The case of Texas v Castillo is a rather interesting case that deserves to be looked at. A clerk at a comic book shop was arrested and charged with misdemeanors for selling obscene material, even though it was sold to an adult and kept in the adult only section of the comic store.[1] A undercover police officer made the arrest after seeing the comics in the adult section of the comic store. The prosecutors went on to conclude that comic books are made for children and therefore are promoting obscene speech, even if the book is only sold to adults. I do not agree with the ruling of the court, I argue that there are no grounds for charging Castillo with misdemeanors. I also do not agree with the court ruling that comic books are for a medium used only to reach kids. I will use the case of Miller v California as well as the philosophical work of Thomas Emerson to argue my point.
First off the type of speech that is trying to be banned here is speech that is viewed as “obscene.” Since the charges against Castillo are coming from the grounds that he was selling obscene material, we need to get a concrete understanding of what this means. In order to do so, we first need a solid definition of the word obscene. According to dictionary.com, obscene is defined as the following, “offensive to morality or decency, indecent, depraved, obscene language, causing uncontrolled sexual desire, abominable, disgusting; repulsive.”[2] According to this definition the material that was sold may or may not be viewed as obscene. The comic book was intended for a certain audience, which of whom obviously is not offended in a moral way if they are purchasing such comic books. There is no room to limit the speech here based off the idea that the comic books are being considered obscene material.
If we use the precedent that was passed in the Miller v California case it is also not clear whether this is a case that deserves any type of conviction. In the Miller v California case, Mr. Miller was being sued on very similar charges as Castillo. Miller operated a mail order porn service, and was sending out flyers to advertise his business. Certain individual who had received these flyers without wanting them became offended. The court used various tests to see if Miller was indeed guilty of the misdemeanor charges that he was facing. The court ruled that he was guilty of the charges, but re defined the test for obscenity. I argue that unlike Miller, Castillo was not soliciting the sale of obscene material; rather he had the material located in a place that only someone specifically looking to buy it would see it. Based on this I would have to argue that Castillo should be acquitted of any charges. According to the court while handing down the ruling for the Miller v California case, the test for obscenity was re-written as follows, “The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest. . . (b) Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”[3] Looking at this revamped definition handed down by the court, Castillo should not be charged. It can and should be argued that the comic book definitely has literary and artistic value, this value may not be seen equally amongst all people but there is with out a doubt a large population of people that would argue for the literary and artistic value of such comics.
Moving past the precedent of the case we can now begin to argue the philosophical works that should be used when reviewing this case. Looking at the work done by Thomas Emerson we can see that he would argue for the protection of the comic book. According to Thomas Emerson, “Freedom of expression includes the right to hear the opinions of others, the right to inquire, reasonable access to information, and the rights of assembly and association.”[4] According to this theory all expressions that do not turn into actions should have absolute protection. In the case of Castillo and the comics he was arrested for selling, he would be protected. He is doing exactly what Emerson has laid out as expression. Actually he is not even the one doing the expression, the artist who created the comic book is expressing himself artistically, Castillo is doing nothing more than supplying items that are wanted by a certain community of people. In accordance to Emerson, Castillo deserves full protection for selling such comic books to those people that want them.
The ruling in the Castillo v California case also decided that comic books are made for kids and are a medium on which to reach children only, similar to toys. This is another idea that I cannot leave alone. We don’t even have to argue to hard to uncover the fact that comic books can be easily targeted not only to kids but to adults too. Looking back through history we can see numerous occasions where comic books have been intended for adult audiences, and where they have even influenced adult audiences. Today around 70% of comic book readers are over the age of 18.[5] Comics have had influences on television shows as well as political influences as well. Comic books are not just pictures, they tell stories and keep alive parts of culture. Anything that can affect the culture of an entire country must be doing more than just reaching children.
In conclusion I argue that in the case of Castillo v California, Mr. Castillo deserves full protection to sell his comic books in his adult only section like he has been. Using the expression action theory it is easy to see that he is doing nothing wrong. Also with the constant debates about what is considered obscene and what isn’t it would appear that if there is a market for such material than it is not seen as obscene to everyone.
[1] McWilliams, James. "First Amendment Center." Comic Books. 12,Feb, 2010. Web. 1 Mar 2010.
[2] "Dictionary and Reference." 08, Mar, 2009. dictionary.com, Web. 1 Mar 2010.
[3] "Miler v California." OYEZ. 05, May, 2007. Web. 1 Mar 2010.
[4] Tedford, Thomas. Freedom of Speech in The United States. 5th. State College, PY: Strata Publishing, 2005. 438. Print.
[5] McWilliams, James. "First Amendment Center." Comic Books. 12,Feb, 2010. Web. 1 Mar 2010.
Similarly to Feggi’s argument, Jordan believes Texas v. Castillo should be overturned. Jordan makes a powerful observation when examining the differences between Miller v. California and Castillo v. Texas. Castillo, unlike Miller was not soliciting the sale of obscene material; rather he had the material located in a place that only someone specifically looking to buy it would see it. This observation as made by Jordan also highlights the difference in distributing “obscene material” and creating “obscene material.” Does the fault always lie on the distributor?
ReplyDeleteJordan makes a number of analogous comments to Feggi concerning the artistic and literary value of comic books in relation to the SLAPs test. If comic books can be proven to fulfill the SLAPs test, Castillo should have been acquitted from all charges, as the SLAPs test is the third qualifier of “obscenity” under Miller v. California.
I also appreciated that Jordan used Emerson as a philosopher to root his observations in. Emerson’s comments on obscenity make for a strong supporting argument to overturn Texas v. Castillo. “Most of what society calls “obscenity” is a form of expression fully protected under the expression-action theory. This includes books, films, theatrical presentations, sculpture, paintings, etc. … However, action consisting of live conduct could still be prohibited” (Tedford & Herbeck, 439). No immediate action was foreseeable from the Texas police officer buying an adult magazine, nor do I believe there may ever be a genuine foreseeable action from buying a comic book. Thus, not only in accordance with Miller v. California, but also on a philosophical level, Castillo Jr. ought to have been protected under the First Amendment.
Jordan argues that charging Castillo with misdemeanors was not the right decision in the case of Texas v. Castillo. In this case, a man was charged with misdemeanors for selling obscene material, though it was purchased by an adult from the “Adults Only” section. In order to define what “obscene” language is, Jordan defined it using a dictionary definition, saying that it is “offensive to morality or decency, indecent, depraved, obscene language, causing uncontrolled sexual desire, abominable, disgusting; repulsive.” Defining ‘obscene’ under this definition, the comic book that was sold, or any other material for that matter, may or may not be viewed as obscene.
ReplyDeleteJordan compares Texas v. Castillo with Miller v. California, observing that there were similar charges between the two. However, he argues that Castillo was not necessarily “soliciting” the sale of the comic, but instead placed in a specified area where one who would search for the product would find it. In the Miller case, the court ruled that the clerk was guilty of the charges brought against him. However, he was able to give a new definition to the test for obscenity. According to these new standards, Castillo should have not been charged. I also agree with Jordan that the comic book had literary and artistic value, though it may mean different things to different people. However, we cannot forget the fact that comic books are still considered a very important part in a lot of Asian countries that read manga on the web or in comic books.
Lastly, Jordan examines the work of Thomas Emerson and his view on freedom of expression. According to Emerson’s theory, expressions that do not turn into actions should have absolute protection. Castillo, In Jordan’s opinion, was not even responsible for expressing anything; rather, he was just a supplier of such material. Working with this philosophical view, and keeping in mind Jordan’s arguments on Miller v. California, I agree that Castillo should have been granted protection for selling material to those who sought them.
I find Jordan’s blog post very interesting he brings up some interesting statistics and also argue his case very well. Personally, I agree entirely with Jordan, I don’t think there should be any problem with obscene comics as long as they aren’t peddled to young readers. I mean if your going to say all comic books are for kids, and then I guess it would be as relevant as saying all magazines are for adults. So referring back to Jordan’s blog, he uses the precedent put forth by Miller vs. California which he uses well when making an argument, however I think a huge difference between the two was that Miller conducted a mass mailing campaign where he distributed material that depicted men and women engaging in sexual acts, and at some points prominently displaying their genitals, while Castillo had the material in an adult section of his store. I think Jordan does a good job pointing out this difference, but I mean with that logic, then in turn the people who sound like are the people deserving to get charged are the artists who created the comic and the distributor who supplied Castillo the material he solicited. Another concept I agree with Jordan about is his argument as to why Comic books are limited to only child audiences. I think he found a very interesting statistic, in how 70% of Comic readers are over the age of 18.
ReplyDelete