February 04, 2005

CBLDF Updates

In a society where--horrifingly enough--polled high school students express little appreciation for the First Amendment, and see nothing wrong with the government curtailing freedom of expression, I notice that comics fans who knock the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund do so from two angles.

The first is a cavalier, "Well, they don't win any cases." I refer you to our latest endeavor, a case in which South Carolina customs officials embargoed comic books that lampooned George W. Bush. I am pleased to announce that, thanks to the CBLDF's quick intervention, the books have been shaken loose from customs and are proceeding, none the worse for wear, to their proper destination. So that was a slam dunk against governmental abuse of power. More can be found on that over at www.cbldf.org.

The second knock is the false perception that the only comics which run into trouble are hard core porn, and why should people support the CBLDF when we "only" come to the aid of accused pornographers. To that I am now saying, Watch this space. Come Monday, we will be announcing a new case the CBLDF is going to be taking on. It is going to be a major undertaking, and it challenges laws that--if allowed to stand--would leave retailers open to obscenity prosecution for selling certain titles that are considered comics masterworks and are on the shelves of just about every serious comics collector in the country.

PAD

Posted by Peter David at February 4, 2005 04:36 PM | TrackBack | Other blogs commenting
Comments
Posted by: hdefined at February 4, 2005 05:31 PM

Could you please link the article or statistic or whatever that shows high schools' apathy toward the first amendment? I'm just really curious

Posted by: hdefined at February 4, 2005 05:31 PM

***high schoolERs

Posted by: Kathleen David at February 4, 2005 05:45 PM

Try this link
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6888837
It was an AP story on 1/31/2005

Posted by: Mat at February 4, 2005 05:47 PM

The study itself is here:
http://firstamendment.jideas.org/index.html

Posted by: Michael Brunner at February 4, 2005 06:22 PM

Summary of the study - a third of high schoolers feel that the media should get the permission of the government before publishing stories.

Posted by: Ken at February 4, 2005 06:35 PM

It is going to be a major undertaking, and it challenges laws that--if allowed to stand--would leave retailers open to obscenity prosecution for selling certain titles that are considered comics masterworks and are on the shelves of just about every serious comics collector in the country.


THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!

Posted by: Patrick at February 4, 2005 06:43 PM

And in record time the hecklers appear to make themselves feel good....

Patrick (aka Grimjack)

Posted by: Ben Rosenberg at February 4, 2005 06:57 PM

Posted by: Ken at February 4, 2005 06:35 PM

THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!

Nah. We just have a bunch of self-righteous people in office right now who think that it's their way or no way. Why else would the head of the education department call for a ban on a show with a rabbit because he visited a lesbian couple?!

It's quite amazing that these so called moral leaders are so typical of those throughout history have picked select religious reasons to persecute others. These people pick a verse from leviticus to justify their aborrent behavior yet ignore other things that are said to be an abomination in God's eyes. Either all the words are true or they are not. Picking and choosing what laws of God to follow just isn't cutting it. It makes people look like hippocrates.

Next thing you know well find pictures on the internet of James Dobson and SpongeJane Squareskirt... oh my... I didn't know one could do that to a friggin SPONGE!

Posted by: Scavenger at February 4, 2005 07:31 PM

So...do you think it's Sandman or Maus being targeted? I'd say Maus cuz these people are too cowardly to go after Warner Brothers.

Posted by: Luigi Novi at February 4, 2005 07:32 PM

Peter, is it possible that that study is not necessarily indicative of what will be adult beliefs, but of kids who simply haven’t learned the significance of the First Amendment? As for the CBLDF case, the story seems to indicate that Customs seized the books because they were infringements on existing copyrights, not because they were a slam against Bush (though I’m not sure why Customs would get involved in a copyright infringement case anyway—is that their job?)

Posted by: Elayne Riggs at February 4, 2005 07:33 PM

You forgot the third category, those who don't support the CBLDF as long as it takes on copyright theft cases on the side of the thief.

Posted by: mike weber at February 4, 2005 08:11 PM

Posted by Luigi Novi at February 4, 2005 07:32 PM

Peter, is it possible that that study is not necessarily indicative of what will be adult beliefs, but of kids who simply haven’t learned the significance of the First Amendment?

No -- for decades, studies have shown that a large percentage -- in some studies a majority, i think -- of the populace, presented with the Bill of Rights without being told what it is, will denounce it as dangerous radical propaganda.

And, of course, there is our own Beloved President, who, during the campaign prior to his Court appointment in 2000, remarked that there was such a thing as too much freedom of speech.

Posted by: del at February 4, 2005 08:13 PM

You forgot the third category, those who don't support the CBLDF as long as it takes on copyright theft cases on the side of the thief.

What case are you referring to, out of curiousity?

Posted by: Ken at February 4, 2005 08:48 PM

The problem is, as one poster on the DC board put it, the only cases where CBLDF is on the winning side and where they are even close to being in the right are cases where other organizations do the work and CBLDF just add their name to it. They come across as ACLU-wannabes and not as an effective organization. They consistently choose the wrong side on just about every case that they handle themselves and subsequently lose.

And PAD and Glen's continual "THE SKY IS FALLING" comments only add to the ineffectiveness.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at February 4, 2005 10:19 PM

They consistently choose the wrong side on just about every case that they handle themselves and subsequently lose.

I'd say there is a huge difference between "the wrong side" and "the losing side".

See, like Democrats... they were on the losing side of this election.

Republicans? They're on the wrong side.

Posted by: Peter david at February 4, 2005 10:28 PM

"The problem is, as one poster on the DC board put it, the only cases where CBLDF is on the winning side and where they are even close to being in the right are cases where other organizations do the work and CBLDF just add their name to it."

That is a load of crap.

You know, I've mentioned in the past that the vast majority of times, people don't even hear about all the times the CBLDF pulls retailers' fat out of the fire because we get it done without it even going to court.

"Gee, you should publicize those wins, Peter," quoth people right here on this very board. "If you did that, then people would appreciate the CBLDF more."

So I take that advice, and what happens? Faced with evidence to the contrary of their opinions, people like Ken diss it and dismiss it.

You folks had better hope to hell we DON'T lose the case we'll be announcing next week. The sky isn't falling, but if the case law that we (we as in the CBLDF; we're the lead organization on this, contrary to whatever the brain on the DC boards said) is allowed to stand, it will set a horrific precedent.

PAD

Posted by: TallestFanEver at February 4, 2005 10:53 PM

Oh shit.

They're banning hentai comics aren't they?

AREN'T THEY?!

I'll offically have no reason to live if they do that.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at February 5, 2005 12:05 AM

I agree that Sandman and Maus seem like decent candidates, but I'd also toss Watchmen into the list of possible options as well. Full frontal male nudity? Can't have that for the helpless children.

(I mean, geez, if a single exposed nipple traumatized half of a country, a blue penis would induce thousands of simultaneous aneurysms...)

TWL

Posted by: JamesLynch at February 5, 2005 12:25 AM

First, I'm very curious to learn what this case is.

Second, free speech is one of the hardest things to defend when it's not the speech you like. It's not easy to allow someone else to experience or enjoy something you find insulting, vile, or scareligious. However, giving people freedom gives them the ability to choose something you might not choose for yourself. I support the CBLDF because I'd rather err on the side of freedom of speech, and the freedom to choose/purchase the product of that speech, than have someone else deciding for others/for me before I even have the chance to decide for themselves/myself.

And to some of the above posters, please don't automatically drag religion/politics into these discussions unless it's directly relevant. As a Fundamentalist Agnostic (I'm sure I don't have all the answers) I'm not a big fan of organized religion, but there are plenty of secular people/groups out to ban materials for being offensive. Likewise, Republicans hardly have a monopoly on wanting to suppress things they find offensive. Stay focused on the enemies at hand, without inviting more into the issue.

Posted by: hdefined at February 5, 2005 01:17 AM

Stuff like this bothers me.

It's as if I want to go out for a picnic on a sunny day by a lake. Then someone comes and tells me I need to move away from the lake. Then someone else tells me I need to eat indoors. Then someone else tells me I'm not allowed to eat indoors.

I think if more people knew about North Korean society, they would know how truly scary absolute censorship and propaganda can be.

Posted by: John Mosby at February 5, 2005 07:25 AM

Naked Dr.Manhattan, right?

Always said the big blue guy was a walking advertisement for litigation.

John Mosby

Posted by: Bladestar at February 5, 2005 08:25 AM

Leave it to Elayne to shw her ignorance.

Copyright Infringement is NOT theft, it's Infringement, get it right if you're go be a self-rightous mouthpoiece of the nutjob-wrongwing-repudlickans...

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at February 5, 2005 10:25 AM

"Leave it to Elayne to shw her ignorance.

Copyright Infringement is NOT theft, it's Infringement, get it right if you're go be a self-rightous mouthpoiece of the nutjob-wrongwing-repudlickans..."

You're one of those folks who brightens a room just by leaving it, aren't you?

Posted by: Patrick at February 5, 2005 10:50 AM

"Leave it to Elayne to shw her ignorance.

Copyright Infringement is NOT theft, it's Infringement, get it right if you're go be a self-rightous mouthpoiece of the nutjob-wrongwing-repudlickans..."

You're one of those folks who brightens a room just by leaving it, aren't you?

There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear. - Daniel Dennett

Don't know why that quote came to mind....

Posted by: del at February 5, 2005 04:36 PM

Still curious to know what the copyright infringement case was. Or does she mean the Richie Bush parody?

Posted by: simon at February 5, 2005 06:06 PM

The Winter Bros. Vs. DC Comics?

Posted by: Luke K. Walsh at February 5, 2005 06:06 PM

To my mind there is absolutely NO more important right than the freedom of expression. That any percentage of high schoolers could seem to come down against it in any way is quite frightening. (Of course, we can hope that this is one of those studies which occasionally get publicized, like "Half of high schoolers [or whatever the number] can't find the U.S. on the map!" which seem alarming but apparently are either inaccurate or the students in question "get better".)

(Okay, to digress pretty entirely for a minute - this reminds me of something I read recently which points out a problem I have with statistical projections. I've been reading _The Complete Slayer_, a book reviewing the entirety of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", by Keith
Topping. While the book is (at least to a devoted fan of the seies like myself) very interesting and informative as a whole, one of the odd little issues I've had with it - and I've agreed with the author far more often than not - involves a statistical study mentioned in passing. The author, who is British, writes that an overweight actress played the part of Willow in the original 25-minute promotional version of Buffy (which apparently also included a still-brunette Sarah Michelle Gellar in the title role, btw), and remarks that a heavier member of the Scooby Gang might have both provided a role model and been more realistic [true enough, taken by itself]
"given that the entire population of the USA will, according to recent statistics, be clinically obese by the year 2032" (page 7). Um .... Putting aside my own statistically unusual case of being seemingly permanently significantly underweight for my height ... there does sometimes come a point with statistics where they just contradict common sense. Whatever trends are, some things, like _everybody_ being - well, anything - just are obviously impossible. Projections and case studies can _never_ apply to _everyone_, and I am skeptical that projecting human beings based on any sample can be as exact a science as sometimes is portrayed. ANYway ....)

I agree that people find it difficult to hear "offensive" thoughts. But, offensive is in the - ear of the behearer, so to speak - and I strongly feel that there is more wrong in surpressing expession than in anything expressed. Even from white supremicists and other groups of
ignorance and hate - whatever you may find most vomitous, I have to side with the old "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" quote. Freedom of speech is a fundamental, essential part of being an American (of course, I am one of those who was left wondering if I still had a country which represented me after the election or if it was gone forever ... but I feel a little better with the passage of time...) - it is amazing if a large percenatge of high school kids don't recogize this greatness of the United States Constitution, and I have to believe that, as adults, the same group would poll differently. I hope. Otherwise, yikes.

Posted by: Jeff Mason at February 5, 2005 07:26 PM

Picasso's penis is dangerous to America's youth.

Posted by: Roger Tang at February 5, 2005 07:27 PM

copyright infringement or theft, it still means it that some people have little respect for the work of others and have the gall to think that their "rights" are more important than the people who produced the work.

All right if we call you "asshole"?

Posted by: Darren J Hudak at February 5, 2005 08:14 PM

** You forgot the third category, those who don't support the CBLDF as long as it takes on copyright theft cases on the side of the thief. **

And which cases would those be? Seriously, I can't think of any case that qualifies, the Richie Bush cash was clearly parody, (no different then Mad magizine or Saturday night Live). So was the Winter Bros case, so which case(s) would you be refering to?

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at February 5, 2005 08:43 PM

So, anybody keeping up on the stuff surrounding that Ward Churchill fellow?

Posted by: Bladestar at February 5, 2005 09:23 PM

Since you can't think and aren't very bright Roger, call me whatever you want. I guess when someone jaywalks, you call it rape...

I don't really care what the mentally infirm call me... I pity them all the same

Posted by: Michael Pullmann at February 5, 2005 10:53 PM

Oh, I just love Google:

"Generally, a person commits the crime of theft of property if he or she:
(1) Knowingly obtains or exerts unauthorized control over the property of another, with intent to deprive the owner of his or her property;

(2) Knowingly obtains by deception control over the property of another, with intent to deprive the owner of his or her property; or

(3) Knowingly obtains or exerts control over property in the custody of a law enforcement agency which was explicitly represented to the person by an agent of the law enforcement agency as being stolen."

US law states that an artist's, we'll say Peter's, work is his property. If I were to Xerox the first chapter of Sir Apropos of Nothing and go sell it in Times Square with my name attached, I'd be meeting the first definition of theft. Furthermore, if one believes (as can be argued) that copyright is itself a form of intellectual property, then I would meet that definition even if I were selling those Xeroxes with Peter's name attached.

Infringement is theft.

Posted by: Blue Spider at February 6, 2005 01:27 AM

"And, of course, there is our own Beloved President, who, during the campaign prior to his Court appointment in 2000, remarked that there was such a thing as too much freedom of speech."

Anyone who disagrees with that statement obviously has never had anyone yell in their face, to their face, within too close a space.

That said, people cannot come into my house and say whatever they want to whomever they want however they want about whomever they want, carte blanch. Reasonably I assume the same for your house. On the same basis I cannot walk into a movie theatre and shout "fire" or something else false, alarming, provocative and dangerous.

So yes, being obvious, the First Amendment doesn't guaruntee absolute free speech. Obviously there are certain situations where someone can and will tell you to shut up and you'll have to shut up.

and there are cases where free speech is abused... utterances of profanities and obcenities in the immediate vicinity of children.

This is all perfectly debateable, but I would never dismiss the statement "too much freedom of speech" out of hand.

and like I said... there are places where the freedom of speech is gone... and people just have to deal.

Posted by: Blue Spider at February 6, 2005 01:45 AM

"We just have a bunch of self-righteous people in office right now who think that it's their way or no way. Why else would the head of the education department call for a ban on a show with a rabbit because he visited a lesbian couple?"

Oh yes, because the bunny tape just happend to come across the desk in the Oval Office for Presidential approval....

Geez.

"It's quite amazing that these so called moral leaders are so typical of those throughout history have picked select religious reasons to persecute others. These people pick a verse from leviticus to justify their aborrent behavior yet ignore other things that are said to be an abomination in God's eyes. Either all the words are true or they are not. Picking and choosing what laws of God to follow just isn't cutting it. It makes people look like hippocrates."

Every person does this. Every person decides what to do or what rules to follow. I don't see exactly what's got you all fired up. The Junior Senator from Massacusetts decides that abortion is a moral allowance in direct defiance of higher-ups of his own Church but he participates in Communion just the same.

Our 42nd President attends/attended church but that doesn't stop adultery. Hell, a belief in right and wrong taken from a belief in God still doesn't STOP somebody from doing an immoral thing. I wonder how many adulterers are Believers?

Our 40th President committed adultery when he was younger and so did Johnny Cash. Then they lived faithfully for the rest of their lives.

Our 39th President was a veritable saint, as far as we all know and of course has a huge part in Habitat for Humanity. I also recall him praising a terrorist and murderer of children for his statesmanship and courage.

People ARE hypocrites! and man what I wouldn't give to look like Hippocrates! That "do no harm" stuff would make me look mighty sweet. and a doctor's paycheck wow-ee!

but of course, I still don't see the "persecution" from above.

oh, and about SpongeBob... according to his creator, he's asexual.

and as far as ascribing censorship exclusively to the right-wing... to hear that kind of idea makes me ill. I feel as if I'm about to faint. I just can't stand the notion that someone is still thinking in that frame of biases.

Posted by: A. Greene at February 6, 2005 03:00 AM

"And, of course, there is our own Beloved President, who, during the campaign prior to his Court appointment in 2000, remarked that there was such a thing as too much freedom of speech."

There is no such thing as too much freedom of speech.

Anyone who disagrees with that statement obviously has never had anyone yell in their face, to their face, within too close a space

That isn't about freedom of speech, that's just harassment and is wrong for a different reason.

people cannot come into my house and say whatever they want to whomever they want however they want about whomever they want, carte blanch.

No they can't, but if they are in your house and you don't want them to be there, that's called trespassing, again, not something regarding their freedom to say what they believe.

I cannot walk into a movie theater and shout "fire" or something else false, alarming, provocative and dangerous

that isn't freedom of speech. You can shout "fire" or something else endangering, but you will be arrested for pubic endangerment (that probably isn't the technical term but you get the idea).

Swearing around kids, In that sense, i would say discretion(sp?) is the better part of valor, and i wouldn't, but I don't think that sort of thing should be regulated (in public of course, not talking about TV, radio, or film).

Obviously there are certain situations where someone can and will tell you to shut up and you'll have to shut up.

yes, and they would just be excersizing their freedom of speech, that doesn't mean I have to shut-up though. (again that bit about valor applies, but I'm not going to regulate it)

To iterate (or is it reiterate by now?) there is no such thing as "too much freedom of speech." I would refer back to discretion, and willingness to accept the consequences of what you say and where you say it. Either there is freedom of speech or there isn't, and I'm happy that I live somewhere there is freedom of Speech.

Posted by: Elf with a gun at February 6, 2005 07:09 AM

PAD, I think the best solution to the apathy the CBLDF gets from some fans is a variation of the suggestion someone (I've forgotten who) posted the last time this subject came up. Basicaly, have a monthly update on the CBLDF homepage summarizing the cases they've handled that month, listing what comics were targeted for removal and why, and the results of those interventions. Retailer anonymity can be mantained by identifiying them soley by their states of origin and by not using the proper names of the people and/or groups who targeted them. A few months worth of that kind of summary would do more to illustrate just what retailers and creators are facing in various parts of the country than just pointing to a couple of large cases a year and using just them as your Horrid Examples.

Just a thought.

Chris

Posted by: dan at February 6, 2005 10:10 AM

1. Attacks on free speech come from BOTH sides. Obvious examples: the right doesn't like porn, the left doesn't like the KKK. These attacks on speech generate from lobbyist groups that BOTH political parties cater to.

2. This is made worse by the CORPORATE bias in the news. The news on TV used to be done at a financial loss. But now, it is designed to make money. That means ratings. Which means what gets offered as news is decided by whether the public likes to watch it, not whether it has actual journalistic integrity or merit. The news is now a commodity, not a service. The profit motive reigns supreme, which means the news has a very corporate (not so much ideological) bias. The news is growing more and more conservative, because that's what makes the most money.

3. The Richie Bush case isn't about copyright infringment. It's not customs' job to determine whether a parody crosses the copyright line. Nor it is about piracy. Richie Bush isn't Richie Rich; these weren't illegally made copies of Richie Rich comics--which can be discerned upon first glance. This is about a few Bush supporters who misused the law to harass the people trying to profit off of making fun of Bush.

4. The ONLY worthwhile concern that there might be "too much free speech" can be summed up thusly: FoxNews and right-wing radio. Too many lies, gross distortions, and innuendo being labeled "news" or "commentary." These people should be accountable for their intentional misrepresentations of facts. They can have their own opinions, but not their own facts. This is directly tied to the quality of a democracy. We must bring back the "equal time" requirement. Or deny them the use of the label "news."

5. Quote from previous post: "I think if more people knew about North Korean society, they would know how truly scary absolute censorship and propaganda can be." Uh, why do you think we fight so hard to prevent it NOW??? Look how comparatively little propaganda it took to get us into the first falsely-based war (Iraq). Why wait for it to get worse?

Posted by: Jonathan (the other one) at February 6, 2005 11:35 AM

Blue Spider wrote:

The Junior Senator from Massacusetts decides that abortion is a moral allowance in direct defiance of higher-ups of his own Church but he participates in Communion just the same.

But neither the slavish obedience to the higher-ups, nor the opposition to abortion in the first place, is found anywhere in the Christian Bible. Instead, they're both doctrinal assertions by specific faith groups, in this case the Catholic Church. (Personally, I always found the Papal Bull to be amusing, and appropriately named. The Pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals! How do we know? Because the Pope said so, and he's infallible in matters of faith and morals! See "circular logic".) In this instance, Kerry wasn't picking and choosing Biblical verses - he was picking and choosing parts of the Catechism, which isn't quite the same thing.

On the other hand, you have "fundamentalists" who claim homosexuality is an offense against God, because it says so in Leviticus, but willingly eat cheeseburgers and lobster, even though Leviticus also calls these abominations. (Apparently the worst abomination, or at least the one mentioned most often, is the crime of boiling a baby goat in its own mother's milk. Did this really happen that often? And since when is the Almighty a food critic, anyway?) Let's face it, if you're going to claim the whole thing is to be taken literally and permanently, anybody who's ever stopped at McDonald's is going to Sheol - no help for any of us poor sinners...

Personally, as a Christian, I believe in a Father who is infinitely loving and infinitely forgiving, and just wants to be acknowledged in return. Therefore, I believe that much of the Bible is intended as moral guidance for His children, not as history. Feel free to disagree - He gave us brains for a reason, after all. :-)

Posted by: Jeff In NC at February 6, 2005 11:44 AM

From Dan:
"4. The ONLY worthwhile concern that there might be "too much free speech" can be summed up thusly: FoxNews and right-wing radio. Too many lies, gross distortions, and innuendo being labeled "news" or "commentary." These people should be accountable for their intentional misrepresentations of facts. They can have their own opinions, but not their own facts. This is directly tied to the quality of a democracy. We must bring back the "equal time" requirement. Or deny them the use of the label "news." "

Oh please give it a rest! Here you are talking about not enough free speech, then spewing out people that shouldn't be allowed to speak. If talk radio is such a problem, go ahead and do a mercy killing on Air America. Oops, wait, you specified right-wing radio. I forgot, right-wing propoganda bad, left-wing propaganda good in your world.

Fox News bad, so I'm assuming that you think that CNN is good? Sure, any "news" organization that agrees to not report bad news about Iraq in order to stay there must be credible. Or CBS rushing out with a story that took non-reporters literally minutes to debunk.

If someone is naive enough to get their "news" from only talk radio, commentary programs or even The Daily Show, then there's not a lot of help for these people.

Posted by: del at February 6, 2005 12:17 PM

In this instance, Kerry wasn't picking and choosing Biblical verses - he was picking and choosing parts of the Catechism, which isn't quite the same thing.

Technically, a Catholic shouldn't be picking and choosing parts of the Catechism. If they don't believe the things the Church outlines as fundamental elements of the faith, then they're not in communion with the Church and the Church has every right to deny them sacraments.

Posted by: Fred Chamberlain at February 6, 2005 12:25 PM

del:

>>In this instance, Kerry wasn't picking and choosing Biblical verses - he was picking and choosing parts of the Catechism, which isn't quite the same thing.

>Technically, a Catholic shouldn't be picking and choosing parts of the Catechism. If they don't believe the things the Church outlines as fundamental elements of the faith, then they're not in communion with the Church and the Church has every right to deny them sacraments.

While this is technically true, in the 10 years I spent doing retreat work and meeting 10's of thousands of people, I'd honestly need to sit and seriously reflect in order to come up with a small handful who ascribed to all of the church's teachings.

Fred

Posted by: Bladestar at February 6, 2005 02:57 PM

Sorry Jeff, but Dan was talking about censoring talk radio and Fox News, he was talking abuot LABELLING them.

Fox News is more "Columnist" and OpEd than actual news, and it shouldn't be allowed to pass itself off as such. They can say what they want, but lying about their content on "The Public Airwaves" is just INDECENT... (Where's the FCC when they could actually do some good?)

Posted by: Jeff In NC at February 6, 2005 03:16 PM

Sorry Bladestar, but the FCC has no say in what Fox News does. It's not broadcast over the "public airwaves". In fact, it's not broadcast at all.

It's called the Fox News Channel. It has both news and commentary type programming, which isn't new. Do you think that Larry King talking to Tova Borgnine is actually news when watching CNN? PBS had the MacNeil/Lehrer (now just the Newshour with Jim Leher) long before FNC came around and it offered news and discussion in the same program. Nothing new here either, other than The Newshour is being broadcast, and is paid for partly by tax dollars.

Posted by: Roger Tang at February 6, 2005 04:33 PM

Since you can't think and aren't very bright Roger, call me whatever you want. I guess when someone jaywalks, you call it rape...

Selfish, totally selfish. And not very bright.

Put it this way: you're dealing with people. Always. Go tell an author it isn't theft. Tell >>PAD

Go ahead. I'm waiting.

Posted by: Sasha at February 6, 2005 04:43 PM

In this instance, Kerry wasn't picking and choosing Biblical verses - he was picking and choosing parts of the Catechism, which isn't quite the same thing.

Technically, a Catholic shouldn't be picking and choosing parts of the Catechism. If they don't believe the things the Church outlines as fundamental elements of the faith, then they're not in communion with the Church and the Church has every right to deny them sacraments.

So would you then agree that Justice Scalia should be denied Communion due to his support for the death penalty? As well as those Catholic policians who supported the war?

Posted by: Jerome Maida at February 6, 2005 05:25 PM

Roger Tang,
"copyright infringementsor theft, it still means that some people have little respect for the work of others and have the gall to think that their 'rights' are more important than the people who produced the work.
All right if we call you 'asshole?'"

Whle I normaly abhor namecalling, I'll make an exception in this case since the guy doesn't care anyway, is arguably the most vulgar and mean-spirited person on this board and fits the definition of what you describe perfectly.

Posted by: Bladestar at February 6, 2005 05:50 PM

Joining the stupid train, eh Jerome?

THe courts have ruled that copyright infringement is NOT theft.

Infringement is NOT theft, two totally different crimes, sorry you lack the intelligence to understand that.

Posted by: Pamela Jarvinen at February 6, 2005 08:37 PM

The US Army is in trouble for its own comic book issues. Wonder how far the government will allow that to go in court??
http://www.sundayherald.com/47577

Posted by: Jeff Mason at February 6, 2005 09:09 PM

Here's info regarding Alternative Comics #2 – the "problem" seems to have been part of Nick Bertozzi’s The Salon preview.

Here’s the description of The Salon:
While developing the style that would become known as ‘Cubism’ in 1907 Paris, Pablo Picasso and Georges Braque chase bloodthirsty creatures come to life from famous paintings. Gertrude Stein, Alice B. Toklas, Guillaume Apollinare, and Erik Satie join in the hunt for the madman at the center of the mystery: Paul Gauguin. A fast-paced thrill-ride with an earthy tone that offers a pungent glimpse of pre-War Paris, The Salon deftly deconstructs the creative process, allowing the reader to enter the minds of two men who changed not only art, but the entire world. Nick Bertozzi has won two Harvey Awards and two Ignatz Awards, has received a Xeric Grant, and has been nominated for an Eisner Award and two additional Ignatz Awards.

Here’s the cover of Alternative Comics #2: http://64.23.98.142/pics/FCBD2004AC2SM.jpg

The first draft of The Salon was serialized on-line at Serializer.net: http://www.serializer.net/series.php?name=salon&view=archive&seq=1219

Here’s a message board about The Salon from its serialization on Serializer.net: http://www.talkaboutcomics.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=86

I suspect that these are the panels that were considered offensive: http://64.23.98.142/pics/salonpage.gif

Here was the original version of the die-cut hardcover cover of The Salon (paintings would be visible through the die-cut frames): http://www.indyworld.com/bertozzi/images/salon.cover.med.jpg

Here’s an image of Nick Bertozzi: http://www.indyworld.com/bertozzi/images/bio.nick.jpg

Posted by: del at February 6, 2005 09:36 PM

Fred asked:
While this is technically true, in the 10 years I spent doing retreat work and meeting 10's of thousands of people, I'd honestly need to sit and seriously reflect in order to come up with a small handful who ascribed to all of the church's teachings.

No one's perfect, obviously, but if one is a member of a Church that has a big ol' catechism that says "this is what we believe", then I think to belong to that religion requires a certain amount of faith that the religion one belongs to is right.

Sasha asked:
So would you then agree that Justice Scalia should be denied Communion due to his support for the death penalty? As well as those Catholic policians who supported the war?

If one honestly believed that Iraq was a just war, there would be no contradition in Church doctrine, only a conflict with the Pope's interpretation of that doctrine. People disagree with the Pope all the time. (Though I'd be impressed if they honestly believed that.)

The former? Yes, I do. If you're going to belong to a religion, belong to the religion. If you don't want to believe the stuff that makes up the Catholic church, there are a million other kinds of Christianity out there.

Posted by: hdefined at February 7, 2005 12:59 AM

Hey Bladestar, cut out the insulting crap. If people disagree with you and you have no counterargument, calling them names won't compensate to any degree.

Posted by: Jonathan (the other one) at February 7, 2005 01:57 AM

Del, the Papal Bull states that the Pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals. Therefore, for a practicing Catholic by your definition, if the Pope says that a given war is immoral (which he did), he must be correct, and any disagreement with him makes you a bad, Hell-bound Catholic. Therefore, all of the Catholic Congressmen should be denied Communion. As should any Catholic Supreme Court Justice, due to their support of the death penalty (which the Pope has also called immoral).

Sometimes I'm really glad I'm not Catholic... :-)

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at February 7, 2005 06:39 AM

"Del, the Papal Bull states that the Pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals."

My understanding (and I am by no means The Amazing Catholic Man, fountain of theological knowledge) is that papal Infallibility is something that is only invoked in specific matters of dogma, not every word or idea that comes out of the Pope's mouth. So, for example, the Immaculate Conception (which is not the same as the Virgin Birth but that's another matter) may have the weight of Papal Infallibility behind it but the Pope's teachings on. say, birth control, do not. Later Popes may change it at their will.

Now genuflect, genuflect, genuflect.

Posted by: Bladestar at February 7, 2005 09:05 AM

Really hdefined?

Read closer, there's messages in everyone.

You don't like it, the names are at the top each post, skip it...

Posted by: del at February 9, 2005 02:31 AM

Jonathan mentioned:
Del, the Papal Bull states that the Pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals.

Which Papal Bull are you referring to? There is no "the Papal Bull". But I can tell you that the Pope's words are only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra. That's a very specific and somewhat unusual circumstance.

Therefore, for a practicing Catholic by your definition, if the Pope says that a given war is immoral (which he did), he must be correct, and any disagreement with him makes you a bad, Hell-bound Catholic.

If he had been speaking infallibly when he said that, that would be true. Or I would be Purgatory-bound, at least. =P

Therefore, all of the Catholic Congressmen should be denied Communion.

Really? All Catholic Congressmen voted in favor of the war?

And Bill, all debates about Catholicism should involve quoting the Vatican Rag. Thanks. ^_^

Posted by: boys at February 14, 2005 04:02 PM

girls

Posted by: Travelsonic at April 17, 2005 12:57 PM

"Infringement is theft."

No, it is infringement, illegal copying, nothing mroe, nothing less. This is legal fact.

I am one of possibly few left growing up being taught that stealing (or theft if talking legal terminology) requires loss. That in order for something to be stolen somebody has something, but somebody else took it away from you, depriving you of it, while gaining him/her possession of said item. Slowly this concept is being replaced rapidly every day with a different, easier to use concept. Now people are growing accustomed to the idea that theft/stealing doesn't require the "owner" to loose things they had "stolen," or that loosing something you don’t even have but wish you had is theft. This surfacing ideology really scares me from a philosophical viewpoint. Before I try to reason why this is scary, I will first attempt to identify reasoning behind this. I think the answer as to why the definition was changed in the mindset of possibly millions is due in part from the pushing of certain agendas on people, which shall be a basis on my explanation.

The agenda pushing is in part from the recording and movie industries attempt to show people a negative side to file-sharing, mainly that it can be used to violate copyright. Either through thinking copyright infringement was too light of a word to stir up support, or possibly because they though copyright infringement was too complex for somebody to explain, they instead went with calling unauthorized duplication of data theft or stealing. This brings in another factor right into the issue, that is that they might be too lazy to try and define in a balanced way fee from biased the basic ideas behind copyright laws without resorting to toying with the sometimes fragile world of emotions.

The flaw with the decision here is, if you followed the definition of theft/stealing I was taught, duplicating pieces of data, simple 1’s and 0’s, without depriving them of the same bits of data doesn’t fall under this definition. Sure copying something copyrighted without permission in some cases is wrong, but why not call it what it really is, and try to make it wrong in it’s own sense instead of “stealing” stealing. The only thing that somebody would possibly be deprived of is the potential to earn some money. The potential meaning they have a chance, but fate can work in or out of their favor, but is not required under law to fall in their favor. I shall close this explanation of this piece with a fitting analogy. If we follow the mindset of the industries at work in media (music and movies), maybe it can be considered theft to tell people that a particular movie, or CD, or book is bad/not worth spending money on because you decrease the value of it to those people who want to buy it. The only flaw here might be that freedom of speech is protected under law here in the U.S, but there have been cases where the justice system has failed us on protecting the first amendment.

You the reader have probably been reading through this and wondered where the reasoning for the redefining being scary will come into play. The English language is very rich in words and phrases. There is more than one way to describe one act, but only one way to describe it accurately. To me, what we were taught in elementary school, piled on to what “copying” is, and adding on to that what is being fed into our brains from debates on controversial issues like the file-sharing debates can be a lot of acts to sort through, but if you think though it logically, copying a file on a CD, and shoplifting a new CD from a store have fundamental differences that don’t negate any wrongness they might have, but keep them from being complete equals. It is the combining of these differences as true similarities that is the scary part, manipulating different acts as the same either because a message you want to get out isn’t being effective, or out of sheer educational laziness that threatens the barriers that keep logic thinking that one act and another that are different as different acts. This is truly a wrong that must be recognized now, because the sooner we say two fundamentally different acts are the same for whatever reason, the sooner we start to try manipulating logic or truth to further dreadful goals or achievements that no man wants to face, but may be facing already without knowing it because it is being well hidden under manipulated language, almost in a way like in George Orwell’s 1948 classic, Nineteen Eighty-Four.