Jesus Castillo jr. v Texas

The 2000 case of Jesus Castillo is the topic of this analysis. The case of Jesus A. Castillo, jr. v Texas arose when Castillo, owner of the store Keith’s Comics, was convicted for misdemeanor for selling sexually explicit comic books. After receiving a complaint from a citizen, an undercover detective from the Dallas Police Department entered the “adult only” section to seek out proof that the complaint of sexually explicit content was warranted. Low and behold, he found a comic book titled “Demon Beast Invasion, The Fallen,” which depicted a nude female on the cover, along with a warning that it was not for people under the age of 18. Even though the explicit material was confined to an “adult only” section of the store where children were not permitted, the court deemed it important to consider the fact that the store was located in “a neighborhood of residences, businesses, and an elementary school.” (see case report by clicking on previous hyperlink). In the final ruling of the case, Castillo was convicted. According to the article “Arts and first amendment” by James McWilliams, “Castillo was sentenced to 180 days in jail, a year of probation and a $4,000 fine, after the prosecutor in the case told the jury, "I don't care what type of evidence or what type of testimony is out there, use your rationality, use your common sense. Comic books … are for kids." Under the assumed standard that comic books are a medium strictly for children, they should be spared sexually-explicit content. This assumption by the court especially bothers me. Is it right for someone to determine what mediums can or cannot be used by certain groups of people?

In reviewing this case, I would completely disagree with the decision issued by the court. I would not have convicted nor proposed future restrictions on Castillo’s speech. At one instance in the ruling rationale, it seems as though the court is relying on the distant standard set in Roth v US. In this 1957 case, the notion of local standards is enacted. The court argues that speech should be considered obscene if the average person finds it appeals to prurient interests and has no social value. In the case of Castillo, it is determined that these comic books are “patently offensive to the average Texan's community standards.” This whole notion of community standards is conflicting for me. How can one person or even one group of people determine the values for an entire community? This, to me violates the United States’ standard of freedom of expression. By establishing a ruling majority value as precedent, all individuals who do not fall within that boundary are silenced.

When looking at the ruling of this case in connection to the more recent precedent set in Miller v California, we realize that something has been left out. In the case of Miller v California, Justice Brennan determined that all sexual speech should be protected, as long as it does not involve a captive audience or children. In the case of Castillo, he had established a clear distinction between the “adult only” section and the rest of his store. In order to find the sexually explicit comic books in the first place, one must be a consenting adult. The undercover detective was not forced to locate, look at or purchase the comic book, but voluntarily did so. I believe that Castillo did all that was required of him to prevent the sexually explicit material from landing in the hands of a child or even of adults who did not wish to be exposed to it.

Another argument proposed in the case is that the comic book in question lacked “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” The notion of judging a work based on artistic value really bothers me. Who’s right is it to judge another’s artistic expression? Generally speaking, there is an audience for every kind of expression imaginable. I strongly disagree with the belief that artistic expression that does not fall within the boundaries of accepted interest should be suppressed. I think that in these kind of cases, this notion of artistic value should be thrown out entirely because it is no one’s right to judge another’s expression for validity.

In reviewing this case and others that deal with issues of obscene speech, I find myself leading towards a harm principle. Although large portions of society may not agree with nor want to expose themselves to obscene material, I do not think that it should be restricted on the basis of communal standards or artistic value. The truth is that sexuality is a huge part of human identity whether we want to acknowledge that fact or not. When we look to our historical roots in Greek and Roman society, we see that sexuality was often celebrated in a more straightforward manner than it is today. Currently, I think the American perspective on sexuality is oppressive to the natural human desire and need to express ourselves. In looking to historical perspectives and even in comparing the societal standards on sex in the United States to other cultures around the world, sex is seen as something shameful and something to keep hidden. This perspective isn’t necessarily wrong, but I think we need to understand that it is not absolute. The state of restrictions on obscenity in the United States at this moment bothers me because it entirely contradicts our advancements in the area of free speech which we hold so highly. Perhaps a harm principle would be more liberating and just. As I learned in our last class, harm has never been proven in a case of obscene speech. This is a standard I would like to investigate further because I think it would be the most just form of restricting obscene speech. If the speech in question is not directly causing harm to someone, then I don’t think it should be restricted. As of right now, the United States restriction of obscene speech stands out like a sore thumb in comparison to its views on freedom of expression and I think it needs to be reviewed and improved to reach those high standards of individual liberty of expression.