenity, as obscenity is judged by the local community standards.
  • 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.

  • 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... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Lord_Slepnir ( 585350 ) on Thursday August 07, 2003 @02:06PM (#6636980) Journal
    ...if its too late to let Mexico have Texas back. I hate having to say I'm from the same country as these people.

  • Equal Protection . . . (Score:3, Informative)

    by Dausha ( 546002 ) on Thursday August 07, 2003 @02:07PM (#6636989) Homepage

    . . . 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.

  • Hemos Should Get His Fact Right (Score:3, Insightful)

    by reallocate ( 142797 ) on Thursday August 07, 2003 @02:14PM (#6637071)
    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.

  • Why the hell isn't the Bible challenged? (Score:3, Funny)

    by fudgefactor7 ( 581449 ) on Thursday August 07, 2003 @02:14PM (#6637073)
    There's rape, murder, infanticide, mass killing, cult activity, genocide, supernatural beings, and talking animals. Surely these things should not be allowed!

  • Nobody knows why the Court refused to hear case. (Score:4, Informative)

    by Glassbear ( 557667 ) on Thursday August 07, 2003 @02:17PM (#6637105) Journal

    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 [icv2.com]. 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 [supremecourtus.gov] says nothing about why they decided not to hear it.

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

  • 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.

  • Some Background (Score:5, Informative)

    by _xeno_ ( 155264 ) on Thursday August 07, 2003 @02:43PM (#6637515) Homepage Journal
    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 [dallasobserver.com] 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 [google.com] and Legend of the Overfiend [google.com] (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 [cbldf.org].) 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.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close