PeterDavid.net

I think that if someone doesn't like a particular writer's politics, it's perfectly legitimate for that someone to not only stop reading/buying said particular writer's material, but to also tell the publisher why.

Personally, I've of two minds on the subject. Though generally able to separate work from man (or woman), there are those whose work I will NOT support due to the things they did.

Leni Riefenstahl was one of the greatest filmmakers in the first half of film's lifetime. But while she was alive, you would never have caught me doing anything which might have put money in her pocket or which would in any way have exalted her.
And in a period where filmic giants wlked the earth, Elia Kazan was right up there with the greats. But for his efforts against American freedoms, I would not support the man.

There is also the other side, where the stuff expressed by or in a person's work offends me, and I will not buy it. Johnny Hart is a good example of this, as is Dennis Miller.

(and, of course, it goes without saying that Carrot Top will never get my entertainment dollar.)

But if the Ku Klux Klan were to get a permit to demonstrate in my city, and people were trying to deny them that right, I would have to argue for their rights. Then, too, I would BE at that march, hurling invective upon them.
(It should be pointed out that I also see Klansmen and neo-Nazis as a "Free Play" of sorts; if you preach the eradication of me and mine, I reserve the right to--should you act upon your beliefs rather than just speaking on them--kick the living scheiss out of you with impunity. Not exactly kosher with my liberal cred, but there you are ...)

But no one's art should be censored due to their beliefs, unless it advocates outright riot or violence. The only censors should be the Points of Sales--or the lack thereof. Even THAT is not the final word: Commercial success may escape those who reach artistic success--after all, Van Gogh sold exactly ONE painting in his lifetime--but that by no means means that their voices, dances, brushes, instruments should be silenced.

Don't like it? Don't BUY it--and trust that enough will share your taste to let the market decide.

(A caveat: While lies ["and the lying liars who tell them"?] should not necessarily be censored, they should ever be exposed, and, if slander or libel or incitement be part of them, should be cause for prosecution.)

And he takes a big swing at the point...and misses it! Ohhh! The crowd moans.

It's not a question of legitimacy. It's a question of hypocrisy.

Either you support free expression or you don't. If you don't, then don't. If you do, you do. But don't take retaliatory steps against someone simply because you don't like their opinion and then pretend you're an advocate of free speech. Once you take action to hurt someone simply because you disagree with them, you forfeit any claim to the axiom, "I disagree with all you have to say, but will defend to the death your right to say it."

PAD

Clearly this is the exact same jackass that forced you to turn this board into registration-only. He can't get in here anymore, so he's trying to spread his ignorance and vitriol in other directions. If Voltaire had heard what this cementhead says, he would've only defended his right to say it to the mild wounding.

"Leni Riefenstahl was one of the greatest filmmakers in the first half of film's lifetime. But while she was alive, you would never have caught me doing anything which might have put money in her pocket or which would in any way have exalted her.
And in a period where filmic giants wlked the earth, Elia Kazan was right up there with the greats. But for his efforts against American freedoms, I would not support the man."

Okay, but you DO realize there's a world of difference when discussing someone who made a film exalting a man who killed six million Jews, or a man whose testimony and cooperation destroyed careers and livelihoods, as opposed to someone who just says stuff you disagree with. Right?

The fact that Johnny Hart uses "B.C." to elevate Christianity over Judaism on rare occasions didn't stop me from collecting glasses with his characters on them. As for Dennis Miller, granted, I was turned off by his liberal-bashing and support of Iraq, but you didn't see me writing to his sponsors about it.

Although we ARE on the same page about Carrotop.

PAD

"And he takes a big swing at the point...and misses it! Ohhh! The crowd moans. It's not a question of legitimacy. It's a question of hypocrisy."

I would say the hypocrisy lies with those who believe that someone can say whatever they want without feeling some sort of repercussion.

"I would say the hypocrisy lies with those who believe that someone can say whatever they want without feeling some sort of repercussion."

Well, you can say that, but it's no more on point than your previous comment. I will, however, defend your right to say it, and there will be no repercussions for your saying it.

By the way, before someone else brings it up, I thought the Hollywood backlash against Vanessa Redgrave, just because she supported the Palestinians, was wholly unjust as well. Either the woman is a great actress or she's not. That should be the only thing that matters in hiring her. If anything I was far angrier with her over her molesting of the lyrics of "Where are the Simple Joys of Maidenhood" than I was her political beliefs.

PAD

Peter, nobody exists in a consequence-free environment.

A person who responds to remarks made by an entertainer, regardless of intent of the response, is exercising the very same right that the entertainer exercised. There's no hypocrisy.

"Either you support free expression or you don't. If you don't, then don't. If you do, you do. But don't take retaliatory steps against someone simply because you don't like their opinion and then pretend you're an advocate of free speech."

"Taking retaliatory steps," in this case complaining to a publisher, is an exercise of free expression.

"A person who responds to remarks made by an entertainer, regardless of intent of the response, is exercising the very same right that the entertainer exercised. There's no hypocrisy."

No, he's not, and yes, it is.

"Responding to remarks made" means doing what you're doing: Saying to him, "You think this? Well, I think that." To go to an entertainer's employer and essentially endeavor to cost the entertainer his livelihood is not responding to the remarks. It is attacking the entertainer. It is punitive. It is pathetic. It is unAmerican. And it is not in the spirit of free speech. And for someone to claim they favor free speech while trying to punish those who use it is hypocrisy.

PAD

Peter David: There's a certain type of individual whom I refer to as a FAB--a First Amendment But-head (FABhead). This person can always be spotted by speaking a variation on the following sentence: "I completely support the First Amendment but..." There's always a but, at which point all the words that come after the but undercut everything that comes before.
Luigi Novi: Kinda reminds me of when Whoopi Goldberg, in one of her standup routines, mentioned some people who start a sentence with, "Now, I don't wanna seem like a racist or anything...."

As for patronizing the works of people you don't like, I see nothing wrong with choosing not to. Patronization of works is entirely voluntary, and since it is driven by the whimsical and prejudicial aspects of the psyche like taste, emotion, impression, etc., you cannot apply concepts of "right" or "wrong" to it. You want to patronize the work of a dickhead? Hey, have a party. You choose not too? Same thing. No right or wrong about it. It is no less "wrong" to do so than to choose to abstain from a particular genre of movie, music, or theater because of the impression you have from the ads for it that you won't like it. Not very scientific, but not necessarily "wrong."

But Peter, since we're now talking about patronizing the work of artists, I'd like to ask you a question, being that I'm an aspiring illustrator. If these folllowing works of art were to your liking artistically, would you hang them on your wall (if you were the hanging-art-on-the-wall type)?

http://www.williams.edu/WCMA/prelude/images/mtn%20chapel.jpg

http://www.snyderstreasures.net/images/artworks/rottdam.jpg

http://www.snyderstreasures.net/images/artworks/AHGermaniaOALarge.jpg

I'd like to know. I'd like to know everyone else's answers to that question too.

""Taking retaliatory steps," in this case complaining to a publisher, is an exercise of free expression."

Bullshit. The remarks he didn't like weren't under the purview of the publisher. They were things that were said here. So instead of just responding here, or saying, "Oh well, I just won't read his website," he said, "That bastard. I'll get HIM."

That's an unAmerican view of the right to free speech.

PAD

"To go to an entertainer's employer and essentially endeavor to cost the entertainer his livelihood is not responding to the remarks. It is attacking the entertainer. It is punitive. It is pathetic. It is unAmerican. And it is not in the spirit of free speech. And for someone to claim they favor free speech while trying to punish those who use it is hypocrisy."

Peter, it is the very essence of free speech. Free speech isn't always good. The point is we all have the freedom to express ourselves and bear the consequences of doing so. We don't have the right to be heard, but we have the right to express. Speech can be power, used for multiple purposes including positives and negatives. To only allow positives... THAT is un-American. A person who claims they favor free speech while using free speech to affect those who also use it isn't hypocrisy. The hypocrisy lies with those who think they can say something and that others with the same right can't protest it.

"I completely support the First Amendment but..." There's always a but, at which point all the words that come after the but undercut everything that comes before.

Hmm. While I disagree with you that there are no buts to the First Amendment (case in point, I've never agreed with your position that in order to be committed to the FA, you had to tolerate people being abusive on your website for as long as you did), obviously this guy does not have any respect for the FA. You've done nothing more than state your political views, none of which encourage or support harm to anyone, and that is not a good enough reason to try to affect someone's livelihood. It was the same deal with the Dixie Chicks.

PAD:
"Because I can separate the work from the person. Because if their work entertains me, that is absolutely all that matters."

Exactly! I don't buy Dixie Chicks music, but not because of their comments about President Bush, but because their music makes me want to stick sharp objects into my ears. I don't agree with Linda Ronstadt, but that doesn't stop me from putting in the 'Round Midnight CD's. I still love her version of Desperado.

I don't think anyone here is going to change someone's mind about political matters. It's just nice to have a place where a (usually) polite discussion can happen, all while wrapped around the respect we have for PAD's works.

"If these folllowing works of art were to your liking artistically, would you hang them on your wall (if you were the hanging-art-on-the-wall type)?"

Sure I would. And then if someone said, "Wow, that's gorgeous, who painted that?" I would naturally reply, "Adolf Hitler" because, y'know, I'm not an idiot, Luigi, did you think I wouldn't recognize some of those pieces? And the viewer would say, "Oh my God, to think such a monster had such a capability of beauty in his soul," and it could lead to some very interesting discussions.

PAD

This is the dilema of the entertainer. Since their livelihood depends on popularity, they are in the position to potentially kill their own livelihood if they express an unpopular opinion. Elvis new this. Every time he was asked for his opinion on a political issue, he would answer "I'm an entertainer." Now, I'm not saying that entertainers need curb their expressions on certain subjects, but in their case, the natural consequences of expressing themselves politically have a greater effect on them than on someone who works in a factory.

There's a bit of a slippery slope here. One problem is the references to the First Amendment, which is a red herring all around here on both sides.

Here's what the First Amendment says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It says nothing about anyone other than Congress (and by extension with regards to the making and thus enforcement of law by other federal parties, so I'm assuming [probably unwarranted in the mind of John Ashcroft] that the Executive Branch can't issue special orders doing the things forbidden vis a vis law) not being able to restrict freedom of speech. One could very easily be an extremely strong First Amendment supporter vis a vis the government not being able to restrict speech, while also strongly supporting the belief that if someone says something you dislike while they're on your property, you can tell them to get over the property line pronto. And remember, the ACLU in cases like the neo-Nazis marching through Skokie was acting to allow them to assemble on public property, not people's homes and yards.

And I think very few people would argue against the premise that if you disagree with what someone says or their stated views, it's your decision whether you want to support them, either financially, emotionally, or whatever. And there's my old .sig quote about my supporting to the death your right to say something...but I never said I'd have to listen to it.

But there are camps all over the political spectrum that do feel it's reasonable to boycott, both personally and in terms of trying to persuade others to do so as well, individuals or businesses based on their stated beliefs. Offhand, from the traditionally left side, I recall campaigns in the 80s and 90s against Domino's Pizza since it's then (at least two sales of the company ago) primary owner donated a fair amount to anti-abortion causes.

I think my personal take is that I believe it's everyone's choice how far (within the law and without invoking governmental authority) they choose to go in deciding both what beliefs and level of same they can choose to boycott someone on, and how much they can try to influence others to go along with them.

In this particular case, the claim that Peter is an "enemy of America" is absurd (particularly if you assume [which of course, is always dangerous] that Arthur's speech about what makes America great in One Knight Only is representative of why Peter believes such; excellent arguments there Peter). Fortunately, JoeQ also realized such.

"Elvis new this."

Yes, that should have been "knew" not "new."

The first ten ammendments in the Bill of Rights pretty much deal with what the government can't do.

"The hypocrisy lies with those who think they can say something and that others with the same right can't protest it."

He's not protesting it. He's trying to punish me for saying it and--ideally--make it so that I would be afraid to say anything else he doesn't like lest it cost me my livelihood, if it hasn't already. All the while, of course, cloaked in anonymity.

It's a difference you cannot and will not see for reasons that I could easily guess at, but won't.

PAD

"While I disagree with you that there are no buts to the First Amendment (case in point, I've never agreed with your position that in order to be committed to the FA, you had to tolerate people being abusive on your website for as long as you did),"

Well, that was a matter of personal choice. If I'm going to make a mistake when it comes to free expression, I feel honor bound to make it a mistake erring on the side of permissiveness. It may sound pretentious, but I feel compelled to hold myself to as high a standard as possible in that regard.

Tolerance of free speech--true tolerance--is the hardest test of American values there is. Many, in my opinion, fail it...and don't even realize they're doing so.

PAD

"He's not protesting it."

Protesting doesn't just take place at rallies and on the sidewalk.

"Tolerance of free speech--true tolerance--is the hardest test of American values there is."

I'd say tolerance of the consequences of free speech is.

Darin:
"Peter, it is the very essence of free speech. Free speech isn't always good. The point is we all have the freedom to express ourselves and bear the consequences of doing so. We don't have the right to be heard, but we have the right to express. Speech can be power, used for multiple purposes including positives and negatives. To only allow positives... THAT is un-American. A person who claims they favor free speech while using free speech to affect those who also use it isn't hypocrisy. The hypocrisy lies with those who think they can say something and that others with the same right can't protest it."

Wrong. The person that wrote the letter is obviously trying to get PAD in trouble with an employer because of personal beliefs. Not criminal actions, but something as simple as a personal political belief. This wasn't a complaint about a comic book. Then, by all means, send the letter. But not because of something that has NOTHING to do with the job.

Does this person have the "right" to write the letter? Sure, but (there's that word again) it's wrong to try to cause punitive action based on something totally unrelated to the job. If the letter were based on something in one of PAD's Marvel books, then as an employeer Joe Q. could possibly take some action, but I doubt it would happen.

"One could very easily be an extremely strong First Amendment supporter vis a vis the government not being able to restrict speech, while also strongly supporting the belief that if someone says something you dislike while they're on your property, you can tell them to get over the property line pronto."

Well, yeah, but that's not a free speech issue, that's just trespassing. If someone is standing on my property and just staring at me, I'd still tell them to get the hell out of here if I didn't know who they were. I told kids who were using my back yard as a shortcut some years ago to knock it off. They weren't saying anything. They just kept cutting through while my young daughters were outside and I didn't like it. Again, not free speech. Just being a concerned dad.

PAD

"Tolerance of free speech--true tolerance--is the hardest test of American values there is."

"I'd say tolerance of the consequences of free speech is."

I would agree with you if you were right.

PAD

"Wrong. The person that wrote the letter is obviously trying to get PAD in trouble with an employer because of personal beliefs."

What's wrong? Oh, I'm sure he's trying to get a reaction of some sort. It's his right to do so and he's not being hypocryphal (is that a word?) for doing so. The letter was all about why someone was dropping a Marvel title. A loss of revenue has got to be of some interest to Marvel, right?

"I would agree with you if you were right."

Gotta love these little drive-by's of ours ...(including this very one!)

Correct me if I'm wrong:
1) I believe that the U.S. has laws forbidding speech which incites hatred against a particular ethnic group. I know that here in Canada we do, and it extends to the dissemination of hate literature as well, with fairly severe penalties. Witness the Ernst Zundel case.
2) I believe that the Bill Of Rights renders the Patriot Act unconstitutional, and I wonder why someone hasn't made a constitutional challenge to it as of yet.
3) Given that #2 is true, how are we to enact legislation on either side of the border to eradicate the internal fifth column of terrorist sleepers who most likely exist in our midst?

So where do we draw the line and at whose convenience?
What that scumbag did (yes, I know I shouldn't use bad language guys, but call a duck a duck) was dirty. Take solace in the fact that he or she is a coward, and that's the way that cowards act. Same thing with kidnappers in Iraq or terrorists in Israel. You never see the unmasked faces because they've got yellow stripes down their backs a mile wide. Which is why I again go back to my original advocacy of exposing the name and contact info on that person so that everyone could give him or her the what for that was deserved.
But I digress.....

If I had an employee whose opinions were costing me money, I'd want to know about it.

"If I had an employee whose opinions were costing me money, I'd want to know about it."

Well, fortunately Joe Quesada has more class than apparently you, as an employer, would, since he's not going to do a thing about this and sees it for what it is: Retaliation and nothing more.

However, if you ever DO have an employee whom you decide to fire because he expressed liberal opinions on a computer board that you didn't like...enjoy your richly deserved wrongful termination lawsuit.

PAD

Darin:
"If I had an employee whose opinions were costing me money, I'd want to know about it."

If that employee were doing so on the job, I would tend to agree with you. However, this isn't about anything done in a comic book. This is about a personal belief on his own website that has nothing to do with the employer.

For example, if in MadroX, PAD has Guido say "Bush is an idiot", then it can be attributed to the character. No fault, no foul.

But, if in a commentary page at the back of the book PAD says "Bush is an idiot", then it would be someone's prerogative to complain to the publisher that they don't agree and won't buy another book again. At that point, it's up to the publisher to ignore the letter, talk to the writer about it not happening again, or replacing the writer.

"However, if you ever DO have an employee whom you decide to fire because he expressed liberal opinions on a computer board that you didn't like...enjoy your richly deserved wrongful termination lawsuit."

He/she would have to cost the company significant money in doing so first before I'd even think about it.

One person's purchases don't qualify as "significant" in this context, Darin.

As for what you called a "drive-by," well, that was just the consequence of you exercising your free speech, so you have to tolerate it.

I happen to agree with Peter. Though he may have said things that someone may disagree with, and although people have the right to say whatever they wish in response, it is wrong and unAmerican to hurt someone's livelihood because of their opinions. I wish I could say people should not be allowed to do such a thing, but then we're flirting with more free speech nightmares.

I'm remembering an issue of Supergirl about free speech in which there was an uproar when controversial speakers came to a school. Best Steel appearance ever.

Question: I don't mean to start fights or anything, but... (thus, undermining whatever preceded the "but")... What is the difference between attempts to undermine you to your boss and attempts to undermine Bush to the American people? Why is Bush-bashing fair game? What makes Bush-bashing right and PAD-bashing (in the manner of this gentleman) wrong? Both seek to undermine the person to those who keep him in business. Theoretically. Am I making sense?

Luigi asks:

"If these following works of art were to your liking artistically, would you hang them on your wall (if you were the hanging-art-on-the-wall type)?"

Me, I'd hang them in my classroom, since one of the things I always try to drill into their tiny little heads is that they should nurture and use whatever talents God gave them. We could see that Hitler had a (modest) talent for art and wonder if, had he pursued that area fully, if he would have achieved some level of satisfaction with his life and spared the world the horrors of World War 2.

Of course, the next time there was a slow news day in Sanford North Carolina there would be a newspaper headline in the local paper talking about "Bill The Hitler-Loving Science Teacher"

I think that Tyg makes an excellent point. One CAN be for the First Amendment and still be the kind of dick who writes letters to Marvel trying to get people fired. The Amendment isn't about freedom of expression, only about the governments ability to limit speech. I could support the Second Amendment while still calling the cops to come take my drunken neighbor's shotgun away from him.

That said, PAD is right that such actions may be un-American (though one must be very very careful in throwing around that judgment unless one is Theresa Heinz Kerry).

It would be hard, though, to find many people who are pure on this issue. How many folks were equally outraged at the treatment of both the Dixie Chicks AND Dr Laura Shleishenger (sp?)? Linda Ronstadt AND Anita Bryant?

Does it bother anyone else that the DNC is sending letters from Lawyers trying to stop a group of Vietnam Vets from running ads attacking Kerry's war record?

For that matter, how is it consistent with the First Amendment that tobacco companies are not allowed to advertise on TV or at sports events?

(Keep in mind I am in no way endorsing Dr Laura, Anita, tobacco, etc etc. Just asking, is all).

No idea who said it but one of my favorite quotes is "The only thing scarier than what this person is saying is someone trying to take away his right to do so..." or something to that effect.

Peter... I couldn't agree with you more on this binary b&w issue... Either you support the TFA or you don't.. no middle ground.

Rgds,

Rob

"The hypocrisy lies with those who think they can say something and that others with the same right can't protest it."

To put it more suscinctly, there IS a difference between telling someone you believe they are wrong, or posting notes to that effect, and walking up to them and giving them a good, hard punch. What the twit writing to PAD's bosses at the comics company was doing was figuratively the latter.

"2) I believe that the Bill Of Rights renders the Patriot Act unconstitutional, and I wonder why someone hasn't made a constitutional challenge to it as of yet."

Conspiracy types might think it's because people are afraid that ...

1 - they'd lose and then they're really screwed, or
2 - they'd win, but then the administration would change things such as to make it a meaningless victory anyway.

"if he would have achieved some level of satisfaction with his life and spared the world the horrors of World War 2."

I doubt it would have worked out that way.

For one thing, Japan was already dangerously stirring things up in Asia and probably would have caused a major conflict anyway. Failing that, one wonders what Stalin would have done had he not had the Nazis to distract him. Maybe set things up for a worse conflict years later? What a concept for a SLIDERS reunion movie.
"http://www.williams.edu/WCMA/prelude/images/mtn%20chapel.jpg"
... etc

Mr. David, any chance we might catch a glimpse of Dolph's art collection some day? ;-)

I don't see any problem with refusing to give money to a person who's views on anything you disagree with. If the view in question is offensive enough, I don't see anything wrong with letting other people know that you won't support a person, and why. It's my money, and my right to spend it where I please supersedes an artists constitutionally protected right to get paid for expressing their beliefs.

I would call it an act of cowardice not to confront the person "face to face" when they are willing to let you do so on their own message board. Going behind your back to tell on you like some preschooler is not exactly a shining moment in this person's record as an adult, but I wouldn't really call it hypocrisy.

"If you cannot defend what - to you - is unpalatable, then you do not believe in free speech. You only believe in the free speech of those who agree with you."
Salman Rushdie in "Dirty Pictures" (2000)

Well, given his history, this kinda means a thing... or two.

Tim.

Because I can separate the work from the person. Because if their work entertains me, that is absolutely all that matters.

There's the key phrase right there. You can separate them. Others can't, and they exercise their own rights of speech and property to not indirectly fund something they find offensive.

Your name on a book is your way of saying, this is my work, and I'm proud of it, the same is true for your political views. However, by attaching your name to both, you link them so that they have the potential to affect each other. The reason companies put "image" clauses in contracts with a spokesperson is because of that type of linkage.

Everybody seems to be wanting (and arguing for) a simple black-or-white position on something that is very nuanced.

Technically, Peter can write what he pleases where he pleases (and/or it pays) and the anonymous writer of the letter can also write what he pleases to whom he pleases. If you want that blinding shade of white, there you go, both covered by the First Amendment.

However! There's a whole palette of shades of grey here. There's the moral duplicity of the letter writer's refusing to sign their name while Peter's is right out there in front of everyone. If the letter writer wants to stand up and be counted, why not admit to who they are? There's the hypocrisy, and yes, it is sheer hypocrisy to insist that the letter writer supports the First Amendment except when Peter uses it. And there's the ethical slander of stating that while all speech is free, speech that disagrees with the writer is defacto anti-American. This is not a clear-cut issue.

And then the element of professional blackmail opens a whole new paintbox. Peter's right, the only reason to write to an employer is to suggest that said employer should cut loose or reprimand said employee. If the writer of the letter wanted to simply make their feelings known, they could have written a LoC, a bad review, directly to Peter... but no, they went straight to the source and suggested not just a moral, but an economic drawback to continuing to employ him.

Darin says, "If I had an employee whose opinions were costing me money, I'd want to know about it."

Define "costing me money." A little parable:

This issue has also recently shown up on alt.fairs.renaissance, where one fair performer defended his right to harass patrons who show up in unRenaissance costumes. This started the inevitable firestorm and accusations of selfishness between the people who think "if you don't do it right, you're ruining it for everyone" and the people who think "if you paid to get in the door, you have the same right to be treated with the kindness given the historically costumed patrons and Bubba in his T and jeans." The argument finally flickered out with a bunch of people sniffing "well, if that's the way you're going to be, I'll never spend one red cent at YOUR faire!"

It's a free dress issue instead of a free speech issue, but the bottom line for the employer/fair manager remains the same - $$$. And for every person who doesn't buy the comic/go to the fair because they're insulted that it's not in accordance with their political beliefs/historical enough, there is another person who will vote with their wallet the other way. Maryland's Renfair used to be snotty about patrons who weren't in historical costume. Then they discovered that groups like the Klingons didn't straighten up and dress right, they went elsewhere, taking their good money with them - and now you can see Klingons at the fair all the time. For another example, the Dixie Chicks used their free speech in a method that pissed a lot of people off and got them banned from some radio stations - and also drove album sales *up.*

So while a complaint about an employee to an employer is an obvious attempt to hurt that employee, the actual cost of one person's boycott as obvious.

After it looked ok when I posted it, I now noticed that my remark is in the "Who`s your canditate" poll. I have no idea how it migrated there.

I tried to copy and paste it here, nothing worked.

I really love reading this website, but I am getting more and more frustrated using it. It seems, one day, I will stop posting here altogether.

Even though the tactics of the author of the letter are scummy, from a legal stand point he has the right to do it. It is up to the editors and business owners to not fall for this crap. One letter is not a big deal. The problem comes when groups like the American Families Association get people to do this on a large scale. In most cases the people sending the letters never previously purchase the products of the company in question that they are claiming to boycott. To combat this, I would insist that any one sending a letter that claimed that they were boycotting my company’s product must include an original Proof of Purchase with the letter. Otherwise, how do you know that there will be any real loss of business from these people. The owners of the companies should also take into consideration any bump in sales equal to the number of letters just before they receive the letters. Just in case people start buying the product just to protest it.

PAD's site does not fail to let me down yet again.

Much going on here. First off, there are limits to "free" speech. There's a line (which only Supreme Court Justices have been granted to power to see) where speech crosses over from the individual's right to make it, and imfringes on someone else's right, and the OTHER right trumps the right to free speech. The refered to and misquoted allowing someone to shour "FIRE!" in a crowded theater when no fire exists, while an expression of free speech, puts too many people in risk of losing Life (or Limbs) in the panic that is likely to result that we limit the individual's right to free speech in order to preserve the group's right to protection of life.

All that aside, many of the comments supporting the author of the letter's comments as free speech miss the point. It's not the fact that the comments were made, it's the fact that they were prefaced with the "I'm all for free speech" statement. It IS hypocritical to say you support free speech, but then take economic action against someone who says something politically that you disagree with. Because, otherwise, what's the point of free speech, if it doesn't mean that you can safely say anything (within reason, see above) and not fear the economic or political backlash for expressing an opinion that others might disagree with.

The Constitutional right of free speech was included to prevent the imprisonments and fines England imposed against those who spoke out against the king. Our government wanted the free expression of ideas to be nurtered. We don't have private protections against free speech, because to do so would in fact be a constraint on free speech. But the IDEA should be embraced a core value of our country. Personnaly, I find organized boycotts to be counter to that core value, since they are nothing more than an economic censure on a certain idea or ideology. They attempt to do what the government cannot: erase a political opinion through economic force. And ANY time a voice is silenced, it's a failure of our coutry's ideals, because that silence is one of the main reasons why we broke away from our legal and legitimate leaders of the past.

Everyone who thinks along the lines of "there are consequences of free speech" really needs to look hard at that statement.

I'll start by breaking down the word "free." Webster's has a whole slew of uses for free, among them "a : relieved from or lacking something unpleasant or burdensome b : not bound, confined, or detained by force...not costing or charging anything."

Based on that, if you feel that exercising your right of free speech has consequences, maybe we should start calling it something else?

"1) I believe that the U.S. has laws forbidding speech which incites hatred against a particular ethnic group. I know that here in Canada we do, and it extends to the dissemination of hate literature as well, with fairly severe penalties. Witness the Ernst Zundel case."

Ok, I just had to comment on this one. In America, people do have the right to say things that incites hatred agains a particular ethnic group. I have the right to say that Purple People are evil and if something is not done about all the purple people who are in positions of power and migrating to this county, this country is going down the tubes and it is really to bad the US doesn't do to Purple People Land what they did to Hiroshima. What I don't have a right to do is say, hey everybody! Go out, take a shot gun and kill every single purple person you know. Becuase if somebody actually acted on that, I could be arrested for inciting violence.
(I could be wrong, but that is my understanding of the law. When it comes to free speech, you have to take the good with the bad.)

While what PAD is describing above is a bit of a gray area. The person has the right not to buy PAD's books. And if enough people do that, then PAD and they stop making money, then PAD would be fired. The person also has the right to tell people why he isn't buying PAD's books.

This person, however, is trying to skip a few steps. First, he is trying to use intimidation tactics to get PAD to shut up on his personal website. He is saying, "If you don't stop giving your personal opinions, I am going to your boss and trying to get you fired." People should be able to express their personal opinions outside of work without fear of losing your job.

But they skipped past the part of trying to boycott things and tried intimidation tactics to get him fired.

Of course, talking about what is morally right and constitutionally right is two different things.

And on a different topic, I always loved this quote by Teddy Rosevelt: "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

Nea Posted: "It's a free dress issue instead of a free speech issue, but the bottom line for the employer/fair manager remains the same - $$$. And for every person who doesn't buy the comic/go to the fair because they're insulted that it's not in accordance with their political beliefs/historical enough, there is another person who will vote with their wallet the other way."

There is a difference between what happened at the fair and what happened with PAD. PAD was not making his comments in the Marvel Books or in any capacity where he would be directly representing Marvel Comics. He made comments (the author never even said what specific comments) on his personal web sight. Not only that, he is being attacked for making comments that are not even comic book related. For the Fair analogy to be correct, PAD would have been harassing his readers for not reading the books in the proper manner.

The Constitutional right of free speech was included to prevent the imprisonments and fines England imposed against those who spoke out against the king. Our government wanted the free expression of ideas to be nurtered. We don't have private protections against free speech, because to do so would in fact be a constraint on free speech. But the IDEA should be embraced a core value of our country. Personnaly, I find organized boycotts to be counter to that core value, since they are nothing more than an economic censure on a certain idea or ideology. They attempt to do what the government cannot: erase a political opinion through economic force. And ANY time a voice is silenced, it's a failure of our coutry's ideals, because that silence is one of the main reasons why we broke away from our legal and legitimate leaders of the past.

Everyone who thinks along the lines of "there are consequences of free speech" really needs to look hard at that statement.

You answered your own question in your point. The government cannot attempt to restrain speech, but individuals cannot be prevented from doing so because that imposes on their rights. As a result, if I am offended by your statements and choose not to shop at your store anymore, then we have both exercised our rights. No government intervention required, and in fact it would be wrong to force me to continue to shop somewhere.

It is generally accepted that with freedom a person must accept responsibility for their own actions. However, another way of saying that is that with freedom, one must accept the consequences on one's actions. To say are freedom should have no consequences for ourselves is absurd.

Damn, I hate that the preview still isn't quite right. The italicized quote should have gone on for another sentence/paragraph.

I agree with M. David on this issue.

The fact is, this person does have the right to boycott Mr. David's work. That's not all that uncommon. He also has the right to notify Mr. David's publishers of his decision.

I do feel, however, that the first is a silly choice to make (especially in light of his comments regarding the quality of Mr. David's work.)

The second, I feel is cowardly. It is a deliberate attempt to silence a dissenting opinion through coercing a third party to do something about it. To me, this smacks of someone who doesn't believe they can support their own beliefs. Therefore, rather than lose the argument, they try to get their opponant shut down.

Those that have mentioned that this is not a direct First Amendment issue, are correct by the letter of the law. The rub, to me, is that it does violate the spirit of freedom of speech.

Wow. Quite the explosive thread.

For what it's worth, I think the only real place I'm disagreeing with PAD is the "separate the person from the work" point. I often have great difficulty doing exactly that, and don't necessarily feel it's inappropriate for me to make a personal judgement linking them.

I also wonder: there was a semi-organized boycott of DC's Trek comic for a little while in '90-91 shortly after Richard Arnold forced PAD off the book. That could be different, as one could claim RA's interference led to the comics and novels being less enjoyable than they'd previously been ... but it's still a boycott of sorts that's not based on the work itself. PAD, any thoughts on that one?

All of that said -- the letter-writer in question here is a twit and a coward. I completely agree that the way to respond to free speech is with more free speech. If this clown had seriously felt you were a problem, he/she/it can speak out publicly on that score. Talk to friends. Post to Usenet. Start up another blog. Etc. etc. But an anonymous hit-piece to an employer is way out of line, and kudos to Joe for taking it exactly as seriously as was deserved.

(A few years ago, a parent of one of my students called the ninth grade dean to complain that I was "far and away the hardest" of the conceptual physics teachers, and that her daughter was suffering at my hands (metaphorically!). She closed with "oh, but don't tell Mr. Lynch I called." Said dean was in my office within the hour, saying "by the way, you ought to know this happened, and here's how I responded." Now that's professionalism.)

TWL

I remember when I discovered the owner of Domino's pizza was a pro-lifer and gave lots of money to pro-life causes. I stopped eating there. I didn't want my money going there.

I have stopped giving my money to the United Way because they support the Boy Scouts, which in turn promote bigotry and hatred.

I don't shop at Sam's or Walmart due to the way they treat their workers.

Am I against the First Amendment for doing so, or am I doing my own speaking, by boycotting these establishments?

I can certainly see someone look at your political posts, decide you are clearly spending the money you earn to support causes they don't appreciate, and decide they don't want their money going in that direction.

Boycotting one's work due to their political veiwpoints is as much of an expression of the First Amendment as your blog.

What I consider hypocritical are those who say they dislike Barbra Streisand and the Dixie Chicks -- not because of their politics -- but because they choose to express their politics when they should just be entertaining. But these same people have no problem with Charlton Heston. So yes, their problem is with the actual politics, they just refuse to admit it.

They have every right not to buy Streisand and Dixie Chicks CDs. Or buy your books. And beyond their right, I would argue their actions are justified as a means of expression in and of themselves. However, I do feel it is morally unacceptable to burn/destroy CDs and/or books of authors/artists you dislike. The destruction of art in any form is detestable.

Rest assured that for every person who decides not to buy your books because of your political opinions, there's another person encouraged to buy even more of your stuff -- wondering if - hoping - some of those political opinions might creep into your work. And the vast majority don't care, and are only interested in whether or not you spin a good yarn.

(Unfortunately, it is human nature to speak loudest when you're complaining. You would probably appreciate those of us who are changing our purchasing habits in a more positive direction writing to Queseda and letting him know...)

"Boycotting one's work due to their political veiwpoints is as much of an expression of the First Amendment as your blog."

Actually, it's not. It's an expression of your freedom to spend or not spend your money as you desire (outside of taxes). Making a written or verbal statement that you disagree with someone's political viewpoints is an expression of the concept of free speech. Boycotting a person's work is a total violation of the concept of free speech. So is the idea that our exercise of free speech carries consequences. If it carries consequences, or in other words, has a negative "cost", then it's not "free."

Think about this: the entertainment industry is perhaps the most visible example of an individual's personal beliefs impacting on their ability to work. Do any of us not in the Biz run the risk of losing our jobs, or being forced to take a pay cut, move, etc., depending on who we vote for in the coming election? If we were to face those consequences, would we think that fair? If employers were free to fire you for a political statement, would that have a positive or negative impact on the cultivation and expression of ideas?

These are the ideals the Freedom of Speech embraces, and that boycotts against political statements made by companies/entertainers/artists, etc., violates.

"I also wonder: there was a semi-organized boycott of DC's Trek comic for a little while in '90-91 shortly after Richard Arnold forced PAD off the book. That could be different, as one could claim RA's interference led to the comics and novels being less enjoyable than they'd previously been ... but it's still a boycott of sorts that's not based on the work itself. PAD, any thoughts on that one?"

But this is a different situation. PAD is saying that is wrong to write to Marvel about comments that were made on his personal website. If PAD made these comments in a Marvel comic, then the person would be on better moral standing to write to Joe Quesada and complain. However, these are comments that Peter David made in his own forum on his own time. And people are saying that political comments made outside of work should not effect you work environment.

The Star Trek thing (although I am not sure if I approve of that boycott either) was about comics and the work place, so it was directed at the comic book company and PAD's work place.

Just a question:
Could this have been The Shrouded One?

And besides that, I agree 100% with PAD on freedom of speech.

Travis

"One person's purchases don't qualify as "significant" in this context, Darin. "

I didn't say it was. First, I said that if an employee's remarks were costing me (i.e. the company) money, I'd want to know about it. Then Peter jumped to the an "if you ever DO have an employee whom you decide to fire because he expressed liberal opinions on a computer board that you didn't like...enjoy your richly deserved wrongful termination lawsuit." To which I said that I wouldn't even think of firing anybody unless they cost the company significant money. No where did I equate a significant financial loss and this guy dropping Peter's book. But I did say that I'd want to KNOW if a regular consumer decided to drop the title.

"As for what you called a "drive-by," well, that was just the consequence of you exercising your free speech, so you have to tolerate it."

Did I not say that I in fact LOVED the drive-bys?

I'm inclined to agree that it may very well be the goof who recently revealed his idiocy on this board. He claims to be a fan, although I suspect he found this place via net search and claimed his "being a fan" to make himself more legitimate to anyone reading. That would explain his lack of response to any thread regrading PAD's work, his generic letter to Quesada, as well as his inability to find the Fallen Angel mailing address.

A nobody attempting to have any effect on the world that he can. Since he can't do it in logical debate or conversation, since he no longer elicited any reaction from this board, since he was banned..... well, makes sense that he'd do this. Funny though... even in his letter, his logic entails apples and oranges.... "I hate McDonalds, so I'm not going to eat at Burger King."

Fred

Darrin was known to post on the Byrne board under the female alias "Kim Reagan" until he was exposed. This is how he exercises first amendment rights. I'm sure he won't have a problem with me exercising mine. Any regular Byrne board follower can confirm this, by the way--

I wonder how many people know, or work to learn, the politics of the writers/musicians/artists/actors that they enjoy. I don't know the political leanings of Tom Waits, or Neil Gaiman, or Bruce Campbell -- but I enjoy their works, and will continue to do so (unless they start supporting Nazis or slaughtering millions).

What's amazing here is that the intial letter writer wasn't complaining about PAD's comics, but a completely unrelated website.

"Okay, but you DO realize there's a world of difference when discussing someone who made a film exalting a man who killed six million Jews, or a man whose testimony and cooperation destroyed careers and livelihoods, as opposed to someone who just says stuff you disagree with. Right?"

Sorry, PAD; chalk it up to posting after a long and brain-draining night. I was trying to show the instances where I personally cannot separate Work and The Man--and thought by my choice of examples that it would show it takes a LOT for me to lump the two together. Should have made that more explicit.

PAD:

Is Marvel holding you accountable for expressions left on your website? In the debate that has been going on here, that is one aspect that has not been touched. I would hope that Marvel's response would be that the personal views of its artists are not the concern of the company. As long as anyone's personal opinions make it's way into the pages, the point should be moot.

If they were to put pressure on you in any way to change what you chosse to say in your personal life, that I would choose not to support that company.

This is where I think we fail as a society and the hypocracy emerges. The author of the letter would have no power in what he or she writes to an editor if the company truly supports the artist's freedoms. Where is the pressure from the consumers whenever any corporation decides to impact the livelyhood of its employees based on personal views?

Again,I have no idea what Marvel's response to the letter was, but I hope it reflected 100% support in your freedom of speech.

Ian Martin

PAD,

I agree with the central point, that free speech by definition should have the barest amount of limits. I would suggest the only true limits are consequences (such as being sued for libel or slander). However, this is a LEGAL issue. The government should not restrict speech. Your example is of an individual writing a company.

His letter says he believes in the first amendment. That amendment says the government cannot restrict speech. It says nothing about what a company or organization can do. So it is not hypocritical to ask the company to quit publishing you. The reality is, if you are making money for Marvel, they will laugh at this letter. If you are not, then they might look to the content to see if it has a clue as to why. There is no threat to take legal action to stop you from saying a thing.

Bottom line, you are very worked up about something that is not even a true threat. Nor is it truly hypocritical (as written).

Let me give you a real, true life example. In Sweeden, a pastor has been imprisoned because he dared to say he believed that homosexual acts are a sin. He did not in any way say that a homosexual should be beaten, etc. He simply said that a man having sex with a man was wrong, just as a man having sex with a woman outside of marriage is wrong.

This issue is currently on the line in Canada, and I suspect it will be here as well. You want to look at a true threat to free speech? That is it.

This is not meant to interject the debate of gay marriage, etc., and I will ignore any responses to that part of my post. It is simply to give a real life example of how a supposedly "free" society is putting the muzzle on religious free speech. Which is different than an individual asking a company to quit publishing a comic, comic strip (such as Hart's), etc.

We have free speech. We also have free companies which can decide what they want and don't want to print, publish, etc.

(I find this debate ironic in light of the book coming out about Kerry and Kerry's lawyers trying to stop the ad by the Swift Boat Captains being run. It was fair game to make allegations about Bush and his National Guard service, but guess it doesn't cut the other way. Personally, I think the book is as biased one way as Farenheit 911 was the other. I look at what Bush and Kerry have done in office the last 10 years and what they say they want to do in the next 4 to determine which one I will vote for.)

Jim in Iowa

Hey, Darin:

Online columnist Augie De Blieck used to read this blog regularly. He no longer does so, because he didn't agree with Peter using it as a political forum.

How do I know this? Because he said so here. Not in an angry letter to Joe Quesada or Dan Didio, or even Glenn Hauman, but right here. He brought the complaint to the correct venue. That was an appropriate method of voicing his displeasure.

The tactics of Letterhack X. Anonymous, however, were to write to Peter's boss and complain about the stuff he said "off the clock," so to speak. I'm currently unemployed, but if I weren't, and someone tried to get me in trouble at work because of online political comments I made from the privacy of my own home, I'd be well and truly pissed. Peter has every justification to be disgusted with this behavior, because it's disgusting.

As for "he has a right to say why he's not buying the comics," he could just as easily have addressed the letter to Peter in care of Marvel (or DC, or Pocket Books, or whomever), and kept it between the two of them. Instead, he didn't, which again casts aspersions on his motives. For me, anyway.

Stop trying to bring up the "Swiftboat veterens" ads. The issue about it has nothing to do with free speech, and everything to do with people LYING, or at the very least being purposly misleeding. None of the people truely served with Kerry, as they claim in the ad. They were in the same war as him, but did not serve under him, next to him, above him, or even know him.

"None of the people truely served with Kerry, as they claim in the ad."

To say that demonstrates that you don't know how PBRs were deployed in Vietnam. It wasn't "Apocalypse Now."

"One letter is not a big deal. The problem comes when groups like the American Families Association get people to do this on a large scale. "

While I somewhat agree, I have to laugh at the example. BOTH political sides use this tactic. I have no problem if they inspire a 1,000 people to write their own letter. But (there's that word again!) if they actually read what they are sending and actually mean it, then it is still a valid expression of their speech.

On another note, I am beginning to have a hard time separating the author from the work. I still read PAD and will get the next New Frontier novel and will try out Madrox. But what was only "background noise" before with some of his comments, I now read into based on what I have read here. I am sure I am not always right by what I read into it, but it does not matter. When I feel there is political commentary written into a story (as there was in at least one issue of Captain Marvel), then it does take me out of the story and into a mental debate with the author of the story. If that happens too much, I don't buy it (as has happened with Fallen Angel -- not because of political commentary, but because of the world view it portrays).

Jim in Iowa

I wish I was clever enough to come up with an equivalent to "First Amendment But-heads" that described people who talk about pure commerce issues as if they had even the slightest resemblance to 1st Amendment matters.

I can't decide if I think it should be two seperate terms or not, to cover those who aren't smart enough to understand the distinction and those who should but keep harping because claiming a legal protection is less nebulous than the "I deserve not to be the recipient of crappy behavior."

"Stop trying to bring up the "Swiftboat veterens" ads. The issue about it has nothing to do with free speech, and everything to do with people LYING, or at the very least being purposly misleeding. None of the people truely served with Kerry, as they claim in the ad. They were in the same war as him, but did not serve under him, next to him, above him, or even know him."

The issue has EVERYTHING to do with free speech when it deals with whether they should be allowed to try to sell the ads to a station. No station has to buy them. The makers of the ad do not have the "right" to force anyone to see them. And if they are false, Kerry has every right to sue them for libel.

But your last sentence is exactly why speech should not be limited. They did not claim to serve in the same boat with him. But they were in the same war and did serve at the same time an in the same area. So it is possible they have first hand knowledge about him.

Why do you want to stop what they are saying? Because you don't agree with their opinion? Two people could be in the same battle. One can honestly believe Kerry was right in how he acted and another honestly believe he was wrong. Should either be prevented from sharing their opinion? (Note: That is hypothetical example. I have not, and probably won't, read the book.)

Bottom line, both sides get touchy when the other attacks. The shoe is just on the other foot. I believe most Americans will wait for evidence before they jump to conclusions. But to get that evidence, both sides need to be free to talk, which does include even airing an ad if a station is willing to carry it.

As I said, it is ironic how this cuts both ways.

Jim in Iowa

One more thought about the Swiftboat ads: I look at Farenheit 911 the same way as you described these ads. I think it was at least misleading in how it portrayed the last 4 years. I refuse to see it (though I have read the transcript online, so I do know what it says, just have not seen the pictures). I do not recall Bush's lawyers sending a letter to theater owners implying they might be sued for libel if they showed the movie.

As I said, this cuts both ways.

Jim in Iowa

MarkL says "Damn, I hate that the preview still isn't quite right. The italicized quote should have gone on for another sentence/paragraph."

Yeah well, the preview isn't quite PREVIEW for me in Mozilla - if I click it all I get is a reload of the comments page. The smallest of favors is that while not working it at least keeps what I have typed in the edit box while completely failing to show a preview of my comments. Haven't bothered to try it in IE - I just press 'post' and hope for the best.

Gonna disagree with Peter here.

The person for whatever reason for whatever reason, your politics, your puns, or the vest you wear to conventions has decided to stop buying books you write. He disagrees with you, he's voting with his dollar. He sends a letter to Marvel saying why he's doing so.

Has he taken ads out saying that you suck? No.
Has he organized boycotts against you? No.
Has he gone to conventions with signs and a bullhorn denouncing you? No.
Did he even say to Quesada that you should be fired? No.

He wrote a letter, because he doesn't agree with you, he's no longer buying your stuff.

Speech can have consequences. That's why John Hancock wrote his name so large. So the King knew that he was one standing up.

In this case, the consequence of Peter's speech was that Marvel lost a customer. Obviously Joe Quesada's not losing sleep over it (and not like he doesn't know that Peter is...shall we say..opinionated).

I agree with the first amendment but.
I agree with Mr. David on this completely. What many people (FABheads) seem to forget is that the first amendment is there to protect one thing. The speech you do not like. The dissenting speech, the criticizing speech, and the speech that pisses you off. Its one of the things that make our country great. Its something that many of our closest allies do not have. We are lucky to have it, and should endeavor to remember that constitutional amendments are there to guarantee freedoms, not limit them. A subtle point that our current administration seems to have difficulty with.

I mispoke before...Kerry did serve under one of the people in the ads, Admiral Roy Hoffman, so he is someone to speak on this:

as reported in the Milwalkie Journal Sentinel:
...Hoffmann acknowledged he had no first-hand knowledge to discredit Kerry's claims to valor and said that although Kerry was under his command, he really didn't know Kerry much personally.

or not...
http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/may04/227671.asp

"Sure I would. And then if someone said, "Wow, that's gorgeous, who painted that?" I would naturally reply, "Adolf Hitler" because, y'know, I'm not an idiot, Luigi, did you think I wouldn't recognize some of those pieces? "

Ha! now that was funny.

"However, if you ever DO have an employee whom you decide to fire because he expressed liberal opinions on a computer board that you didn't like...enjoy your richly deserved wrongful termination lawsuit."

I'd have to enjoy it in Imaginary Land because no lawyer would represent someone in such a case against me unless I was a government agency. The employment at will that covers the majority of workes in the US completely protects my rights to fire someone because I dislike their choice in footwear, eye makeup and more serious matters like public speech.

Behaving in such a way would make me a real scumbag but it wouldn't make me a lawbreaker unless I was in a protected group, of which Republican, Democrat, Green or Libertarian (and really, they wouldn't want to be one anyways, right?) are not. You can educate yourself somewhat on the matter with this quite good article at http://www.aarp.org/money/careers/jobloss/Articles/a2004-04-28-yrrights.html

Mr. David,

It looks like you may have a stalker on your hands. This person types (at least the way I read the letter) the same way that one person who spammed your blog did (Dee, was it?). It makes no sense to me why this person hates you so much to take the time to complain to Mr. Quesada about you, but that's what kinda makes me worry.

Anyway, this person does have the right to write this letter, but...I also think this person has some serious moral failings. It's wrong to tattle on people, and that's what this is. This person wants you fired because you disagree about certain issues.

Well whoop-dee-doo. Just about everyone disagrees with everyone about certain issues. And, if this is the same person who spammed you before, the person never made an intelligent argument to begin with.

Basically, this person is just trying to get you worked up. Hey, maybe you can use this experience in something you write in the future? There is definately some good stuff here.

And as far as separating a person's views from their work, sometimes I can do it, and sometimes I can't. For instance, no, I would not hang a painting by Hitler on my wall.

However, although I am offended by Mel Gibson's religious views, if he ever makes a Leathal Weapon 5, I will see it (even though I was disapointed with 4), because I do enjoy his acting.

Oh, and one more comment. Alhtough I have posted here before, once, I think, I did use this same alias. I would just use my name, but I have been posting on other boards for so long (DC, RKMBS), that this the name people know me by.

-Brad

I'm an example of someone who doesn't agree with you to a degree of great anger "in the subject of handling the Israel" problim, but i still and will continue to read your work "wether you want to or not"

meshal, from Saudi Arabia

People confuse the First Amendment with the Right to Free Speech. And too many people confuse the Right to Free Speech with a desired Right To Do Exactly What They Want, Exactly How They Want To Do It, And Get Exactly The Reaction They Think They Deserve.

On the whole, I think it's great when idiots like the original correspondent speak out the way he or she did. It makes them easier to identify than the quiet idiots. But I'm getting weary of hearing people wave around The First Amendment as though it's a combination of Santa and Jesus that excuses any behavior and, in their own minds, equates even their most ignorant and thuggish actions to those of Gandhi, King, or Nathan Hale.

These thoughts are still pretty fresh in my mind. I live in Boston. Protesters at the Democratic Convention were angry that their demonstrations were being limited to a "Free Speech" zone. Well, actually, no, the police always said that they were free to protest wherever they wanted so long as they didn't block off the streets. They did that anyway, but the cops allowed them to continue to protest until they started building a bonfire out of placards. Even then, the cops let them continue to protest until an officer spotted someone with a Molotov cocktail, at which point the cops allowed the protest to continue but sent in four policemen (wearing standard uniforms and with no weapons drawn) to arrest the gentleman with the bomb.

And then the protesters formed a (well-rehearsed) ring around the police, trapping them inside the crowd, and attempted to pull the arrestee away. At which point, yes, a bunch of guys in riot gear felt the need to get in there, rescue the cops, take the guy with the bomb into custody, and sort of underscore the point that the protesters can't declare martial law in the city of Boston.

The Molotov, incidentally, was a replica made out of newspaper -- bottle, wick, and all -- clearly designed to provoke an extreme police response while leaving no evidence behind that would incriminate the protesters.

And still, after making three arrests (one for the Molotov, one for a can of lighter fluid, one for striking a police officer) the cops withdrew and allowed the protest to continue, though of course at that point it became more of a thirty-way press conference than a protest. So what was the protesters' response to the media? This from one woman describing herself as one of the protest leaders: "This is all the cops' fault. We _told_ them that if they sent officers into the crowd, they'd be in danger...they _created_ this situation!"

And, of course...sing it along with me...

"THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT!"

The first thing that true advocates of free speech need to do is to reclaim the phrase "First Amendment" from the yahoos. Same thing with "civil disobedience." If these people read any history at all, they'd understand that their actions would cause the originators of those phrases to mambo in their crypts.

"None of the people truely served with Kerry, as they claim in the ad. They were in the same war as him, but did not serve under him, next to him, above him, or even know him."

Wrong. In fact one of them was Kerry's commanding officer (Captain George Elliot). These were men whose own PBRs operated with Kerry's in the same unit. PBRs were not encapsulated from one another. They implemented coordinated patrol patterns of two or more boats and also moved in convoys. So, yes, these men did serve next to and above him and they most assuredly did know him. What I find particularly interesting is today's Boston Globe article by Mike Kranish, who wrote a story that purports that Cpt. Elliot retracted a criticism of Kerry. Later this morning, Elliot stated that this was wholey innaccurate and that his views were highly mistated. Elliot then went on to affirm his statements in the infamous tv ad and in the forthcoming book by the Swiftboat vets.

Mike Kranish, by the way, is the author of the Kerry/Edwards campaign book. He's a paid biographer of Kerry's. This basically means that the Boston Globe has exposed itself as an arm of the Kerry Campaign. No conflict of interest there, right?

DW

""However, if you ever DO have an employee whom you decide to fire because he expressed liberal opinions on a computer board that you didn't like...enjoy your richly deserved wrongful termination lawsuit."

I'd have to enjoy it in Imaginary Land because no lawyer would represent someone in such a case against me unless I was a government agency. The employment at will that covers the majority of workes in the US completely protects my rights to fire someone because I dislike their choice in footwear, eye makeup and more serious matters like public speech."

Like many on this thread are over- or mis-stating Freedom of Speech (or getting the First Amendment protections crossed with the ideal of freedom of speech), your not quite on with at-will employment. Wrongful Termination is a legal action, at-will employee notwithstanding, that, when an employer terminates an employee for cause not-related to the workplace, it gives rise to a potential cause of action. So, firing someone because of a political statement that you read on their (private yet publically accessible web-site) could lead to a wrongful termination suit. And as the previous poster noted, as the employer would be known as Mr. Scumbag, he'd be best advised to open up his wallet and start writing checks.

Those so-called protected classes aren't written in stone, and we're just a jury decision away from "political party affiliation" being declared a protected class.

Plus, most larger companies have disciplinary procedures in place, and to arbitrarily violate those procedures to fire someone is also grounds for a wrongful termination act.

At-will employment is one of those legal fictions that we like to say applies, but there are so many qualifications and exceptions to the rule that it has practically ceased to exist, other than as a theory employers use to prevent digruntled ex-employees from seeking legal recourse.

Guess, I'm going to bea FAB-head, because once again I disagree with Peter.

Not that he isn't entirely right about the dick-head who's trying to cost him work and money, but PAD's interpretation of the First amendment is wrong. PAD seems to be of the mind that he is. or at least theoretically, should be able to say what he wants without fear of consequences... from anybody. The Constitution DOES NOT say that and as it has already been pointed out, it only refers to Congress and the government.

I challenge PAD to point out the part in the First Amendment where it refers to anyone else OTHER than Congress and the government.

Peter's remedy is to NOT wrap himself up in the First Amendment which does not apply, but to SUE the person for libel, assuming what the man says is false. Peter is saying that EVEN IF what the man is saying is totally TRUE, he shouldn't be allowed to seek a remedy from Peter's employer.

In fact, libel and slander laws exist purely as an EXCEPTION to the First Amendment and seeks to do exactly what Peter says he's against, seek consequences for someone's false words.

AS much as I don't like the man's writing to Quesada trying to get Peter into trouble, the man has no power to do PAD any real harm. The boycotters who didn't buy the Dixie Chick's music, and even the radio stations that boycotted their music might be able to affect their bank accounts, but that's still a free market effect. They did not have the authority or power to take away any of The DC's rights of Free speech. The government does.

The guy writes a letter. No problem. States why he's not buying a product. Again, no problem.

He's harming your livelihood by writing a single letter that will (and should have only) reach a single person? Oh, for crying out loud, give me a break.

He's not the one posting it on a message board for anyone to see. He wrote a letter. You're doing more harm to your livelihood than he could with one single letter.

So he doesn't put his name on the letter. Doesn't reduce his message any. Personally, I don't agree with it, but I don't downgrade the essence of the message because of it either.

Face it, some people will shun you and your work if they read this site. I think your opinions are out there (the political realm), but they're your opinions. I usually just stick to reading your comments on comics.

And with this Web site, you have to expect those kind of letters because you've made yourself more of a public person.

If you're a strict backer of the First Amendment, then you shouldn't have a problem with what the letter writer did. Personally, I find your view on this matter hypocritical.

I will still enjoy your Fallen Angel and have ordered your first issue of MadroX. Later.

Arrgh! And another one misses the point.

To try and get back again...

PAD isn't saying mr. letterwriter can't/shouldn't be able to complain to his employer based on PAD's political views. The whole thread started with a guy saying, basically, "I'm all for Free Speech, except in the case of PAD, where I want you to know that I disagree with him, and I'm not going to buy the comics Marvel produces written by him, simply because I disagree with his political view, in an effort to wipe that political view off the face of the earth by cutting off PAD's income, so he goes away and can't afford to spread his drivel around any more."

Highly, highly paraphrased.

So grind on into redundancy, to state that you support Freedom of Speech, and I'm assuming he meant it in the more liberal term rather than the strictly legal Constitutional term, and then take an action that can have no other intent than to stop a certain political speaker from speaking flies totally in the face of what Free Speech stands for. Which is where the hypocrasy of the act comes into play, generating PAD's original comment.

No where have I seen PAD state that he has a problem with the act itself. Just the framing of the act.

Frankly, I'm surprised there's so much debate about this issue. To me, it seems pretty clear cut. Does the shrouded one (the likely author of the letter) have the "right" to pen an epistle to Joe Quesada complaining about PAD's political views on an unrelated website? Sure, just as I have the right to write to the McDonald's Corp. to say I won't eat there anymore because Gerald Ford once had a Big Mac and Ford pardoned Nixon.

But in both cases, the complaint is directed to the wrong party, and thus, ridiculous. The fact that the person didn't sign their name (or at least their full name) to the letter about PAD's politics only makes him or her look cowardly as well.

That's on top of the whole cowardly action of complaining to an employer about something that had nothing to do with PAD's work for that employer.

Joe Quesada took the proper response to this letter; he treated it as the waste of a tree that it is. Plus, I'm sure he realizes that this is one lone person with some sort of grievance against PAD, and that Marvel is not likely to get scores of letters complaining about an employee's opinions in an unrelated forum.

Now, if he started getting complaint letters about things PAD was saying in a Marvel Comic (or was having characters say) , then he might take some sort of action. But this is hardly the same thing. Say I have a next door neighbor who works at Kroger and blows his leaves onto my property. I would complain to him directly (and perhaps to the neighborhood association, if there is one). I wouldn't write a letter to his boss saying I won't be buying my groceries at Kroger any more because of that.

Unfortunately, there are probably a lot of people who would do just that, and are probably a lot of companies that do "cave in" when someone complains about something completely unrelated to whatever business that company does (To the best of my knowledge, Kroger is not one of them). Groups that organize boycotts (or threaten to) of products or services they don't actually use or know anything about are probably most responsible for this attitude. Instead of looking into it and seeing if these people have legitimate grievances or are just trying to stir up trouble, most companies, sadly, would probably take the easy and cowardly way out.

I wonder how many people have jumped on a anti _____ bandwagon without really knowing what it was all about. I'm reminded of the "For Better or For Worse" episodes where Michael and some friends go downtown and march in a protest rally, unsure of what they're protesting. They just get caught up in the excitement, and Michael ends up being interviewed on TV (with the reporter asking some leading questions). Michael, again, has no real clue what it's all about, so basically just agrees. Later, when his father comes to pick him up and explains to him and his friends the full facts of the issue (I think it was about the bus service in town), the boys realize just how ignorant they'd been.

Some people speak out against something or someone without really knowing why; while others, like the letter writer, seem to have some sort of a personal grudge. This person clearly wants PAD punished for having an opinion contrary to his or her own, and instead of writing to PAD directly or registering and posting in this forum, he or she basically stamps their feet and goes off in a huff. "I'm telling on you."

To which I say, "grow up." You don't like PAD's views, tell him so yourself, or stop visiting his site and/or buying his books. Don't go crying to someone else in an obvious and transparent attempt to cause them economic harm because they don't see the world the way you do.

Rick

EClarke1849

PAD hasn't once said, I don't beleive, that it violates the First Amendment constitutionally, or that he believes he has any legal redress, just that it violates the spirit behind the first amendment. Those who truly support the first amendment wouldn't try to get someone fired for speaking.

His argument is that people are free to buy or not buy -- and let the free market decide whether the author/artist succeeds. If Peter's offend/agreement ratio is too low among people who base their purchases on politics, and his sales are affected, then the publishers will likely do something about it. (Not because of PADs opinions, but because of his sales)

But by writing to his boss, the author of the letter is trying to override the free market, and see if they can get Peter fired based solely on their viewpoint. They're basically saying "Peter David offended me. I realize I am just one person, and I'm not going to make that much of a difference in his sales. So I hope you ignore the sales receipts, and fire him just to make me happy."

If that's not how they felt, they would have been satisfied with their decision not to purchase, and satisfied that whatever affect it had on his sales Peter deserved. And that's that. There would have been no cause to write Queseda. (Maybe there would have been cause to write Peter and tell him why he was losing sales)

I do think entertainment figures, authors, and artists should expect consequences for stating opinions. There will be people who stop sending them money if they disagree. It shouldn't stop them from speaking. There are a lot of people who will also agree with them.

Freedom of Speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. This is an immutable law of the universe.

But by writing Queseda the individual was declaring themselves more important than the laws of the universe.

I'm all for Free Speech even it's from a person I disagree with (My brother in-law for example). Otherwise, It wouldn't be free speech. It would be YOU MUST AGREE WITH ME OR ELSE. I saw a film like this once, but I couldn't understand what what was said because the man was speaking German. I believe the man speaking was named Adolf Hitler.

Anyway, I buy a book, comic book, film, music, etc. BECAUSE I AM A FAN OF THE ARTIST THAT DID IT! Political preference and other things don't matter to me. That being said, I think Mister Letter Writer should think about what Free Speech REALLLY is and aim his comments to the person for whom he intends them. Don't take this to a person that hired him or her. In other words, FABS really break my balls too.

JHL

Before I present my question, I'll confess that I don't like Sean Connery's belief that it is fine to hit a woman to keep her in line (1987 interview with Barbara Walters), but I've seen almost every movie he's in, so -- *if* I'm understanding the secondary point of the original post here -- I'm a "Me Too!" on the whole matter.

That said, and granted that the following condition would still leave plenty of room for general offense-taking, here's my question:
If Letterhack X. Anonymous (thank you, Michael Pullmann!) had not started out his attempted economic bullying with that key phrase "I agree with and understand the first amendment", would Mr. David's reaction to the event not include the complaint of "hypocrisy"?

And another question, contingent on the first answer being "correct":
Was that originally meant to be your point, that Anonymous would've not vexed you quite so much if only he'd left all mention of the First Amendment out of it?

{Sorry for the verbosity. I tend toward wordiness when I think I might've misunderstood an obvious point. Also, I think Kingbobb might've beat me to this, but again, I have this itch to doublecheck myself.}

"So grind on into redundancy, to state that you support Freedom of Speech, and I'm assuming he meant it in the more liberal term rather than the strictly legal Constitutional term, and then take an action that can have no other intent than to stop a certain political speaker from speaking flies totally in the face of what Free Speech stands for. Which is where the hypocrasy of the act comes into play, generating PAD's original comment."

It seems to me that there's a bit of "mind reading" here (or, I suppose, paranoia). The guy's intent was to inform the EIC of Marvel why he was dropping PAD's title. That's it. Nowhere did the guy say or even hint that he wanted to adversely affect Peter David's livelihood.

"The whole thread started with a guy saying, basically, "I'm all for Free Speech, except in the case of PAD, where I want you to know that I disagree with him, and I'm not going to buy the comics Marvel produces written by him, simply because I disagree with his political view, in an effort to wipe that political view off the face of the earth by cutting off PAD's income, so he goes away and can't afford to spread his drivel around any more."
"

Once again the letter writer is misquoted. He states: "Let me start by saying I agree with and understand the first amendment." While I understand this is often used to refer to free speech, the writer never actually says that. The first amendment solely focuses on the GOVERNMENT not being able to restrict speech.

I think the letter is a joke and should not be taken seriously. But it is not the level of hypocrisy some seem to portray it. Peter is free to say what he wants. He does not have the "right" that Marvel continues to publish his comics. That is up to Marvel. Two related but different issues are being confused here.

Jim in Iowa

Oh, so the letter writer was merely stating an opinion. Why then write to one of the people who affect PAD's livlihood? Of course he wanted to cause trouble for PAD. Otherwise he could have just stopped buying PAD's stuff and left the loss of income for the company to find.

Darin,
I don't care for your comments. I think they are abusive and unamerican. Could you send me the address of your employer so I might send them a letter saying you should be fired for your abuse of free speech?

"Darin,
I don't care for your comments. I think they are abusive and unamerican. Could you send me the address of your employer so I might send them a letter saying you should be fired for your abuse of free speech?"

Did the guy in the letter Peter David shared with us ask to Joey Q to fire Peter? Seems to me you've lost your focus on this subject. But, if you'd like the name and address of my current employer, you can have it.

"If Letterhack X. Anonymous (thank you, Michael Pullmann!) had not started out his attempted economic bullying with that key phrase "I agree with and understand the first amendment", would Mr. David's reaction to the event not include the complaint of "hypocrisy"?"

Of course not. I've seen any number of letters from guys who say, "I don't like Peter David's opinions, therefore I'm not buying his books anymore, so there, nyaah." I think it's kind of a stupid way to deal with the world, as I noted above, and it's not the way I do business, but it's not hypocrisy.

"And another question, contingent on the first answer being "correct":
Was that originally meant to be your point, that Anonymous would've not vexed you quite so much if only he'd left all mention of the First Amendment out of it?"

Sure. That's why the first sentence was about "FABheads" and why I was so quick to say that comments centering on someone's "right" to crab to Marvel's EIC were utterly beside the point. My point was, don't take actions designed to stifle someone's free speech or punish them for their opinions while claiming you support free speech.

PAD

Darin, you surely aren't going to be so disingenious to suggest the letter was written simply to, as someone put it, blow off steam? It was meant to be punitive.

The issue is hypocrisy. The danger lies in an employer who would fall victim to the ruse. It is a means to attempt to silence opposing viewpoints, a situation that occurs more and more. The move to silence opposing views is a move towards the loss of more of America as we know it. Was the letter writer wrong? Yes. Had he not wanted to read Peter's views there was a simple solution. Stop Coming To The Website. This has no bearing on Peter's job.

btw Darin
There are no new quotes being given by Elliott. If you look closely at the documents displayed on the Swift Boat page you'll see that it is the same statement he retracted this morning. The only comments there are by the organization itself. Elliott himself has issued no such statement.

The word "with" as in "served with" is misleading. These men did not "serve with" as in on the same boat, with Kerry. They were in nam at the same time. Their attack is motivated by their dislike of his testifying before congress in the 70's and has little to do with truth.

I like how you quoted the comment about Mike Kranish who wrote an introduction to a book about Kerry and Edwards goals. Hardly the same as writing their campaign book. A suggestion: Check the links on the stories you read before you take them at face value.

"It was meant to be punitive."

As evidenced by what in his letter? One cannot glean that it was meant to be punitive by what was expressed in the quoted letter. The letter itself/alone doesn't justify the that extrapolation.

"These men did not "serve with" as in on the same boat, with Kerry."

They never claimed to serve on the same boat with Kerry. But they nonetheless served with him. These were his peers, in many cases. Fellow PBR officers who served in the same unit as he did. So, yes, they did serve with him.

"I like how you quoted the comment about Mike Kranish who wrote an introduction to a book about Kerry and Edwards goals. Hardly the same as writing their campaign book."

Kranish is Kerry's paid biographer. If you read this link, you will find that his book on Kerry is now being shelved in light of this Globe blunder. This all happened since I posted the information above. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/story/219589p-188612c.html) Furthermore, his role in the campaign book was also adjusted today in response to this same blunder on the part of himself and the Globe.

As for Elliot, this is what is said today in response to the Globe by the Swift Boat Vets: "The following statement from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth concerns an article appearing in [today's] Boston Globe... [Viet Vet] Captain George Elliott describes an article appearing in today’s edition of the Boston Globe by Mike Kranish as 'extremely inaccurate' and 'highly misstating' his actual views. He reaffirms his statement in the current advertisement paid for by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Captain Elliott reaffirms his affidavit in support of that advertisement, and he reaffirms his request that the ad be played." He's not retracting anything, folks.

Correct me if I'm wrong:

Sure thing.

1) I believe that the U.S. has laws forbidding speech which incites hatred against a particular ethnic group. I know that here in Canada we do, and it extends to the dissemination of hate literature as well, with fairly severe penalties. Witness the Ernst Zundel case.

The US does periodically pass laws forbidding hate speech, but they tend to be struck down as quickly as a challenge can be brought into an appropriate court. The US Supreme Court is on record http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=505&invol=377 pointing out that viewpoint discrimination--limiting or punishing expression based solely on the content of the expression-- is precisely the sort of thing that the First Amendment is designed to prevent. As for Canada, there are a variety of objections I have to the Canadian constitution, and its preference for equality over liberty is one of them.

2) I believe that the Bill Of Rights renders the Patriot Act unconstitutional, and I wonder why someone hasn't made a constitutional challenge to it as of yet.

Actually, people have been challenging the USAPATRIOT Act since its inception. The reason the challenges have done so little to strike down the USAPATRIOT Act is that the Act's opponents generally have a poor understanding of what the Act is actually about. The Act is primarily about wiretap administration and money laundering. The parts of the Act that implicate First Amendment issues are a trivial part of the Act itself. I could understand privacy objections to the Act, but frankly there's not a damned thing in the Act that I couldn't have done in 2000 AD as a state court prosecutor. Take a look yourselves. http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/patriotact.pdf And for a dissenting opinion, check out: http://practice.findlaw.com/cyberlaw-0903.html

3) Given that #2 is true, how are we to enact legislation on either side of the border to eradicate the internal fifth column of terrorist sleepers who most likely exist in our midst?

The answer to this question (to the extent that the question isn't a massive non sequitur) is the issue that I suspect made PAD lump me in as a FABhead last month: there is a tremendous difference between discussing an issue and engaging in a conspiracy or solicitation to commit a felony. The message I took from Schenck was that the First Amendment doesn't provide a shield for you to hide behind when you're plotting a crime.

I've always considered myself to be something very close to a free speech absolutist. That doesn't mean I agree with PAD about the nutjob who wrote the letter to Quesada. He has the same right to be heard as PAD. PAD's Voltaire quote applies to Letterhack X. Anonymous as well: I think it's obnoxious, and I prefer to try to distinguish people's works from their personalities, but he's perfectly free to choose otherwise. Boycotting and free speech are in no way mutually exclusive.

Incidentally, I distinguish my own refusal to see Fahrenheit 9/11 on three grounds. 1) Michael Moore is actively engaged in opposing a political party of which I am a member, so I'm disinclined to assist his endeavors by sending him money by way of an admission ticket; I might consider watching it on tv however. 2) I do like REM, with whom I substantially disagree over politics, so I'm fairly sure my boycott is specific to Michael Moore; with regard to REM, I just skip the "Ignoreland" track on Automatic for the People. And 3) I have utterly detested Moore since I saw Roger & Me and I think he's a jerk and I hate his movies. Those are perfectly good reasons not to go see his films. By contrast, I disagree with Spielberg's decision not to support Max through Amblin. The report is that he read the script, felt it was a good film, but felt it was disrespectful to Holocaust survivors to be a part of a film that portrayed Hitler as human. I disagree with him on two counts, 1) I don't feel the idea is disrespectful to the survivors, and 2) respect or not, I am constantly worried that the continued dehumanizing of Hitler will erode any lessons we as a species can learn from the Nazi ascension; until we as a civilization realize that a garden variety anti-Semitic politician managed to kill six million people we are at risk of having a similar fiasco in the future. But that's Spielberg's choice, and I don't think that merely making the wrong choice also makes him a First Amendment traitor.

By the way, what's wrong with Carrot Top apart from the fact that he is the least funny comedian since Joe Piscopo?

But here's the thing about hypocrisy, PAD. He believes in the First Amendment. Its absolute powers. You believe in the same.

Saying that, he has every right to say whatever he wants to the editor, even if it's "get rid of PAD" because he's expressing himself--if we're talking about holding the First Amendment at its strictest possible sense. That all speech/expression shouldn't be restricted.

You're saying he shouldn't be able to do say what he said because it could affect your livelihood? Free Speech is Free Speech. You only want free speech if it doesn't affect your livelihood? C'mon.

Okay Darin
What other reason other than an attempt to solicit punitive measures could the writer have written to Peter's "boss"? Freedom to disagree? Well in essence he didn't disagree. He could have done that *here* but no, instead he chose to attempt to create a problem for Peter.

As for this:
As for Elliot, this is what is said today in response to the Globe by the Swift Boat Vets: "The following statement from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth concerns an article appearing in [today's] Boston Globe... [Viet Vet] Captain George Elliott describes an article appearing in today’s edition of the Boston Globe by Mike Kranish as 'extremely inaccurate' and 'highly misstating' his actual views. He reaffirms his statement in the current advertisement paid for by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Captain Elliott reaffirms his affidavit in support of that advertisement, and he reaffirms his request that the ad be played." He's not retracting anything, folks.

This is not a statement by Elliott himself, as I stated earlier. The document posted with this letter is the one Elliott recanted. Elliott has made no formal statements to the press disputing the Globe article.

I really hope Mr Quesada doesnt take one person and their opinion as a reason to not feature any of PAD's work in the future.There are several people that produce or write material i dont find entertaining or even good ,my reaction i dont provide them with my money.Their personal opinions on things i could care less.Used to love Dennis Miller but IMO he turned into an unfunny
human being so i dont watch his show.Has nothing to do with politics.Whil i tend to swing slightly to left i used to enjoy G.Gordon liddy when i was in maryland.He was at least well thought and sometimes damn funny.
Anyone who reads my posts knows i dislike Claremont and Rob Liefelds work ,has nothing to do with them personally ,its just i dont like the material.Brad Meltzer(Identity Crisis)will never recieve any more of money,as i feel the death/rape of Sue Dibny was done for shock value and was exploitive.I know its a fictional character but for a comic with no mature label i thought it was inappropriate.
There are people i work with that wont eat Ben &Jerry"s ice cream cause they support mumia abu jamal.Sorry ,thats damn good ice cream ,politics be damned.:).Bruce willis and others are considered conservatives and that is their right as american citizens.
I guess my point is judge a person's work on the work itself not their political or personal opinions.
Just my opinion i could be wrong....:)
BTW Carrot Top isnt funny and he scares me to look at :0

I don't agree with much of your political opinions, but I will continue to support your Art. ( Looking forward to the next NF installment! )

If you truly believe in free speech though, you cannot deny his/her right to "mail" an opinion either.

Even though I do think it is rather small of the person.

It is my observance that if one is not under critical attack, then one is not really saying or doing any thing of significance at all.

Well, I'm glad to have been responsible for such a long thread. A couple points. First, my letter was not intentionally anonymous. I wrote to DC first, from their website, and they specifically said first name and last initial only. So that is what I did. The e-mails to Marvel and Dark Horse were simply copies of the DC e-mail, hence the last initial only. If it is so important to some of you, my name is Charles Zerillo, though I don't see how this matters.
Second, my intentions were not to try to get PAD fired. Do I think my opinions would cause this? Certainly not. I was simply notifying the companies as to why I would not buy PAD's books anymore. If I was trying to affect his livlihood I would have also notified whoever publishes his novels (which I don't read), and whoever airs Space Cases (which I don't watch). A possible mistake I made was sending the e-mail to Joe Quesada's personal e-mail address. I maybe should have tried harder to find his work related address.
Third. As far as PAD's political views not carrying over to his work, has anyone read Captain Marvel #13/48? Does anyone really think this is NOT about Afghanistan and/or Iraq? Perhaps I should have mentioned this specifically, but to be honest, I didn't think my e-mail would even be given a second thought by the powers-that-be. Apparently I was wrong.
Fourth. I would like to thank Joe Quesada for forwarding my e-mail to PAD. At least that way it got read, unlike when I tried to send e-mails to PAD personally. But I understand. They probably ended up in his junk mail folder.
Fifth. No, I have not been banned from this forum (yet). I have not posted here in the past simply because I find message boards, or forums, or whatever you want to call them, a rather unsatisfying way to hold a conversation or conduct a debate. I'm sure you all disagree, but that is just my opinion.
And lastly (I think, though I might think of something else), for those of you who called me scummy, dick-head, and what-not, hey, opinions are like a-holes, everybody has one and they all stink.
I thought of something else. For those who think it is ok to strongly disagree with someones political beliefs, and still help to finance them (PAD's remarks about Charlton Heston comes to mind), it is my OPINION that you lack the courage of your convictions. That is all.

Questions? Comments? weewillyreefer@hotmail.com

czerillo:

Seperate the sin from the sinner.

Yer on a 2 edged sword here.

If you deny his rights, you deny yours. And vice versa.

David:

The Act is primarily about wiretap administration and money laundering.

And which of those two items was used to justify the Act's role in taking down a Stargate fan site a month or two back?

[http://www.sg1archive.com/nightmare.shtml , in case you aren't familiar with it.]

By the way, what's wrong with Carrot Top apart from the fact that he is the least funny comedian since Joe Piscopo?

Y'know, for a minute there I read that as "funniest" rather than "least funny" and was all set to fear for your mental state. At least at this point, all I can do is say that Piscopo isn't nearly in Carrot-Top territory: I think Piscopo managed to do at least one or two funny things a year when in his prime.

Czerillo:

First, kudos for showing up here to talk about this. People weren't wondering whether you'd been banned -- they were wondering whether a person who'd recently been banned happened to be the same person who wrote the letter. There is a difference.

Second -- a quick correction. Given that "Space Cases" has been off the air for a number of years, I think your information is just a wee bit out of date. Just FYI.

TWL

Czerillo:

>For those who think it is ok to strongly disagree with someones political beliefs, and still help to finance them (PAD's remarks about Charlton Heston comes to mind), it is my OPINION that you lack the courage of your convictions. That is all.

What does courage of conviction have to do with buying a product from someone whose personal opinion I disagree with? Unless the guy spends the money that I give him to club homeless, drug-addicted, baby seals, how does one positively or negatively influence the other? Possibly a more important question..... since you enjoy the man's professional work and cite him as one of the best writers in comics, why would you deprive yourself of the enjoyment of product and send letters to his bosses based on a difference in preference?

Fred

Czerillo: I find message boards, or forums, or whatever you want to call them, a rather unsatisfying way to hold a conversation or conduct a debate.

I can fairly assure you that sending a letter to a man's boss will not foster conversation or debate either. My opinion: Bad form, dude.

Catori,

I'm not sure you aren't a bit confused on this whole Kranish book deal. The review you link to is to the book "John F. Kerry: The Complete Biography By The Boston Globe Reporters Who Know Him Best". The book that Darin speak of is called "Kerry/Edwards: Their Plans and Promises". The book was just stuff taken off of the Kerry website.

I'm still not clear on what Kranish's role was in all this. Why a reporter actively engaged in reporting a candidate would write an intro to a book that is just an advertisement for a candidate is a bit of a mystery to me. Maybe I'm wrong but I always imagined people like Edward R Murrow as being very unlikely to get so personally involved with the people they report on (but then again, people like Murrow were more interested in journalism than in be celebrities themselves).

"What other reason other than an attempt to solicit punitive measures could the writer have written to Peter's "boss"?"

Maybe he wrote it because he's a faithful Marvel reader who felt he needed to inform the company why he was no longer buying the product? There are such people out there, you know.

Zeek. I'm not sure I understand what "Seperate the sin from the sinner." actually means. Sorry. And I'm not trying to deny anybody their right to do anything. I was just explaining to the publishers/editors why I was no longer going to be purchasing the products. I think that is fair, and probably more than most people do. If someone was to stop buying my product, I would want to know why.

Tim. Thank you for the clarifications and corrections. (Not Sarcasm)

Fred. Perhaps "courage of your convictions" was a mis-use of the term. But what if the guy IS clubbing homeless, drug-addicted baby seals? Would you still buy from them? I'm pretty sure I have a good idea of what charities/organizations/political causes PAD might give to, if he were so inclined. But I could be wrong. As for denying myself "enjoyment of product", This is something I've thought alot about recently, and have come to the conclusion that my personal enjoyment is probably, no, definately, the least important thing happening in the world right now. Someday I hope for it to not be so low on the list, but I don't see it in the near future.

"Why a reporter actively engaged in reporting a candidate would write an intro to a book that is just an advertisement for a candidate is a bit of a mystery to me."

All in the name of objective reporting, I guess! ;) The Boston Globe article was obviously done to provide something (something!) with which to use against the Swiftboat Vets. The article was an act of desperation really... by paid Kerry biographer. http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc89.htm

Catori. Actually I'm kind of getting the hang of this, and maybe my comments about message boards and forums was premature. But, my letters to the Editors were not meant to start a conversation or debate, although JQ did reply, to my surprise. Now I open myself up to comments like "Oh, he's just mad because PAD snubbed him.", but, my unanswered e-mail to PAD WAS an attempt at conversation and debate. I only mention this because someone had commented on "going over his head" or "going to the source". And in response to someone else way up on the thread, I had previously tried to post here, but it was difficult getting signed up. It only seems to work from certain pages or something. I would attempt to sign in, then scroll down to post reply link, and it would still tell me I needed to sign in. But I've figured it out. I'm sure to some peoples displeasure.

Me: The Act is primarily about wiretap administration and money laundering.

TWL: And which of those two items was used to justify the Act's role in taking down a Stargate fan site a month or two back?

Wiretapping. You're confusing the use of the power with the power itself. Generally speaking, law enforcement officers can ask a judge to order the release of any information that's useful in an investigation. (You probably don't want to know how easy it is to get someone's medical records, incidentally.) The Congress passed an exception for wiretapping back in the 1960s, and the PATRIOT act seems to be an attempt to roll back part of that exception. That's all it is. Blaming your example on PATRIOT is like blaming a petroleum refinery for an arson case. Reread your article again: all the Act was used for was getting his billing information from his ISP. The "Clean out the room" search warrant has been legal since the Republic was founded.

[http://www.sg1archive.com/nightmare.shtml , in case you aren't familiar with it.]

I wasn't. Using this degree of Federal police power on a copyright infringement case is like swatting a fly with a hand grenade. It sounds like an abuse of discrtion, much like the prosecution in Schenck, but then again we've only heard the defendant's side of things.

Peter David: Sure I would. And then if someone said, "Wow, that's gorgeous, who painted that?" I would naturally reply, "Adolf Hitler" because, y'know, I'm not an idiot, Luigi, did you think I wouldn't recognize some of those pieces?
Luigi Novi: So anyone who doesn’t recognize them is an idiot? Well, Peter, I didn’t come out of the womb familiar with them (at some point, I discovered them, before which I was not familiar with them), and when I tried the same thought experiment at www.nitcentral on a board I started regarding Roman Polanski’s Oscar victory for The Pianist, none of my intelligent, educated and knowledgeable friends there knew the author. Why you think they (or I) are or were “idiots” for not having discovered those pieces before you did, I don’t know.

I considered that you’d either be familiar with them, or that you’d figure it out by the context of the discussion and the question, but I decided to go ahead with it anyway for the sake of the “interesting discussion” that could follow. There is no reason for you to conclude that I was somehow insulting your intelligence, and if you took it that way, I apologize.

As far as hanging them, this is where we have to disagree. I can admit Hitler was quite the talented painter (one wonders just how strict the University of Vienna’s standards were, given that they rejected him—and how history might have unfolded had they not), but I would not hang them on my wall, any more than given Polanski an Oscar. To each his own.

Hmm..

I'm a supporter of the letter of the first amendment (which means I will NEVER support goverment censorship) but not the Spirit as PAD tends to view it. I NEVER EVER think the goverment should get involved in censorship, and I'm a big supporter of the CBLDF.

But on the flip side, if someone opened a porn shop across the street from my son's school, I would be out front protesting it with everyone else. While the goverment shouldn't get involved, consumers and the public stand.

I'm glad you have the strength of your convictions, and I understand as an author, this means more to you than it would to just a consumer. I don't separate the artist from the message. Sorry.

Jerry

Posted by: Darin at August 6, 2004 09:04 PM "Why a reporter actively engaged in reporting a candidate would write an intro to a book that is just an advertisement for a candidate is a bit of a mystery to me."All in the name of objective reporting, I guess! ;) The Boston Globe article was obviously done to provide something (something!) with which to use against the Swiftboat Vets. The article was an act of desperation really... by paid Kerry biographer. http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc89.htm

Act of desperation? Hardly. It was an inflamatory ad instigated by men who didn't like Kerry's protests after he returned from Vietnam, pure and simple. Elliott had spoke in favor of Kerry during other races and admitted that he had been pressured and rushed into signing the document on the swift boat page and now regrets doing so.
Let's also once more make the distinction between these men and the ones who actually served with Kerry and under his command. They did not. The act of desperation comes more from a party that sees their control slipping. Ironically this ad will do more for Kerry and damage the credibility of George Bush simply because he did not take given opportunities to disassociate himself from it.

I'm really surprised you're quoting Drudge tho. Not exactly the thinking man's news source.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at August 6, 2004 08:47 PM Catori,I'm not sure you aren't a bit confused on this whole Kranish book deal. The review you link to is to the book "John F. Kerry: The Complete Biography By The Boston Globe Reporters Who Know Him Best". The book that Darin speak of is called "Kerry/Edwards: Their Plans and Promises". The book was just stuff taken off of the Kerry website.I'm still not clear on what Kranish's role was in all this.

Bill, Darin keeps referring to Kranish as the Kerry biographer as if Kerry hired Kranish to write. That book is the only biography Kranish has participated in and it was a collaborative effort between Boston reporters. My posting of the link was to clear up the misinformation being written.

Man... PAD... you've stirred up quite a debate, but after reading everyone's points, I'm gonna have to agree with yours.

Given that the things you said here on your blog did not appear in , nor were pertaining to any of your published work, no one really has any right to complain to the EiC about it.

It would be different if someone wrote to JoeQ and said they won't buy any more PAD books because Euology claimed that the fans don't care, that would be different since that actually appeared in Marvel Comic...

but since Captain Marvel wasn't full of "Bush sucks!" references, then I see no reason for JoeQ to be involved.

I agree in defending "free" speech, and I mean "free" literally, as in I don't have to pay to hear it or read it and can easily avoid it or respond to it. If you were to ever start charging for this blog, or your personal politics end up being all over your next comic, novel, ect., then I'd complain to the people over your head.

Interestingly enough (well, it's interesting to me, anyway) I had a brief encounter with a first amendment issue this morning. After 12 years writing comic books, working for Disney, writing a comic strip and several articles, The first time I get censored in the slightest is when working on a pizza menu.

See, a good friend of mine owns a pizza place nearby and asked me to throw together a new menu and a couple of ads for him. Sure, I thought, why not? But the problem I encountered while writing was that I found the project tremendously boring. So, occasionally throughout the menu, I decided to improvise. Amidst the usual disclaimer information, I added the line: "All our pizzas our made fresh from tiny elves bound by unbreakable shackles".

Now, the owner had no problem with this, so I sent it out to his various advertising people. One of which included SBC (formerly known as Pacific Bell). Nothing for three weeks.

Today, I get a call from my friend. He told me that a very irate woman, who identified herself as black, took great personal offense at the line in the disclaimer information. She felt that it somehow endorsed slavery. Unfortunately, neither myself or my friend fielded this call, as we certainly would have answered with a resounding "Yeah. It endorses the slavery of tiny mythical creatures. And you have a problem with this... why?". Anyway, this by itself would not have bothered me, then my friend tells me about the other problem. Apparently "discomforted" by the inflammatory wording in the menu, SBC is striking the text. Okay, sure. Not really a big deal. It's just a menu, right? But, the worst part is, they are going to fine their own proof reader a large sum of money. The incident is going down on his permanent record and he might lose his job. Apparently, my friend is in the process of faxing over all sorts of assertions that the responsibility is not with the luckless proof reader, but with us at the pizza place.

This is ridiculous. Both instances are ridiculous. Particularly since the menu also featured about three non serious remarks (one of which was an entire paragraph about the poor lost souls trapped in the icy depths of the walk in freezer) and a tiny icon of a dominatrix with a whip and a word balloon saying "We dominate the competition". I'd be curious what other people think about this. It seems really, really ridiculous to me. But perhaps I am simply too close to it.

Welp, I think it's a bit over the top to say you don't like something, are not going to buy, then tell the owners who are free to hire/publish freely what to do. I disagree with your politics Cowboy Pete, but I sure as hell love your books.
Carl (the big Punisher guy at Dreamcon)

until we as a civilization realize that a garden variety anti-Semitic politician managed to kill six million people

Eleven million people were killed during the Holocaust. Why do people always forget the five million non-Jews that were also killed?

Scavenger said:

I mispoke before...Kerry did serve under one of the people in the ads, Admiral Roy Hoffman, so he is someone to speak on this:

as reported in the Milwalkie Journal Sentinel:
...Hoffmann acknowledged he had no first-hand knowledge to discredit Kerry's claims to valor and said that although Kerry was under his command, he really didn't know Kerry much personally.

or not...

Whether or not the one CO decided to retract or not, given that he signed Kerry's citation for a Silver Star, either he's wrong now when he signs the letter, or he was deluded or lying then.

My own Viet Nam service was non-combat at a communications station rioght across the road from the HQ of Operation Market Time, one of the swiftboat operations (not, i think, the one that Kerry served in, but, judging by some of what's been said about his first Purple Heart, he and i were briefly there at about the same time...).

Personally, if i wanted to fiond out what Kerry was like in the boats, i'd talk to the guys who actually served under him, and not much of anyone else.

Seems to me that at least a few of them seem to think he's okay.

As to "it's okay for them to attack Bush's Guard service but not for Bush and his people to attack Kerry's record" -- so far, the preponderance of what i read and hear indicates to me that Bush did, in fact, not show up for duty in the Arkansas Guard. The pay records prove nothing, and, so far, i haven't heard that anyone who was there at the time will say that Bush actually showed up for anything but government-paid dental care.

As to the lawyers' letters to the TV stations -- i haven't read the actual letter, but i heard it reported that they are threatening the stations with possible loss of license; that's not something that libel would normally lead to. Running what is, perhaps, actually, a thinly-disguised political attack ad (i haven't watched any teevee recently and haven't seen the ad) without disclaimers or indications of who is paying for it, on the other hand...

I DISAGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAID.

If I support the First Amendment . . .
1) Can I say I disagree with your speech, and maybe even say why I disagree?
2) Can I say I think you stop saying something disagreeable?
3) Can I sue for Sexual Harrasment if it such speech happens in a work / government environment (and the speech makes comments of a sexual nature that I find make the environment distressing)?

ALSO

Does the First Amendment protect speech that is "inappropriate" or "immoral"? Should it? Should I be able to SAY things that others find are politically incorrect or that they find immoral? at work? at school? at government functions? to the public at large?

-- Ken from Chicago

P.S. Is censorship "okay" if I censor a) what I listen to? b) what my underage kids (if I had any) listen to? c) what someone else says on my property, in my product, with my resources, but don't try to get others, including the national government, to censor them?

JeffGillmer writes:

"Wrong. The person that wrote the letter is obviously trying to get PAD in trouble with an employer because of personal beliefs."

Darin responds:

"What's wrong? Oh, I'm sure he's trying to get a reaction of some sort. It's his right to do so and he's not being hypocryphal (is that a word?) for doing so. The letter was all about why someone was dropping a Marvel title. A loss of revenue has got to be of some interest to Marvel, right?"

My turn.

Here's a very real scenario, although nobody has tried to retaliate against me, that I'm aware of: Every so often, I will write a letter to the editor of my local newspaper. These letters are openly critical of President Trifecta, and tend to focus on the hypocricies practiced by he and his misadministration. In order to print these letters, the newspaper requires a full name -- "Anonymous" won't cut it, and while I could lie, it's just easier being honest, and not having to remember what name I faked when they call me back to confirm I actually wrote the letter. I've submitted easily a half dozen, maybe as many as eight letters since spring 2003, but I know I've had three printed this year alone. So, my opinion has been aired, with my real name, for the world to see.

Now, there are dozens, maybe a hundred or so, of people whose acquaintances I've made in this community in the 8 years I've lived here since 1991 (I moved away for awhile, and then returned), many of whom undoubtedly remember my name. My place of employment isn't necessarily a secret, and even those I've lost touch with could easily find out through the "grapevine". If one of these people decides that they don't like my opinion (I never said everyone I met likes *me* ;) ), they could look up the number of my employer and complain about me and my LTTE.

What would be the purpose of such an exercise? Clearly they aren't calling just to "express their opinion" of me. Since I work for one of those companies that is essentially a "monopoly," it's not as if they're saying "I'll never shop there again," as it would be akin to telling the city "shut off the water, I'm gonna draw directly from the river from now on" -- it's possible, but the alternative is horrendously inefficient. The only possible explanation is that the filer of the complaint would be attempting to cost me my job, for making public comments about things that have nothing to do *with* my job, in a medium that likewise has nothing to do with my job. (I'm confident that my bosses would shrug and say "so what" and not even bother me with the details, but not everybody has that luxury.)

The First Amendment has been rendered meaningless if a very vocal small minded minority of people can incite fear of reprisal in gainfully employed citizens who speak their mind in public forums unrelated to their job. So no, Darin, the person who wrote the letter to Marvel Comics was way off base on this one.

"Third. As far as PAD's political views not carrying over to his work, has anyone read Captain Marvel #13/48? Does anyone really think this is NOT about Afghanistan and/or Iraq?"

Only if someone is thick enough to think that the attack on Iraq occurred in some sort of historic vacuum. The words of Santayana and all that. The "commentary" in that issue of "Captain Marvel" was purposely designed to be broad and sweeping enough that it could apply to Iraq, or Vietnam, or religious wars dating back centuries. It was about making a general point regarding man's history of behavior, not a single instance. But, of course, anyone with an agenda could say I was simply attacking Bush.

"I thought of something else. For those who think it is ok to strongly disagree with someones political beliefs, and still help to finance them (PAD's remarks about Charlton Heston comes to mind), it is my OPINION that you lack the courage of your convictions. That is all."

My conviction is that I celebrate and support diversity of opinion, as this country was and is intended to do. Your conviction is that those who disagree with you do not deserve your support and, ideally, should be made to feel the ramifications of your disagreement. You believe in free speech when and where it serves you, and nowhere else, and that is pathetic and sad.

PAD

"If I support the First Amendment . . .
1) Can I say I disagree with your speech, and maybe even say why I disagree?"

Sure.

"2) Can I say I think you stop saying something disagreeable?"

I presume you mean "should stop saying", and yeah, sure.

"3) Can I sue for Sexual Harrasment if it such speech happens in a work / government environment (and the speech makes comments of a sexual nature that I find make the environment distressing)?"

Can you? Yes. Should you? That's another matter. I hate that sexual harassment has been corrupted from the very serious offense that it was--a boss using his power of hire-and-fire over a female employee to force sexual favors from her--into such an amorphous mess that a random woman who overhears a joke she doesn't like can file a lawsuit. Frankly, I think the "You're sexually harassing me" mentality we see in today's workplace doesn't empower women, but depowers them. It implies that they cannot handle boorish coworkers on their own, but instead are oversensitive and need the courts to step in, and I think that's insulting to women.

"Does the First Amendment protect speech that is "inappropriate" or "immoral"? Should it? Should I be able to SAY things that others find are politically incorrect or that they find immoral? at work? at school? at government functions? to the public at large?"

Should you be ABLE to? Yeah, I suppose. But there's the consideration of consideration. Of having a sense of when and where, time and place.

Case in point: There was a guy who hated everything I wrote. Everything. He showed up at a bookstore signing I was doing and stood there for twenty minutes, shouting at the people standing in line waiting for me to sign books, telling them how everything I wrote sucked and what was wrong with them? Now...did he have the right to say it? Yeah. But his timing sucked and was inconsiderate, rude, and designed to try and drive fans away.

There's nothing wrong with hammering nails. But doing it at 3 in the morning when the neighbors are trying to sleep...there's something wrong with that.

Showing up on my website and complaining to me about my opinions here...nothing wrong with that. But turning around and making a point of bitching about me to an employer with the obvious agenda of trying to sully me to that employer...that's, at the very least, bad form.

PAD

The letter writer is an asshole, thats is not in doubt.

But the asshole has a right to be an asshole.

This kind of reminds me of the "9/11-was-a tragedy-BUT" crowd.

I have an opinion on this that goes beyond first amendment rights....and i apologize to anyone else if they said this first, but I dont feel like reading through the 100+ comments before mine :)

Peter, this being your blog...to me its like a personal journal. On a normal basis, we wouldnt have access to your private thoughts, and while it may not be like a teenage girl's journal where they are going to be upset because you snooped around and found out about the boy they like, this is still YOUR space. And you have been kind enough to let us in, and see whats going on in your life, to an extent. Are some of us going to disagree? Hell yeah, I certainly do sometimes. But you don't walk into someone's house and pee on the toilet seat and leave it there, and you don't dirty up their dishes and leave them in the sink for them to clean. As far as I am concerned, anyone who comes into your house (blog) needs to show a certain amount of respect. And part of that respect means having a level of intelligence and understanding of what it is that is going on in here, and the privelege they should feel by being allowed an inside view. If they disagree...thats fine, but they also need to realize they shouldnt have access to any of your private thoughts in the first place, and should be grateful they get to learn more about a writer they admire, who in other cases, would know nothing about.

The problem with people today isnt that they disagree. Its that when they disagree, they feel the need to eradicate or ruin the person/thing they disagree with.

Mike

Me: until we as a civilization realize that a garden variety anti-Semitic politician managed to kill six million people

He: Eleven million people were killed during the Holocaust. Why do people always forget the five million non-Jews that were also killed?

We don't forget. There are just varying estimates of the fatalities in the Holocaust. I will admit that the figures I've seen range from four to eight million, so your 11 million is a new one on me. I always understood the six million figure to be the generally-accepted estimate; I'd be interested to know your source. (Lest I be misunderstood, I'm not really challenging you; my history degree is in American Legal History, so I fully expect to be occasionally misinformed in subjects this far out of my field.)

Showing up on my website and complaining to me about my opinions here...nothing wrong with that. But turning around and making a point of bitching about me to an employer with the obvious agenda of trying to sully me to that employer...that's, at the very least, bad form.

I completely agree with PAD on that point (and the bit about harassment laws, for that matter). I think formal, public boycotts are obnoxious, and the fact that the letterhack had the right to do it doesn't absolve him of that. The only thing I disagreed with was the characterization of "hypocrisy." "Obnoxious," "rude," "bad form," absolutely.

PAD. "The "commentary" in that issue of "Captain Marvel" was purposely designed to be broad and sweeping enough that it could apply to Iraq, or Vietnam, or religious wars dating back centuries. It was about making a general point regarding man's history of behavior, not a single instance. But, of course, anyone with an agenda could say I was simply attacking Bush."
If this were true, I would still have to question the timing. But having read posts on this site, It's fairly obvious to me that it was a bash of the administration's policies, though not necessarily Bush himself.

"My conviction is that I celebrate and support diversity of opinion, as this country was and is intended to do. Your conviction is that those who disagree with you do not deserve your support and, ideally, should be made to feel the ramifications of your disagreement. You believe in free speech when and where it serves you, and nowhere else, and that is pathetic and sad."
Whether you deserve my support or not is not the issue. It's the fact that I CHOOSE not to support you. As is my right. And what ramifications? Did Joe Q. slap your wrist? I didn't expect anything to be done because of my letter. I know I'm not that important. The letters were just a courtesy that I would want if someone stopped buying my product, as I've said in earlier posts. Pathetic and sad? Well, that is your opinion. It seems though, that to be consistent, you would also have to label yourself as such, due to your reaction to my expression of free speech, that you do not agree with.

AnthonyX. "The letter writer is an asshole, thats is not in doubt."
Maybe I am. And maybe I am. The beauty of living in America.

"This kind of reminds me of the "9/11-was-a tragedy-BUT" crowd."
Anybody who puts a "but" at the end of that sentence is WAY out of my league in the asshole department.

the comment was made that by supporting someone we have a difference in opinion over values or politics we are cowards our convictions.Im paraphrasing but i believe that was the comment.I strongly disagree with that.As i stated before Ben & jerry may support a cop killer ,but i enjoy the ice cream.I disagree with PAD on some topics ,but i enjoy his work and am actually interested hearing opinions other than my own.Doesnt lessen my convictions just means i can separate the opinions from the work.
Another example, my local comics shop was selling recent issues of Supreme Power in a plastic bag.I thought it was directd by Marvel,i a mistaken.It seems that the owner felt the nudity
in recent issues was something he didnt want the kids seeing.At which point i looked at him like he had three heads considering other things i found offensive in other books that were not so packaged.He in turn looked at me like a fool cause i thought the nudity was not an issue.Disagree with the opinion ,still support the store. Hope i made the point,i sometimes ramble on

czerillo---

There must have been dozens of comics that you stopped reading over the years. Did you write to the Editor-In-Chief each time to express your reasons for not continuing to read that comic? I would suspect not.

And if you agreed with Peter David's political views, but didn't like his writing, would you then write a letter to the E-I-C stating so? I again suspect not.

This is what makes your actions the actions of a hypocrite.

Alan Coil

John:

PAD hasn't once said, I don't beleive, that it violates the First Amendment constitutionally, or that he believes he has any legal redress, just that it violates the spirit behind the first amendment. Those who truly support the first amendment wouldn't try to get someone fired for speaking.

And therein lies the rub. He doesn't once tell Joe Quesada to fire PAD. He doesn't even suggest that PAD be fired. He doesn't even say that he's organizing a boycott. What he does say, essentially, is that "one of your employees has offended me in some way and I am exercising my right of the free market not to support this author and by extension the company he works for."

Other than the fact that he wrote the letter to Joe Quesada, (and quite honestly now that I've read the letter again, assuming it was complete, I can't really see what the problem is).

PAD suggest that the letter is an attempt (perhaps) to get him fired. Frankly, I can't see how more effective or different the letter is than a post I've written over at the DC Comics Wonder Woman message board regarding Greg Rucka in which I wrote (paraphrasing) " Greg Rucka's writing sucks. Somebody email me when his writing tour on Wonder Woman is over so I can stat buying the book again.

I rather doubt that DC is going to fire Rucka over that post, nor do I want them to. And I know for a fact, that I'm not alone in my sentiments regarding Rucka's writing on Wonder Woman. So the question is: Was I wrong to write that post on DC's own message board forum? If so, why? I don't see it. Help me discern the difference.

JW in Iowa brought up that little story about the poor little Swedish pastor who was imprisoned "because he dared to say he believed that homosexual acts are a sin. He did not in any way say that a homosexual should be beaten, etc. He simply said that a man having sex with a man was wrong, just as a man having sex with a woman outside of marriage is wrong."
Actually, from what I've read of that, he didn't "simply" say any such thing. His comments included such brilliant lines as "homosexuals are the cancerous tumor within the body of the society" and "homosexual men prefer sex with dogs and other animals". The pastor invited the media to witness his willing violation of Sweden's Constitution (refer to Chapter Two, Articles 1, 13, 14, 15 and 16) which does not give a completely unrestricted freedom of speech.
This is not altogether unusual anywhere in Europe (France, for example, bars most representations of the Nazi swastika; I would also remind you that under Thatcher, there was an effort to remove "homosexual" from the dictionary after the introduction of Clause 28).
I would argue that this pastor was aware that he would be violating the law AND was willing to take the consequences of his actions. Swedish authorities noted that there was nothing they could do IF the pastor had restricted his comments solely to actual Biblical passages (this makes sense as the Bible also commands that adulterers and disobedient children be put to death, that slavery is permissible, that certain foods are not permitted to be eaten and that polygyny is condoned, yet none of those "laws" are upheld within the body of Swedish law). He went well out of bounds in his comments though, as far as Swedish law allows.

This is the thread that finally convinced me to register on Type Key. I took Fallen Angel off of my pull list after number 3. In that issue the lead character says, "Fortunately abortion is legal at least for the moment." That is a sentiment I disagree with. I didn't write to you or to DC. I just dropped to book. I didn't want to force you to change your character's view, (I doubt that I could), I just decided I didn't need to afford to buy a book in which the main character turned me off.

It is certainly your right as a creator to give your characters any view you wish. As you so eloquently wrote in the recent CBG, "There are risks to having characters take definitive stands about things that matter." At least you agree that abortion is a thing that matters.

Deano. To each his own. You buy the ice cream, I will not. Hooray for the free marketplace.

Alan Coil. Your suspicions would be wrong. No hypocrisy involved. Say what you want, write what you want, but I don't have to buy it.

EClark1849. You've hit it right on the head. I'd have a pretty big head if I thought my letter could get PAD fired.

I want to thank PAD for allowing me to rebut on this forum. It being his domain, he could just as easily have blocked my posts, and I would have understood entirely.

czerillo wrote/quoted: "This kind of reminds me of the "9/11-was-a tragedy-BUT" crowd."
Anybody who puts a "but" at the end of that sentence is WAY out of my league in the asshole department.

Agreed.

I want to thank PAD for allowing me to rebut on this forum. It being his domain, he could just as easily have blocked my posts, and I would have understood entirely.

That should further absolve you of the "hypoctite" label, but it does rather nicely sum up the difference between your attitude toward disagreeable speech and PAD's: he avoids depriving people of even private fora for their opinions except in extremis. I think his attitude makes for a healthier society than yours does. That doesn't make you a bad person, but I sharply disagree with your methods.

I would argue that this pastor was aware that he would be violating the law AND was willing to take the consequences of his actions. Swedish authorities noted that there was nothing they could do IF the pastor had restricted his comments solely to actual Biblical passages (this makes sense as the Bible also commands that adulterers and disobedient children be put to death, that slavery is permissible, that certain foods are not permitted to be eaten and that polygyny is condoned, yet none of those "laws" are upheld within the body of Swedish law). He went well out of bounds in his comments though, as far as Swedish law allows.

And that's just another reason for me not to move back to my ancestral homeland (along with the weather and not actually speaking Swedish). The Swedish law is indefensible if it's being accurately portrayed on this blog. I'm not thrilled about gay-bashing either (as Eddie Izzard says, it should be done in a closet and away from respectable people), but that doesn't mean it's worth sending someone to prison. In the United States, we send someone to prison for fighting words, for soliciting desertion (Schenck), for inciting a riot, but not for mouthing off.

"Why you think they (or I) are or were “idiots” for not having discovered those pieces before you did, I don’t know."

Luigi, you're reading way too much into what was a flip comment that, had I said it to you out loud in the tone I intended it, you wouldn't have given a second thought. You didn't offend me and if I offended you, which was not at all my intention, I certainly apologize.

PAD

I missed the following in Ken's earlier posting:

"P.S. Is censorship "okay" if I censor a) what I listen to? b) what my underage kids (if I had any) listen to? c) what someone else says on my property, in my product, with my resources, but don't try to get others, including the national government, to censor them?"

I don't know what A: "censor what I listen to" means. If you mean is it okay that you heard something you didn't like and therefore attempt to censor it so no one else hears it, no, that's not all right. If you mean do you have the right to select what it is you choose and do not choose to listen to...yes, of course that's all right. Freedom of speech should also mean the right to freedom FROM speech. No one should be FORCED to listen or watch material they find objectionable.

The thing is, freedom from speech should end at your channel selector. You choose what you want to see and not see. But if you don't want to see it, don't start going after sponsors or lobbying congress with the intention of driving it off the air so that I or someone else can't see it.

In terms of (B), absolutely. Overseeing your child's viewing or listening is your prerogative and responsibility. It's also work. A lot of parents these days seem to lack the parenting tools to control their kid's viewing habits. When I was a kid, there was certain shows that my dad did not want me to see. And he said, "You cannot watch these shows." And if those shows were on and my folks weren't home, even if I were home alone, such was my respect for my father's edicts that I wouldn't dare turn them on (at some level I just thought he'd KNOW somehow.)

As for (C), I'm not trying to be difficult, but you got so many conditional clauses in there that I read it three times and I'm still not sure what you're asking. So I'll go with "maybe."

PAD

"If this were true, I would still have to question the timing. But having read posts on this site, It's fairly obvious to me that it was a bash of the administration's policies, though not necessarily Bush himself."

Well, gee, I'm glad that you're willing to place your own agenda over what I said the story was about. The "timing?" The point is that it could have seen print at any time in exactly the same form and been about just about any occupant in a top position of power in any country with a military for the last hundred years.

I mean, why stop there? Since my views on Bush's actions are well known, why not just say that the entire story arc focusing on Captain Marvel's insanity was one long, prolonged bashing of Bush? That works, right? The story of a guy so overwhelmed with power that he just goes completely nuts, sees things that aren't there, plays soldier, keeps a gun at his side like a cowboy (Texas angle! Reference to Bush with Saddam's gun! See the evil liberal subtext?) and attacks whoever catches his eye...all while trying to please his father. Why heck, I even brought up the father angle explicitly in Captain Marvel #5, so that's what the whole series has to be about, right? Bush destroying the universe. Makes perfect sense.

By the way, another poster made a very valid point. Since you claim you were just being a conscientious consumer, rather than trying to retaliate against me, just how many times in the past have you written to the EIC when you dropped a book for whatever reason. I'm curious.

PAD

Peter David said:
Your conviction is that those who disagree with you do not deserve your support and, ideally, should be made to feel the ramifications of your disagreement. You believe in free speech when and where it serves you, and nowhere else, and that is pathetic and sad.

So, in other words, if I boycott a creator for disagreeing with (or not liking) him outside of his work, I am against his freedom of speech? Do you have any idea how emotionally mature you have to be in order to separate art from artist? What about the opposite? What happens if you support art not for its own quality, but for the quality of the artist? For instance, you buy a book because you agree with the artist's political views, not necessarily because you enjoy the book, (although enjoyment might take place). Is that also against freedom of speech?

There are just varying estimates of the fatalities in the Holocaust. I will admit that the figures I've seen range from four to eight million, so your 11 million is a new one on me. I always understood the six million figure to be the generally-accepted estimate; I'd be interested to know your source.

I had a hell of a time finding that stat. Everybody reports the six million Jews killed during the Holocaust while completely ignoring the other deaths. Here's such an example:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/h/holocaus.asp

By the end of the war 6 million Jews had been systematically murdered.

But I finally found a few sources for the eleven million total deaths during the Holocaust.

http://www.world-war-2.info/holocaust/

In some circles, the term holocaust is used to describe the systematic murder of the other groups which were exterminated in the same circumstances by the Nazis, including ethnic Roma and Sinti (also known as Gypsies), political dissidents, communists, homosexuals, mental patients, Jehovah's Witnesses, Russians, Poles, and other Slavs, raising the total number of victims of Nazis to between ten and fourteen million civilians, and up to 4 million POWs.

http://www.holocaustforgotten.com/
http://www.remember.org/forgotten/

Eleven million precious lives were lost during the Holocaust of World War II. Six million of these were Polish citizens. Half of these Polish citizens were non-Jews.

http://holocaust.hklaw.com/essays/1999/99GA1.htm

Between 1939-1945, on Hitler's order, eleven million people were killed during the Holocaust (6 million Jews of which 1.5 million were children).

This book seems to be the primary source of that stat.

Inferno, Vol. 5: July 1943 to April 1945, by Eleanor H. Ayer and William Shulman.

What's the difference between a boycott and campaigning? Does David have a right to job security that the President does not? I think either his view of the First Amendment is half-baked or this is just another case of liberals torturously appealing to their one truly held value--a disdain for perceived hypocrisy.

Rev Prez

Peter David: Luigi, you're reading way too much into what was a flip comment that, had I said it to you out loud in the tone I intended it, you wouldn't have given a second thought. You didn't offend me and if I offended you, which was not at all my intention, I certainly apologize.
Luigi Novi: Ditto all around. Sometimes I fail to pick up certain “inflections” on text-only message boards. Mea culpa. :-)

I guess you can stop buying anything you want for whatever reason you want. And if I personally found someone's extracurricular actions SO morally questionable (we each have that point of no return, however different)I might well be tempted to stop supporting their other professional endevours if I felt so offended.

But if the person hasn't done anything illegal, I wouldn't try to get them fired. There's a fine line between boycotting (or merely switching allegiances)and becoming an active campaigner against something.

I tend to come down on Peter's side of the fence a lot of the time (though sometimes a different part of the lawn)but that's nothing to do with supporting his right to express his opinions. I'm certainly rarely in the same post/zip-code as Bill O'Reilly's belief system, but I'm not writing to FOX News expressing my concerns over the man.

Opinions are not dangerous unless actions are taken on their behalf that invalidate the right for others to have theirs.

John

Posted by Rev Prez: What's the difference between a boycott and campaigning? Does David have a right to job security that the President does not?

A couple of people have posted this point. I am surprised, because to me the difference seems obvious.

Peter David is a comic book writer. His political opinions, expressed on his own web site, are irrelevant to the job he does. He should neither be hired nor fired as a comic book writer because of them.

During the 1950s, one of the more shameful things done was to blacklist people to prevent them from working in Hollywood. Many writers -- excellent writers, well-qualified for the jobs they were seeking -- could not be hired because of this pressure.

(Some were able to continue working by getting others to front for them. The blacklisted writer would write a screenplay, but another person would be the one listed as the writer. Under this arrangement, the studios were willing to buy the work. Obviously, then, the problem was not with the banned writers' writing abilities -- it was because of their political views.)

George Bush and John Kerry are not seeking the job of comic book writer; they are interested in the job of US president. Their political opinions are directly relevant to that job (while their comic book writing skills are largely irrelevant). It is therefore not only fair but a good idea for their prospective employers (the US citizens) to examine these men's political opinions and hire or fire based on those opinions.

The issue is not that Peter David is above criticism but George Bush is not. If someone does not like Peter David's writing style, then it would be appropriate for them to write to his publisher saying they did not enjoy the way he wrote a book they published. Likewise, if someone doesn't like Bush's politics or governing style, it is quite appropriate for them to take this into account when casting their vote and to comment on it in trying to affect other people's votes.

This is not to condone either Bush-bashing or David-bashing. If George Bush on leaving the White House wishes to write comics, I would hope his efforts would be judged on their merits. If someone were to try to deny Bush a job as a comic writer because they did not approve of Bush's views on abortion or gay marriage, that would as morally wrong in my eyes as trying to deny David work on that basis. (It would, however, be quite reasonable to deny Bush a job as a comic book writer if it turned out his writing sucked.)

Please note that I said morally wrong. Like Peter David and others here, I strongly support the First Amendment. No one is trying to take away the right for people to hold and express rude, nasty, or misguided opinions. All I'm saying is trying to get someone fired because you don't like their political opinions is a low, unadmirable thing to do.

A lot of people... okay, that's not fair... some people probably don't know who Ezra Pound is.
Ezra Pound was the "grandfather" of Modern American poetry. The :grandfather: of Modernism in literature.
So?
He was also an expatriate... he disagreed with so much of American policy and its involvement in WW II. He was anti-semetic at the very least. He thought Mussolini was the savior of mankind.
Point?
Without him, The Waste Land by T.S. Eliot would not have been the same. Without him, William Carlos Williams, H.D. and Eliot would not be as prominent as they are.
In other words, "Not With A Bang, but a Whimper" most likely wouldn't be quoted today.
Eliot and Pound were both Student and Master and peers. Pound and Eliot influenced each other and challenged each other.
Without Pound, possibly the greatest American poet (eliot) would not be known.
I despise what Old Red (Pound) believed, but damn was he a poet! And his influence extends to amazing lengths. Separating the art from the artist is difficult at least.
But if you can't do it... then you won't enjoy art that much. Because all artists are flawed, because they are human. And even if their flaws are great, it shouldn't lessen the talent they have.
My opinion as always,

Travis

This is my first time posting on this site. My wife directed me towards this discussion, and even though I haven’t read every single post on this thread, I find it very interesting. I agree with Peter David, on that the first amendment has no “but”.

If you apply a “but” to every freedom, then you are adding restrictions. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to protect those freedoms, not to restrict them. With that said, with freedom come responsibilities and consequences. Yes, you can yell “Fire” in a crowded theater. It is your responsibility to ensure that there was a fire, and suffer the consequences if there wasn’t.

Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Holmes, Jr., said the right to swing your fist ends at the point of the other person’s nose.

Yes, you have freedoms, they are protected, and there are no “buts” about it. Just use them responsibly.

While I still don't agree with the actions the letter writer took, I have to give him credit for stepping forward in this forum, identifying himself and stating why he took the action he did.

As to the letter itself, whether signed with a name or anonymous, I still maintain it was inappropriate to write to Joe Quesada to say he wouldn't be reading PAD's books any more because of his political beliefs. The more appropriate thing to do would have been to write the letter to PAD himself. Writing to PAD's employer creates the impression-- whether intentional or not-- that he had hoped to get PAD into trouble of some sort over something that had nothing to do with his job responsibilities at Marvel.

On another note, Charlton Heston. It's interesting that PAD should use him as an example. While I've never met the man (Heston, that is), and I don't agree with all of his politics, I've always gotten the impression that if we did meet and got into a conversation about the pros and cons of gun control, that we would have a civil discourse about the issue.

I don't get that impression from a lot of other people on the far right, which is a shame.

Rick

On another note, Charlton Heston. It's interesting that PAD should use him as an example. While I've never met the man (Heston, that is), and I don't agree with all of his politics, I've always gotten the impression that if we did meet and got into a conversation about the pros and cons of gun control, that we would have a civil discourse about the issue.

I don't get that impression from a lot of other people on the far right, which is a shame.

One could say the same about the far left as well. Extremists, by definition, are extreme. It's not at all uncommon for extremists to let their convictions get the best of their dignity, which is indeed a shame. We all remember college, right? Extremists are college activists who never grew up.

I don't know much about Charlton Heston's politics apart from his position on firearms laws. That suggests conservatism, but doesn't prove it, and doesn't necessarily make him "far right."

I must admit, Czerillo, that I am impressed that you outed yourself as the letter writer. Anything less would have been chickenshit and crass. Now, it's just crass.

If you had posted this letter publicly with your name on it, then I porbably wouldn't complain. Al Franken, Michael Moore, Molly Ivins, and Paul Krugman all take regular potshots at conservatives. Ann Coulter does the same thing to liberals (and moderates, in my opinion). But at least their victims knew who was taking them to task. That's the difference between the old groups "Friends of Ellison" (public group, fairly self-explanatory in intent) and "Enemies of Ellison" (a private group working to make Ellison's life miserable).

Al Franken, Michael Moore, Molly Ivins, and Paul Krugman all take regular potshots at conservatives. Ann Coulter does the same thing to liberals (and moderates, in my opinion). But at least their victims knew who was taking them to task.

Probably not the best examples, since all the people you name are actually PAID to write the columns they do.

Also, the truth is that people like you are the very reason there IS a first amendment. True the FA really only applies to government censorship, but people like you probably would be the ones to turn them in.

PAD wouldn't know me if he tripped over me and I disagree with him almost out of habit now, but i probably wouldn't post here if I had to reveal my full name (although I think he knows it). Has nothing to do with PAD, really, but with people who may one day decide not to buy my books, short stories, or scripts because of something I may have written on this board. After all, conservatives aren't look upon very favorably in the artistic world.

Never did I write that you did not have the right to freely express yourself. Nor would I have done such a thing. I am simply expressing my counter-opinion (which, according to the First Amendment, I have the right to express myself as well). There's a difference between stifling one's speech and simply having disdain for your approach. You have every right to be a schmuck (honestly, I think everyone has at least a little schmuck in them, and some more than others). If you can't take a criticism, then don't.

I simply cannot believe there are posters here who think it is alright to try to jeopardize someone's livelihood over differing views.
I generally have no use at all for Liberals, but that has nothing to do with their job performance, whatever that job might be.
PAD; ignore these mini-intellects. Tell them their ridiculous little opinions have been noted, and don't let their posts anger you too much. I'm confident that Joe Quesada and others at Marvel are too intelligent to put much stock into a letter like the one being discussed here.