An overturned obscenity lawsuit filed against Maia Kobabe's critically acclaimed Gender Queer graphic novel memoir officially stands as the deadline to file an appear has now passed. The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund (CBLDF) posted an update regarding the situation onto its Twitter account on Oct. 4. "It's officially over: the Virginia Beach court ruling that found the statute used against Gender Queer to be unconstituational wasn't appealed by the deadline, so the judgment stands," the post reads. "Thanks again to you all for supporting our work defending the book in this important case!"RELATED: Gender Queer Is a Grand Memoir About An Artist's Discovery Of Eir True Self

The History of the Gender Queer Court Case

Earlier this year, Virginia State Delegate Tim Anderson and his client, Tommy Altman, filed lawsuits against Kobabe and Oni-Lion Forge over a Virginia law that went into effect at the beginning of 2022. The law allows citizens to have books deemed "obscene" and banned from sale within the state. If a book is deemed obscene, courts can still rule whether the book is obscene for certain age groups. Citing the same law, the pair also sued Barnes & Noble for selling Gender Queer to minors.

Anderson and Altman's case cited a portion of the law stating, "Whenever he has reasonable cause to believe that any person is engaged in the sale or commercial distribution of any obscene book, any citizen or the attorney for the Commonwealth of any county or city, or city attorney, in which the sale or commercial distribution of such book occurs may institute a proceeding in the circuit court in said city or county for adjudication of the obscenity of the book."

RELATED: What the Banning of Maus and V for Vendetta Tell Us About Comic Book Censorship

Oni-Forge disputed the claims, noting, "The Petition fails to allege any of the grounds required under Code §18.2- 384. Considered as a whole, and further considered in the context of other literary works, Gender Queer, A Memoir cannot, as a matter of law, be deemed obscene in accordance with free speech principles and pursuant to any clear standards. Petitioner, identifies seven pages of a 240-page book, ignores the context of those selections contained in the book, and asserts that the book is obscene. 9. Petitioner’s conclusory assertions are unfounded when considering the entirety of the work. The petition in this matter grossly mischaracterizes the nature of the subject literary work, and all of the opinions stated in the petition are both irrelevant and contradicted by the content of the book taken as a whole and put into proper context. This can be determined 2 from the pleading itself which states that it includes a copy of the book as Exhibit A."

On Aug. 30, Judge Pamela Baskervill threw out the case, noting the unconstiuntional nature of the law Anderson and Altman's case relied on. "It is not the court’s place to legislate," Baskervill said of the situation. She further noted the law not only violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, but also the Constitution of Virginia.

Source: Twitter