Manga Reader Charged for Obscenity
The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund has defended several arists and retailers in the past. But now, for the first time, they have been called to aid an actual comic book collector.
Christopher Handley of Iowa is facing obscenity charges under the PROTECT Act (18 U.S.C. section 14661) for ordering and possessing manga that is allegedly "obscene." Although no photographic material is contained within the manga in question, the charges allege that the material includes drawings depicting minors engaging in acts of a sexual nature. The material was reported by a postal inspector.
The"objectionable" manga in question is only a small part of Handley’s collection, which included over 1200 volumes of various manga. Despite this, authorities have taken possession of Handley’s entire comic book, magazine, manga and DVD collection, as well as his computer, in their search for further evidence.
If found guilty, Handley could face up to 20 years in jail. CBLDF legal counsel Burton Joseph commented, "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."
As of now, Handley and the CBLDF-assisted defense team have been able to achieve partial victory. The court has ruled that sections of the PROTECT Act are infirm because they "do no require that the material be deemed obscene" by a court-appointed jury but rather by Congressional standards.
In the latest CBLDF update, it states: "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 following are the legal standards that would make the material "obscene." All three must be met in order for there to be a conviction.
A. Whether the average person, applying comtemporary 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.
C. Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
For more information and how you can help, check out the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund web-site.
I guess it's the cynic in me that wonders where we gave up any right to expect privacy from the postal service. Was this a case of terrorism or racketeering? Was this a case of an election coming up for someone, and looking for a patsy to make the authorities look good? There's got to be a better place to spend government money and acumen.
I don't think that's cynical at all, I think that's a valid question. I mean, did the box that said "MANGA" somehow look like a bomb?
Okay – so if he was ordering this Manga through the mail – then Handley himself could not have known exactly what the book would present until he saw it. Does that mean he could even be convicted of obscenity if he had ordered an Archie comic and this Manga was sent by mistake? This whole community standards thing has always been a ticking time bomb.
I think at this point, the genie is out of the bottle. And yes, community standards is, by itself, such an arbitrary term that it's scary. I mean, I know a few communities that would find what I talk about with friends in a public place to be shocking.
I have taken the liberty of posting this in the forums at Drunk Duck and forwarding it to twenty of thirty people who Author and Draw comics that are anywhere from Action to Adult.I am so glad to see these people ignoring a previous Supreme Court Opinion on this subject. As I recall it said something about as the characters were pen and ink formed and not real or depictions of real people there was not age involved.
Yeah – I believe the original law needed a victim to procecute – and they limited the obcenity charges to photos and film images because of that. But I think the switch to community standards opened the door to letting people go after anything. Essentially – if your community decides that wearing funny hats is obscene – they can go after anyone in a baseball cap.
It is nice to know they're spending money on this rather than, say, an actual pedophile, isn't it?
I think that this is ridiculous. He hasn't hurt anyone, so why is he taken away… it's so creepy to think that someone is watching what you order & is tracking you down like the way that they tracked him. Mangas aren't something people should be charged with… even if there are nudity & whatnot in it. Come on! Playboy & a whole bunch of porn is a thousand times worse!