Castillo v. Texas

In today blog post, I will write arguments that overturn the Texas State Court of Appeals decision. First of all, I will elaborate the case of Jesus Castillo. It happened back in 2000, Castillo worked as a clerk in Keith’s Comics. One day there was an undercover police who came to the store, and intended to do an inspection. The police investigate the store, and he came to a section where he saw a sign that written “Adult Only” and Under 18 cannot enter the room. The police bought one comic book, which title “Demon Beast Invasion”. The comic itself contains adultery content, such as, pornography and sexual imaginary [1]. Castillo was convicted with two counts of misdemeanor obscenity for selling adult comics. However, the situation should be highlighted that the police saw the comic under the adult section, where children under 18 cannot find them. Finally, the district attorney says, “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 … are for kids" [2]. The district attorney’s statement leads to Castillo’s punishment. He was in jail for 180 days, a $ 4000 fine, and year probation.

Based on my opinion, I think Castillo should not be punished because of many reasons. First of the reason is that the location of where the comic is located. When the police entered the section is clearly stated that the place is for adult only. The sign clearly states, “the “adults-only” section contained sexually explicit material. Further, the record reflects the comic book contained a “not for children” warning label, and there was testimony that all the materials in the “adults-only” section contained sexually explicit material” [3]. Before the police entered the room, he knew exactly what he will find inside the room. From my perspective, Keith’s Comics did a great job in separating the comics into adult and children section. Because of this separation, children will not find the comics that contain adultery content. Furthermore, for me comic is not only for children. Therefore, I do not agree with the prosecutor argument, who said comic books are only for children. I, as adult, still read comic because I find myself enjoying reading manga. I agree with the two comic books’ experts who came to defense Castillo – Scott McCloud and Susan Napier.

Based on Scott McCloud, who is an apologist and a comic historian, comics have serious value, which make them deserve a First Amendment protection. McCloud writes, “The artform — the medium — known as comics is a vessel which can hold any number of ideas and images. The 'content' of those images and ideas is, of course, up to creators, and we all have different tastes. The trick is to never mistake the message for the messenger" [4]. Comic is one place where people can express their ideas through images. Comics’ audience is largely adult. Comic is also a major source of national culture, and it is a form of political and creative expression. Therefore, comics are expression of other people that should be protected, as long as it not threatens individuals. Comics can also be place for others to learn other’s culture. Nowadays, comics come from all over the world. It can be one medium to learn others’ perspective and culture, yet comics are also fun to read.

The second defender is Susan Napier, who is an expert in Asian literature at the University of Texas. She emphasizes, “that Japanese culture is fascinated by bizarre creatures, metamorphoses and the apocalypse, and that Demon Beast Invasion deals with these topics in "beautifully drawn" scenes of suspense and romance. Thus, Napier testified, the comic had artistic value, literary value, and — because of its treatment of the desire for power — even political value” [5]. Therefore, each individual have different point of view on how they look comics. Comics become a place where people share their artistic value, and people, who love manga, will appreciate.

To support my statement, I will use Miller v. California (1973). In Miller v. California, they have the new definition for obscenity. It stated that Obscenity is an average person applying community standards finds Work as whole appeals to prurient interest, and it depicts in a patently offensive way sexual conduct outlawed by a specific state law, and it lacks SLAPS. In this law, they protect all sexual speech by privacy right as long as no captive audience and no children, and there are no separations between political and sexual speech; same rules that apply to one should apply to other. Based on Napier, majority of comics contain SLAPS (serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value). Therefore, comics should be protected under the First Amendments.

Furthermore, for this case, I will use Edwin Baker: A Liberty Theory of Freedom of Speech. Baker argues the idea that “freedom of speech is not primarily a means to a marketplace of ideas, or truth, or democracy. Instead, he urges the view that liberty of speech is integral to individual self-fulfillment and so needs to be treated as a universal right of human dignity” (441. Tedford and Herbeck). Baker will support the idea of free expression. Each individual have their rights to express their creativity with any medium to satisfy our self-fulfillment, such as, painting, image, or words. He will also protect a sexual/obscene material. He argues that First Amendment should protect right of individuals to make own choices about creating or receiving sexual materials; therefore, it is one’s decision to consume sexual materials in comics or other mediums. However, he will not protect violence, coercive activity, or violation of the rights of others.

Overall, I will overturn Texas State Court of Appeals decision because it is one’s freedom to express his creativity and to consume sexual content.