March 09, 2005

A Funky Situation, Take Two

The previous thread on this topic seems to have gone hopelessly off the rails, so let's try it again.

This is the thread for discussing developments in the "Funky Winkerbean" strip that parallel real life cases of a comics store owner/manager getting arrested for selling adult comics to an adult.

What's interesting is that, within the context of the strip, the woman who alerted the police apparently had an ulterior motive...namely she wanted to torpedo the restaurant above the comic shop because she didn't like that her daughter was going to have the wedding reception there.

If this sounds preposterous, let's remember some stuff:

A real life comic book retailer wound up being arrested for selling adult comic books to adults because one woman felt that the store was charging too much for Pokemon cards and vowed revenge.

A real life second hand dealer of used comics was arrested after a complaint was filed against him by his ex-father-in-law (over an issue of "Elfquest," of all things) because the dealer had custody of his son from the marriage and his ex-in-law wanted to get back at him.

You'd be amazed how often personal enmity or self-interest enters into these cases. Unfortunately, they often get left by the wayside once prosecutors get going on the "save the children!" angle.

PAD

Posted by Peter David at March 9, 2005 04:37 PM | TrackBack | Other blogs commenting
Comments
Posted by: Brian at March 9, 2005 04:51 PM

Save the children from what? It's not like they read comics anymore.

Posted by: A. Greene at March 9, 2005 04:59 PM

I'm thinking we should save the children from the whales, or is it save the whales from the children?

And just structurally, this story on funky, which I've now been reading daily, thanks PAD, is too long. There's been a week of story that could have been told in three days if he condensed and actaully used a full three panels. I guess it's why I don't read Funky normally.

Posted by: Robert Jung at March 9, 2005 05:12 PM

"Save the children" is a convenient excuse for implementing whatever crazy-ass idea of the day you wish to implement. It's one of those universal excuses that nobody will disagree with, which means you can smear anyone who disagrees with you as a baby-eating monster of the highest order. And it's vague enough that you can apply it to almost any target you want.

Other popular excuses include "freedom," "democracy," "families," and "traditional values" -- just stick something like "saving" or "protecting" in front, and go to town!

--R.J.

Posted by: Tom Galloway at March 9, 2005 05:16 PM

So, if one wants to "Save the children" in a comics store context, wouldn't that involve sealing the kids in mylar snugs?

Going back to the synopsis, I didn't even pick up that evil mother-in-law was trying to torpedo the restaurant. Or did that come out in Sunday's strip, which I didn't see online?

Posted by: Kevin Ryan at March 9, 2005 05:33 PM

I suppose this was part of my observations from the last thread, that many times these censorship activities stem from origins other than the reasons stated. Or from local authorities just not understanding what the law says.

Where I live in Vermont, to give an example, I knew of a comic shop owner investigated and contacted on complaints that children were conducting "satanic" Dungeons and Dragons rituals in the shop, and on the Sabbath, no less!

Were that true, it's still not illegal, but we can "save the children" if we follow thru rigorously.

The story of the Pokemon Cards was great. I''m sure all of us have experinced a similar situation regarding our nefarious local comic dealer. I remember a time when a woman walked into my local store with a 2" stack of bronze DC's in about VG-G and offered to sell them. The clerk graded and priced and made an offer of about $20.00 as I recall. The woman immediately exploded in front of the poor guy about what a shyster he was and how a friend had used "THE comic book price guide" to look up just one book she had and told her it alone was worth $80.00.

No matter what we ALL told her, there was no way she could understand dealer buying prices v. guide, grading or grade scale pricing. All she knew was she had a 1977 "Perfect condition" issue of Adventure comics, those were worth $80 bucks and the dealer was con man who should be shut down by the authorities for "preying on childen".

Posted by: Wade Tripp at March 9, 2005 05:46 PM

Thanks for pointing out that stopping of the restaurant was the purpose. I missed that because it was on the day before. Sometimes readers can not get underlying meaning unless it is pointed out.

Posted by: John at March 9, 2005 05:50 PM

>>..get going on the "save the children!" angle.

I'd just like to say that i hate children. Covered in snot most of em are, as far as i can tell.

the funz

Posted by: Peter David at March 9, 2005 05:55 PM

"Going back to the synopsis, I didn't even pick up that evil mother-in-law was trying to torpedo the restaurant. Or did that come out in Sunday's strip, which I didn't see online?"

I was curious about the woman (since I don't read the strip usually), so I scrolled back and read the week's worth of strips leading up to it. Basically, the daughter wanted to have the reception in this particular restaurant, and the mother wasn't happy about it. The comic shop is in the basement of the restaurant. Although it hasn't been spelled out, I suspect the mother is hoping the restaurant will somehow be held liable and will be closed down for a while (or perhaps be painted as a supporter of obscenity and thus suffer such a downturn in customer support that they can't stay in business.) I guess we'll see.

PAD

Posted by: Tom Galloway at March 9, 2005 06:08 PM

Ah. Since you don't read the strip normally, there's a bit of history which may also end up getting factored in. The woman's daughter had some major history with her fiance; they were an item in high school, but he was drunk driving with her in the car, there was an accident, and she lost her arm (and she had been planning to go to Julliard). He, at least somewhat out of guilt, joined the military, and went missing in Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, the comic store owner became infatuated with the daughter, and they were dating in a way that he was probably thinking it was much more serious than she did. He got a Queer Eye level personal makeover in fact. And he was about to ask her to marry him when they heard that her now fiance had been found. And once he got back, the two of them got romantically involved again. She probably never realized store guy was about to pop the question.

Posted by: S. Kelly at March 9, 2005 06:20 PM

Basically, the daughter wanted to have the reception in this particular restaurant, and the mother wasn't happy about it.

Actually the Wedding will be in the restaurant. (A double wedding with Funky and his new girlfriend and his nephew Wally and his fiance)

Posted by: insideman at March 9, 2005 06:43 PM

BTW, almost the complete "Funky" arc that Tom describes above was drawn by John Byrne!

Oh, the irony!

Posted by: Bunch at March 9, 2005 08:49 PM

Peter,
Not only did Byrne draw the strip for awhile (as a favor to the creator who was temporarily disabled), but said creator actually changed his drawing style, incorporating Byrne's. He said he liked J.B.'s more realistic interpretation of his characters, and now that the strip was evolving into a more realistic tone, he altered his own style.

Posted by: Mitch at March 9, 2005 09:47 PM


I didn't catch the anti-Montoni's angle, either.

But I had been rooting for the comic store owner and Becky to get together during the Byrne storyline.

It would be rather satisfying if the mother's antics wind up rekindling that romance.

Posted by: JamesLynch at March 9, 2005 11:21 PM

From what I've seen of the strip, it's not particularly entertaining. Even "For Better of For Worse," with its one-dimensional villains (the pushy mother-in-law, Anthony's rude and obnoxioux spouse, the bookstore worker who was lazy, helped the thief, and sued for wrongful termination when let go), it's still sometimes amusing. The Funky Winkerbean strips (Funkys?) didn't strike me as entertaining. The anti-comic book story may be topical, but it made me neither laugh nor think anything new.

As for "Saving the children," it's one of those largely meaningles slogans that still makes someone sound evil if they oppose it. Some nice parodies of this:

--Back in the early SIMPSONS, every time Helen Lovejoy would get upset she's wail "Won't somebody please think of the children?" No wonder her character was killed by a t-shirt-shooting gun.

--On the SOUTH PARK where the local business was using the kids' essay to keep Harbucks from opening in town, they ran the commercial ending with "After all, you don't... hate children -- do you?"

--And for A. Greene, above, there was a SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE SKETCH where someone was trying to get protesters against the Iraq war and everyone had their own agendas: "Save the whales!"; "Save the Children!"; "Make porn legal!" "Porn is legal." "Not the kind I like." After several tries to get them organized, this exchange happened between two protesters:

"Feed the children!"
"Yeah, feed them to the whales!"

So true, so true...

Posted by: Nat Gertler at March 9, 2005 11:55 PM

On topic: It's good to see this topic brought to the public, and I expect Batiuk will handle it well. He tends to make things clear.

Nitpicky digression: it wasn't Helen Lovejoy (who is the defender of "the children") who was killed by a t-shirt. It was Maude Flanders. Helen is still alive, it seems.

Posted by: A_ Greene at March 10, 2005 12:09 AM

jameslynch,

here I was thinking I was clever. Ah maybe next time.

And just a question to anyone, when did Funky winkerbean start becoming a serious (read:soap opera) comic strip? For some reason I remember it being funny (or at least it tried to be funny) when I was younger.

Posted by: Rex Hondo at March 10, 2005 12:24 AM

I seem to have digressed. Now, where was I? Oh yes... Leadership... (sorry, couldn't resist)

Hope this isn't TOO much of a digression, but what with all the talk about "saving the children," usually leading into diatribes on "family values" and such, even more so than 1984, I think everybody needs to read The Handmaid's Tale, by Margaret Atwood. It's damn near terrifying when you realize that the language used by the fictional government in the book is damn near identical to a lot of what's been coming out of the Bush Whitehouse in relations to "family" and "Christian" values.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

-Rex Hondo-

Posted by: Mitch Evans at March 10, 2005 01:15 AM

Re: Mr. Winkerbean

You know things are getting bad when a daily three-panel comic strip takes up the call.

One would think that the news media, who always claim First Amendment protections (and rightfully so), would be all over something like this. I know these aren't necessarily FA issues but I can imagine how these cases could have an impact on it.

What I don't get is why people get such a hard-on to ban something. They want to ban certain types of music (and lied in their attempt to do so). They want to ban T.V. shows. They want to ban 'certain' publications. Shit, they even want to ban hate. "Erase the hate" they tell us. You can't ban hate. Hate is as valid and necessary an emotion as love, contenment, fear... all of them.

Meanwhile, while we're banning hate, they tell us that those people (pick a sub-group of society) are evil because they don't think/do/smell/taste/fart like we do. When did the world get too small to encompass different ideas and ways of doing things? If there is no definable harm/immediate threat, well, back off.

Ok, so Tommy saw a representation of a womans breast in a comic book at age 11. Here's a bit of info for everyone who thinks that Tommy is so fragile and innocent: At age 11 Tommy is trying to catch every down every females shirt he encounters with the possible exception of his family members. And he gets a little thrill every time he does it. It called growing up. It's an age where ones curiosity about the opposite sex gets the equivalent of a booster shot. Is it right to take away the naked "boobie" drawing from Tommy? Yes it is. What's not right, however, is having someone arrested for giving it away for free, by accident, or for selling it to an adult.

Do so many people feel so ineffective in their lives that they have to have a comic shop owner arrested because Tommy is behaving normally? Sounds like the act of someone addicted to personal drama to me.

Children are dammaged by overprotection. And I don't just mean by their decreased ability to cope later in life.

We're often warned about sex and violence in various media having the effect of desensitizing kids. What do you suppose happens to a kid that is so protected that it stiffles certain aspects of his/her humanity?

Sex and violence are not automatically evil even though they can be utilized for evil ends. Perhaps we'd be better off as a whole if we considered that before we act in "defense of the children."

Sure it's easy for me to say because I have no children, nor do I want any. Maybe it makes me a little more objective as well. Who knows?

Mitch Evans
(Not to be confused with the Mitch above)

Posted by: cal at March 10, 2005 01:19 AM

Speaking generally, because there is no way I can remember the specific dates, Batiuk has addressed serious issuses in both Crankshaft and Funky for quite some while, meaning years.

Sorry to disagree with James Lynch, but I find both For Better or Worse and Funky Winkerbean both to be entertaining. The local paper revamped the comics page recently and the loss of Funky has been widely bemoaned. While there may not be anything new for regular visitors to this site in this story, it will be new to most of the people who read the strip in their daily paper.

Posted by: Mitch Evans at March 10, 2005 01:21 AM

ME: "At age 11 Tommy is trying to catch every down every females shirt he encounters with the possible exception of his family members."

That's supposed to be "catch a peek."

Damn that mid-sentence thought re-structuring!

Mitch Evans
(One Mitch shall never harm another.)

Posted by: David L at March 10, 2005 01:46 AM

Time to play devil's advocate on the strip

I don't know if this was covered in the previous thread or not (too lazy/tired to look), but while it may be to torpedo the restaurant, if this were an actual case, the store owner could rightfully be charged, or at the least given a fine.

The mother pulled an "Adult Comic" off a shelf in the middle of the store. These weren't "adult" in the sense of the max line either, the one in the front read "XXX Manga". Maybe if they showed her slide behind a curtain or dividing wall, then yeah.

It may have just been poor writing direction or artist's interpretation, don't know, but if we're to take it at face value the store owner was in the wrong. So wrong to be arrested on the spot, probably not, but still in the wrong.

Posted by: A_ Greene at March 10, 2005 01:50 AM

Crankshaft is now a serious comic (and it's still going on?)? Say it isn't so! When an old cranky school bus driver stops being funny: that's when the music died.

Isn't anyone trying to be funny anymore? Where has all the laughter gone?

Posted by: Rex Hondo at March 10, 2005 03:02 AM

"Where has all the laughter gone?"

Webcomics.

Posted by: mike weber at March 10, 2005 03:15 AM

Posted by cal at March 10, 2005 01:19 AM

Speaking generally, because there is no way I can remember the specific dates, Batiuk has addressed serious issuses in both Crankshaft and Funky for quite some while, meaning years.

From Don Markstein's "Toonopedia" (http://www.toonopedia.com):
Another way the strip has changed over time is its increasing use of serious themes. Batiuk takes the point of view that there are enough light fantasy strips on the comics page, so, while not failing to emphasize their humorous aspects, he goes for stories with an edge. He was the first American newspaper cartoonist to tackle teen pregnancy from the point of view of an ongoing character, which he did in 1986. He followed it with storylines on dyslexia, guns at school, teen suicide, and many other hard-hitting topics. This trend reached what is perhaps its apotheosis in 1998, when Lisa was diagnosed with breast cancer. But perhaps not — after all, Batiuk once scripted a strip in which the title character was murdered in full view of the readers (John Darling, in 1991).

(Don heads the article with a panel showing the strip's art style before the Byrne-inspired revamp referred to in an earlier post)

Also, Answers.com (http://www.answers.com/topic/funky-winkerbean) says:
While the strip is humorous, Batiuk has used it to tackle issues such as teen pregnancy, suicide, dyslexia, gun violence, and breast cancer.

Similarly, Luann has been tending toward serious themes intermixed with old-fashioned teen-age angst'n'hormones humour for some time -- an intermittent storyline that began after 9/11 has finally reached the point where Luann's couch-potato elder brother Brad has completed training and actually been hired as a firefighter...

Posted by A_ Greene at March 10, 2005 01:50 AM

Crankshaft is now a serious comic (and it's still going on?)? Say it isn't so! When an old cranky school bus driver stops being funny: that's when the music died.

Crankshaft has always had its serious moments -- there was the series delaing with adult illeteracy some years ago, when Crankshaft admitted he couldn't read and took adult literacy classes.

It's still fairly funny -- assuming that you ever fouind it particularly funny, which i didn't.

Posted by: mike weber at March 10, 2005 03:22 AM

Just caught today's installment (03/10/05; the Seattle PI site updates at midnight, Pacific Time) -- the charges read "...two counts of promoting obscenity by selling adult comics to an undercover policeman and a member of city council...".

It appears that, perhaps, politics rears its ugly head...

Posted by: Bobb at March 10, 2005 08:08 AM

This is going to take a while to get on point, but it will, I promise....

I recently called my dad to announce that he's going to be a grandfather again (my first child, my brother has 2 kids). What followed of course was a nice chat, the usual "we're so happy for you." Then he said something I found really interesting. He warned me off Dr. Spock's book (which of course prompted my initial reaction of "what's he got against Vulcans?"), claiming that a large portion of his generation had obsessed over the book, and as a result had raised the worst generation of adults to come along in a long time. I've never read it, and only done a quick review, but the gist I get is that Dr. Spock told parents it was OK to spoil their kids. As a result, we have a generation of adults today that, through their formative early years, got pretty much everything they wanted, and more importantly, didn't have to deal with things that upset them. Their parents strived so hard to provide for them, to insulate them from difficulty and hardship, that they've turned into adults that hold the same assumptions. That life is around to please them, and anything that displeases them needs to go away.

Which in turn, I think, leads to situations like that going on in Funky, or the Pokemon case, or many of the actions of the PTC. Adults that were spoiled as children are now spoiled adults. And instead of having learned tolerance and patience to deal with the things life has that the find offensive, they react they way they were taught...to get rid of it.

Posted by: Den at March 10, 2005 09:10 AM

--Back in the early SIMPSONS, every time Helen Lovejoy would get upset she's wail "Won't somebody please think of the children?" No wonder her character was killed by a t-shirt-shooting gun.

Actually, it was Maude Flanders who was killed by the T-shirt barrage. Allegedly, she was killed because the actress who did her voice wanted more money.

As for Funky, in the 80s it was mildly amusing at times, but when Batiuk made the original high school cast start aging in real time, it has gotten too preachy and stopped being funny at all.

I have to agree with the general sentiment that the mother-in-law is very one-dimensional.

It's sad though, that in real life, people with ulterior motives can bend the authorities to their purposes. Of course, prosecutors, always wanting to score points for "saving the children," are all too willing to jump on things like that.

If we really want to "save the children" from that is seedy or offensive, maybe we should set up a "Lord of the Flies" island somewhere where children can go live until they're 18.

Posted by: Rich Drees at March 10, 2005 09:25 AM

Everytime I hear someone bleating "What about the children?! Think about the children?!" I recall Bill Hick's routine about how children really aren't that special.

As someone who has decided that he doesn't want kids, I feel put out, to say the least, that someone else feels the need to limit my choice of entertainment for what appears to me to be the fact that they can't be bothered to take an interest in being a parent. If you want a kid, then you damn well better be responsible for it. Monitor what media they intake and restrict them from accessing things you don't feel are approrpriate. (Yeah, I think I just slaughtered that spelling...) And explain to them why you don't want them reading/watching what ever it is. A blanket ban with no explanation is only going to whet their appetite for it all the more.

Remember the words of Mark Twain- "Censorship is telling a man that he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it."

Posted by: Rich Drees at March 10, 2005 09:32 AM

Also, I haven't been a regular reader of FW in almost 20 years, since the local paper dropped the strip. IS there a site with the series archived? I looked on Amamzon, but there only seems to be two book collections currently in print (The Breast Cancer arc and one other) and a few older collections (mid-70s publication dates) being sold used starting at $25!

Posted by: Jess Willey at March 10, 2005 09:37 AM

Shit, they even want to ban hate. "Erase the hate" they tell us. You can't ban hate. Hate is as valid and necessary an emotion as love, contenment, fear... all of them.

I'm with Tom Lehrer on this one: "I know there are people in this world who do not love their fellow human beings.... and I HATE people like that."


Children are dammaged by overprotection. And I don't just mean by their decreased ability to cope later in life.

We're often warned about sex and violence in various media having the effect of desensitizing kids. What do you suppose happens to a kid that is so protected that it stiffles certain aspects of his/her humanity?

Though that alone can be very damaging. I have this ex-girlfriend who I am still very close to. One day, in a spontaneous moment of silliness, I somehow ended up giving her a piggyback ride across her front lawn. Her cousin walks by and gets really freaked out by this. I don't know why.

Sex and violence are not automatically evil even though they can be utilized for evil ends. Perhaps we'd be better off as a whole if we considered that before we act in "defense of the children."

Sure it's easy for me to say because I have no children, nor do I want any. Maybe it makes me a little more objective as well. Who knows?

Posted by: Tim Lynch at March 10, 2005 09:46 AM

Thank you, Jess, for that Lehrer quote -- one of his best.

Where has all the laughter gone?

It's still around. "Frazz" consistently makes me laugh, for example, and it's not as though "Zits" has gone the grim'n'gritty route.

As for the pile of people saying they're proudly childless and therefore more objective about the "we must protect the children" meme -- this particular parent would prefer you not tar all of us with the same brush. Quite a few of us don't generally put ideas in the category of "things my child needs protection from." Idiots who drive 90 mph in residential areas, yes; copies of "Lady Chatterley's Lover," no. (Not that I'd be handing a copy to my daughter any time soon ... though right now all she'd do is eat the book anyway.)

I'm not normally a big Funky fan (and I haven't subscribed to a newspaper that carries it in, geez, at least 15 years), but I'm definitely intrigued about where the strip's going. Hopefully it'll be a realistic viewpoint.

TWL

Posted by: Londo at March 10, 2005 10:04 AM

The way to save the children is to teach them how to deal with material that's distasteful. As the father of a 12-year-old girl, it's my opinion that there are some things that could do real harm to her, particularly her feeling of self-worth and her self-esteem, or have a negative impact on her future relations with men. However, those are extreme cases. For the most part, especially cuss words and voilence, IMO, exposing them to it and debreifing them/teaching them about it will work a heck of a lot better than trying to shield them from it.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at March 10, 2005 10:19 AM

The mother pulled an "Adult Comic" off a shelf in the middle of the store. These weren't "adult" in the sense of the max line either, the one in the front read "XXX Manga". Maybe if they showed her slide behind a curtain or dividing wall, then yeah.

See, I find this method of separation to be down right silly.

The Sam Goody over at Cherry Creek mall has a sizable anime movie selection.

Right next to it? The adult dvd film selection... only with those white plastic cards in front of each of them.

Sure, they're near the front, by the registers, but still. And they haven't got in trouble yet.

But we are to expect a comic book store to act differently?

Posted by: tom dakers at March 10, 2005 10:24 AM

I enjoy the strip and am interested in how this story turns out.

The one thing that I do wonder about is that if you were working in a comic book store and a middle aged woman came in and bought an 'adult' comic, wouldn't you at least talk to her a little when she brought it to the counter. Wouldn't it seem like a strange choice for her to buy?

Not that it ought to be a crime to sell adult comics to adults. I'd like to think that I'm grown up enough to handle anything in a comic.

Posted by: Bladestar at March 10, 2005 10:26 AM

And considering the prices of comic books, are they really for kids anymore? :)

Posted by: Rex Hondo at March 10, 2005 10:33 AM

Heck, I don't think I've regularly picked up any new books for a good decade or so, just grabbing the occasional TPB, but I recently re-read my copy of The Killing Joke, and realized that it's over a decade and a half old. Then I thought of how sad it is that even after all this time, most of the old duffers who run things still think that the "funny books" are just for kids. They'd probably burst a vessel if they got a good look at some of the Manga that actually ARE considered kid level overseas.

-Rex-

Posted by: S. Kelly at March 10, 2005 10:36 AM

"Frazz" consistently makes me laugh, for example, and it's not as though "Zits" has gone the grim'n'gritty route.

Frazz and Zits have had "issue" themed strips and continuities. Even Calvin & Hobbes did the occasional thoughtful topic.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at March 10, 2005 10:51 AM

Agreed, but having the occasional serious moment doesn't mean it's not a humorous strip.

(But let's not turn this into a comic-strip thread, since I think that's not PAD's primary issue or point here...)

TWL

Posted by: R. Maheras at March 10, 2005 11:04 AM

The way some of you have responded here, one would think that it is immoral to question, under any circumstances, anyone's actions, behavior or expressed ideas. In short, anything goes, and anyone who disagrees with such a stance is labeled (with equal emphasis) "a religious fanatic," "fascist," "censor," "idiot" or some other over-the-top villainous sort.

This "anything goes" mentality is nonsense, in my opinion. The only reason we live in a somewhat civilized society is because there is (or used to be) an emphasis on laws, standards, levels of "acceptable" behavior, etc. Without these societal limitations, no one would have any rights. There would be no checks and balances, and in such an anarchistic environment, the strongest or biggest people at all levels would take what they wanted whenever they wanted to, with absolutely no fear of retaliation or punishment.

And while the laws of civilization aren't perfect (and neither are the people who create them), they are, in my opinion, certainly better than no laws at all. Thus, whenever someone says to me, "I'm totally against censorship" (i.e., "I'm totally against putting any limits on expression in any situation and under any circumstances"), it just boggles my mind. Such a stance is hypocritical because it is basically saying, "If I offend you, you have no right to say or do anything about it, because that would offend me."

There has to be some give and take -- some standards of accepted behavior/decency -- otherwise, we're actually regressing from respecting the rights of others, and moving backwards in our age-old slog towards true civilization.

Posted by: LittleGuy at March 10, 2005 11:18 AM

Thought: Once 'the children' 'saved' are no longer children, we look for ways to be saved from them.

Legal, psuedo-educational, pharmaceutical, disciplinary,....

Posted by: Howard at March 10, 2005 11:56 AM

I think the fictional retailer should have shown better sense than to put "XXX" just to the right of "HULK" (see Sunday's strip.)

Posted by: JosephW at March 10, 2005 12:32 PM

Den posted:
"Actually, it was Maude Flanders who was killed by the T-shirt barrage. Allegedly, she was killed because the actress who did her voice wanted more money."

Well, that's a bit questionable. The actress (Maggie Roswell) DID leave in a salary dispute, but she left in the Spring of 1999, while the episode in which Maude gets killed didn't air until the following February. By that time, there was another actress (Marcia Mitzman Gaven) who stepped in to provide the voice of Maude in the episode in which Maude is killed. While it's hard to tell how much time passed between the story's animation and the voiceover recordings, it's possible that Maude was killed off with Ms Roswell's salary dispute in mind, though it doesn't really sound like something that the show's producers and writers (David Cohen, Al Jean, Matt Groening, etc) would have done just to spite Ms Roswell. (An interesting side note is that the same actresses have also provided the voice of Helen Lovejoy.)
Ms Roswell returned to "The Simpsons" in 2002.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at March 10, 2005 12:36 PM

Mr. Maheras is making a rather impressive looking straw man up there.

I don't think anyone has said "anything goes", or that actions and behavior can never be questioned.

First, I suspect (though others can certainly chime in) that we'd all agree that actions which cause explicit, obvious harm to another (e.g. murder, assault, rape, etc.) are ones which society has a vested interest in preventing.

Second, there is a huge difference between arguing something cannot be banned by law and that it cannot be *questioned*. Geez, question my actions all you like. I certainly do. No one's saying that Iowa Jim, for example, has no right to feel that homosexuality is wrong. But there's a difference between that feeling and explicit policy based on that feeling.

On the other hand, there is a certain symmetry to the posted making such an over-the-top extremist statement that's ostensibly coming out against over-the-top extremist statements.

TWL

Posted by: Tim Lynch at March 10, 2005 12:37 PM

Sorry. That should be "postER" in the last sentence above, not "postED."

TWL
typing too quickly

Posted by: Bobb at March 10, 2005 12:57 PM

Tim, slow down, calm yourself. Feel the Force flowing through you...to the keyboard....the the screen...let go you conscious self, and feel with your emotions...

Wow, that sounds so much better then I hear it in Alec Guiness' voice....

Posted by: Iowa Jim at March 10, 2005 01:06 PM

Two thoughts.

First, I was somewhat disappointed at the "Cool" comment by the kids as they saw the guy arrested. If he is guilty of a serious crime, then it is not cool. If he is innocent and the victim, then it still is not cool since he has court costs, possible loss of income while the comic store is closed during the trial and/or people avoid it because it supposedly sells "smut." It is not a huge deal, but it seemed a little out of place, unless someone can explain a better reason for the comment.

Second, I wonder about PAD's comment:

You'd be amazed how often personal enmity or self-interest enters into these cases. Unfortunately, they often get left by the wayside once prosecutors get going on the "save the children!" angle.

I agree that it is true. But it seems that if this is true in very many of these cases, then doesn't it mean free speech is not the primary target? Let me be clear, even if it is used as a false basis for attack, I agree in the principle of free speech (even if I may disagree in its application in a few limited cases). So using an obscenity charge to get at a retailer for whatever reason is inexcusable. But it does little to prove that the current administration actually is promoting the end of free speech as we know it.

One bonus thought: I don't understand the need for comics to be funny. If you don't like a strip, then by all means, don't read it. But to suggest that comic strips have to be funny and can't just tell a story seems rather ironic when stated on the site of a writer of comic books. If we want people to take the story value of a comic book seriously, why not a comic strip? There is room for both types of comic strips, and devaluing Funky because it is not funny should not be happening on this site.

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Den at March 10, 2005 01:09 PM

While it's hard to tell how much time passed between the story's animation and the voiceover recordings, it's possible that Maude was killed off with Ms Roswell's salary dispute in mind, though it doesn't really sound like something that the show's producers and writers (David Cohen, Al Jean, Matt Groening, etc) would have done just to spite Ms Roswell.

I find it perfectly plausible because TV producers have killed off characters just to spite departing actors before. Prime example: MaClean Stevenson's departure from MASH.

Posted by: Fred Chamberlain at March 10, 2005 01:12 PM

Den:

>I find it perfectly plausible because TV producers have killed off characters just to spite departing actors before. Prime example: MaClean Stevenson's departure from MASH.

Wow, really? I didn't know that, though I found that episode the most touching and heartbreaking one of the series as a kid and to this day.

Fred

Posted by: Bobb at March 10, 2005 01:12 PM

Jim, I don't think that whether or not free speech is the primary target or not is the point. In most cases, the prosecutor isn't setting out directly to get something off the streets, or to shut someone up. As in the Funky case, the mother-in-law-to-be has some motive, but curtailing speech probably isn't it.

It's more that in her effort to satisfy her own ends, she's taking a path that could set a precedent that limits free speech. And I think that's contained within PAD's statement. In any invidividual's efforts, there's going to be collateral impacts, things they didn't intend to happen. And sometimes, in the zeal generated by the rallying cry, those impacts get lost in the furor. Losing the trees for the forest, as it were, when some of those trees are pretty darned important.

Posted by: Den at March 10, 2005 01:13 PM

Such a stance is hypocritical because it is basically saying, "If I offend you, you have no right to say or do anything about it, because that would offend me."

Time for me to call bullsh!t on this. I do something that offends you, you have every right to complain about, just as I have the right to tell you to get bent. What don't have is the right to prevent me from expressing my opinion just because you're little darling's ears are too sensitive to hear it.

Posted by: R. Maheras at March 10, 2005 01:13 PM

TWL wrote: "Mr. Maheras is making a rather impressive looking straw man up there. I don't think anyone has said "anything goes", or that actions and behavior can never be questioned."


You think so? Try and get a definition of what constitutes "offensive" from the CBLDF.

My "anything goes" statement might elicit a bristling reply, "We do NOT think anything goes," but when pressed to officially define what should be censured either legally, or even socially, i'll bet my Marvel Value Stamps that there won't be any specifics. To officially state anything other than an all-or-nothing stance is a minefield free speech advocates avoid like the plague. Why? Because to take ANY stance other than "all or nothing" would force them to set standards that might arguably be just as arbitrary as everyone else's.

In reality, I think everyone agrees privately there are lines of decency that should not be crossed. But if a free-speech advocate or organization avoids publicly stating what those lines should be, they are giving tacit approval to an "anything goes" policy.

Straw man nothing.

Posted by: Den at March 10, 2005 01:17 PM

Wow, really? I didn't know that, though I found that episode the most touching and heartbreaking one of the series as a kid and to this day.

A few years ago, there was a MASH retrospective on cable and Wayne Rogers said categorically that the producers considered Stevenson a troublemaker and wanted his departure done in a way to ensure he could never return.

Posted by: saulres at March 10, 2005 01:23 PM

Iowa Jim: [b]First, I was somewhat disappointed at the "Cool" comment by the kids as they saw the guy arrested. If he is guilty of a serious crime, then it is not cool. If he is innocent and the victim, then it still is not cool since he has court costs, possible loss of income while the comic store is closed during the trial and/or people avoid it because it supposedly sells "smut." It is not a huge deal, but it seemed a little out of place, unless someone can explain a better reason for the comment.[/b]

I think the idea was that it was a natural kid's reaction to seeing something live that they've only seen or read about in fiction before. The officers at the time gave no explanation for why the store owner was being arrested; cops came in with their shiny badges and guns and handcuffs and read the guy his Miranda rights.

At least, that's my best guess.

Posted by: Den at March 10, 2005 01:27 PM

First, I was somewhat disappointed at the "Cool" comment by the kids as they saw the guy arrested. If he is guilty of a serious crime, then it is not cool. If he is innocent and the victim, then it still is not cool since he has court costs, possible loss of income while the comic store is closed during the trial and/or people avoid it because it supposedly sells "smut." It is not a huge deal, but it seemed a little out of place, unless someone can explain a better reason for the comment.

I think Batiuk was trying to convey that they were thinking, "Cool, I've never seen anyone arrested before." Not exactly the best possible behavior, but a totally believable reaction from a teenage boy.

One bonus thought: I don't understand the need for comics to be funny. If you don't like a strip, then by all means, don't read it. But to suggest that comic strips have to be funny and can't just tell a story seems rather ironic when stated on the site of a writer of comic books.

Well, I agree with that. Certainly there is room for Rex Morgan and Flash Gordon next to Dilbert and Get Fuzzy.

If we want people to take the story value of a comic book seriously, why not a comic strip? There is room for both types of comic strips, and devaluing Funky because it is not funny should not be happening on this site.

Part of the problem is that Funky Winkerbean started out as very light-hearted humor strip, but around 1992, Batiuk shifted towards more serious series while still attempting to inject humor into stories. In my opinion, the mix has not been too successful. The jokes aren't that funny and the drama often seems forced, reduced to afternoon special or Lifetime TV simplistic story telling. The villains (nasty mother-in-law, abusive boyfriend) never evolve beyond crude stereotypes. Batiuk appears to be created a "dramedy" comic strip and like most TV shows in that view, fails at both comedy and drama.

Posted by: Den at March 10, 2005 01:32 PM

In reality, I think everyone agrees privately there are lines of decency that should not be crossed. But if a free-speech advocate or organization avoids publicly stating what those lines should be, they are giving tacit approval to an "anything goes" policy.

You're right, everyone does have personal lines of decency. But, those lines are drawn differently for every person, which means that the government (police, courts, legislature), have no business dictating those lines to every.

Posted by: A_ Greene at March 10, 2005 01:41 PM

I don't expect every strip to be funny, certianly not Rex morgan of Flash Gordon. Most often I don't even expect "Rhymes with Orange" to be funny. I'm just staying: with a name like Funky Winkerbean, how am I supposed to take this seriously?

Posted by: David L at March 10, 2005 01:41 PM

"The Sam Goody over at Cherry Creek mall has a sizable anime movie selection.

Right next to it? The adult dvd film selection... only with those white plastic cards in front of each of them."

This may be true, but these movie (at least at the SG in our mall) doesn't have them by the Spongebob Squarepants Movie. In the same frame, on the next rack, there were your normal Superhero comics, most notably, "The Hulk". My local retailer sells his Max line and even "Tarot: Black Witch of the Rose" out on the shelf. But each issue they sleeve them, and if the cover is racy in a mature-theme sense, then they throw a piece of board over the image that reads for "Mature Readers Only!". Now if the title was "Sex Kittens from planet Nympho" or as it is in this strip, "XXX Manga", these would not be on his shelves in the open for every person to see.

Sam Goody's mature content is all in one location by the registers with a cover for the more racier titles. This is a more acceptible (to most I imagine) way of displaying these products. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against these type of comics or the retailers who have gotten in trouble. This is about a fictional situation where if the scene was "drawn" better, then the message would hold up better for me.

The charges against the comic store owner, which were described in today's strip, are ridiculous. He sold adult material to adults, that' fine. But you can't ignore the fact that the store owner was irresponsible in his displaying of the merchandise next to more mainstream content, that's targeted at a more variety of ages, minors included.

If I walked into Sam Goody and saw some kid looking at the Anime section and nobody stopping him, would I be upset? Hell no, it's not all blood, guts, and sex. But if right next to the Dragonball Z dvd is a La Blue Girl dvd, with no covering of the image on the front(which with La Blue Girl always involves tentacle rape) I would be a little miffed. I have nephews who like Dragonball Z, and I let them read my X-Men comics, in hopes that one day they'll go into a comic shop, look at the shelves and pick one up on their own. I don't want them to pick up "XXX Manga" instead. To avoid this, this should be back away from the more mainstream stuff.

Is this unfair to the creator of "XXX Manga"? Probably. I know I'd be pissed. But they have to expect that to some point for putting out a product with such a limited audience.

As for should a comic book shop be expected to act differently? Yes, they should. At the very heart of comic books, it's soul survival depends on if today's children will by the books they sell. If a fanatical parent see's adult material next to the Hulk, guess what: that kid won't be bying comics anytime soon. Sam Goody sells movies and music, with no target core audience. (Well, maybe teenagers since they have the most to spend, but you know what I mean) By saying a comic book shop shouldn't act differently then Sam Goody, can I take the reason for that being they both sell products for all ages? Okay, here's a hypothetical for you: If ToyRUs were to sell Grand Theft Auto III out on the floor next to Spyro the Dragon, you wouldn't find that unapproriate? They have GTAIII behind the counter in a case for a reason. Kids are their bread and butter, and they don't need parents pulling them out of there due bad product placement.

So I'll say it again: The charges being brought against the store owner are crap, but that doesn't mean he's innocent. A decency law was still probably broken, but he's being accused of the wrong one.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at March 10, 2005 01:46 PM

My "anything goes" statement might elicit a bristling reply, "We do NOT think anything goes," but when pressed to officially define what should be censured either legally, or even socially, i'll bet my Marvel Value Stamps that there won't be any specifics.

I already GAVE specifics in the very post you're responding to.

Claim, meet counterexample.

My issue is not what the CBLDF does or does not say (though I strongly suspect you're wrong there as well). My issue was with your claim that "most people around here" think as you claim they do. You're simply incorrect.

TWL

Posted by: David L at March 10, 2005 01:48 PM

Sorry, the tag part of my brain is dead today. My above post should have the first two sentences bloded and italicized, sorry.

"The Sam Goody over at Cherry Creek mall has a sizable anime movie selection.

Right next to it? The adult dvd film selection... only with those white plastic cards in front of each of them."

Posted by: Bobb at March 10, 2005 01:55 PM

Tower Records in downtown Chicago used to have one Anime section. They have Sailor Moon on the same rack as Urustudoki. Or La Blue Girl and DBZ on the same racks. Sure, they had the "Adults Only" stickers covering the covers, but not on the backs. I'm sure that was just on irate (and maybe justifiably so) parent complaining to the manager away from getting into trouble.

I say "used to" because it's been years since I worked in that area, so I don't get to spend any more lunch time lurking there.

Posted by: Den at March 10, 2005 01:58 PM

I don't expect every strip to be funny, certianly not Rex morgan of Flash Gordon. Most often I don't even expect "Rhymes with Orange" to be funny. I'm just staying: with a name like Funky Winkerbean, how am I supposed to take this seriously?

What's really galling is that Funky himself has been relegate to the role of secondary character as Batiuk seems to devote more time to Les and his family or the new generation of high schoolers.

But you're right, "Funky Winkerbean" is a name for a humor comic strip, which does make the fact that it's jokes are often less funny than Cathy (the most consistantly unfunny comic strip in the universe), seem strange.

Posted by: S. Kelly at March 10, 2005 01:59 PM

I think the fictional retailer should have shown better sense than to put "XXX" just to the right of "HULK" (see Sunday's strip.)

As depicted, the Hulk book is in another rack. Also the adult books are labelled as such on the rack. Give the small space, where else should he put them?

At my local LCS, the adult books are right above the vertigo books which are right above the DC mainstream books and just to the right of the Marvel books. So the setup is not out of the question.

Also at your local Barnes & Noble, the Playboys and other skin rags are probably right next to the entertainment magazines.

Posted by: S. Kelly at March 10, 2005 02:13 PM

I'm just saying: with a name like Funky Winkerbean, how am I supposed to take this seriously?

I dunno - people took Forrest Gump pretty seriously.

Posted by: Iowa Jim at March 10, 2005 02:32 PM

Jim, I don't think that whether or not free speech is the primary target or not is the point.

But I seem to recall it *was* the point when PAD posted the story about the kid in GA. Obviously, the details are different than the Funky story. This one is a lot more like the Jesus case, and I was there in Dallas for that one. But the reaction to these stories tended to be that it is the "evil conservatives" who are trying to end free speech who are behind this. My point is that in some of these cases it is actually selfish people using whatever they can to hurt someone. The case in GA actually seemed more of an exception than the norm, based on what PAD listed above.

Obviously, it does hurt the cause of free speech when it is abused for other ends. In fact, it makes things worse for both sides. So I am all for defending free speech when appropriate.

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Iowa Jim at March 10, 2005 02:38 PM

Part of the problem is that Funky Winkerbean started out as very light-hearted humor strip, but around 1992, Batiuk shifted towards more serious series while still attempting to inject humor into stories. In my opinion, the mix has not been too successful. The jokes aren't that funny and the drama often seems forced, reduced to afternoon special or Lifetime TV simplistic story telling.

I would agree with the evaluation. It is fine to be a critic of how good a particular strip (or book, etc.) is written. But some seemed to be saying that comic strips in general should just stay funny. I, for one, found Funky good at times, and quite boring at others. I didn't miss it enough when I moved to find it on the internet to keep reading it since my local paper doesn't carry it.

To each his own, just don't say comic strips are "supposed" to be funny. (And a writer should be allowed to change his style. Of course, if no one likes it, the paper should be free to drop it!)

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Bobb at March 10, 2005 02:42 PM

I think you can see it both ways: from a micro-viewpoint, it's a case of one person attempting to hurt another person any way they can. Their target is one individual, and their intent is to cause that person some loss. From a macro-view, you have an action that would infringe upon the right of free speech is allowed to set a precedent. Curtailment of free speech isn't a primary goal, just something that gets swept up in the process.

And during that process, you have voices from both sides losing the intent of the original action, which was mostly personal to begin with.

Gah, it's not making any sense to me...I'm lost in the forest and the trees are out to get me....

Posted by: Mitch Evans at March 10, 2005 03:08 PM

Jess Willey:

ME: "Shit, they even want to ban hate. "Erase the hate" they tell us. You can't ban hate. Hate is as valid and necessary an emotion as love, contenment, fear... all of them."

Jess Willey: "I'm with Tom Lehrer on this one: "I know there are people in this world who do not love their fellow human beings.... and I HATE people like that."

Hi Jess,
Yeah, that's a good one. Irony: It does a body good!

Seriously, though, I should have pointed out that I don't value hate as Modus Operandi. I'm saying it's ok for hate to exist within it's emotional context, but it only becomes problematic when it overrides civility and good sense.

Tim Lynch: "As for the pile of people saying they're proudly childless and therefore more objective about the "we must protect the children" meme -- this particular parent would prefer you not tar all of us with the same brush. Quite a few of us don't generally put ideas in the category of "things my child needs protection from." Idiots who drive 90 mph in residential areas, yes; copies of "Lady Chatterley's Lover," no."

Hi Tim,

Yes, I'm one of those people. I've been know to state, sarcastically mind you, that I won't polute the planet with a child. But, even though they're often covered in their own various fluids as someone indicated earlier, I don't hate children. Without children America's Funniest Home Videos wouldn't be so funny.

Also, if you felt that I painted you with my brush then I'm sorry. It wasn't my intention to imply that ALL parents are as I describe. I meant to take that jab at those who are.

R. Maheras:
"This "anything goes" mentality is nonsense, in my opinion. The only reason we live in a somewhat civilized society is because there is (or used to be) an emphasis on laws, standards, levels of "acceptable" behavior, etc. Without these societal limitations, no one would have any rights. There would be no checks and balances, and in such an anarchistic environment, the strongest or biggest people at all levels would take what they wanted whenever they wanted to, with absolutely no fear of retaliation or punishment.

And then later in response to Tim Lynch, who called R. Maheras on the "Anything Goes" interpretation:

"My "anything goes" statement might elicit a bristling reply, "We do NOT think anything goes," but when pressed to officially define what should be censured either legally, or even socially, i'll bet my Marvel Value Stamps that there won't be any specifics. To officially state anything other than an all-or-nothing stance is a minefield free speech advocates avoid like the plague. Why? Because to take ANY stance other than "all or nothing" would force them to set standards that might arguably be just as arbitrary as everyone else's.

In reality, I think everyone agrees privately there are lines of decency that should not be crossed. But if a free-speech advocate or organization avoids publicly stating what those lines should be, they are giving tacit approval to an "anything goes" policy."

Hi R. Maheras,

I can only speak for myself, but I wasn't suggesting that anything goes. I thought that was implicit in my comment that included the phrase "if there is no definableharm/immediate threat." In fact I agree with much of what you wrote.

The fact is that some things are, without question, harmfull and wrong and some things are not. I believe, however, that when discussing the areas in between those absolutes, that we must judge each case individually on it's own merrits. I hope that you find that reasonable.

I have witnessed and experienced what overprotective parents do. I have also been subjected to their all-too-willing blindness when it comes to their kids. That is what my prior statements are based upon.

Posted by: Tom Galloway at March 10, 2005 05:53 PM

So, Tim, let's really test what your limits are on what Katherine's exposed to...I'll get, and hold for a future birthday, a Voyager box set just for her. :-)

Posted by: Tim Lynch at March 10, 2005 06:20 PM

Well, there's open-mindedness and then there's outright abuse. :-)

TWL

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 10, 2005 07:30 PM

"They have Sailor Moon on the same rack as Urustudoki. Or La Blue Girl and DBZ on the same racks. Sure, they had the "Adults Only" stickers covering the covers, but not on the backs. I'm sure that was just on irate (and maybe justifiably so) parent complaining to the manager away from getting into trouble."

I once told the owner of a video store, many years ago, that he really REALLY ought to consider putting the Urotsukedoji video somewhere other than the cartoon section. I really liked the store, because the owner had absolutely no sense whatsoever, and had ordered tons of obscure crap that none of the other stores had (this was when there actually were stores other than the big chains). I mean, I can just imagine what would happen if a parent picked up what looks like a monster movie and it turns out to be the most extreme japornimation title out there (brilliant, in its own twisted way, but not for kids or even most adults).

In a related vein, did anyone else see Hillary Clinton with Sam Brownback, Rick Santorum and Joe Lieberman, complaining about the internet's effect on children? Great.

You know, some of you Democrats make it sound like it's only Republicans behind this sort of thing. i submit that 4 years ago Lierberman was your choice to be a heartbeat away from the presidency and according tot he polls, Hillary is the number one choice among party members to run for the top spot in 3 years. Illinois, with a democrat gov and two democrat senators, is about to sign a clearly unconstitutional bill banning sale of some video games. (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-video-game-ban,0,2206888,print.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines)

This is a fight that cuts across partisan lines, but some are too blinded to see that.
,

Posted by: mike weber at March 10, 2005 09:26 PM

Posted by Rich Drees at March 10, 2005 09:32 AM

Also, I haven't been a regular reader of FW in almost 20 years, since the local paper dropped the strip. IS there a site with the series archived?

I think that you can go way back on the Seattle Post-Intelligencer site if you play with the dates in the URL in your browser's "address" window. I haen't checked how far back, but i'm pretty sure i looked at least a year back at one point...

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at March 10, 2005 10:55 PM

This is a fight that cuts across partisan lines, but some are too blinded to see that.

You say that when the AG is a Democrat and he feels the need to make sure there are no statuesque breasts behind him.

Posted by: Mitch Evans at March 10, 2005 11:02 PM

Bill Mulligan:

"You know, some of you Democrats make it sound like it's only Republicans behind this sort of thing. i submit that 4 years ago Lierberman was your choice to be a heartbeat away from the presidency and according tot he polls, Hillary is the number one choice among party members to run for the top spot in 3 years. Illinois, with a democrat gov and two democrat senators, is about to sign a clearly unconstitutional bill banning sale of some video games. (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-video-game-ban,0,2206888,print.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines)"

Hi Bill,

I'm not too suprised. It was Tipper Gore, after all, who was the head of the PMRC. I believe the only reason they got any attention was because she was a senators wife.

I read that news article you posted. I'm left with the impression that it boils down to a group of people who are desperate for the appearance of getting something accomplished that at least imitates progress.

Posted by: Jonathan (the other one) at March 11, 2005 02:02 AM

"I don't expect every strip to be funny, certianly not Rex morgan of Flash Gordon."

You mean I'm not supposed to be laughing at Rex Morgan???

Posted by: Joe Krolik at March 11, 2005 02:34 AM

Boy, we are trying to digres really really hard on this thread too!


sssllllooowwwlllyyy, but surely.......

Posted by: Bobb at March 11, 2005 08:14 AM

I live in Illinois. And as bad as our prior republican governor was (likely a literal crook who's actions resulted in the deaths of 5 kids, not to mention the guy that cost me a real nice job), our current democratic governer is almost worse. It's the proverbial choice of 2 evils dilemma. Do you support the corrupt crook that actually does good things for the state, or the non-corrupt guy who thinks he's above the law?

In addition to trying to regulate video game sales by age, Blago (even if I did spell his name correctly, no one outside of Illinois would pronounce it correctly) has decided that, despite a federal pre-emption in the area of importing foreign prescription drugs, he's going to use state money to import unregulated prescription drugs. And that state money? Being taken from funds earmarked specifically for environmental, social, and generally anything other than illegal prescription drugs. It's gotten so bad that the treasurer has stopped processing the checks the governer writes.

Which of course is way off topic. SO to get us back on, kinda, it just goes to show that party lines aren't the hard, impenetrable barriers we might like to think they are. Especially when it comes to free speech issues, members on both sides have tried various things to limit speech they didn't agree with. As we've kinda been discussion, many times the initiating action's primary goal isn't really to limit any expression at all, but to advance some personal agenda that has nothing to do with free speech rights.

Posted by: darrik at March 11, 2005 01:19 PM

Oy, this steryotpyical mother-in-law is making no sense! before she was doing it becuase she was angry with her daughter/"sin"-in-law, and now it's becuase she's a right-winger who is against freedom of the press.

Posted by: Jeff Coney (www.hedgehoggames.com)) at March 11, 2005 05:33 PM

"So I am all for defending free speech when appropriate.

Iowa Jim"

Someone please enlighten me, when is defending free speech inappropriate?

JAC

Posted by: mike weber at March 11, 2005 07:03 PM

Posted by darrik at March 11, 2005 01:19 PM

Oy, this steryotpyical mother-in-law is making no sense! before she was doing it becuase she was angry with her daughter/"sin"-in-law, and now it's becuase she's a right-winger who is against freedom of the press.

Actually, she wasn't doing it because of her daughter and so on -- that was Peter's misinterpretation.

And she's not against freedom of speech -- just aske her.

She's against inappropriate freedom of speech, as in:

Posted by Jeff Coney (www.hedgehoggames.com)) at March 11, 2005 05:33 PM

"So I am all for defending free speech when appropriate.

Iowa Jim"

Someone please enlighten me, when is defending free speech inappropriate?

Posted by: Jeff Coney (www.hedgehoggames.com)) at March 12, 2005 08:40 AM

I still await enlightenment

JAC

Posted by: Peter David at March 12, 2005 09:37 AM

Someone please enlighten me, when is defending free speech inappropriate?"

Obviously, it's when Jim from Iowa says so.

PAD

Posted by: Jeff In NC at March 12, 2005 10:14 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050312/ap_on_hi_te/apple_secrets_15

"The journalist's privilege is not absolute," [Judge] Kleinberg wrote. "For example, journalists cannot refuse to disclose information when it relates to a crime."

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 12, 2005 10:56 AM

Is it possible that Jim meant that he was all for defending free speech when the speech itself was appropriate? That is, one can be a free speech advocate and not be in favor of a social studies teacher giving "equal time" to a holocaust denier.

I may be wrong but I suspect that even the most fervent advocate of free speech would be appalled to discover that a teacher was prostletizing religion or extremist politics in class (and before you say "sure, but only because they should be teaching during that time" let me assure you that a clever person could easily slip in politics in the course of actual teaching. A math teacher could say something to the effect of "Germany had 5 million members of the International Jewish Conspiracy. Noble Adolph Hitler relocated 87% of them to well constructed homelands in liberated Russian territory. How many remain to be discovered?" That sort of thing.

Would anyone trot out the old "I disagree with you but defend to the death your right to say it" canard?

Incidentally, the above is actually what some of these idiots claim--the 6 million supposedly killed in the holocaust are happily living in Russia, laughing themselves silly over the fraud they have perpetuated on the gentle German people. Jesus...

Posted by: Glenn Hauman at March 13, 2005 05:12 PM

"The journalist's privilege is not absolute," [Judge] Kleinberg wrote. "For example, journalists cannot refuse to disclose information when it relates to a crime."

Good. I expect to see Robert Novak telling us who gave him Valerie Plame's name any day now.

Posted by: eclark1849 at March 13, 2005 05:52 PM

Someone please enlighten me, when is defending free speech inappropriate?"

Obviously, it's when Jim from Iowa says so.

PAD

I would argue that it depends on what's being said, to whom and the amount of damage or trouble it may cause.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 13, 2005 06:02 PM

"Good. I expect to see Robert Novak telling us who gave him Valerie Plame's name any day now."

But the New York Times had an editorial saying that there may not have been a crime committed after all. Of course, they only came to that conclusion after their reporters got in trouble.

Of course, you're assuming that Novak hasn't already spilled the beans...which assumes that he was telling the truth about his sources in the first place...

Posted by: Tom Keller at March 13, 2005 07:37 PM

When, oh when, will some people in this country realize? Freedom of speech is absolute. No two ways about it. If you encounter speech you don't like, the way to attack it is with ... SPEECH! Trying to decide 'Well, is this speech harmful?' is an impossible feat, because no two people will agree on what is harmful. Freedom of speech is not something we want to be tampering with.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 13, 2005 07:48 PM

"Freedom of speech is absolute. No two ways about it. If you encounter speech you don't like, the way to attack it is with ... SPEECH!'

All things considered, if I had to take an absolute position, that would be the one to take. But...what if a teacher was expounding a particular religious view in class? In fact, wouldn't an absolutist view on free speech instantly throw out almost every seperation of church and state issue of the last few years? Prayer at school? Hey, it's free speech. You can also pretty much throw out any sexual harrassment lawsuit that doesn't involve touching.

I don't know...like I said, if it HAS to be one or the other I'd go with no constraints whatsoever but does it have to be?

Posted by: eclark1849 at March 13, 2005 11:19 PM

"Freedom of speech is absolute. No two ways about it. If you encounter speech you don't like, the way to attack it is with ... SPEECH!'

Let's get something perfectly straight. Freedom of speech is not absolute.

Take for example the Michael Jackson trial. Jay Leno wanted to tell jokes, and other parties would like to talk to the press, but there's a gag order. Presumably, it's to give Michael Jackson a fair trial, so a judge somewhere has said that Michael Jackson's right to a fair trial outweighs the rights of certain parties to speak freely about that case.

And let's not ignore the fact that no radio station, tv station, newspaper, magazine or book publisher HAS to publish or broadcast your viewpoints. If free speech was absolute they would have to by law.

You don't have the right to post signs on my property. My right to own and control my property trumps your right to free speech.

You don't have the right to come into my place of business or home and spout off about any little thing your heart desires. i can and will have you promptly arrested for trespassing.

And as Bill points out , religious fanactics should be able to roam the halls of schools everywhere spouting religious philosophy, screw separation of church and state. They can't.

Posted by: Jeff Coney (www.hedgehoggames.com)) at March 13, 2005 11:40 PM

Severl people have brought up the can a teacher say example on the free speech question I posed. I don't feel it's a valid example. They are on the clock, being paid to do a job. So should they expound polital ideas that many may not agree with while on the clock such as the above mentioned "math teacher, Holocaust didn't happen theroy" I would say no, they are paid to teach amth during those 8 hours. Should they be stopped from saying it at all during the remaining 16 hours during the day. No. Another exapmle, at your job, if you chose to use your brake time to sand in the middle of the building and quietly mutter a non stop string of profanity to your self you could expect consequences, as I assume this is against your companys stated employee policy. After work, more power to you. My point being at work, your time is being traded for money, and you are at the whim of your employer. If you say things that are deemed inappropriate by society and are punished or fired, it is not a free speech issue as they are not trying to stop you from saying it altogether. They are fireing you because you were aomehow disrupting the work enviorment, and we live in a society where work is all about results. In fact, for most of you I would bet that if you have ever gotten in trouble like in the above examples, the manager who punished you doesn't give a crap what you think, or talk about after you leave work. My long winded point is it's really only a free speech issue if the speech is trying to be supressed altogether, not just 40 hours out of the week.

Thus I still await enlightnement, but thus far PAD's answer has been the best.

JAC

Posted by: Tim Lynch at March 13, 2005 11:45 PM

You can also pretty much throw out any sexual harrassment lawsuit that doesn't involve touching.

Oh, I disagree there (though the rest of your point is pretty validly thorny). Any harassment situation that involves someone extorting sexual favors (say, a boss demanding sex from a secretary, or a college professor insisting on sex in order to change a grade) can be prosecuted in ways that aren't remotely dealing with the issue of free speech.

TWL

Posted by: Tom Keller at March 14, 2005 01:04 AM

Bill: Your points are well taken. However, I didn't mean to say that freedom of speech means freedom from consequences. A teacher is free to spout religious or holocaust-denial beliefs, but he could only get away with it once before he was fired for the reasons Jeff points out. When freedom of religion butts heads with freedom of speech, I think we have to come down on the side of freedom of religion. Prayer in school? By an individual student, who could have a problem with that? Led prayers, though, in public schools, that I would have a problem with. Tim neatly answered the sexual harassment bit. Truly, many sexual harassment suits are without merits (someone told a dirty joke, etc.) but actual coersion is wrong.

eclark: As before, freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. The Michael Jackson bit you answered yourself on. I never said freedom of speech means freedom to publish. Yes, trespassing is wrong, how that got involved in this I don't know.

My initial post was in response to someone who posted about only defending 'appropriate' speech and considering the 'damage' that the speech could do before defending it. Perhaps 'absolute' was too strong a word. I was responding to those who only wish to defend speech that they like. Well, I guarantee that someone out there doesn't like the things that you read or watch or say. THAT'S the speech I'm referring to! We can't just protect the speech we like, we have to defend what we vehemently dislike. Cause someone out there surely would strike it out if they could.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 14, 2005 06:54 AM

"Oh, I disagree there (though the rest of your point is pretty validly thorny). Any harassment situation that involves someone extorting sexual favors (say, a boss demanding sex from a secretary, or a college professor insisting on sex in order to change a grade) can be prosecuted in ways that aren't remotely dealing with the issue of free speech."

You're absolutely correct. I was thinking of the cases that seem to get the lion's share of the publicity--some slob getting sued for telling the plot of a Seinfeld episode or a fireman who has Miss November hanging on the wall by his bunk.

"Severl people have brought up the can a teacher say example on the free speech question I posed. I don't feel it's a valid example. They are on the clock, being paid to do a job. So should they expound polital ideas that many may not agree with while on the clock such as the above mentioned "math teacher, Holocaust didn't happen theroy" I would say no, they are paid to teach amth during those 8 hours."
Jeff,

But it would be easy for a teacher to do both. A social studies teacher IS paid to talk history. Which history they teach and the spin they put on it is in large part up to the teacher. Holocaust studies is a big thing here. How hard would it be for an anti-semite to bring up all manner of Holocaust denial propaganda?

Posted by: Robbnn at March 14, 2005 09:28 AM

Defending free speech might be inappropriate when free speech isn't the issue. eClark's example of trespassing, is a good case in point. The trespasser might claim eClark is abridging his right to free speech; so PAD might go off on a binge about how evil eClark is for trampling this guy's right to free speech. That would be inappropriate - certainly within his rights, of course, but inappropriate, nonetheless. Jim wouldn't waste his time. In fact, Jim might defend eClark, have a few shots taken at him, and still battle on. And come back for more. A good man, that Jim. There should be more like him.

Posted by: eclark1849 at March 14, 2005 09:33 AM

eclark: As before, freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. The Michael Jackson bit you answered yourself on. I never said freedom of speech means freedom to publish. Yes, trespassing is wrong, how that got involved in this I don't know.

My point was that you said "freedom of speech is absolute". It's not.. The whole point of the First Amendment was to make speech, particularly political speech, free from consequences. Or I should say free from GOVERNMENTAL consequences. Yet, government does impose consequences on some speech, specifically that which may, or at least, has the potential, to do harm in some way. That includes slander, libel, and any speech that interferes with the rights of others.

Which is why I said, defending someone's right to speak freely as being inappropriate would depend on; 1) what's said, 2) to whom it is said, 3) and the potential for harm it may cause.

I also think that boycotts are appropriate and acceptable forms of speech. But PAD doesn't seem to find that form of speech appropriate.

I see an incongruity here, but it's possible I may have misunderstood a stated concept somewhere.

Posted by: Mitch Evans at March 14, 2005 12:42 PM

I just read the last 4-5 days of Funky Winkerbean. It looks like the author is heading into First Amendmant territory. The city councilwoman is also attempting to prevent a high school publication and even says that if it's allowed then those responsible will be "darned to heck."

In addition to the false obscenity charge it looks like she is also trying to blur the church/state line, as an elected official falling back on a religious reference euphamised in the quote above, and attempting to curtail freedom of the press by prevent the school publication, also mentioned above.

Fascinating.

Posted by: Den at March 15, 2005 09:06 AM

And let's not ignore the fact that no radio station, tv station, newspaper, magazine or book publisher HAS to publish or broadcast your viewpoints. If free speech was absolute they would have to by law.

Not really. Forcing them to publish or broadcast viewpoints that they don't want to is a violation of their freedom of speech. If you own the mike or the printing press, your freedom of speech takes precedence over any third party's.

Posted by: Den at March 15, 2005 09:12 AM

But the New York Times had an editorial saying that there may not have been a crime committed after all. Of course, they only came to that conclusion after their reporters got in trouble.

Last time I checked, the NYT editorial board hadn't been appointed to the federal bench. It's for a judge to decide if a crime had been committed.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at March 15, 2005 09:19 AM

I don't know if anybody saw, but the FCC ruled that the MNF skit with the woman jumping into TO's arms was declared to NOT be indecent.

Something else to cheer: and a judge has said a ban on gay marriage in California is illegal.

Posted by: Rick Keating at March 15, 2005 09:49 AM

Mitch Evans wrote:

"The city councilwoman is also attempting to prevent a high school publication and even says that if it's allowed then those responsible will be "darned to heck."

Actually, those scenes are flashbacks, done to establish that this woman has challenged others' right to expression in the past.

You can tell it's a flashback because Batik uses the device of photographs placed in an album.

I have no idea, however, if the school board scene refers to an actual storyline from past strips.

Rick


Posted by: Mitch Evans at March 15, 2005 01:18 PM

Rick Keating:
"Actually, those scenes are flashbacks, done to establish that this woman has challenged others' right to expression in the past."

Hi Rick,

It wouldn't be the first time I missed subtlety.

In any case it does establish an interesting pattern of behavior.

Posted by: eclark1849 at March 15, 2005 03:27 PM

Not really. Forcing them to publish or broadcast viewpoints that they don't want to is a violation of their freedom of speech. If you own the mike or the printing press, your freedom of speech takes precedence over any third party's.

Uh, I believe that was my point, partially. Don't forget that radio and TV stations at least, don't own the airwaves they broadcast on. They are licensed by the government because it is a limited resource. Their license can revoked at anytime for cause, or just not renewed. At any rate, they can't claim a violation of their free speech rights.

They do, however own the mike ( or the printing press) as you have pointed out and the government can't tell them what they must do with their private property. It is why I state that since Free Speech does not trump other rights you have, such as private property rights or the right to a fair trial, then Free Speech is not absolute.


Last time I checked, the NYT editorial board hadn't been appointed to the federal bench. It's for a judge to decide if a crime had been committed.

Actually, it's not up to the judge. It's up to the district attorney to decide if a crime has been commited. A judge decides matters of law based on established precedents and interpretations of the law.

Posted by: Den at March 15, 2005 04:07 PM

Don't forget that radio and TV stations at least, don't own the airwaves they broadcast on. They are licensed by the government because it is a limited resource. Their license can revoked at anytime for cause, or just not renewed. At any rate, they can't claim a violation of their free speech rights.

Don't get me started on the FCC's unconstitutional power grab on the so-called "public airwaves" again.

Actually, it's not up to the judge. It's up to the district attorney to decide if a crime has been commited. A judge decides matters of law based on established precedents and interpretations of the law.

Well, first of all, this is a federal case and district attorneys don't prosecute federal cases, US attorneys do. Second, the prosecutor's job is to present evidence against the defendent. True, if he feels he doesn't have the enough evidence to convict, he can decline to prosecute, but that isn't the same as deciding that crime has not been committed. The judge rules on what evidence is admissible and whether the prosecutor is applying the law correctly in bringing the case. In other words, the prosecutor can argue that a law has been broken, but if the judge disagrees, the case will get tossed.

Posted by: eclark1849 at March 16, 2005 05:44 PM

Don't get me started on the FCC's unconstitutional power grab on the so-called "public airwaves" again.

We may have to if you keep call the FCC unconstitutional. They're a regulatory commission created by Congress for the express purpose of imposing regulatory standards on the broadcast industry. Frankly, the EPA is far more draconian.

Posted by: darrik at March 17, 2005 03:15 PM

Okay, this is annoying. there's no CBLDF plot. sure, its St Patrick's Day, which is fine, but the "green" beer is yellow!

Posted by: insideman at March 17, 2005 04:16 PM

Been away for a while... Just caught up on the last week's worth of "Funky Winkerbean".

I know this "critique" isn't very eloquent but...

... "Funky Winkerbean" really sucks.

Posted by: J. Alexander at March 17, 2005 04:34 PM

After reading the last two weeks worth of Funky, I think that the story would have been better if it was being done with Crankshaft.

Posted by: Mitch at March 18, 2005 08:37 AM

Prediction: all of these issues are going to get side-stepped in the actual trial.

The prosecutor could be expected to to ask two basic questions.

1) What is the financial health of the comic book store? Hm...seems to be a large dent. What was the money used for? Drugs? Something else? Oh...an expensive engagement ring.

2) Have you, the prioprietor, had previous contact with Councilwoman Blackburn? "Er...well..I used to date her daughter."

And the legalities will be tossed out the window as the trial dissolves into farce. I expect it to be entertaining farce, I do rather like the strip, but I think it's pretty clear which way this story is going to go.

Posted by: Jeff In NC at March 18, 2005 09:05 AM

Den:
"Don't get me started on the FCC's unconstitutional power grab on the so-called "public airwaves" again."
eclark1849:
"We may have to if you keep call the FCC unconstitutional. They're a regulatory commission created by Congress for the express purpose of imposing regulatory standards on the broadcast industry. Frankly, the EPA is far more draconian."

The FCC was created to regulate the airwaves, correct. But NOT content. That came later. The FCC was created to regulate the magnetic spectrum broadcasters use, and the amount of power each station can use so not to interfere with other stations.

Posted by: mike weber at March 19, 2005 02:31 AM

Posted by Den at March 15, 2005 04:07 PM

Don't forget that radio and TV stations at least, don't own the airwaves they broadcast on. They are licensed by the government because it is a limited resource. Their license can revoked at anytime for cause, or just not renewed. At any rate, they can't claim a violation of their free speech rights.

Don't get me started on the FCC's unconstitutional power grab on the so-called "public airwaves" again.

I've recently been thinking that, whenever anyone starts raving about the iniquities of governmental regulation of broadcasting, i should just point to e-mail, which is rapidly becoming virtually useless due to spam. Does anyone actually honestly think that the broadcast spectrum would not have been totally choked by similar such junk if it wasn't regulated?

Posted by: Rick Keating at April 11, 2005 03:40 PM

Getting back to the main topic of the situation in "Funky Winkerbean", the whole issue of the charges against the store owner appears to have been dropped from the storyline.

I find that... curious. If it was a syndicate fiat, it sends a disturbing message; and if Batiuk just decided to switch gears before the story's conclusion, it's also very odd. This is especially true since some readers of the strip, unfamiliar with the fact that comicbooks are more than just kids stuff, might come away from that storyline thinking the store owner was guilty and deserved to be punished.

I fully expected that the storyline would continue to a natural conclusion, which, based on some of the lawyer's comments, would have involved education about the comics industry, the First Amendment, and things like that. In his other strip, "Crankshaft", Batiuk sticks with a storyline to its natural conclusion. I wonder why he has apparently abandoned the comicbook shop story in "Funky Winkerbean."

Rick

Posted by: Mary Box at July 19, 2006 09:13 PM

You can't be 81234 serious?!?