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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ten years ago, the Texas police arrested Jesus Castillo Jr. on two counts of misdemeanor obscenity for selling adult comic books to consenting adults, from a clearly marked adult section within the store.
ReplyDeleteFeggi developed strong arguments in opposition to the Supreme Courts final decision to uphold Castillo’s charge. Feggi examines the argument that all comic books are made for children in mind, therefore the “adult section” is paradoxical. Using herself as an example, as an adult Feggi reads comic books, manga specifically. The content of the books, as well as the intricate images are to her and thousands of others a form of art and literary value. Even apart from manga, or comics of adult content, comics such as Batman, X-Men and Superman are read by countless adults. The images are of stereotypical male and female forms – large torso and arm muscles for the male characters, and curvy figures, with small waists, broad hips, and embellished breasts. These constructed images may not be as blatant as some of the images, the Texas officer found offensive in Demon Beast Invasion: The Fallen. However, the images are filled with sexual undertones and could be perceived as equally provocative and tempting to an adolescent male. Another issue to look at when considering Texas v. Castillo is the fact that the argument of obscenity would most likely not have been upheld if the obscene material in question had been a book or a magazine.
Feggi does a good job of highlighting the two experts on comic books and Japanese culture in her defense of Castillo. I also believe Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania, C. Edwin Baker’s liberty theory, “which holds that the free speech clause protects not a marketplace, but rather an arena of individual liberty from certain types of governmental restrictions” is the best philosophical ideal to root the examination of “obscenity” in (Tedford & Herbeck, 441). Baker’s fundamental belief in individual liberty pushes him to perceive “speech” should go beyond merely words and phrases “to include such things as artistic expression and expressive conduct” (441).
Susan Napier, a professor at the University of Texas in Japanese culture has stated that the Japanese culture has a fascination with bizarre creatures, metamorphoses and the apocalypse. The comic in question Demon Beast Invasion highlights not only graphic images but also addresses in “beautifully drawn” scenes the above mentioned themes, as well as insight into suspense and romance. Napier testified the comic book had not only atisitic value, but strong literary value as well because of its emphasis on the desire for power and its political commentary.
Utilizing the SLAPs test, as identified by Feggi in Miller v. California, I agree with Feggi that Castillo should have been left unpunished.
Feggi draws out her argument stating that Castillo, in Texas v. Castillo, should have not been punished for several logical reasons. First, she states that comics are not only for children, but for adults such as herself, who enjoy reading manga. I agree with Feggi that comic books are a place for an expression of ideas through unique images. Feggi goes into some detail about why comic books are clearly not “just for children,” which made my stance in that statement even stronger, persuading me to believe that, indeed, comics are not made only for children.
ReplyDeleteFeggi rightly uses Miller v. California to clarify the definition of obscenity and the usage of SLAPS. As she has mentioned, the majority of books and comic books contain serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value (also known as SLAPS). Therefore, comics should simply be protected under this rule. Furthermore, Castillo should have been granted protection for his sale of comic books, and the SLAPS suite should have been extended to Castillo.
The idea of freedom of speech according to Edwin Baker ties in with this case, as Feggi states. Baker is a believer of self-fulfillment, and I can see how this case would follow this philosopher’s views in that every individual has their right to express their creativity through their own means, whether it be a painting, song, or comic strips. Also, Feggi brings up the point that Baker protects the right of individuals to make their own choices about creating and consuming sexual materials, making it a personal decision to consume a comic book or not. These thoughts of Baker and the SLAPS suit used in Miller v. California help Feggi to draw her conclusion that this case should be overturned under such circumstances, especially due to freedom of expression and choice.
I agree with Feggi’s argument about why she would overturn Castillo vs. Texas. She brings up a lot of good examples of evidence that the jury apparently overlooked. I mean knowing the comics were already in a separate section monitored by Castillo, and they had a warning sticker that advised about adult content. I mean with that knowledge one could argue that the print media was already attempted in a sense being censored from a younger audience. Feggi discusses the comic experts who cam in and defended Castillo, which I believe were important testimonials because they do show the importance of not portraying this form of print media as only for kids. I think the use of Edwin Baker was a much more interesting philosophy to view the content under, mainly because it puts the pressure to accept the media on those who distribute as well as those who read it. The thing is I think the media, that Baker was discussing was that which might cause violence, not really obscene or lude content. I mean I believe Baker would support it, but I mean it’s a little hard to apply to it. An issue I have with Feggi’s argument is that it’s a little short. I think she spends a lot of time expressing the facts, but I get a little lost when she explains her argument for protecting Castillo, because she doesn’t really go to in depth. Overall though, I do agree with the argument she presented.
ReplyDelete