|
|
Join us each Tuesday as Bob Ingersoll analyzes how the law
is portrayed in comics then explains how it would really work.
Current Installment >>
Installment Archives |
About Bob |
General Forum
THE LAW IS A ASS for 08/29/2000
DOCKET ENTRY
"The Law is a Ass" Installment # 58
Originally written as installment # 47 and published in Comics Buyer's Guide issue # 581, January 4, 1985 issue
In jokes don't always work for those who are in the know. For those who are out of the loop, as it were, they probably make about as much sense trying to read the complete works of Shakespeare in a bowl of alphabet soup.
With that in mind, let me explain. Way back when I originally wrote this installment, fellow WF Comics columnist Tony Isabella wrote a column for Comics Buyer's Guide. Not the "Tony's Tips" column he writes now, but a column called "I Cover the Newsstand." One of the running gags of the column would be that he'd start it with a first-person section written in a faux Chandler, hard-boiled detective style and always end that section with the words, "I cover the newsstand."
In this installment of "The Law is a Ass," I decided to pad--er, punch up--the beginning a mail bag column by having a little fun with Tony's column for the CBG readers and did a pastiche of Tony's pastiche.
******
"The Law is a Ass"
Installment # 58
by
Bob Ingersoll
Sometimes it isn't easy.
I have two jobs. One is public defender, liberty's last champion, spokesman for the downtrodden. I'm used to the Earth's neglected and ragged asking me for help in that capacity. That's what the job is all about. My other job is comic book columnist and commentator. All too frequently I get more of the same there.
He came up the sidewalk to my house. His wizened shoulders were bent under the weight of bag of fan mail that overflowed, like Mt. St. Helens erupting envelopes. He was too old to be a postal route carrier. I knew it and he knew it. The Post Office would retire him soon. He'd get an engraved gold watch, a pension that would satisfy his financial needs, and an eternity of empty hours.
He was looking for something he could do after retirement. He hoped I could help.
"By the way, Mr. Ingersoll, is the CBG lookin' to hire any new writers for the paper? I haven't exactly got any writin' talent, but I can wiggle my ears real good, and..."
Willie Lumpkin's eyes had, no doubt, once been bright with the excitement of life; had sparkled with the exuberance of youth just starting out. Then they were complete. Now they were bloodshot and crows footed. They resembled vacant saucers. They looked to me to make them complete again, and I had nothing to offer.
"The CBG is all filled up right now, Willie. But I'm sure Krause will keep you in mind, if something comes up."
Willie Lumpkin nodded his understanding. Nothing would come up. He gave me my fan mail, thanked me for my kindness, then silently left.
I went to my basement office to answer the fan mail Willie had just brought me. Every letter and every response made me think of Willie: beaten down, superannuated, just looking for something to make himself useful again. Like I said; sometimes it isn't easy for me.
I write a CBG column.
******
The witch hunt has started again, ladies and gentlemen. I'm sure you either remember or have read about the last one. It was back in the fifties. Fredrik Wertham was in his heyday and comics were under attack from all quarters as being a bad influence. Well, it's happening again.
Roger Dutcher, a reader from Beloit Wisconsin, sent me a copy of section 947.09 of the Wisconsin penal code. This statute makes it a misdemeanor to sell or distribute commercially a "crime comic" to a minor; or to have a "crime comic" in one's possession intending to sell it or distribute it to a minor; or to distribute a "crime comic" to a retailer knowing that the retailer will then distribute it to a minor. For the purpose of this statute, "crime comic" is defined as "any book, magazine or other printed matter consisting of narrative material in pictorial form, commonly known as a comic book and which depicts, in substantial part, acts of indecency, horror, terror, physical torture or brutality." The Wisconsin legislature passed this statute, because it felt that such materials "have the effect of inciting, encouraging, or advocating the commission of crime, and are a source of crime, particularly among minors, and a contributing factor in impairing the moral and ethical development of our youth and a danger to the health, safety, morals and well-being of the people of the state." (And they give paper cuts to boot!)
There are several problems with this law. First, I'm not sure which comics we're talking about here. Does Batman qualify, because the fight scenes are "brutality"? Does the first Baxter paper Teen Titans qualify, because the bed room scene between Dick and Kory was "indecency"? That's a problem with this law, in fact it's the problem with all such laws: it is vague. Exactly what act is illegal? Selling precisely which comics would constitute a violation of the law?
I am sure that either Swamp Thing or Void Indigo would qualify. And that's the second problem. Both comics feature horror, physical torture, and brutality, but the way in which they are featured is totally different. One of the two is well-written and well-executed, while the other offends me by its very existence. (I'll leave it to you to guess which is which.) Yet the law makes no effort to distinguish between the two. Both are equally bad under this law. A law which simply classifies without any qualitative evaluation is a bad law.
I'm not sure if this law is being enforced. Is Sam, the corner druggist, being arrested for selling Swamp Thing to the little kiddies? Is the local Milwaukee comic book shop in trouble for not putting Void Indigo in the underground or adults only section? Will Capital City Distribution be raided for selling Twisted Tales to the local comic book stores? I don't know.
I don't know if the law will survive a challenge to its constitutionality. It may well be an infringement on Freedom of the Press. Moreover, as I indicated before, what constitutes a "crime comic" is not made clear by the statute, so I'm not sure if it could withstand a void for vagueness challenge; that is a challenge which says the statute is so unclear and vague, The average man is not sure if his conduct violates it or not.
And, I wonder if the law is an isolated Wisconsin law, or if other states have similar laws. I know that Ohio doesn't. But I don't know about the forty-eight remaining states. The Wisconsin law is in Crimes Against Public Peace, Order and Other Interests section of the Wisconsin penal code; right along with Lewdness and Obscenity, Disorderly Conduct, Bomb Threats, Vagrancy, Drinking in Public Carriers, Unlawful Assembly, and Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor. I would appreciate the regular readers of this column searching out their states' penal codes. A trip to any law school's library should give you access to your penal code, and the librarian would be available for help. Please write me in care of the CBG and let me know if your state has a law like Wisconsin's or not. I will print the results, as I get them.
But all my unanswered questions aside, what bothers me most about this law is that it isn't some atavism left over from the fifties. This law was passed in 1977 and became effective June 1, 1978. The law demonstrates present thinking.
And that scares me.
******
Sam Hughes from Atlanta wants to know if Superman violates the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures, when he uses his x-ray vision to spy on a villain, and if so, would any evidence obtained by Superman's spying be thrown out of court. I don't think so.
First off there is no question that anyone using x-rays to spy on someone else who is inside his house would constitute a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. The question becomes: is it an unreasonable search?
The constitutional right to privacy protects individuals from unreasonable searches made by the government, but does that include Superman? Let's assume Lex Luthor is behind closed doors committing a crime. If the police were to use an x-ray machine to watch what he was doing in the privacy of his own house, that would constitute an unreasonable search. What the police saw would not be admissible in court. But Superman isn't the government; he's a private citizen. The Fourth Amendment offers absolutely no protection against one private citizen spying on another citizen.
Superman's status with the Metropolis Police Department seems to change as often as a politician's promise. Sometimes he's a duly deputized member of the Metropolis Police Department. Other times he's not. Obviously, if he is a deputized member of the MPD, then anything he does is State action and covered by the Fourth Amendment. So, for the sake of argument, let's pretend this is one of those times when he's not. In that scenario, when Superman uses his x-ray vision as a private citizen, anything he sees is admissible in court, because there is no government action involved, only a public spirited citizen, albeit a Peeping Tom, doing his duty and reporting a crime which he saw being committed.
State action doesn't require that Superman be deputized. If the big red S were acting as an agent for the government in some other capacity, say Inspector Henderson asked Superman to spy on a certain person, then what Supes saw wouldn't admissible. There is government action here, because the government initiated the search.
The same would go, incidentally, for super hearing, super smell, super touch, if there is such a thing. No, Superman isn't violating the Constitution, when he uses his x-ray vision to spy on people. He is, however, probably violating the laws against voyeurism. But that's another matter for another day.
******
Max Collins of writer/creator of Ms. Tree and writer of Dick Tracy, which the Cleveland paper, unfortunately, no longer carries was amused that it was Ms. Tree # 9, "Murder at Mohawk", which finally prompted me to comment. I did come close several other times, particularly issue 3, where Mike murdered Dr. Kassel. (Considering the advantage Michael had on the good doctor, there is no way you can convince me that she acted in self-defense.) For some reason something else usually crowded Ms. Tree out. I'm glad she finally got her due.
For the record, Mr. Collins, I disagree with your statement that it was because I misinterpreted issue 9 that I believed that Ms. Tree had obstructed justice. I'm afraid, rather that you've misinterpreted what the law requires that lead you to believe that there was no obstruction.
The law states that any person who knows that a felony has been committed must report it to the police. Ms. Tree knew that a felony (either murder or manslaughter, I'm not going to quibble over which) had been committed but made to look like a suicide. The killer had confessed to her, Moreover, she had seen things, which the police couldn't see and which proved that the suicide was a sham. Ms. Tree had an absolute duty to report her knowledge about the felony to the police.
Ms. Tree did not report the crime to the police. Instead she told the killer, "If the faked suicide gets past the police, you're clear." Did I misinterpret Ms. Tree's clear, unambiguous statement? I don't think so. I think what Ms. Tree meant was that she had no intention of telling the police that she knew a crime had been committed, unless they specifically asked her. Ms. Tree's wilful failure to report the known felony was a violation of the law exactly as I said in my column.
Be that as it may, however, I must compliment you and Terry Beatty for Ms. Tree. It takes a literary genre which I frequently dislike, the hard-boiled detective story, and makes it enjoyable. Dislike? Well, it's like this. Once, years ago, I saw about five minutes of a Mike Hammer movie. (I'm not sure which one, but I think it must have been The Girl Hunters, because I remember Mickey Spillane playing Hammer.) During the five minutes or so that I saw, Hammer knocks out a bad guy and has to incapacitate him. To do it, he takes a sledge hammer and two iron spikes and nails the guy's hands to the ground. I mean, he could have tied the guy up. But no! Hammer's got to live up to his name and play John Henry. Not my type of man, at all.
******
Two persons wrote in regarding my recent review of Wonderworld Express # 1. The first was Ray Gonzalez of Jackson Heights, New York. Mr. Gonzalez asked me to explain what I meant, when I said that one character, Ameri-Rican, who I assumed was Puerto Rican, had "a name that can offend the world."
First let me explain what I didn't mean. I didn't mean that because he was Puerto Rican or that his name was Puerto Rican, that was offensive. If I gave that impression to anyone, I profusely apologize.
There were three reasons that I felt the name was offensive. Here's the first. There are Puerto Ricans who work in the Public Defender office with me. I asked them if the name Ameri-Rican would be offensive to Puerto Ricans. They said yes, because it uses the term Rican. They explained that Rican alone without Puerto in front of it is regarded as a derogatory term, which is as offensive to Puerto Ricans as "nigger" is to blacks or "wop" to Italians. I don't think anyone would dispute a claim that the name Ameri-Nigger was offensive. So is Ameri-Rican and for the same reason.
The second reason the name seemed offensive is because it unites American and Puerto Rican. That may not seem like much to you or me, but there is a large and active movement amongst Puerto Ricans to secure independence for Puerto Rico. Without getting into the merits of their position, a name which ties Puerto Rico like a colony to America, would be bound to offend the separatists. Thus, the name is needlessly insensitive to their views and offensive for that reason.
The third reason the name is offensive is because it is so stupid. Try saying it several times. It is clumsy and sounds moronic. I, at least, am offended, when someone asks me to accept a hero who adopts so stupid a name.
I will not divulge the name of the second person who wrote about Wonderworld Express # 1. He asked me not to.
Mr. X, the anonymous letter writer--not the comic book character, pointed out that the stories in W.E. were camp and intended to be humorous, a fact that my review seemed to neglect. That may be, but I have a hard time accepting anything that is called camp. There is a story about the old Batman TV series; I don't know if it is true, but it sums up my feelings about camp. The story goes that the Batman TV show was originally intended to be serious, but when the producers saw Adam West in his costume, they realized that no one would accept the show seriously, so they decided it should be camp. Camp is too often an excuse that creators use, when a project isn't good. They see the product stinks and say, "Oh, it was meant to be bad. It's camp." I think that's what happened with Wonderworld Express.
For his second point, Mr. X questioned if Marvel, DC, or Pacific comics could really sue W.E. for trademark infringement, as I suggested they might. As my letter writer put it, "I doubt that anybody would buy Wonderworld Express mistaking it for a Marvel or DC Comic--I don't see it 'harming' anybody."
The point of a trademark infringement suit isn't always that someone might confuse the properties. Say a company comes out with a comic called Superb-Boy. Now no one may confuse Superboy with Superb-Boy, but if DC doesn't sue to protect its trademark on Superboy, it will lose the trademark for lack of protection. If DC loses its trademark, then another company can publish Superboy comics. DC has put too much into the character to permit that.
Remember when Disney sued Marvel over Howard the Duck? That was part of the reason. Not, so much, that Howard was close to Donald, but because Disney wanted to establish that it will always fight to protect its trademarks.
Finally, Mr. X suggested that I lighten up a bit when reviewing comics like Wonderworld Express, because they are works of passion by people who want to very much work in comics and if I can't respect the work, I should, at least respect the passion.
I wish I could. Unfortunately, I found W.E. wanting in virtually every creative department. (In fact, the only aspect of W.E. which I felt showed any promise at all was the artwork of Erik Larsen.) How am I supposed to treat work which is completely unprofessional, but which is put into the stream of commerce and sold for a price, a price, I might point out, which is higher than any Marvel, DC, First, or Eclipse comic on the market? I feel that it is my professional duty as a columnist and critic to evaluate anything sold professionally by the same standards. That means that Wonderworld Express gets treated the same way as Teen Titans or X-Men or Nexus or DNAgents or any of my other favorites. I cannot make allowances for good intentions or passion.
I guess, that means I can't lighten up.
******
Finally, I close with a question, "Who's Afraid of the Big, Bad Spot?" You saw Peter Parker, The Spectacular Spider-Man # 99, didn't you? Would you be intimidated by the new a super-villain of the issue: the Spot. Would you actually quake in fear over a bad guy who looks like the one hundred and second dalmatian and can be defeated by One Hour Martinizing?
BOB INGERSOLL
<< 08/22/2000 | 08/29/2000 | 09/05/2000 >>
Discuss this installment with me in World Famous Comics' General Forum.
Recent Installments:
Current Installment >>
Installment Archives |
About Bob |
General Forum
|
|
|
Anything Goes Trivia
