Comic Book Store Owner on Trial for Nude Images

[Elendil]

Comic Book Store Owner on Trial for Nude Images (http://nudefreedom.blogspot.com/2007/08/comic-book-store-owner-on-trial-for.html)

[nifocinphx]

From a related CourtTVnews.com story concerning the comic book store owner, Gordon Lee.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE> In the comic book, a series of drawings with pictures of a naked Pablo Picasso were used to depict the artist's first meeting with artist Georges Braque. The two artists are considered the founders of Cubism. Picasso is depicted in the nude, which, according to Charles Brownstein, executive director of the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, is historically accurate.

The case has also become a free-speech battle that began innocently enough, defense attorneys said, as one man's attempt to participate in a trick-or-treat event.

The boys' mother refused to accept an apology from Lee and went to police. Days later, the comic book store owner was arrested and charged with seven counts, including two felonies for distributing material depicting nudity or sexual conduct and misdemeanor charges of exhibition of harmful materials to a minor.

The case has taken a couple of wild turns through a series of motions, appeals and the dismissal of the felony charges against Lee. Prosecutors contacted Lee's defense 18 hours before his original trial was supposed to begin, saying they had the wrong victim. Immediately after, prosecutors refiled an indictment with the correct victim, but dismissed the felony charges against Lee.

He now faces two misdemeanor charges of distributing harmful materials to a minor and could be sentenced to up to a year in prison and a $1,000 fine for each count if convicted. His trial is set to begin Monday.

Lee appealed to the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund for help, and the fund has spent $80,000 to date on Lee's case, Brownstein said.

"I think everybody was overwhelmed by how grossly overcharged Mr. Lee was," he said.[/list]
CourtTVnews.com story link: http://www.courttv.com/news/2007/0810/gordon_lee_ctv.html

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/sick.gif

[nudefarmer]

This from Comic Reports.com with a link to the "offending" comic panels:

"The facts have been widely disseminated. Lee, the proprietor of Legends, in Rome, Georgia, faces multiple charges stemming from an incident whereby a minor participating in a community Halloween celebration inadvertently received as a trick or treat gift the 2004 Free Comic Book Day offering by Alternative Comics. That comic book featured a selection from the historical drama "The Salon," by Nick Bertozzi. The scene in question showed the first meeting between Pablo Picasso and Georges Braque. Picasso is depicted in the nude (http://64.23.98.142/pics/salonpage.gif) on three pages in reflection of historical fact."

Source: Comics Report.com (http://www.comicsreporter.com/index.php/briefings/commentary/2645/)

[walter05]

In Georgia, the issue is distribution of the images to a minor. This is particularly the case if done without the parents' approval. If these had been sold to adults, then there would be no problem.

Considering the fact that a comic storeowner can expect children to come in to buy comics, this is a particularly dumb think to do. If he is convicted even of a misdemeanor, he could be on a sexual predators list. Then children would be barred from his shop.

I have no sympathy for distributing images of nude men and women to children without their parents' approval. As a parent, I wonder why someone would be distributing naked images to children without their parents’ knowledge.

[Naturist Mark]

I have no sympathy for distributing images of nude men and women to children without their parents' approval. As a parent, I wonder why someone would be distributing naked images to children without their parents’ knowledge.

It was non sexual nudity - not sexual, not pornography. (And indeed NOT nudity, it was cartoon images). I agree that it is bad judgment to give such material to a minor without a parents consent, but illegal? a Sex crime?

Understand that if this man is guilty of a crime, so are the owners of this web site.

-Mark

[Borntobenude]

Yeah, but at the same time, you have to use common sense. All the stories you hear about where people make an uproar about nudity? You know how this country is about that. So with that knowledge, why would you do something like that, which is just asking for trouble? People need to THINK first and you can avoid stuff like this.

[Naturist Mark]

People need to THINK first and you can avoid stuff like this.
Well that's just the thing. I doesn't look like there was any decision to DO this so horrible horrible awful harmful child maiming thing. I very much doubt he even realized he was giving away a comic that happened to have 3 panels of nudity in it.

Sure, he should have sat down and read through every single book before he gave them away. Combing through them for any possible objectionable material. But really.

Can you imagine how much worse it would have been if he had given away a Bible? Talk about dirty filth unsuitable for minors!

Clearly children shouldn't be let into public places - too damn dangerous! Better to segregate them in guarded child safety centers where dangerous people, ideas, and images can't get'em.

[luvnaturism]

Those who haven't already done so may want to check out the link provided by nudefarmer. This isn't about simple cartoon nudity a la The Simpsons. This has strong sexual content, and really was inappropriate for distribution to young children.

[nacktman]

There is nudity in all four of the panels and it appears that the female nudity is not raising an eyebrow whereas the male nudity has everyone in a tizzy.

The only "sex" in the panels is in the first one where the female use the word 'masturb@ting' (just covering me arse for the PC Nazis there, folks).

If a child does not know about masturb@ting by trick-or-treating age they surely won't get it from a comic reference to the word without any 'physical' reference guides (i.e., pictures). Better they get "it" from their parents after they question how to say the word and what does it mean, than get "it' from anywhere else. 'Freaking out' only confounds and confuses them and leads to neurosis in adulthood ... there is enough of that already ... hence this whole moronic case.

What follows in the remaining three panels is a depiction of someone upset at being disturbed at their 'work' in this case painting ... which is what Gertrude Stein (which is who the female was), was referring to when she said "masturb@ting" as painting was 'masturb@ting' to Picasso in her eyes (and quite a few contemporaries as well).
The depiction of Picasso nude is not only historically accurate it is poorly drawn anyway and if you notice 'Gertrude Stein' is nude in two of the three panels following the first one as well.

It all boils down to a big bruhaha over nothing, a tempest in a teacup as it where, and some really screwed up people screwing up the next generation.

Another case of "Get a life!"

[Dick Springer]

Originally posted by Borntobenude:
Yeah, but at the same time, you have to use common sense. All the stories you hear about where people make an uproar about nudity? You know how this country is about that. So with that knowledge, why would you do something like that, which is just asking for trouble? People need to THINK first and you can avoid stuff like this.

Always avoiding "stuff like this" is a formula for submitting to tyranny. Our freedoms are dependent on people who refuse to "avoid stuff like this."

[Baron Lake]

A simple (and I think in this case humorus) reference to masturbation is "strong" sexual content? Geez luvnat, apparently it has never occured to you that ignorance and narrow mindedness is a common result of irrational repression. Hence your dissapproval.

It's people like you who were responsible for J. Elders getting fired.

I'm having trouble typing this 'cause my palms are all sweaty just thinking about all that "begating" stuff Mark reminded me about in the bible (not to mention the even juicer parts).

b.l.

(BTW, what are you really refering to by the "luv" part of your moniker?) http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

[luvnaturism]

Obviously there are differences of opinion, and that's fine. However, try typing the complete text of those cartoon panels into a post on this forum and see what happens—-and this site primarily serves adults who are more than average open in their attitudes with respect to bodies and their various functions.

Male and female nudity? I couldn't care less. But when you look at the entire context, pictures and text together, it just isn't material that is appropriate for a random adult to be handing to someone else's young kids.

Baron Lake, your utter ignorance is showing in your post. If by "J. Elders" you are refering to Jocelyn Elders, the former U.S. Surgeon General, I was her strong supporter and was outraged that she was fired for her commonsense approach to sexual health.

[nacktman]

Luv, I actually agree with you that it was inappropriate to randomly hand the comic book to a kid trick-or-treating, however the reaction to it has been way beyond the pale for the 'infraction'.

It could be nothing but a mistake to have handed this particular comic book out - not aware of what is in it. Which is most likely the case. The reaction to it is the thing that is 'damaging the child'.

The man should have picked out appropriate comic books beforehand and just randomly handed those that he had selected rather than just reach for an unsorted stack - hindsight being 20/20 and all.

If it is a case of deliberate and intended purpose for his handing out this particular comic book ... then we are discussing an whole other issue.

And you can type the text here and only have to alter two words ... masturb@te and fu(k ... over half are in Spanish anyway and the PC Nazi software doesn't recognize Spanish or the "slang" used.

[luvnaturism]

Originally posted by nacktman:
Luv, I actually agree with you that it was inappropriate to randomly hand the comic book to a kid trick-or-treating....And you can type the text here and only have to alter two words ... masturb@te and fu(k...

Thank you.

My first post was only intended to alert participants here who may not have clicked on the link that it isn't merely a cartoon depiction of simple nudity behind the uproar. I wasn't intending to address whether the legal action was appropriate.

I quite agree that the legal reaction was way over the top. Felony charges for this kind of thing? Of course those have been dropped now, but the defendant has no doubt spent tens of thousands of dollars just to get the charges reduced.

No one will ever hear me arguing that the US culture is sane, rational, or healthy when it comes to matters having anything to do with the body or sexuality. However, parents are entitled to some reasonable expectations about the kinds of material that will be handed to their children when the kids go off to a party.

The two words that you reference, both of which are censored by this site, are precisely what puts the sexual context into the cartoon. In your earlier post you provided some interesting information from the world of art history. Someone who knew that history may have reacted to the words differently. However that is an adult understanding, and not even that many adults will have that information. As you have said, it just isn't appropriate to randomly hand it out to someone else's kids.

In the larger discussion, it may be that what we have here is another of our legal guardians' attempts to enforce laws against mere stupidity. The results of such efforts generally don't inspire confidence.

[walter05]

The story on NPR said, “His store took part in a downtown trick-or-treat celebration three years ago. Instead of candy, Lee handed out free comics. One of them had two drawings showing painter Pablo Picasso moving about his studio in the nude, his genitals clearly exposed.”

This type of trick or treat event is designed to get the parents into the shopping area by offering a safe place for the kids to trick or treat. Each storeowner has a duty to make sure that what is being handed out to the kids is safe and appropriate.

Handing out comics talking about masturbation and showing naked men and women in Rome, Georgia is irresponsible at best. In the current environment where people are placed on sexual predator lists for minor reasons, this is really foolish.

Even if the worst charges are dropped, I expect this man’s business will fail. Parents will instruct their children not to go into that shop. Others will avoid him thinking he is a possible pedophile.

As I said before, I have no sympathy for him. At a minimum he was extremely callous and stupid.

[Naturist Mark]

Even if the worst charges are dropped, I expect this man’s business will fail. Parents will instruct their children not to go into that shop. Others will avoid him thinking he is a possible pedophile.
LOL

No offense Walter, but I don't think you are familiar with the comic book trade. The VAST majority of customers are adults, and the notion that there might be some 'dirty' comics is not exactly going to chase them away.

This guy was actually going against the grain by trying to interest young people AND giving them some more 'culturally' relevant titles rather than Archie comic pablum and superhero violence fantasies.

Of course he didn't screen his offerings well enough. He certainly should have made sure he didn't include anything offensive to the most repressed and uptight of parents. But his apology should have been enough, legal charges are absurd, and if he is convicted of anything at all, we are all goners. Our very existence is as offensive to the uptight bluenoses in Rome, Georgia as a few lines of ink in a comic book.

[MJ_KC]

Originally posted by Baron Lake:
It's people like you who were responsible for J. Elders getting fired.
Exactly what I was thinking about. She got in trouble for daring to point out the obvious.

[Christian]

My biggest issue in this scenario is that it seems - from the reporting - that at no point did a parent go to this man and ask why he had handed out that comic. One report indicated that he was unaware of the content. If a parent had said "Hey, my seven year old got this comic and it has inappropriate content" maybe he would have said "Wow, I had no idea. I'm really sorry. How can I make it up to you?" Instead, there has to be a legal complaint and a lawsuit. It's just a big waste of time to jump to dramatics at the drop of a dime.

[walter05]

Mark;

It may be that the comic book trade has changed since I used to read comic books.

However, I stand by a simple observation. The man was handing out comic books at a trick or treat event in Rome, Georgia. If he did not take the time to make sure that the material was suitable for children, he was extremely careless at best.

I have no sympathy for him.

Christian;

If I had been one of the parents, I would have done as you suggest. I agree the parents went too far. However in this age of pedophilia paranoia, that reaction was not unexpected.

[simonsebs]

Comic book indecency trial postponed again (http://news.mywebpal.com/partners/680/public/news830056.html)

Here's an update to the story.

[Ken Palmer]

Hello Naturist Mark. I want to comment on one thing. You said in your post that if this man is guilty of a crime, so are the owners of this website. Well, this site,obviously we all know, is specifically a nudist/naturist website dedicated to this very subject. It is sanctioned by the law unless I am wrong. I do agree that the comic book store owner made a not-so-bright decision to give the child those images. But by the same token, I agree with you that they were not sexual or ponographic in any way. If you read a lot of art books revolving around the Renaissance or Impressionism or anything like that, they are practically loaded with nudity. And so are books dealing with Greek mythology as well. The thing is that it is artful nudity. So I definitely think that he should not be charged with a sex crime either.

Ken Palmer


Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I have no sympathy for distributing images of nude men and women to children without their parents' approval. As a parent, I wonder why someone would be distributing naked images to children without their parents’ knowledge.

It was non sexual nudity - not sexual, not pornography. (And indeed NOT nudity, it was cartoon images). I agree that it is bad judgment to give such material to a minor without a parents consent, but illegal? a Sex crime?

Understand that if this man is guilty of a crime, so are the owners of this web site.

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

[nudebushwalker]

Were those comic books actually rated (i.e. with age limits on them) ?

If not, we should be considering them to be un-rated or general-access material - unless somebody can prove otherwise - and as such some peoples comments and conclusions about criminal activity would be nullified...
If the material was rated for adults, and the seller gave them to an underage person that would be a crime, wouldn't it?

Unlike the irrelevant moralistic crap a couple of writers have added to this thread, this should be a simple legal question - black and white..
Neither the US nor Australia was part of the Middle East, last time I looked, and neither of our countries wants, needs nor deserves that style of 'Moral Police'.

[simonsebs]

GORDON LEE TRIAL ENDS IN MISTRIAL (http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=12291)

Here's an update to the story.

[simonsebs]

Gordon Lee Charges Dismissed
(http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6553081.html)

This guy is lucky that the charges got dropped. Since it involved kids, I really thought he was going to jail.

[Ria777]

Well that's just the thing. I doesn't look like there was any decision to DO this so horrible horrible awful harmful child maiming thing. I very much doubt he even realized he was giving away a comic that happened to have 3 panels of nudity in it.

comic book stores have what they call fifty cent bins where comic books and magazines no one wanted to buy would end up, rather than having them clutter up the shelves.

I have a hunch that the comic book probably ended up there along with other comic books that the owner just decided to give them away.

[Ria777]

Were those comic books actually rated (i.e. with age limits on them) ?

though the big publishers (DC, Marvel, Dark Horse and Archie) may do it differently, indy or small press comics publishers (or even DC, in their Vertigo comics line) will put Mature Readers or Adults Only on the back. though comic book shop owners will make sure that kids don't get a hold of actual porn comics (which does get published), they generally don't figure that a lot of kids will want to rush out and buy a comic biography of Pablo Picasso or the like. remember, "real books" don't have a rating system, nor do plays.

[Naturist Mark]

It is interesting to note that the prosecution intentionally caused a mistrial. Their case stank to high heaven, not that many similar cases don't succeed by appealing to ignorance and prejudice.

(just a side note, I'm misquoted in Ken's post at the top of the page, the formatting of the quotes is mangled leading to a misattribution.)

-Mark

[Eric6420]

It is interesting to know that the notion that all nudity is bad for children is far from being universal. For exemple, in japanese animation, there is often brief non sexual nudity. I remember that when I was a kid a really enjoyed the japanese animation movie of the Little Mermaid, where the naked breast of the mermaid was there to see all along the movie.

Japanese animation is known all over the world, and most people seem to have no problem with it, particularly when the cartoon is not violent.

There is also the animated movie Kirikou et la sorcière, a traditional story for children from Africa, where the young boy Kirirou is naked for many minutes in the movie. The USA is one of the rare countries where the movie was not seen, because american distributors want to cover kirikou with pants. The producer refused that and the movie was almost not seen in the USA.

[jon71]

For years my little girl and I have enjoyed Ranma 1/2 which often has bare (cartoon) breasts in it. I would have no problem with her seeing partial or whole nudity, either cartoon or live action, so long as it's non-sexual in nature (she's 8). Of course most nudity in American movies is sexual so that means it doesn't happen often.