Talk:Castillo v. Texas

This is a mighty damn interesting article! I knew some 'Murrikans are very sensitive about sinful things like this (remember the 'wardrobe malfunction hoohar?) but did this really happen? More info please! 08:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Fucking hell, that court report is a good read. Some cut and pastes:
 * Craig Reynerson, an undercover detective with the vice squad of the Dallas Police Department, went to Keith's Comics “[t]o see if there was any obscenity being sold in the store.” (I'd have thought the police would be too busy for this shit in Texas))
 * a sign was displayed at the entrance stating, “No One Under 18 Allowed Past This Point.”
 * contained a warning label, “Absolutely Not For Children.”
 * So, an adult goes in to a bookshop, in to the section labeled adults only, buys a weirdo comic marked not for kids, and the bloke gets done? Brilliant.  08:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Really?
I'm shocked that a second appeal wasn't done. Is this law still in effect? Any Texans care to chime in? I know I can go into a Barnes and Noble and pick up anything by Alan Moore (which are not pornographic per se but certainly sexual&mdash;LXG Black Dossier is hypersexual and has a fake Tijuana Bible as an insert) right off the shelf next to the manga (and don't even get me started on that section), but then I'm in a different state. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A second appeal was not done because it would probably fail have failed, and would cost a lot more than the fine levied. As to Barnes and Noble, the cashier could defend against a charge like this and it could stand, by claiming that the cashier was unaware of the content. That was not the case in Castillo v. Texas. Further, Barnes and Noble would have an attorney who would be far more competent, possibly. There were errors committed by the defense in this case, that might have been crucial. And how was the jury selected? What questions were asked by defense counsel? Etc.
 * I'm not familiar with details about the state of obscenity law in the U.S., but my guess is that it's still the same in Texas. It's up to a jury in the particular case to decide what is obscene. To successfully appeal a conviction can take some very strong evidence of court or jury error. Not merely making a decision that one disagrees with. --Abd (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, yes America has some interesting obscenity laws. Then again, we still have it better than most of the world, like Australia where obviously drawn cartoon porn can count as (illegal) child porn. I hear this is also true of Britain, and a few other European countries. AFAIK, this is not true of the US, at least according to SCOTUS as IIRC they've struck down as unconstitutional several laws to this effect in recent years. However, damnable local obscenity standards might still get you. (Some of the popular mainstream manga, not the hentai stuff, may fall under this purview.) LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Decided on technical legal issues
Yes, the decision by the appeals court was interesting. The most important thing to understand there is the principle that in U.S. law, a jury in a trial court is a trier of fact, and makes decisions that are very difficult to overturn, the error must be blatant. What the appeals court found was that the decision of the trial jury was legally reasonable. Not exactly that it was correct, but that it was within a jury's legal discretion.

It can be frustrating to read a case like this, because it seems so at variance with common sense. But much law in the U.S. is not based on common sense, it is based on strict interpretation of statutes and precedents.

It should also be kept in mind that this was a misdemeanor conviction, with essentially one year probation (a jail sentence was determined, but suspended with probation -- don't do it again!), and a fine of $4000. Which probably, my guess, was paid by the employer. It's not like they took the defendant ("appellant") out and shot him.

U.S. law defines obscenity based on local standards, and the evidence that other obscene materials were available was legally irrelevant. It would be like defending against, say, a drug law violation, by pointing out that others use drugs or possess them. Yes, they do. So?

So the only real point of defense was the testimony of experts that the material had redeeming value. Who judges that? I.e., who judges that the opinion of the police officer was more or less credible than the opinion of experts brought in by the defense?

The jury. In a criminal case, the decision must be unanimous.

And they decided to believe the police officer, my guess because of their own opinions. Besides, those experts, they are probably atheists and liberals, right? They didn't talk like us.

Lest you think this is really stupid, I'll point out that RationaWiki has content that stands because it matches the opinions of enough RW members, not because it is based on evidence and reason. Human trait, very common. --Abd (talk) 18:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Was The name of Jesus relevant? I'm in the UK but I guess it may be? Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I sure hope not...there are a LOT of people in Texas (and elsewhere in the US, particularly in the Southwest) named Jesus ("Hay-soos") -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would the name be relevant? seriously? [[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot    Grow a vagina 18:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Rupert Bear
Wonder what the court would have made of #that# issue of the comic. 86.146.100.13 (talk) 13:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)