PARENTS = PROSECUTORS UNDER PROPOSED NEW BILL

[MattBrady]

Another bill aimed at protecting minors, but going about it with the finesse of an atom bomb is in the works. With this one, parents would become federal prosecutors. No, really.

The bill, introduced by California Congressman Duncan Hunter (R) is in the House of Representatives, and is called the “Parents’ Empowerment Act,” and would allow the parents of any minor to sue anyone who disseminates any material with material that is “harmful to minors.”

The bill has popped up on the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund’s radar, and the CBLDF has issued a release. The Fund’s release reads:

On April 28, California Congressman Duncan Hunter (R) introduced legislation that could "turn parents into prosecuting attorneys fighting a wave of obscenity," the representative told Family.org.

H.B. 4239, also called the "Parents' Empowerment Act," would allow the parent or guardian of a minor to sue in federal court anyone who knowingly disseminates any media containing "material that is harmful to minors" if the material is distributed in a way that "a reasonable person can expect a substantial number of minors to be exposed to the material and the minor, as a result to exposure to the material, is likely to suffer personal or emotional injury or injury to mental or moral welfare." The bill has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee.

The bill allows compensatory damages starting at no less than $10,000 for any instance in which a minor is exposed to "harmful to minors" entertainment products. The bill also allows that punitive damages and reasonable fees may be awarded to the prevailing party at the discretion of the court. The bill also seeks to strengthen the current test courts utilize in determining what is obscene material by providing a separate definition of obscenity specifically for children. It is an affirmative defense to action under this bill if a parent or guardian of the minor owned the material

The bill is in its earliest stage, but if it passes, it will seriously threaten retailers, distributors, and publishers. Family.org talked to Hunter who said, "If the people who published (the material), published it in such a way that they could reasonably have expected children to access it, then the parents can receive an award of $10,000."

"This bill is troubling on several levels," explains CBLDF Director Charles Brownstein. "It appears to allow for civil actions against any, or every, member of the dissemination food chain, from the retailer to the distributor to the publisher, of work that an
individual parent may object to. So any citizen, using their own sense of what is obscene or harmful to minors, can bring suit. Considering that comics still suffer the cultural and legal stigma of being perceived as a juvenile medium, this bill could become a dangerous weapon in the hands of an individual who walks into a comic book store and is shocked to find that comics offer much more than Archie and Superman."

Hunter's bill enjoys the support of several religious, family, and conservative legal groups including the Christian Coalition, the American Center for Law and Justice and the World Family Policy Center at Brigham Young University. Working closely with Media Coalition, the CBLDF will continue to monitor the progress of this bill.

[Moonbeam]

MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA -- I FEEEEEEEL the power. 'Bout time us parents were given a real title.

Nah ... seriously, this sounds insane. I doubt it will become law -- but it might be worth a little communication with my house rep, eh?

[Bricktop]

Yikes! What a disturbing idea, that anyone who gets offended by something could file a law suit in federal court. I don't see this as a bill that stands a chance, but stranger things have happened. Hellboy's evil because is promotes satainism.... Harry Potter is evil because it promotes witchcraft.... lets take them to court! What a mess this could turn into.

[cncoyle]

What tha frick?! Ray Bradbury's laughing his ass off along with the ghost of George Orwell right now. Where is this country going? I'm a conservative Christian guy, but this sounds like bollocks to me. How about parents try using positive methods to censor what their children see and do--something like, oh, I don't know, actually be involved with their lives? Nah, that's too crazy. Let's let them sue instead because the legal system isn't crowded at all.

[Prof OddPassion]

Well, I doubt this thing will pass, other recent efforts at this kind of idiocy have failed so I don't see why this will mysteriously pass. Still, I'd appreciate it if all you Yanks could write into your government representatives about this issue. What affects you affects all us non-Americans as well.

[perk9600]

Yeah, this isn't good.

[pmpknface]

God.......

this makes me sick.

[Riliss]

Absolutely asinine.

[Brian Denham]

This Congressman is My Congressman here in San Diego.

I'm certainly going to write and tell him how unhappy I am with this bill. I am a registered Republican here and will not be voting for him when the time comes.

Anyone else have any ideas?

This hits pretty close to home and especially in the city where the biggest comic convention in the country happens.

[Victoronehalf]

AHHH! AHHH! AHHH!

I wonder if they could get any pscyhological backing for this "personal or emotional injury or injury to mental or moral welfare". Are these the same people who saw bright purple lightning burn to the back of their skulls when they saw Janet Jackson's nipple?

[The Warped One]

This may sound unpopular, but who ever introduces or supports a bill like this is Un-American.
That's right, I said it.

I'm an American, and being an American means believing in the right to freedom of speech, and freedom of the press.

Land of the free,
not home of the "afraid to print a comic book because they'll get their ass sued by some schmuck who thinks he knows what other people want".

Any and all laws that restrict what an individual can say or print is bullshit.

If you don't like a comic: Don't buy it.
If you don't like a CD: Throw it out.
If you don't like what's on TV: Turn it off...

What a novel idea!

I am personally so sick and tired of these fucking moral absolutists who think they know what's good for the rest of us.
They should mind their own kids and leave the rest of us alone.

I mean what year is this? 1066?

Fuck that. Something like this better not pass. I just joined the CBLDF, and you should too...

[MichaelCoughlin]

Originally posted by MattBrady
Hunter's bill enjoys the support of several religious, family, and conservative legal groups including the Christian Coalition, the American Center for Law and Justice and the World Family Policy Center at Brigham Young University. Working closely with Media Coalition, the CBLDF will continue to monitor the progress of this bill.

Why are groups which are conservative, and I take no exception to that label, they are in fact conservative, labled as such, but the CBLDF and Media Coalition are not labled as a liberal groups?

The CBLDF has aligned itself with the ACLU in the past, a group which many (not all, but many) would label as liberal. The Media Coalition, on its website, aligns itself with not only the ACLU, but GLAAD, People for the American Way, Feminist for Free Expression, and other liberal organizations.

There is nothing wrong with being a left leaning organization, but there is something wrong with not letting people know where these groups stand. Currently, it looks as if the CBLDF is the "moderate, in the middle voice" (after all, if it was ideological in any way, it would have a label, right?) and those who support this bill are conservatives.

If you label one group conservative, and again there's nothing wrong with that as they clearly are conservative groups, while the other groups, which appear to be liberal, are not labled, that's unfair and misleading.

[MattBrady]

Originally posted by Prof OddPassion
Well, I doubt this thing will pass, other recent efforts at this kind of idiocy have failed so I don't see why this will mysteriously pass.

Passing and becoming law is only half the power these types of thigns have. For candidates seeking re-election, which Hunter coincidentally is, inserting a phrase along the lines of "...which is why I have introduced a bill to the House which will give the power back to parents to sue those who would deliberately harm our children!" means that he'll get votes and stay in power.

As has been pointed out before, bills like this that kind of...pander without really pandering...for lack of a better term, crop up like weeds during election years, and are often written/proposed by incumbents (yeah, we're going to Mars...) to "prove" to their voting base that they're doing their job, and hearing their concerns. Everyone jumps to do a good job when they see their jobs potentially threatened by the voting public.

MattB

[MattBrady]

Originally posted by MichaelCoughlin
Why are groups which are conservative, and I take no exception to that label, they are in fact conservative, labled as such, but the CBLDF and Media Coalition are not labled as a liberal groups?

Probably because, more often than not, "conservative" groups call themselves that, as do conservative candidates and politicians, while "liberal" or those seen as liberal don't label themselves as such.

By doing so, IMO, they've given the power of the word away, allowing conservatives to attach any meaning they desire on it, and they've done so. Ask a conservative what a "liberal" stands for, and get ready to get the pitchforks and torches. It's similiar, and probably a bad analogy, to the homosexual community losing the word "queer," although the gays have reclaimed that word and the power associated with it, and it's no longer an insult, and doesn't carry the same connotations, culturally.

Back to politics, and losing their own word, the word "liberal" now has a connotation that "liberals" are trying to get away from by moving towards the term "progressive" and others because the term is cultural poison among a large group of voters. But the trap's set, if they try to embrace a new term, the conservative machine points them out as trying to "escape" the term liberal, to which they (the conservatives) have assigned meaning.

But, by suggesting that anyone who opposes a measure sponsored by conservative politicians is therefore, automatically "liberal" falls right into the hole of "us vs. them" thinking, which further entrenches everyone onto sides, rather than seeing the spectrum of ideas as that - a continuum.

I mean, we all know where this arguement goes - I'm sure Hunter will use it in his campaign for re-election if his opponent opposes this bill: "He opposes the Parental Empowerment Bill - that means he wants children to see pornography!"

Just meandering...

MattB

...and always wondering, why people only view the ACLU in the light that conservatives tell them to view it in...not the one where they've stood against racism, protecting students from unreasonable searches at school, stood behind a Valedictorian who wanted to put a religious message in her yearbook, siding WITH Jerry Falwell, opposed government survielance of peaceful protestors, and backed those who've been threatened because they spoke out against the government. Weird.

[AlexLothos]

This is really wrong on so many levels. I echo everyone else in the thread who said that in America we have the freedom of speech (and print). As a parent it's your job to monitor what your children see/hear. Don't spoil things for everyone else.

Not to mention the people who are just greedy and sue happy types just ready for the next "golden ticket".

I'd like to think positive that something this crazy couldn't pass, but in this country in the past year or two, I'm unsure. The main thing that comes to mind is going overboard about Janet Jackson't breast. Then taking off Howard Stern for playing parts of the Oprah show that was already aired. I just don't know anymore. I'm proud to be an American, but at times I really think as a comic publisher I'd be better suited living in Europe or Japan.

[Volunteer]

This would effectively reduce society to the least common denominator. I would argue that everything is offensive to someone. If the criteria for litigation is that it is offensive or harmful in the eyes of one person that is dangerous.

Imagine
- Law and Order showed what looked like a dead person. It's on at 9PM. 0.01% of American kids saw the show which is 10000 kids. Let's sue.
- SIP discusses lesbian issues. It was bought at a comic store and the purchaser left it on a bus where a kid found it. Let's sue.

And so on. This is so broad it's absurd. The impact this would have on American life is WAY bigger than just comics. If this is passed kiss free speech goodbye because it is gone.

Volunteer

[joebrown]

I wonder exactly what language they hope to use to define child-size obscenity...are they going to draw the line at words like 'geez' just because they may begin to reference profaining the lord's name? and what the hell would they do with things like Houston St.'s giant-size CK billboards of some chick with her hands down a gentleman's pants? and what would this mean for the Bar assoc.?

Man, that's just fvcked...

[aries_insaneus]

its seems all this country wants to do is sue people, its startin to become a real fucking drag. it also seems the religious nuts are trying to kill every that is fun to read, hear or see

[JustADude]

Actually, aren't we already able to sue for these kinds of things? I can technically sue anyone for anything. This really would only encourage people to do something they "technically" have the right to sue for anyways...

(See: Parents of the slain Columbine kids launched HUGE lawsuits against the video game companies that marketed violent video games to Kliebold and his partner.)

Cigarette companies have been sued under the auspices of "marketing to minors" a product that is harmful and ordered to stop.

Which is funny because the Republican/conservative movement has tried to curb the "litigation" mentality with laws limiting the scopes of lawsuits for years.

Here is what I think the effect of this law really is:

A.) You still have to PROVE what you (the plantiff) was done harm by the defendant AND to what amount, which a jury of 12 people may not want to do--then again, they are the same "12" that award BILLIONS of dollars in personal injury lawsuits every year...

Odds are, unless you have TONS of money, you won't be able to afford to sue. Unless attorneys gang up and launch a "class action" lawsuit...but no one would EVER do that.

B.) This is a CIVIL not a CRIMINAL law. Any law similar to this passed as a criminal statute would be thrown out. Civil matters are of a lawsuit of a different nature, therefore not subject to the same laws/precedence as a criminal proceeding.

C.) And Matt is dead on. It is posturing for a future run or an attempt to placate his political base to up his donations. Remember, when a politician retires, his campaign fund can be then used for "whatever" he wants. (John Glenn ran for president in 88 JUST to pay off his massive debts....)

Heck , here in Ohio, the Republicans Tax and Spend like the worst of the so-called "liberals".

And you know what? How is this congressmen's actions (sitting at one end of the political pendulum) any less valid than those at the other end. OR less "american".

To me, anyone who says YOU can't believe that way (whatever way that is) is close-minded and NOT respectful of other people's beliefs whatsoever. I am a moderate. I understand both sides of the argument, but I choose smaller steps to the standing still of the conservatives and the sprinting forward of the liberals. That works for me. Society needs all types. BALANCE is the key to the universe and everything working well. Liberals and Conservatives.

However, sometimes things move one way or the other. 60's and 70's were a HUGE time for the Liberal Movement. 80's and 90's saw a slowing down of the overall LIBERAL mindset of the country. Now, for OH so MANY reasons, the country has decided the liberal movement MAY have gone too far and is trying to pull it back. Most people may have "knee-jerked" their response to the Janet Jackson thing, but they DO have a point. TV in the last 10 to 15 years has gone so much further in pushing the limits than in the prior 50 years combined in entertainment. So people have said "enough". Don't they have a right to voice their opinion?

Or is that only for people who WANT to see Dennis Frantz's ass on TV?

This congressmen is representing the people that elected him. That is HIS job! IF the people don't like it, they will vote him out. IF that is what they think their politicians should do, then that is EXACTLY what he should do.

JUST like the liberals, elected by the people, should do LIBERAL THINGS! (Gay marriage?, Universal Healthcare?) I REALLY don't like people who try to be all things to all people. (Al Gore and Al Gore Light, John Kerry--who I will be voting for, btw, just to get rid of Cheney and his cronies...)

To me, standing for SOMETHING is better than NOT standing for anything in particular. Even IF I disagree COMPLETELY on THIS specific issue. Which in this country, we are strongly encouraged to do!

And no offense, but they wouldn't be "prosecutors", they would be "PLAINTIFFS" or "Complaintants". Prosecutors work as the criminal litigators of the government. No one is a "prosecutor", as it is used in common language today, in CIVIL court.

And yes, I know what the work "prosecutor" means and it could apply to anyone who enforces a law, blah, blah, technicality, blah...YOU know what I meant!

[evilive72]

People are so stupid.

"Hey, that offended me and my kid!! Give me $10,000."

Yeah, that won't be abused.

[Zugernaut]

Why are groups which are conservative, and I take no exception to that label, they are in fact conservative, labled as such, but the CBLDF and Media Coalition are not labled as a liberal groups?

The ACLU has defended Klansmen. They also just defended a high school student who wanted a Bible verse with her picture in the yearbook:

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/religi...y/1263338.html

The ACLU defends a lot of liberal causes, but they are not strictly a liberal group, unless only liberals are concerned with civil liberties.

[punkmonkey]

Originally posted by Volunteer
I would argue that everything is offensive to someone.

And that's the loophole that's going to bring all the lawsuit-happy nuts out of the woodwork!

This is just another litigious-minded excuse for parents to "pass the buck" when their parenting responsibilities are neglected. It's a good idea if there are a whole bunch of retailers out there pushing porno magazines and comics on kids, but I sincerely doubt that's the case. Given the tendency of today's "adults" to sue anyone at the drop of the hat, any law that facilitiates lawsuits and even encourages them with what amounts to a "cash reward" is a bad idea.

Here's an idea of how to take advantage of this law in a way that's sure to cause some folks at the top to think carefully about it: If I'm understanding this correctly , parents could sue TV networks for airing half the shit they air after 8pm. Have a whole bunch of responsible parents get together and sue the networks for airing reality shows like THE BACHELOR and THE SWAN that are degrading to women and extremely psychologically harmful to young impressionable girls. Also for airing asinine sitcoms that promote general stupidity. That'll show 'em!!

[GhettoRebel]

This is why I belive that any elected posisiton should have term limits. You get elected you serve for 8 years max. Doesn't matter if your mayor of small town american or Big US Senator.

This politicians spend more time playing out there political agenda to keep their careers alive that they loose sight that "we, the people" voted for them to act right in our regards.

So we get suggestions to pass laws that are asinine and unwarranted.

They play to the lowest common denominator. YEs some parents feel this is needed so they will vote for this guy.

But Myself, as a parent, I'm sick and fucking tired of Big Brother (who tends to act alot like Mommy these days) telling me how to raise my kids.

I decide what is best for my kids. If I dont think they need seatbelts they dont wear seatbelts. (this an anaolgy....my kids wear seatbelts )

[rant]
I've been known to put my 2 oldest kids on my lap and let them hold the steering wheel while I move the car 10 feet outta the lawn and into the driveway. It's kinda my reward to them for helping bring in the groceries ro cleaning out the car

My dad did it with me. I make the call. I acess the situation before starting the car back up, so I make the judgement call if it is ok or not. But, let a cop see me doing it and I'll have all kinds of shit to deal with. First there is the traffic violation, then comes social services to investigate my child endangerment case. Then the school principal wants to talkl to me cause my son is now having social issues at school cause the social worker fills his head with bullshit.

There are too many politicians taking away the rights of parents to be parents and then they have the nerve to suggest a law that isn't needed as a way of saying: Here ya go, here's some parental duty and you can cash in too!

I can sue MattB for wearing a Superman Shirt after LAbor Day on Sunday.

I can sue my brother for skipping church on Saturday night.

You can sue anyone for any reason anytime. Doesn't mean you'll win and sometimes you'll look stupid in front of the judge but you can do it. Why do we need a law enticing parents to sue buisness. This law makes it out to be the retailers job to act like the parent. I remember my mom got all upset about a Captain America Comic when I was kid because he shoved a shotgun through a Watchdogs chest (Issue 445) I wasn't allowed to read comics for a long time after that. Then I grabbed my balls and showed here hopw 4 pages earlier they had killed his parents and he had gone into roid rage. I had also bought a handful of recent issues and showed her that this was not norm. She eventually let me get back into the game.

The point there is my mom made the judgement call what I could read and what I couldn't.

She didn't get pissed at the comic shop guy for selling me books she said I couldn't read. She bent me over her knee and attack my rear end with a leather belt. I was the one that got punished.
And we need more of that these days. Make your children take responsibility for their actions.

They bring home some questionable material that you dont approve of. 1st time you talk to them about it and explain that they shouldn't be reading it. 2nd time you punish them. 3d time you remove their ability to make said purchase completely. As the parent it is your responsibilty to raise your kids as you see fit and raise them to be upstanding citizens and do the best you can.

Unless you make the effort to let the retailer know that your kids can't buy certain things. And these certain things are being read by other kids in the same age group, how are they responsible for making money. How is the retailer responsible. I can see if he sold them a clearly marked pornographic material. But alot of stuff that would fall under this law will fall into the parents personal perception of good and bad. Plus even if you do let the retailer know that your kids can t buy certain things, would you really expect him to remember you kid outta a face of hundreds or thousands that he deals with on a weekly or even daily basis.

Unless your kid is spending more than 20 bucks a week in his store or the store has a small clientel list, how would you expect them to remember.


Thats just my opinion......I could be wrong......

[/rant]

[MichaelCoughlin]

Originally posted by MattBrady
Probably because, more often than not, "conservative" groups call themselves that, as do conservative candidates and politicians, while "liberal" or those seen as liberal don't label themselves as such.
[snipped, go scroll up to see what Matt wrote. It's all well and good and I don't mean to take anything he says out of context, just trying to keep the thread "shorter".]

...and always wondering, why people only view the ACLU in the light that conservatives tell them to view it in...not the one where they've stood against racism, protecting students from unreasonable searches at school, stood behind a Valedictorian who wanted to put a religious message in her yearbook, siding WITH Jerry Falwell, opposed government survielance of peaceful protestors, and backed those who've been threatened because they spoke out against the government. Weird.

I can undestand much of this, and do freely admit that the ACLU is not STRICTLY in favor of what some would consider "liberal" causes. (though I do think that one can find far more cases where they support "liberals' than those they do not) However, I think that groups like GLAAD would CLEARLY be liberal in nature, and I can't imagine any moderate/non-partisan group aligning themselves with GLAAD. This is not to take away from GLAAD, as I don't think any moderate/non-partisan group would align themselvs with, say, the NRA either.

I don't even mean to say that the CBLDF is wrong in their opposition of this issue. Frankly, I think it's a tad silly, and seems more like an election year ploy, one that a politician clearly knows won't pass, but that helps him with a consituency. I just felt that, particularly in the case of the Media Coalition, they are just as to the left as American Center for Law and Justice is to the right.

[Tom Daylight]

So the short of it is that parents can act irresponsibly and then blame whatever mishaps occur on someone else?