CBLDF Defends Iowa Collector

[Lycaon]

</h1>

<h1>CBLDF Defends Iowa Collector In Manga Obscenity Case

Monday October 13, 2008

 

From ICV2 and the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund (CBLDF) website: CBLDF is lending their legal might to help out Christopher Handley, an Iowa manga and comic book collector who is facing obscenity charges based on manga that he ordered from Japan. Handley is being prosecuted under the PROTECT Act (18 U.S.C. Section 1466A) for allegedly possessing manga that the government claims to be obscene. The government alleges that the material includes drawings that they claim appear to be depictions of minors engaging in sexual conduct. No photographic content is at issue in Handley's case.

 

According to the articles, Handley faces up to 20 years in jail for possessing manga containing "objectionable content" that caught the attention of a postal inspector. While the "objectionable" manga is but a small portion of Handley's collection of over 1,200 volumes of manga that cover a broad spectrum of topics, the authorities confiscated his entire collection, in addition to his personal library of comics, magazines and DVD and his computers.

 

Why should manga fans be concerned? As CBLDF legal counsel Burton Joseph explains it,

 

"In the lengthy time in which I have represented CBLDF and its clients, I have never encountered a situation where criminal prosecution was brought against a private consumer for possession of material for personal use in his own home. This prosecution has profound implications in limiting the First Amendment for art and artists, and comics in particular, that are on the cutting edge of creativity. It misunderstands the nature of avant-garde art in its historical perspective and is a perversion of anti-obscenity laws."

While the CBLDF has defended comic book artists and comic retailers in the past, this is the first time that they've been called upon to defend a comic book reader / collector. According to the recent update on the case posted on ICV2, Handley and his CBLDF-assisted defense team won a partial victory when the court ruled that sections of the PROTECT Act 1466 a(2) and b(2) are infirm because they “do not require that the material be deemed obscene” by a jury, but instead substitute standards set by Congress as to what is per se or patently obscene. The Court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in the Smith case to argue that “appeals to ‘prurient interest’ and ‘patent offensiveness’ are standards that cannot be defined legislatively and instead are questions of fact for the jury to resolve”

 

According to the CBLDF update:

 

Handley now faces charges under the surviving sections of 1466A, which will require a jury to determine whether the drawings at issue are legally obscene. The material cannot be deemed obscene unless it meets all three of the criteria of the Miller test for obscenity: "(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 © whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." The jury must answer all three questions in the affirmative in order to convict.

The case continues, as it awaits testimony from expert witnesses who can testify to the literary and artistic merits of the manga. What can you do to help? Donate to the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund. You can donate via PayPal, or buy one of the many cool gifts / books and premiums created by artists who support the CBLDF's efforts to defend comics artists, retailers and now collectors from censorship and persecution. It's a good cause that needs your support now more than ever.

 

http://manga.about.com/b/2008/10/13/cbldf-...cenity-case.htm

 

Neverender sent this to me, thought I'd share.

[Reverend Jax]

OK, I'm not sure what the PROTECT Act says (other than what was quoted in the article, but it is my opinion that pornography should be constitutionally protected, and the reason child pornography should be illegal is that it victimizes a minor. However, that is in the case of photography, video, or live performance, because that requires a real person be victimized. A drawing, painting, computer rendering, sculpture, etc, should not qualify as 'child pornography' no matter how young the sexual avatars are portrayed to be, because there is no victimization of an actual underage person. If a very good case cannot be made against the legality of something in print, one should tend to immediately side with freedom of speech.

 

However, that does not seem to be the standard held by this obscenity clause. I do find it ironic that because all 3 conditions must be met, and the 2nd condition is strictly sexual, an imported snuff film could not be deemed as obscene.