Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Comic Book retailer Gordon Lee trial to begin this week
Though I am willing to apologize for this particular art book getting in the hands that found it offensive, I will adamantly agree that the book is not ‘harmful to children’ or ‘obscene.’ In my opinion, this book is no more offensive then viewing the beautiful paintings of the Sistine Chapel or reading one of the best selling books with stories of sex, lust and nudity known as the Bible.”
What does the Sistine Chapel have in common with a comic where a nude Pablo Picasso is shown telling some naked chick to “Drink Penis“?
Georgia comic book shop owner Gordon Lee will be getting is day in court this week. I think I blogged about this case once or twice. I even got into some lively arguments about it on Newsarama. The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund (CBLDF) has spent a whopping $80,000 on the case and they are planning on spending yet another $20,000 before it is all over.
To read about the specifics of the case, you can go here.
The trial was scheduled to begin yesterday, but it had to be postponed due to a malfunctioning air conditioning system in the courthouse. Evidently justice is a dish best served cold. I seem to remember seeing old movies that take place in southern courtrooms. You see everyone sitting around in white linen suits fanning themselves with paper fans as slow moving ceiling fans oscillate overhead. Those were the days.
My feelings about this case are quite different then most comic book nerds. Imagine that. Though I don’t think Lee should go to jail, I do think he did the wrong thing when he allowed an adult themed book to get into the hands of a 6-year old.
I also think the CBLDF’s participation in this has actually exacerbated the case. In a perfect world, this case would have ended a long time ago with a plea bargain that included no jail time and maybe a $100 fine. Lee made a mistake, but it wasn’t the end of the world. Because the CBLDF is running the case, there can be no plea bargain. They have a policy of only taking on cases where the defendant agrees beforehand not to accept a plea bargain. Because of this, cases must either be dismissed outright by the prosecution or they must take the case to trial.
If a defendant does not agree to this no plea bargain condition, the CBLDF will not take on the case.
The CBLDF exists to defend against censorship of comic books. What happens if nobody is actually trying to censor comic books? We see them put all their resources into cases such as this.
Update: Not so fast. The trial has been postponed yet again. This time the judge is feeling ill.
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
I wouldn’t consider this to be obscene, but it certainly isn’t meant for children. You’re right; the idiot who did give this out on Halloween should just get a fat fine and go on his way. Dragging it out is just going to make it worse for everyone involved.
I don’t think it’s obscene either, but Lee isn’t being charged with obscenity. He is being charged with two misdemeanor counts of “Distribution of Harmful to Minors Material”.
Even if the book didn’t contain male and female nudity, talk of masturbation, and graphic language, this book would still be the absolute wrong book to give to a 6-year old kid. He should have given him something that a kid would be interested in.
I just think it’s funny how difficult the CBLDF has at actually finding censorship in comics. For all the talk about our First Amendment rights being trampled upon when it comes to comics, we really don’t have any problems with censorship. The CBLDF has to fight for the right of some cartoonist to call himself “King Velveeta” to make it look like they are actually doing something.
“What does the Sistine Chapel have in common with a comic where a nude Pablo Picasso is shown telling some naked chick to “Drink Penis“?”
The Sistine Chapel doesn’t make you want to drink penis?
Speak for yourself.