But in a court of law, 99% of time, intent is irrelevant. He broke the law. Or would someone killed by a drunk driver in an accident be a "mistake", because the driver didn't mean to kill someone? That's a mistake too, I'm sure. I agree that the lawsuit is over the top. 100% in agreement about that. I do however think that, while in a lot of cases, the CBDF is doing good work, this is an open and shut case. The guy messed up, and has to deal with it.
I find it incredibly hard to beleive the kid was trying to obtain a book about Picasso for fucks sake, engage brain = fail.
It was a bunch of books left over from free comic book day, and this one happened to be amongst them. I really don;t see the issue here. I was reading Mike Grells Green Arrow run when I was this kids age, and it didn't cause any deep emotional scarring. And Grell's Green Arrow run had far more blatantly sexual content than this.
Comparing drunk driving to giving a comic to a minor, obscene or not, is weak logic. One results in death, the other results in...well, opinions may differ on the result, but suggesting the consequences are comparable to a loss of life isn't a very defensible position.
I never compared the results, I was comparing the logic that because just it's a mistake means there's no punishment warranted. If you don't like the drunk driving, then how about speeding? It's a harmless crime. You're not paying attention, and you're doing 75 in a 60 and get pulled over. Are you guilty of speeding? or do you get a free pass because it was a mistake?
The difference here is that his livelihood is at risk. and that raises the stakes and the required scrutiny. If they had slapped him with a misdemeanor and a fine, I'd have disagreed with it, but it wouldn't have been a big deal (and just to disclose, I have donated to his fund--he's a fellow Georgian and I wanted to support him, and I don't want this case affecting the way I can buy comics here). In the speeding example, if the limit had changed and you hadn't seen it ('cause, say a tractor-trailer was passing you), and you can make a reasonable argument to that effect, then no, the cop shouldn't give you a ticket. Just like if you gave a comic away without being aware that there was objectionable material in it. Also, in your original post, you said that intent was usually irrelevant. That's not true. Mens rea is a very important factor in assessing both the nature of the charge and the guilt of the accused party. I think what you meant to say was that awareness of the law isn't relevant--that is, ignorance is no excuse. But if a person gets drunk and say, intentionally rams a car that cut them off, the charge would be different from a person getting drunk and say, accidentally going down a one-way resulting in an accident. Now, I'm not a lawyer. But it seems to me that in this case, accusing him of distributing certain materials to a minor isn't appropriate, because in his mind, he wasn't. He was giving him a regular ol' comic, and that factors into mens rea. And that should make a legal difference--at the very least, a lesser charge would be warranted.
To Spider: No, you're focusing on the possible outcome, the issue is intent. The logic stands when you look at what was said. The implication I referred to was that since it was a mistake, it shouldn't be punished. THAT is bad logic. My example is, as worst, an (arguably) poor example. MY logic is fine. Intent does not affect guilt in a court of law, only the potential sentance (assumign the charges are appropriate, intent can and does effect charges). As a proprieter, he should be, and is responsible, to a point at least, for the product he sells. If he didn't know what was in the comic, he shouldn't have been giving it away in his store. If he did know, he should have been more careful. Yes, I agree that he's being overcharged, but I still think he's guilty of it. Obviously I'm in the minority here and won't beat the horse anymore.
I could understand the parents being upset, and even filing charges. The comic clearly wasn't appropriate and shouldn't have been given to a kid. Having said that, the actual charges filed are simply ludicrous. This is a small-fine mistake, not a multiple-felony mistake. The other cases mentioned in the linked article are just downright revolting. A retailer convicted of selling adult comics to an adult because comics are a kid's medium? An artist being restricted from drawing material for his own personal use within his own home? I could imagine a very few extreme scenarios where the latter might possibly be excusable, but the former is just abominable.
