I was merely correcting your mistatement about what the jury “has to” do.

A mistake was made. But the prosecution’s overzealousness is a much larger mistake, one more dangerous to society.

If they try to base their defense on jury nullification, they put any subsequent appeals at risk. Considering that Lee has already has a past conviction of selling pornography, prison time looks to be a real possibility.

The power of jury nullification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification) says otherwise, even if judges say otherwise.

“It is not only his right but also his duty… to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” ~John Adams

“It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision… you [juries] have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy” ~John Jay (1st U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice)

http://www.cbldf.org/pr/archives/000248.shtml

Do you have a source for those statements of Gordon? I’d like to see them.

I have no doubt you are right. And no he doesn’t deserve jail time, however to frame this as a First Amendment case or to say that “People, this is about all of us.” is wrong. It’s about a retailer who didn’t do what he should have, read or at least look thru EVERYTHING he was giving away to children.

This was an accident and really, I strongly doubt any physical or psychological damage was done to the child. Gordon doesn’t deserve jail time for this and it’s a good thing CBLDF has taken on this case.

I detect no regret or remorse coming from Lee over giving this book to a kid. He insists that the book is not obscene or harmful to a minor. Though I don’t know if it’s obscene, I have no doubt that this material is not suitable for children. I disagree with Lee when he states that it is similar to the beautiful paintings of the Sistine Chapel.

Has he ever seen the Sistine Chapel?

The book Lee gave the kid shows both female and male full frontal nudity. There is a reference to masturbation. In one panel, it appears that Pablo Picasso’s penis is erect. There seems to be a difference of opinion whether the penis is erect or not. I would argue that if it must be debated if a penis is erect or not, the book is not suitable for a child.

Compounding the problem is that Lee was convicted of selling pornography in 1993.

I honestly don’t understand just how his lawyers expect to defend his innocence in this case. The jury won’t be deciding if the law is valid or not, they will simply be decided if Lee broke that law. The jury has to consider only the facts of the case. Arguing the merits of the law in question is something that can be brought up in the appeals, not the actual criminal case in front of the jury.

He sure did and that mistake was in our current climate, not making damn sure he knew what he or his employees were handing out to childern.

I didn’t realize it would the second post.

On CBLDF.org site, you can catch up on the many and various court decisions involved in this case. It’s interesting reading, with several points were different charges were filed, refuted, amended, and so on. In any case, the courts isn’t gonna “just throw this out” without at least some advocate to argue why the court should, and that’s what the CBLDF is providing.

http://kadymae.livejournal.com/406885.html

If I get 40 emails (kadymae at operamail.com or kadymae at sequentialtart dot com) with proof of a minimum donation of $25 to the CBLDF, I will personally hand Charles Brownstein a cheque for $1000 at San Diego.

(Feel free to repost the link to my LJ and this offer — except at The Engine. My post there about this offer was promptly deleted.)

You can check her LiveJournal for further details.

I have not seen the book involved, but I recall it being described as a drawing of the nude Picasso, not with an erection. I don’t see how that can be any different than the scene is the recent Spider-Man: Reign.

After the fiasco with the Duke lacrosse players, aren’t you even a tiny bit able to see that there MIGHT be a problem with the prosecutor’s case?

The Salon” (St. Martin’s, $19.95) by Nick Bertozzi is an imaginative graphic novel set in Paris in 1907, in which Braque, Picasso, Gauguin and other luminaries of the art world try to solve a mystery involving a blue absinthe that lets its drinkers enter the worlds of paintings and a murderer who targets artists.

It really sounds like to me that this was just a slip up, so won’t the courts just throw this out? How does that work?

I didn’t realize it would the first post.

No this about a retailer who didn’t have the sense enough to make sure he read what he was handing out to minors.