|
|
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 09/17/2002
DOCKET ENTRY
"The Law is a Ass" Installment # 162
Originally written as installment # 144 and published in Comics Buyer's Guide issue # 767, July 29, 1988 issue
True to my promise to keep you posted which you'll find at the end of this column, I remind you that in my column for August 27, 2002, I told you about another letter I received from Mic McConnell in which he told me that The Virginia Supreme Court--which realized the implications of the United States Supreme Court's questions and realized it had better restrict the law's application, if it wanted the law to withstand further constitutional challenges--ruled that the class of books to which the "harmful to juveniles" label could be applied was so limited, it essentially included nothing more than obscenity. And it ruled that a store owner would be in full compliance with the law, if he had openly displayed the "harmful to juveniles" materials but did so with a policy forbidding juveniles from perusing the materials and enforced when a juvenile was seen perusing the materials.
I tell you this again, because, not only do I come off looking so good for keeping my promise, I was also able to pad my Docket Entry real easy with a simple cut-and-paste.
******
THE LAW IS A ASS
Installment # 162
by
BOB INGERSOLL
Confusius say: "Man with forum can never be silent."
Not because to be silent would be an abuse of the forum; I abuse it quite regularly as it is. Actually, the reason is no one columnist can write a column about everything. (Even if I could, I wouldn't. That would mean I had to do a column about Swaziland tree surgery, and after a crazed Swazilander with a chain saw felled my wife's favorite cherry tree, I promised her I would never remind her about that.) No, the reason a man with a forum can never be silent, is because so many different people are so willing to interpret his silence and so incorrectly.
Case in point: In CBG # 761 I wrote a lengthy article about the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO as it is more commonly called. I pointed out that under RICO's provisions, as amended in 1984, the government can seize and sell all of the assets of any book store which was convicted of two RICO obscenity offenses within a ten year period. I pointed out the store owners can not get a restraining order to prevent the seizure or sale of their assets, while they appealed their conviction; as RICO specifically permits the assets to be seized and sold even while an appeal is pending. I pointed out that under RICO, book stores can and will be driven out of business. I pointed out that already a chain of "Mom and Pop" book and video stores in Virginia owned by the Prybas had been driven out of business because of RICO convictions. I neglected to point out--but should have--that vindictive prosecutors can abuse RICO to drive unwanted or unpopular businesses out of business. I pointed out that prosecutors might seek local convictions to obtain precedents which they would then use against larger corporations. I pointed out that already one large corporation, the Southland Corporation, has stopped selling Playboy in its 7- stores, because it feared under RICO two convictions for selling obscenity in some backwater, provincial community could allow the government to seize all of the assets of the entire corporation. I pointed out the implications RICO had already had, and could continue to have--witness the fact that Virginians can no longer buy any books from the Prybas and that no one can buy a girlie magazine at a 7-11. I pointed out the fact that RICO frightened me, because of the far reaching effect it can have on the right to read. I pointed out that I resented the efforts of a minority of the country to impose their narrow views upon the rest of the country and to regulate what everyone can read. And I pointed out that if RICO frightened the reader, they should send donations to THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION / 125 BROAD STREET / 18TH FLOOR / NEW YORK, NY 10004, which is spearheading the nationwide fight against RICO obscenity prosecutions and that they should also write their congressmen and senators to request that obscenity be removed from RICO's list that defines what crimes constitute racketeering offenses.
I admit that the tone of my column was designed to strike a certain amount of concern and even fear in the hearts and minds of its readers. This was intentional on my part.
My opponents, you see, don't always fight fair in their efforts to control what we see or read. Recently, the right Reverend William Wildmon of Tupelo, Mississippi (whose name only looks like a typographical error) grabbed nationwide attention by snipping three seconds out of context from a Mighty Mouse cartoon and claiming that Mighty Mouse was snorting cocaine. Even though the claim--that a major network would actually allow a Saturday morning kiddie cartoon character it broadcast to snort cocaine--was ludicrous on its face and should have been rejected out of hand by anyone who thought about it for more than two seconds, even though people had but to sit through the entirety of an eight minute cartoon to see the claim for the lie it was; Reverend Wildmon made the claim and got his cheap publicity. And, unfortunately, probably a new supporter or two along the way. This sort of irresponsible sensationalism is what I am up against. You'll have to forgive me, if I occasionally indulge in a little responsible sensationalism.
As I said, the tone of my column was intentional. It was a tactic deliberately chosen by me to drive my point past and through the inertia and ennui which grips most people and allows them to watch a Kitty Genovese being slowly carved to death or the New Bedford, Massachusetts barroom rape without lifting a finger to do so much as make an anonymous phone call to the police to help. A tactic chosen, quite frankly, to disquiet enough readers to get them off of their butts and to act.
Unfortunately, I must have forgotten to say somewhere in my column that I am four-square, full-force, rootin'-shootin' sure shootin' behind the First Amendment and freedom of expression and that I fully support the Good Fight. I must have forgotten to say this, because in CBG # 764 Tom Veitch accused me of fear mongering and of, "surrender[ing] the United States Constitution and all the [First Amendment] victories of the past 200 years." Frankly, I'm surprised he didn't try to pin the Great Train Robbery and the Lindburgh Kidnapping on me, as well.
To the fear mongering charge, I'll cop a guilty plea. I've already admitted I was and explained my reasons. To the other, I I can only request that Tom re-read the column in question, especially the part where I tell the readers what to do to fight the evil which is RICO obscenity prosecutions and see if he might not have read a little too much into my silence.
I also ask that Tom check my record--it's been made public enough in the pages of CBG over the last year--to see where I do stand on censorship, supporting the First Amendment, freedom of expression, and the Good Fight. Tom might especially check a column I did about a year ago, where I discussed the new Supreme Court test for determining the social value of an allegedly obscene work which he cited in his letter and about which he implied that I was ignorant.
Finally, I ask Tom to remember one important thing: he might recognize that Elektra: Assassin or Moonshadow are not obscene, because they are, "literature--intelligent literature, at that." I also recognize that fact. Reverend Wildmon and his ilk don't. Reverend Wildmon and his ilk can probably get some RICO obscenity convictions down in their decidedly red neck of the woods, convictions Tom dismissed as, "a little blood is going to flow at the local level."
Tom, that "little blood" flow at the "local level" is what I was most concerned about. Not the national picture, because I hope, as do you, that eventually the United States Supreme Court will invalidate the RICO obscenity convictions. I'm concerned that the "little blood" flow at the "local level" is going to wipe out a business and ruin the life of a businessman; as it already has the Prybas. And that the "little blood" flow at the "local level" will be used by a prosecutor at the "local level" to attach the assets of a multi-national corporation.
I want to stop that little flow of blood at the local level. Now. Not when the Supreme Court finally gets around to ruling on RICO and people have already been crushed under RICO's heel and corporations have already surrendered in their market place to their fear of RICO. Now!
Which, after all, was the point of my column: to strike in the hearts of my readers a little fearful concern about their right to read, not so that they will, "surrender[ ] the United States Constitution and all the victories of the past 200 years," but so that they will start fighting back now, before we find that too much of, "a little blood... at the local level," has spilled.
Quite frankly, even a little "little blood" is too much.
******
While we're on the topic of smut, Mic McConnell, a lawyer in Richmond, Virginia, has been keeping tabs on the American Bookseller Association case for me. When last we saw that case, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the ABA could challenge the constitutionality of a Virginia statute making it a criminal offense to display certain, "harmful to juvenile" materials in stores such that juveniles could see them. The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the Virginia Supreme Court to answer two questions: what books or types of books are covered by the statute, and what is the least restrictive means of display control which a retailer can employ and still comply with the law?
Mic sent me an article from Wednesday June 8, 1988 Richmond Times-Dispatch informing me that the Virginia Supreme Court has accepted jurisdiction over the questions the United States Supreme Court remanded back to it. (Major surprise there. What was the Virginia Supreme Court going to do, rule, "Let's ignore those nine robed rabble rousers in Washington and let our statute get declared unconstitutional?") The article indicates that a decision is expected from the Virginia Supreme Court on or about July 29. Mic promises to send me a copy of the decision as soon as possible after that.
I'll keep you posted.
Bob Ingersoll
<< 09/10/2002 | 09/17/2002 | 09/24/2002 >>
Discuss this installment with me in World Famous Comics' General Forum.
Recent Installments:
Current Installment >>
Installment Archives |
About Bob |
General Forum
|
|
|
Anything Goes Trivia
