Castillo case: no cause for alarm?

Ampersand argues that the Texas comic-book obscenity conviction was upheld, not because the courts accepted the ridiculous proposition that comic books are just for children, but because the jury thought the book met the law's test for obscenity and because the defense lawyers failed to make appropriate objections during the trial.

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Nice work, although . . .

This is a nicely done analysis and I heartily recommend it as food for thought. The only point the author makes with which I take exception is when he writes that the material was indeed obscene as found so by the jury. However, the material does not seem to have been formally examined to determine its legal status, and I don't think the jury could legally make that determination unilaterally. Just as with the cop who called the comic book obscene, the jury members were not expert witnesses either.

Syndicate content