Today begins the trial of Gordon Lee, owner of Legends, a comics shop in Rome, GA. Gordon is on trial because an employee of his store mistakenly gave a comic containing nudity and mature themes to a minor. Gordon’s shop was giving bags of free comics to children as part of a promotion on Halloween of 2004. One of Gordon’s employees accidentally included Alternative Comics #2, a Free Comic Book Day sampler which featured an excerpt from the graphic novel The Salon, in a bag of comics given to a minor. That excerpt included a depiction of Pablo Picasso (a character in the story) fully nude and threatening to fight Georges Braque (also a character in the story). The excerpt also included coarse language and the use of the word “masturbating.”

Sounds simple, right? Giving naughty comics to a kid is a no-no! Bad Gordon Lee! Bad Gordon! You must be punished.

Well, it’s not that simple. The comic in question carried a warning label, but it was on the back cover and not very prominent. The cover of the comic in question didn’t suggest or even hint at nudity or coarse language inside. Let’s face it: mistakes happen. I’m going to throttle the next person who declares that “retailers have a responsibility to know what they’re selling.” Good Christ! I don’t think retailers should be blithely handing out Hustler to toddlers, but how can anyone with half a brain expect a retailer to memorize the contents of each and every book in their store? 

It’s worth noting that social scientists have never been able to conclusively prove a causal link between media content and negative behavior in children. On the other hand, there is an impressive body of evidence that parental involvement and intervention is the single strongest variable in shaping children’s response to media messages. In other words, the parents of the minor who received the comics could have chosen to review them before letting him see them, too, y’know.

Gordon is being charged under Georgia Statute 16-12-103, which makes it a crime to “knowingly” distribute materials to minors that are deemed “harmful to minors.” Also relevant is Georgia Statute 16-12-102, which defines the terms “knowingly,” “minor,” and “harmful to minors.”

Under Georgia law, in order to have “knowingly” distributed the comic in question, Gordon would have needed “…a general knowledge of, or reason to know, or a belief or ground for belief which warrants further inspection or inquiry of… The character and content of any material described in this part which is reasonably susceptible to examination by the defendant…” A comic containing no warning label nor any hint of “naughtiness” on its cover doesn’t seem to provide “reason to know” that there is nudity and coarse language inside.

The nudity depicted within the comic was non-sexual, which is important because Georgia law requires that a work meet three tests in order to be considered “harmful to minors:”

“A) Taken as a whole, predominantly appeals to the prurient, shameful, or morbid interest of minors;

“(B) Is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable material for minors; and

“(C) Is, when taken as a whole, lacking in serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.”

Well, a work of historical fiction depciting famous artists from the past certainly has some “serious literary [or] artistic” value for minors, does it not? And given that the nudity in question was non-sexual, and wasn’t the sole focus of the story, I can think of no reasonable argument to support the conclusion that this book ”…taken as a whole, predominantly appeals to the prurient, shameful, or morbid interest of minors…”

If you read the text of the laws, however, you’ll see that they are worded vaguely enough as to allow for a less reasonable interpretation. If someone feels all nudity is prurient (and those people are out there, in larger numbers than I’d prefer), then this law could be interpreted to apply to Michelangelo’s Statue of David!

So what we have here is a law that was misapplied under the circumstances, and one that infringes on our First Amendment rights. (Cue screeching noise as record needle scrapes across vinyl record album.)

I wouldn’t be surprised if someone reading this is thinking, “This isn’t about the First Amendment, it’s about protecting children!”

Uhm… no.  That’s a nice, pleasant-sounding platitude… but no.

If we decide that the onus of filtering children’s reading material from parents, where it reasonably belongs, and place it on the government, an institution that is ill-equipped to do the job well, we are sacrificing our First Amendment rights. Because if Gordon is successfully convicted, it will send a message to other retailers in Georgia and beyond: don’t carry anything remotely controversial, because a mistake can cost you your livelihood and even your freedom. That’s called a “chilling effect,” and it could effect what you or I are able to read. Hence, this is about our First Amendment rights.

This is why I support the CBLDF with monetary donations, and why I hope you will at least consider doing the same. You can visit them at www.cbldf.org.

Oh, and Gordon: may you win this fight. You’ve got the most personal stake of anyone, but to some extent all of us have a stake in it with you.