The First Amendment is the cornerstone of our business. Without it, the comics and graphic novels we make and enjoy would not be as vital as they are today. But we live in an environment where our constitutional rights are constantly under attack, and that's why the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund exists. For twenty years the Fund has defended the First Amendment rights we depend upon, and to make sure we're around for another twenty years, we need your continued support.
This winter, the case of Georgia v. Gordon Lee will enter its third year. Since embarking on this defense in 2005, the Fund has spent over $72,000 defending Gordon Lee through numerous proceedings - including answering three sets of charges arising from the same incident. The Fund successfully knocked out five of the seven counts Lee originally faced, including both felony counts of "Dissemination of Unsolicited Nudity/Sexual Conduct" and three of the five misdemeanor "Harmful to Minors" counts he originally faced. However, Lee still faces two remaining misdemeanor charges of "Distribution of Harmful to Minors Materials." If convicted, each charge carries penalties of up to 12 months in prison and a $1,000 fine. This case will finally go to trial early next year, and we need your support to have the money on hand for a vigorous defense.
Defending Gordon's rights in Georgia isn't all the Fund has done this year. Including costs from the Lee case, we've spent a total of $70,000 on our legal mission work in 2006. This work included two significant advocacy cases: an ongoing challenge to Utah's draconian new Internet censorship law, and participation in the victorious outcome of Lyle v. Time-Warner, a California case that threatened free speech in the creative workplace. We have also assisted libraries on graphic novel challenges, including a letter in support of keeping Fun Home by Alison Bechdel and Blankets by Craig Thompson in the Marshall, MO public library system.
The Fund also expanded our educational advocacy work with the publication of Graphic Novels: Suggestions for Librarians and The Best Defense: The CBLDF Retailer Resource Guide. These publications are helping to educate libraries and booksellers on how to defend against the threat of censorship.
To continue these efforts, and to prepare for the casework at hand, we need you to take this moment to make a contribution to the Fund. If you need to renew your CBLDF membership, or if you have yet to join in the first place, now is the time. If you're a retailer, please consider signing up at the $100 level or above, to get your own copy of The Best Defense.
If your membership is current, I thank you, and ask that you consider making an additional gift. If you can't donate money, you can still help with a donation of original art, signed scripts, and other items that we can auction to help raise the money needed to maintain our work in the coming year. By donating money, collectibles, and/or time, you will help us continue to perform our very important work. And, of course, your contribution to the CBLDF is tax-deductible to the full extent permitted by law.
The work of the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund -- to defend the First Amendment rights that we depend upon to read, make, buy, and sell comics -- has not abated in the twenty years since our establishment. Please do your part to keep the Fund fighting the challenges we currently face, and whatever threats are on the horizon, by making a donation today.
Your friend thru comics,
Chris Staros
President
HOW YOU CAN HELP
Make a donation to the CBLDF
Sign up for membership!
Order a special CBLDF premium!
Bid on the CBLDF's eBay auctions
Ending this week: one-of-a-kind Frank Miller, Will Eisner,
Neil Gaiman, and Moebius art & memorabilia, and much more!
For more information go to http://www.cbldf.org
Posted by Peter David at December 20, 2006 08:43 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingI'm not familiar with the Utah law. Can anyone give some details?
This winter, the case of Georgia v. Gordon Lee will enter its third year.
Which just goes to show how badly our legal system is messed up.
A case like this, with or without merit, should not drag on for three years.
It seems like the State's best defense (and it certainly isn't limited to this particular case) is to drag things out as long as possible, regardless of cost, in the hope that the other side gives up.
It's pretty damn sickening.
Den, I found this article from the ACLU Utah website (June, 2005) about their case against the law, and what it says are the components of the law:
On Georgia vs Gordon Lee,try:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/13/AR2006071301108.htm
for background and:
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2006/07/13/PH2006071301114.html
for the comic page in question.
Cheers.
Posted by Craig J. Ries
This winter, the case of Georgia v. Gordon Lee will enter its third year.
Which just goes to show how badly our legal system is messed up.
A case like this, with or without merit, should not drag on for three years.
It seems like the State's best defense (and it certainly isn't limited to this particular case) is to drag things out as long as possible, regardless of cost, in the hope that the other side gives up.
It's pretty damn sickening.
Are you familiar with the case of Dragon*Con founder Ed Kramer?
Ed's been under arrest and/or house arrest - under circumstances leading to severe damage to his health - for six years now in Gwinnett County north of Atlanta. (I point out as a sidebar that some people may find the name of Gwinnett County familiar; in another Great Moment In Free Speech In Georgia, Larry Flynt was shot from ambush while he was on trial in Gwinnett.)
Ed has apparently filed a new motion for dismissal on "speedy trial" grounds - but meanwhile, so far as i can determine, remains under house arrest on charges that look thinner and thinner all the time.
Thanks for the link, Craig. This provision made me nearly fall out of my chair:
2) The Utah Attorney General must create a public registry of Internet sites worldwide containing “material harmful to minors” — speech that is unlawful to intentionally distribute to minors but that is constitutionally protected for adults.
A registry of internet sites "worldwide" that contain "adult" material!
So, I guess the attorney general has nothing else to do with his time but surf the web to find every single site with adult content? To they understand how much is out there? The "tubes" of his "internets" are going to working overtime.
Damn, shouldn't people be required to actually understand what the internet is before they start regulating it?
Gordon can get a year in prison for something like obscenity? I have no idea what to say, it's just so unbelievable.
How long has that law been on the books?
If somebody printed something really, extremely, eye-gougingly awful and despicable, I *might* agree with a hefty fine...but PRISON?!? My god...
Posted by Rob Brown at December 20, 2006 12:15 PM
"Gordon can get a year in prison for something like obscenity? I have no idea what to say, it's just so unbelievable."
Not exactly. And exactitude is where the rubber meets the road if it's a legal issue.
See, this is why I tried to post the link to a - hopefully - neutral source. Sadly I screwed up the link. Sigh. Add an 'l' to the end of the first url and you'll get:
"District Attorney Leigh Patterson charged Lee with two counts of felony and five counts of misdemeanor. He had, she argued, violated two Georgia laws: the Distribution of Material Depicting Nudity or Sexual Conduct law and the Distribution of Material Harmful to Minors law.
The first makes it a felony to deliver printed materials that contain nudity with out enclosing said materials in a properly-labeled envelope.
The second, a misdemeanor, is being applied in a way that suggests that no retailer can give minors materials that contain nudity, even if the material isn't sexual"
Arghh. It's a 'Dammit!' moment...
I'm probably going to have to come back to this, and I'm probably going to say some things that people will disagree with, and have to defend/justify them, and I am *insanely* busy with other stuff right now...
Arghh!!
Cheers.
So, I guess the attorney general has nothing else to do with his time but surf the web to find every single site with adult content?
As "Dilbert" put it:
"I was *this* close to making it my job to search the Internet looking for porn."
"It's probably just as well; I would have had to kill you."
I got this same letter a few weeks back. As it happens, I missed SPX this year (which is my usual reminder to renew my membership) and hadn't renewed yet. I re-upped the day after getting the letter.
Sometimes i'm really glad i live in the netherlands. I work on a small press release with several local artists and if that comic gets you sued in the states our comic would most certainly would. We even released one issue themed Porn and stuck a condom on each of the booklets. It was for sale in local comic bookstores, no hassles. Of course us dutch are a little more mellow than americans in general, that is on the surface because underneath the government repression americans aren't all that different. I'd say the netherlands generally has a healthier attitude towards such things as drugs and sex. Rather than repress we educate, the positive results of which can easily be read from statistics concerning crime rates and teenage pregnancies.
Unfortunately as a starting artist i don't have money to spare and my artwork is not that well known yet .. (shameless plug: www.nightowlarts.nl)
Good cause though. Art should have the freedom to explore venues that might offend some people if it serves a purpose in the artwork without having to defend that right in court.
Honestly next they'll pull Botticelli's Venus from museums because someone gets offended for seeing a nipple!
OK, here I go...
Let's talk about censorship.
Firstly, I'd like to seperate data protection from censorship - there's factual information that for purely practical reasons should not be in the public domain. What, you want your bank statements available to anyone who asks? Or military information that would - beyond all doubt - compromise the safety of 'our' troop? Or the address of everyone in the Witness Protection Programme?
So when I talk about censorship, I'm talking mainly about the censoring of either fiction or opinions or ideas.
The anti-censorship argument says that no one should say what anyone else can write, publish or read. To a degree I support that argument. I'm old enough - 49, dammit - that I can pretty much use my own judgement to take or leave anything put in front of me.
The problem I have, is that if you extend that argument, then anybody can see anything and everybody can see everything.
Which gives me a problem, because I do genuinely think some subject material has to be looked at in the context of being "Age Appropriate".
I have a daughter, who will be 15 next month. Over the years I have - many times - agonised about what is or is not suitable for her to have access to. (Luckily I have a wife who also puts in time and effort on the subject). Sometimes I have to take my instinct to protect and stamp on it, because it's no good trying to raise a child wrapped in cotton wool. But sometimes I have probably erred on the side of caution. So - since age 13 or so - she gets to read Strangers in Paradise, and Sandman, and Mary Janice Davidson... But there's still stuff I don't want her to read yet. She's big on anime, but she's not getting to watch some of the more extreme hentai material that's available. A year from now, she's on her own and get's to see whatever she wants to. (Rule of thumb; you're old enough to do it, you're old enough to read about it)
But, that parental duty to assess what your kids get to see has - for me - to also exist in a societal context. It's not for anyone else, however well intentioned, to say "Here kid, take a look at this, I think you'll really like it, especialy the orgy scenes.."
All of which leads to why I can't - in good faith - give money to CBLDF.
If you oppose someone telling people what they can or can't see, how can you support someone doing the same thing, even though - or because - what they're saying is 'everybody can see everything'?
I can see the broad appeal, and again I support that people should not be allowed to say 'you can not write/publish that', and appreciate that 'everybody can see everything' still gives leeway for parents to have some control on the age appropriate front... But that argument, for me, is still going for an easy answer instead of the right answer. And, even if I don't know what the 'right' answer is, I just can't so that.
Because I have to wonder, what if I donate money which is then used to defend something I personally would find indefensible?
I was going to comment specifically on the Gordon Lee case, but again I'm out of time...
Later, maybe.
Cheers!
[b]Because I have to wonder, what if I donate money which is then used to defend something I personally would find indefensible? [/b]
But you must also ask the reverse question: what if someone objects to something you don't find objectionable solely bassed on their personal set of guidelines for judging something indefensible.
Whose guidelines do we follow because varying groups have varying parameters of what they find objectionable.
Peter (J. Poole, that is.)
I'm in total agreement with your stance, and I believe that a growing number in the comics retailership and readership community are joining in. I detailed my own opinions (after bottling them up for too long) in "It's Time for Comic Books to Show Us What They're Made Of!" when I called for a point-of-sale method of content labelling. Marvel's leading the way on this, and I've noticed that Scholastic has been putting content tags on their GRAPHIX line of books, so I expect others will follow suit in time.
1Posted by Pro at December 21, 2006 08:35 AM
"[b]Because I have to wonder, what if I donate money which is then used to defend something I personally would find indefensible? [/b]
But you must also ask the reverse question: what if someone objects to something you don't find objectionable solely bassed on their personal set of guidelines for judging something indefensible.
Whose guidelines do we follow because varying groups have varying parameters of what they find objectionable."
Fair question.
Definitions of 'obscene' and 'pornographic' are extremely hard to pin down in the first place, and tend to change over time anyway.
In the UK, we've had legislation that female nudity was OK on stage so long as the models didn't move, and - IIRC - legislation that images of a flaccid penis were OK but that images of an erect penis were obscene because it showed sexual intent! God alone knows what the female legal equivalent would be...
We also have the old chestnut about Queen Victoria approving legislation against male homosexuality but not against female homosexuality because she did not believe that women 'would ever indulge in that kind of behaviour'.
So, one person's art is always going to be another person's porn. The only half way valid litmus test so far seems to be to take it to court and try to get some local concensus from a jury on which it is within "their local group".
That is, after all, how "Lady Chatterley's Lover" was able to win the case when its publishers were tried under the Obscene Publications Act back in 1960.
(Digression; Just did a Wiki on the Lady C Trial, and apparently some of the book was based on a place called Ilkeston, in Derbyshire. Which is where I was born and raised! I never knew that!!)
Cheers.
"But, that parental duty to assess what your kids get to see has - for me - to also exist in a societal context. It's not for anyone else, however well intentioned, to say "Here kid, take a look at this, I think you'll really like it, especialy the orgy scenes.."
All of which leads to why I can't - in good faith - give money to CBLDF."
Then you've just abrogated your parental rights.
If one is willing to give rights away to authority, rest assured that authority will snap those rights up, take them and run. The CBLDF fights for the very right that you say you hold so dear: The right to decide as a parent what your children should and should not read.
In refusing to support the CBLDF and fobbing the responsibility onto "society," then you are--to use your words, in "extending the argument"--accepting the notion that someone ELSE should get to decide what is and is not age appropriate for YOUR child.
What if someone else's fifteen year old is found reading "Strangers in Paradise," has a fit, and decides that no one under the age of 18 should be allowed to read it because of its portrayal of lesbians? They go to the authorities, the authorities agree, they go after the store and shut the store down.
Now you might say, "Ah, but they'd have no right to do so because no reasonable person could possibly say that 'Strangers in Paradise' fits the Miller test and the definitions of obscenity." And you'd be correct But *our* contention is that the material in question in the Gordon Lee case *likewise* doesn't meet those obscenity tests.
Plus--in the words of Vizzini--you've fallen victim to one of the classic blunders. In virtually every case in which the CBLDF has been involved, the scenario you've put forward simply hasn't taken place. Retailers have been prosecuted for selling adult comic books to adults (including undercover cops), not children. In the Lee case, allegedly a child was involved (that aspect still remains unclear), but even *if* that is the case, it was an instance of an error, not salacious intent. I tend to think that losing one's livelihood and liberty over an error that harmed no one is a touch extreme, don't you?
When someone supports their own right to decide what's best for their children, but no one else's right to do so, then their own right is at risk whether they realize it or not.
PAD
I knew this was going to be time consuming... :)
But it's an important enough issue that I have to make the time.
1) Fobbing? I see no fobbing... I state that I believe society has a duty to protect the rights of parents to decide what their kids get to see over the rights of *anyone* else to decide what their kids get to see.
2) Society/the authorities will always have input over what kids - and people in general - get to see. In democratic theory, the authorities represent the will of society. I know that reality often falls lamentably short of the theory, but concensus and generalities are what legislation has to be founded on.
3) I'm well aware of the dangers of authority being.. let's say 'over zealous'... in their definitions of what they're protecting us from. My take on that is that it's then my responsibility to defy that, as and when I feel it's right to do so, privately or publicly. If TPTB say SiP is banned, I'd still let my daughter read it. If they want to take me to court, bring it on! Where we're disagreeing is that I'm not convinced that financially supporting CBLDF is the best way of addressing that danger, because there - from my personal perspective - I would be, in your words, "fobbing off" the choice of which battles to fight and how to fight them to someone else.
4) My comments were on the topic in general, and not on the Lee case in particular. I have comments to make on that, I just didn't have time to post 'em. (Plus I thought I'd see how badly I got mauled in the general round before attempting a specialised one!) I'll still try to get around to that at some point.
5) Sticking to the general round though, I believe I've seen the argument on this board that - like pregnancy - there's no such thing as being 'a little bit OK with censorship'? By that same token then "In virtually every case in which the CBLDF has been involved, the scenario you've put forward simply hasn't taken place." implies that in some cases it has taken place. Minuscule though that number may be.
6) I'm not saying "Don't support CBLDF". If people believe in what they are doing and how they are doing it, then they should support it. It may be that I am 'wrong' in some way or ways for not doing so - I don't claim infallibility as an attribute. What I am saying is that on matters as important as these we need to have thought through *all* the implications of doing something.
Cheers.
Which gives me a problem, because I do genuinely think some subject material has to be looked at in the context of being "Age Appropriate".
I certainly agree with you there, Peter; I simply believe that a prison sentence is too harsh. A fine would be just as effective as a deterrant; nobody wants to pay fines, fines can even put you out of business if they're big enough.
In refusing to support the CBLDF and fobbing the responsibility onto "society," then you are--to use your words, in "extending the argument"--accepting the notion that someone ELSE should get to decide what is and is not age appropriate for YOUR child.
I really should take the time to read exactly how the law reads one of these days. For now, I must regretfully speak from ignorance, for the first time in my life, too! (j/k, of course)
If the law prohibits the selling of certain R- or X-rated material to an unaccompanied minor, I don't have any objection to that.
If, OTOH, the law says that a parent cannot legally buy certain material and give it to their child, then the law is wrong.
Like the S.R.A. in "Civil War", my primary objection is to how this law is being enforced; the penalty is simply too harsh for the offense.
"Plus--in the words of Vizzini--you've fallen victim to one of the classic blunders."
PAD, with all due respect, I don't think it'll do anybody any good to talk to somebody like that.
I realize it's not extremely insulting or condescending or anything. Lately however, something possessed me to try engaging people in the comments section of the blog of a conservative Republican in rational discussion and debate, to at least try to get through to them and convince them that their ideas of a big Muslim-and-illegal-alien conspiracy to destroy America might not be true...and despite being as civil as I could, I have gotten myself flamed over and over for having a different viewpoint.
Your "blunders" comment is nothing on the scale of the kind of insults I've been subjected to there, but nevertheless, can we try to be the complete opposite of the people I just described? We're supposed to be better than them, after all. We're supposed to be the reasonable, rational ones. Getting confrontational with one another, even a little bit confrontational, will accomplish nothing.
Plus--in the words of Vizzini--you've fallen victim to one of the classic blunders.PAD, with all due respect, I don't think it'll do anybody any good to talk to somebody like that....
Your "blunders" comment is nothing on the scale of the kind of insults I've been subjected to there, but nevertheless, can we try to be the complete opposite of the people I just described? We're supposed to be better than them, after all. We're supposed to be the reasonable, rational ones. Getting confrontational with one another, even a little bit confrontational, will accomplish nothing.
Everyone else heard Peter's "blunders" comment in the voice of the "inconceivable!" guy -- which he said right before he himself dies from his own blunder.
Oooh, Trivia Bonus round!
"Plus--in the words of Vizzini--you've fallen victim to one of the classic blunders."
This is a Princess Bride quote. I'm interpreting it as part of keeping a difference of opinions considerably more Civil than Warlike, and am not offended by the 'B' word.
Let's talk about Law and Justice for a moment. (Humour me, it's not quite as big a digression as it may seem!)
Laws are - ideally - supposed to be just, but they're not necessarily about Justice.
Justice needs to fit the context of circumstances in individual cases. It's like a bespoke suit.
Laws are attempts to define rules that can apply to a majority of circumstances, hopefully delivering as much justice as is practical without having 50, or 500, or 5000 amendments to each law to try and fit it to more circumstances. Law is like an off the peg suit from a low cost retail store.
Maybe sometimes the only thing that can be said about a law is that it fits everyone equally badly. That's still - arguably - better than going without any laws.
Then take on board that laws can be amended, that the evolve, and that the criminal justice system gives judges and juries some discretion about how laws are interpreted and applied as part of the trial process, as well as having an appeal system that's supposed to correct the worst mistakes of the initial trial if it comes to that.
There's also, I guess, room in the system for some common sense actually getting a look in sometimes... (He said, with a touching degree of optimism!)
So, the same law about giving materials to a minor has the option of being applied differently in practice to someone accidentally handing a comic of arguable content to a child and to the convicted sex-offender handing out hard core porn in the playground...
Which brings us - finally - to the Gordon Lee case.
I don't claim to have researched that in detail, but the Washington Post article certainly seems to give cause for some concern. Taking three years to still not resolve the case seems ludicrous, and the prosecution backing off to take two or three different stabs at what they were actually accusing Mr Lee of - and indeed changing their mind about who may or may not be the victim - does not inspire a lot of faith in their approach to resolving the matter.
Swiftly re-capping the charges:
"He had, she argued, violated two Georgia laws: the Distribution of Material Depicting Nudity or Sexual Conduct law and the Distribution of Material Harmful to Minors law.
The first makes it a felony to deliver printed materials that contain nudity with out enclosing said materials in a properly-labeled envelope.
The second, a misdemeanor, is being applied in a way that suggests that no retailer can give minors materials that contain nudity, even if the material isn't sexual"
The actual phrasing of the two laws in question seem - to me personally - to be somewhere between 'overkill' and 'somewhat fuzzy', but they are still the laws of the land.
Overkill for the 'nude material must be in a properly labelled envelope' though I would suggest that anything containing nudity should be labelled or other wise identifiable so those likely to be offended have the option of not looking. (A "Definitely does contain nuts" sticker might suffice!)
Material Harmful to Minors is just begging for trouble because you're instantly into a hissy fit about what is or isn't 'harmful', and it seems - again, to me personally - that it's overkill to try applying that to 'anything containing nudity'.
So, I'll grant you two 'fuzzy' laws, being applied with perhaps more enthusiasm than a lot of people might be instantly comfortable with.
But they are laws. And I do believe that people have to take the consequences of their actions, even if the action was accidental or negligent.
So if that comic did end up in the hands of a 9 year old or a 6 year old the only defence position left is to argue that the material is not harmful, which again comes back to individual interpretations. For the record, I'd tend to think that a comic strip containg full frontal male and female nudity, mention of masturbation and the deathless prose "Go fuck yourself little man!" is going to take some effort to sell as "harmless when shown to 9 or 6 year olds" from a juror perspective.
My instant - and quite possibly wrong - thought on what little I've read would be that a prison sentence would be overkill, but that a fine for being - bluntly - careless enough to get into the situation in the first place would not be unjust.
(Does anyone know if that option was ever on the table?)
Where it seems to be now is that both sides have dug in their heels, invoked the matter of priciples clause, claimed the moral high ground and left the other side with no graceful way to back down... Which potentially sticks Mr Lee right on Ground Zero.
Finally, back to my initial post and highlighting a distinction, even if the CBLDF is completely absolutely 100% right in fighting this particular case it does not invalidate my overall concern on the generic level.
Cheers.
If one is looking for "exactitude," rather than going to a newspaper article, I'd suggest reading the full text of the Georgia laws under which Gordon Lee is being charged.
Here is a link to Georgia Statute 16-12-103:
legis.state.ga.us/legis/GaCode/?title=16&chapter=12§ion=103
The statute makes it a crime to knowingly disseminate to a minor material that is deemed "harmful to minors."
Here's a link to Georgia Statute 16-12-102, where the terms "knowingly," "harmful to minors," and "minor" are defined:
legis.state.ga.us/legis/GaCode/?title=16&chapter=12§ion=102
(NOTE: I had to "munge" the urls to get past the spam filter. Just copy and paste the urls into the address bar of your browser, add "www." at the beginning, and they should work fine).
The law states that "knowingly" can mean someone had "...reason to know, or a belief or ground for belief which warrants further inspection or inquiry of... the character and content of any material described in this part which is reasonably susceptible to examination." The question is: did Gordon Lee have "reason to know, or a belief or ground for a belief" that the book distributed to a minor by an "agent" of his store could be "harmful to minors?"
The cover of the book didn't scream "naughty material" by any stretch of the imagination. Moreover, the "mature readers" label was on the back cover, and was not very promintent. I can't think of any valid argument to be made that Mr. Lee or the agent of his store gave the book to a minor "knowingly" as it is defined under the law.
In addition, there are a number of tests a work must meet in order to be considered "harmful to minors" under the Georgia statutes. According to the law, the work is "harmful to minors" when:
"(A) Taken as a whole, [it] predominantly appeals to the prurient, shameful, or morbid interest of minors;
(B) [It] is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable material for minors; and
(C) [It] is, when taken as a whole, lacking in serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors. "
I find it hard to believe that anyone can argue with a straight face that a fictional story that includes Picasso as one of the characters is "when taken as a whole, lacking in serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors."
There are so many holes in the prosecution's case that it not only doesn't hold water, it's gushing out all over the place. Moreover, as the CBLDF has pointed out, this law, as written, may be superseded by case law at the state and federal levels. And ultimately this law appears to be unconstitutional.
Peter J. Poole, you cannot say you are an advocate of free speech and then express opposition to free speech. I realize you will probably bristle at being labeled an "opponent" of free speech. By definition, however, that is what you are, regardless of the emotional reaction that label may provoke. As attorney and author Alan Dershowitz once pointed out, one cannot claim to be a proponent of free speech unless one is willing to fight for the right of someone to express something one finds repugnant.
Rob Brown, again, I think your heart is in the right place. But in admonishing PAD, you're failing to distinguish between criticizing someone's ideas, which is fair game in any debate; and attacking someone personally. PAD very clearly avoided attacking Peter J. Poole on any personal level.
Oh, one other thing: a fine is no less excessive than a jail sentence in the Gordon Lee case. First, for reasons I have articulated above, I believe he did not break the laws as they are written. Second, I believe the laws, as written, are unconstitutional.
Therefore, a jail sentence, a fine, community service, or any other kind of penalty would be unjust.
Proponents of "merely levying a fine" are forgetting something, by the way: most comic-book retailers I know take care to make sure that adult material doesn't get into minors' hands because it's good business. They don't need fines to motivate them. And the threat of fines could discourage retailers from carrying books that we as adults may find artistically worthwhile. That's commonly referred to as a "chilling effect."
In refusing to support the CBLDF and fobbing the responsibility onto "society," then you are--to use your words, in "extending the argument"--accepting the notion that someone ELSE should get to decide what is and is not age appropriate for YOUR child.
You contradict yourself. How can anyone have a duty to protect a parental sovereignty they are the exception to?
If you make no exception to your sovereignty as a parent, then you are simply arguing for delegation of authority. By making an exception to your authority -- and consenting to that exception to your authority to speak in your place you -- you move from delegating your authority to abdicating it.
You have to pick 1 or 2. You can't have both. By refusing to support the CBLDF, you've simply defaulted to picking 2 -- fobbing.
In the states, you see the same conflict with the issue of prayer in public schools. Parents who support school prayer not only abdicate their own authority, but seek to dilute the authority of the other parents.
Rob Brown, again, I think your heart is in the right place. But in admonishing PAD, you're failing to distinguish between criticizing someone's ideas, which is fair game in any debate; and attacking someone personally. PAD very clearly avoided attacking Peter J. Poole on any personal level.
Yes, my bad and my sincere apologies. (Clearly I need to rent more movies...) I thought I saw things going down a certain road and wanted to nip it in the bud.
Mike:
"You have to pick 1 or 2. You can't have both. By refusing to support the CBLDF, you've simply defaulted to picking 2 -- fobbing."
Sure I can have both. (I am large, I contain platitudes..) 1 indicates a belief in the ideal situation, 2 indicates acceptance that reality may well fall short. If you read the rest of what I said I express that while different authorities may have input - be it legislative or coming round and setting your house on fire - I do not cede them final authority and would oppose that input if I felt justified in doing so. (Probably more vociferously in the legislative scenario than in the combustive one)
I still think I'm pretty fob-free.
Bill:
Do try to follow the plot son.. I've already acknowledged the argument published in here that you can't partially support free speech, and nowhere do I put myself up as 'an advocate of free speech'. You seem regularly determined to nit pick me for things I didn't actually say, which seems an unusual debating style to me.
(For the record, I do fully support "the right of someone to express something one finds repugnant", sometimes with little or no actual bristling. You, however seem to be positively porcupinesque at most of my posts to date)
I'm assuming that you do see yourself as a proponent of free speeech - correct me if I'm wrong by all means - so do you believe that everyone, regardless of age, should be able to read or view any and all fictional/entertainment/opinion/idea based material they want to, regardless of content?
Cheers.
Hmm, actually Mike there may not be as much of a contradiction as there first seems to be here. We have the statements:
"I believe society has a duty to protect the rights of parents to decide what their kids get to see over the rights of *anyone* else to decide what their kids get to see."
and
"Society/the authorities will always have input over what kids - and people in general - get to see."
Society and the authorities are the ones who first make the laws that determine what can legally be sold and what can't. Child porn can't be legally sold, to take the obvious example.
After the lawmakers have outlined what's off-limits, people have a selection of legal stuff to choose from in stores or libraries. Peter Poole may be saying that he wants to be the one to make the decision on whether or not his children read something that can be legally sold, yet contains mature content. He can tell me whether I'm right or wrong in his next post.
The cover of the book didn't scream "naughty material" by any stretch of the imagination. Moreover, the "mature readers" label was on the back cover, and was not very promintent. I can't think of any valid argument to be made that Mr. Lee or the agent of his store gave the book to a minor "knowingly" as it is defined under the law.
Um. It DOES seem that this particular case has been blown out of proportion.
Therefore, a jail sentence, a fine, community service, or any other kind of penalty would be unjust.
What I said previously was "If somebody printed something really, extremely, eye-gougingly awful and despicable, I *might* agree with a hefty fine...but PRISON?!?"
I tried visiting the links to the Washington Post article and the offending page, but they don't appear to be working, therefore I don't know what exactly we're talking about here. IMO, Mr. Gordon should absolutely not be put in prison, and based on earlier posts and what they've said about the situation, it looks like he doesn't deserve a fine either
Sure I can have both. (I am large, I contain platitudes..) 1 indicates a belief in the ideal situation, 2 indicates acceptance that reality may well fall short.
Well, sure, and war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength. No doublethinking going on there at all.
Society/the authorities will always have input over what kids - and people in general - get to see....I do not cede them final authority and would oppose that input if I felt justified in doing so.
And how would you remove the influence of something whose omnipresence you accept?
And how would you remove the influence of something whose omnipresence you accept?
In theory, the people who make the laws re. what people can and cannot see are the ones elected by the people, and therefore are answerable to the people. So if Peter thought that they were using their influence the right way, he'd support them, and if he thought they were going too far, he'd oppose them and vote against them.
In practice, elected officials are not extensions of the people's will and even if they're wildly unpopular they don't have to worry about any immediate consequences. So if Peter didn't like the limits being set by the democratically empowered authorities, he might not find himself in a position to do anything about it.
Society and the authorities are the ones who first make the laws that determine what can legally be sold and what can't.
Yes, where fulfilling market demand endangers the consumer or vulnerable species, not to censor.
Child porn can't be legally sold, to take the obvious example.
Yes, where the practice creates a victim, not to censor.
In the US, text is protected free speech and the supreme court ruled that prohibition against simulated child porn was unconstitutional. The practice is illegal, but there is no law against having the perversion of pedophilia.
Rob, my question refers specifically to PJP's inconsistency. I believe I can challenge his inconsistency without devaluing the election process.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 21, 2006 07:33 PM
Do try to follow the plot son.. I've already acknowledged the argument published in here that you can't partially support free speech, and nowhere do I put myself up as 'an advocate of free speech'. You seem regularly determined to nit pick me for things I didn't actually say, which seems an unusual debating style to me.
(For the record, I do fully support "the right of someone to express something one finds repugnant", sometimes with little or no actual bristling. You, however seem to be positively porcupinesque at most of my posts to date)
In an earlier, post, you wrote the following:
"The anti-censorship argument says that no one should say what anyone else can write, publish or read. To a degree I support that argument. I'm old enough - 49, dammit - that I can pretty much use my own judgement to take or leave anything put in front of me."
In other words, you tried to say that you sorta kinda support free speech. What I am saying is: you can't "to a degree... support that argument." You either believe in free speech or you do not.
You have stated that you cannot in "good faith" give money to the CBLDF. To give us some insight into the reasoning behind that, you asked the following rhetorical question:
"Because I have to wonder, what if I donate money which is then used to defend something I personally would find indefensible?"
If you are not willing to defend the right of someone to say something you personally find "indefensible," you cannot say that you support the right of someone to say things you find repugnant.
I am not sure how you figure that you "didn't actually say" things you clearly said. Perhaps you are not expressing yourself as well as you believe.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 21, 2006 07:33 PM
I'm assuming that you do see yourself as a proponent of free speeech - correct me if I'm wrong by all means - so do you believe that everyone, regardless of age, should be able to read or view any and all fictional/entertainment/opinion/idea based material they want to, regardless of content?
I believe that parents should regulate what their children are exposed to, not the government.
Am I the only one who, when the term "society" is used, considers myself a part of that term, rather than an outsider to it? Society determines things, and we are that society.
Congratulations, Mr. Poole: you've already turned the opponents in this grand and longevitous debate to defending the practice of "virtual child pornography." :)
"Am I the only one who, when the term "society" is used, considers myself a part of that term, rather than an outsider to it? Society determines things, and we are that society."
In modern democracies the power of society as a collective is offset by the rights of the individual such as freedom of speech, and the freedom to determine one's taste. Otherwise you have a tyrany of the majority. Neither are considered absolute in such societies. However, these principles are designed to protect you even if you are an outsider.
Another distinction that should be made in that context is between society and the government. While in a democratic society the government is controled in principal by society, society has other tools beyond the coercive power of the state. So, there is a difference between using the power of the state to silence speech which society considers unacceptable, and society in general having a negative pinon of certain speech, but not using power against it.
"Congratulations, Mr. Poole: you've already turned the opponents in this grand and longevitous debate to defending the practice of "virtual child pornography." :)"
If we assume that taste is a matter of individual choice, than the government cannot act against child pornongraphy on the grounds that it is disgusting, although most of society considers it disgusting. However, the government should act to protect actual minors from sexual abuse, regardless of whether there is a camera present or not. Which is why most democratic societies accept adult pornography but oppose child pornography -- because the issue is not taste but the difference between concenting adults (in principle) and exploited minors. But this opens a loophole trough which virtual child pornography can slip through whether we as a society like it or not. The question is how far is society wiling to curtail individual free speech and taste in order to plug this loophole?
When I was in highschool we were required to read a book that had a sexual scene involving a 15 year old. Another famous book to depict something that could be described as child pornography is Lolita (which I haven't read). G. R. R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire had one or two sexual scenes involving minors. All these cases are protected by freedom of speech according to the princiles mentioned above.
"I believe that parents should regulate what their children are exposed to, not the government."
The idea that the state should use its powerr to protect children (unfortbuatly sometimes from the parents themselves) is usually accepted in modern democracies. This argument has been used by opponents of pornography who claim the the need to protect children from pornographic or erotic or just nude material places a limit on free speech. In this case you have a loophole that allowes the state to decide in issues of taste in order to determine what's accptable and accessable to children. Furthermore, some have claimed that in the current age of mass media it becomes more and more difficult for parents to regulate what their children are exposed to.
In principle I find these concerns valid. In practice it opens a whole new can of worms.
So if that comic did end up in the hands of a 9 year old or a 6 year old the only defence position left is to argue that the material is not harmful, which again comes back to individual interpretations. For the record, I'd tend to think that a comic strip containg full frontal male and female nudity, mention of masturbation and the deathless prose "Go fuck yourself little man!" is going to take some effort to sell as "harmless when shown to 9 or 6 year olds" from a juror perspective.
Peter, you linked to the offending comic pages yourself. If a 9-year-old views that page by following your link, you are as guilty as Lee is of giving away that comic. If such takes place over the lifetime of the internet, will you surrender yourself to trial where you've broken the law?
Posted by: R.J. Carter at December 21, 2006 09:31 PM
Am I the only one who, when the term "society" is used, considers myself a part of that term, rather than an outsider to it? Society determines things, and we are that society.
Nope. And I don't know why you would, for one moment, believe that you were. Defending the First Amendment is indeed a societal issue. It determines how we, as a society, regard the role of government. If I didn't consider myself a part of "society," I wouldn't bother to have this conversation.
Posted by: R.J. Carter at December 21, 2006 09:31 PM
Congratulations, Mr. Poole: you've already turned the opponents in this grand and longevitous debate to defending the practice of "virtual child pornography." :)
No. You've done that by creating a "straw man" argument. It's nothing to congratulate Peter J. Poole, nor yourself, over.
Posted by: Micha at December 21, 2006 10:18 PM
In modern democracies the power of society as a collective is offset by the rights of the individual such as freedom of speech, and the freedom to determine one's taste. Otherwise you have a tyrany of the majority. Neither are considered absolute in such societies.
I believe the First Amendment to the United States Constitution does not provide "absolute" protection for all speech. Libel, child pornography involving depictions of actual children, and shouting "fire" in a crowded theater where there is no fire are all examples of speech that is not protected by the First Amendment. The common thread between these examples is that there is an identifiable, tangible, and imminent harm created in each instance.
We must take great pains, however, to prevent the government from using the concept of "harm" as an excuse to restrict the expression of ideas. I have yet to hear anyone -- anyone -- even articulate precisely what harm could befall a child who read a comic like the one accidentally distributed to a minor at Gordon Lee's store, much less prove that such a harm would indeed result. Yet that doesn't stop some people from advocating punishments for Gordon that could cost him his livelihood, and even his freedom. Punishing Gordon in this fashion would be unjust to him as an individual, of course. But it would also be unjust on a societal level, as it could scare other retailers into carrying a less diverse product line.
Posted by: Micha at December 21, 2006 10:18 PM
Another distinction that should be made in that context is between society and the government. While in a democratic society the government is controled in principal by society, society has other tools beyond the coercive power of the state. So, there is a difference between using the power of the state to silence speech which society considers unacceptable, and society in general having a negative pinon of certain speech, but not using power against it.
Yep. The free market can "punish" Gordon if "punishment" is needed. If enough people object to his business practices, he has two choices: adapt or perish. The government needn't be involved.
Posted by: Micha at December 21, 2006 10:18 PM
If we assume that taste is a matter of individual choice, than the government cannot act against child pornongraphy on the grounds that it is disgusting, although most of society considers it disgusting. However, the government should act to protect actual minors from sexual abuse, regardless of whether there is a camera present or not. Which is why most democratic societies accept adult pornography but oppose child pornography -- because the issue is not taste but the difference between concenting adults (in principle) and exploited minors. But this opens a loophole trough which virtual child pornography can slip through whether we as a society like it or not. The question is how far is society wiling to curtail individual free speech and taste in order to plug this loophole?
When I was in highschool we were required to read a book that had a sexual scene involving a 15 year old. Another famous book to depict something that could be described as child pornography is Lolita (which I haven't read). G. R. R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire had one or two sexual scenes involving minors. All these cases are protected by freedom of speech according to the princiles mentioned above.
You hit the nail right on the head. "Virtual child pornography" becomes a slippery slope. The only sane way to regulate "child pornography" is to restrict such regulations to content depicting actual children, because children are indeed harmed when they are exploited to create such filth.
Posted by: Micha at December 21, 2006 10:18 PM
The idea that the state should use its powerr to protect children (unfortbuatly sometimes from the parents themselves) is usually accepted in modern democracies. This argument has been used by opponents of pornography who claim the the need to protect children from pornographic or erotic or just nude material places a limit on free speech. In this case you have a loophole that allowes the state to decide in issues of taste in order to determine what's accptable and accessable to children. Furthermore, some have claimed that in the current age of mass media it becomes more and more difficult for parents to regulate what their children are exposed to.
In principle I find these concerns valid. In practice it opens a whole new can of worms.
Just because it is "accepted" doesn't necessarily make it right. I do not believe people should be punished for mistakes where the supposed "harm" cannot be articulated nor proven to be a result of said mistakes. Again, the free market can correct the actions of retailers who insist on distributing material to children that parents find objectionable.
All this could've been avoided if the woman had just gone into the shop with the kids. You know, taken an active role in the kids' lives.
R.J. Carter: There is a certain poster whose posts I have not been reading with regularity. I glanced at them a few minutes ago and realized that "virtual child pornography" was indeed a topic of conversation before you brought it up.
That said, it is still inaccurate to say that Peter J. Poole "forced" anyone into "defending the practice." It is more accurate to say that a commitment to the principles of free speech inevitably necessitates the defense of certain types of speech that one finds objectionable, including "virtual kiddie porn." That's not something that Peter J. Poole "forced;" it's simply a logical consequence of a belief in free speech.
You have stated that you cannot in "good faith" give money to the CBLDF. To give us some insight into the reasoning behind that, you asked the following rhetorical question:
"Because I have to wonder, what if I donate money which is then used to defend something I personally would find indefensible?"
If you are not willing to defend the right of someone to say something you personally find "indefensible," you cannot say that you support the right of someone to say things you find repugnant.
While Peter J. Poole is probably capable of defending his own statements, I must say that that's not how I interpreted his statement.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Poole, but I believe what is being said, in essence, is a desire for some assurance that one's money is not going to be used, for example, in the defense of a shop owner or worker who knowingly, or through gross negligence, distributed adult-only materials to a minor or minors.
-Rex Hondo-
Posted by Mike at December 21, 2006 10:23 PM
"Peter, you linked to the offending comic pages yourself. If a 9-year-old views that page by following your link, you are as guilty as Lee is of giving away that comic. If such takes place over the lifetime of the internet, will you surrender yourself to trial where you've broken the law?"
Oh Bugger! I seem to have just invented a brand new classic blunder. You got me.
If local authorities want to prosecute, or remote authorities want to extradite and prosecute I don't think they'd wait for me to surrender myself. I do accept that I should take the consequences of my actions, even the inadvertant ones, if that's what you're asking. I will however be citing the Washington Post and the administrators of this board as co-defendants :P
Rex Hondo:
You're partially right. What I'm saying is that if I give money to a cause - any cause, be it professional, charitable or political - I need to know to a degree that I am comfortable with, what work will be done with that money. Simple as that.
It's a personal stance, not intended to in any way criticise or defame CBLDF in particular, and anyone who is happy to support them should by all means do so.
Bill:
"In other words, you tried to say that you sorta kinda support free speech. What I am saying is: you can't "to a degree... support that argument. You either believe in free speech or you do not."
I believe in free speech to the same extent that you do. I think anyone should be able to write and/or publish anything they want to. I have a problem with "free listening" because I think there is a duty on parents to control what their kids get exposed to.
"
"Because I have to wonder, what if I donate money which is then used to defend something I personally would find indefensible?"
If you are not willing to defend the right of someone to say something you personally find "indefensible," you cannot say that you support the right of someone to say things you find repugnant.
"
I am willing to support their right to say it, I'm not so keen on having someone else decide to support their right to say it to my kids. If that makes me an "opponent of free speech" or any other emotive and inflammatory label you care to wheel out, then - as I have already indicated - I can live with that.
"I am not sure how you figure that you "didn't actually say" things you clearly said. Perhaps you are not expressing yourself as well as you believe."
Could well be. I'm still not claiming infallibility. Or it could be that you're not hearing what I am saying, or have some difficulty in reconciling it with your view of what people can or can not say.
For example:
I say: "to defend something I personally would find indefensible"
And you - as I interpret it - translate the word 'something' to *exclusively* mean "the right of someone to say something".
Based on which you go on to tell me that "you cannot say" what I just said. (I'll presume you're inserting a 'logically' or 'truthfully' in there instead of just globally dictating what I can or can not say.)
But, QED, what you say I said is not what I *actually* said at all.
On which note, I'm out of here. I'll have limited net access from now until January, so feel free to burn me in effigy rather than in person!
Joking aside, I'm impressed by - and more than a little grateful for - the restraint and maturity most of you are showing in this conversation.
Hope you all have a Cool Yule and a Happy Whatever!
Cheers.
Posted by: Sean Scullion at December 22, 2006 01:50 AM
"All this could've been avoided if the woman had just gone into the shop with the kids. You know, taken an active role in the kids' lives."
Well, she could still have thrown a hairy hissy fit and called the cops when she saw someone *attempting* to corrupt her offspring... As the man says, "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity".
Cheers!
"I believe in free speech to the same extent that you do. I think anyone should be able to write and/or publish anything they want to. I have a problem with "free listening" because I think there is a duty on parents to control what their kids get exposed to."
1) Nobody disputes the duty of parents to control what their children are exposed to. The question is to what degree they should be using the coercive power of the state to do so.
This is partialy because:
2) How do you prevent free listening? Do you do it by using your parental power on your childrebn to prevent them from having access to offensive material? Or do you use the power of the state on the people publishing or selling this material in order to prevent them from being accessable to your children. If the second, than by definition you are reducing the free speech of the publishers in order to curtail the free listening of the children. One may or may not feel it is justified to use such methods to control what your children get exposed to, but you cannot claim the distinction between free speech and free listening in this case.
---------
"Again, the free market can correct the actions of retailers who insist on distributing material to children that parents find objectionable."
I do not share your faith in the free market. It seems there is a pretty good market for some disgusting stuff. But free speech is a very important principle, so even if the free market alone is insufficient, I would still be very hesitant to reduce free speech in the name of defending children from the supposed harm of exposure to certain material.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 22, 2006 07:04 AM
I believe in free speech to the same extent that you do. I think anyone should be able to write and/or publish anything they want to. I have a problem with "free listening" because I think there is a duty on parents to control what their kids get exposed to.
Agreed. Completely. Parents should be the "filters" because every child is different, and who is in a better position to gauge a child's emotional and intellectual development than that child's parents? (Assuming, of course, that the kid doesn't have crappy parents. But that's a topic for another discussion.)
Nevertheless, I don't believe it logically follows that the government must be allowed to prosecute retailers who accidentally distribute to minors comics depicting non-sexual nudity and containing coarse language. As Sean Scullion rightly pointed out, the parents could have accompanied their children into the store and perused what they were being given. Moreover, I still have yet to hear anyone articulate precisely what kind of harm has befallen the minors in the Gordon Lee case, nor how we know that said harm was a direct result of reading the comic in question.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 22, 2006 07:04 AM
I am willing to support their right to say it, I'm not so keen on having someone else decide to support their right to say it to my kids. If that makes me an "opponent of free speech" or any other emotive and inflammatory label you care to wheel out, then - as I have already indicated - I can live with that.
Perhaps calling you an "opponent of free speech" was excessive. But at least it was an attack on your ideas and not on you as a person. You seem to reserve for yourself the privilege of dragging things to an unnecessarily personal level, such as when you condescendingly asked me to "try to follow the plot, son." Yet when I take issue with your ideas in a non-personal fashion, you become indignant.
I'm finding it increasingly difficult to debate with you for that reason. We got off on the wrong foot, and I am willing to acknowledge that I am partially to blame. What must I do to convince you that I am merely trying to debate ideas -- that I am open to persuasion -- and that I am not your enemy?
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 22, 2006 07:04 AM
Could well be. I'm still not claiming infallibility.
Nor am I.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 22, 2006 07:04 AM
Or it could be that you're not hearing what I am saying, or have some difficulty in reconciling it with your view of what people can or can not say.
It's possible that I am misinterpreting you. You're certainly not making it any easier on me, though, by making this personal. If you believe I've misinterpreted you, say so. I'm willing to listen.
I disagree with Bill Mulligan quite a bit -- yet we're actually friends outside of this forum. I even met the man in person, and he bought lunch for my girlfriend and me. Nice guy. So, y'know, disagreements don't have to be personal.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 22, 2006 07:04 AM
And you - as I interpret it - translate the word 'something' to *exclusively* mean "the right of someone to say something".
Now we're getting somewhere. You're asserting that my interpretation of what you said was overly broad. It didn't help that your statement was overly vague. But now, at least, we have a chance to arrive at a mutual understanding, if not agreement (assuming you have a chance to see this while the thread is still fresh). What sorts of things (besides distributing naughty material to minors) would you consider "indefensible?"
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 22, 2006 07:04 AM
Based on which you go on to tell me that "you cannot say" what I just said. (I'll presume you're inserting a 'logically' or 'truthfully' in there instead of just globally dictating what I can or can not say.)
Yes, yes, of course that's what I meant. Man, I'm trying to defuse the tension between us, but you keep spoiling for a fight. Why?
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 22, 2006 07:04 AM
But, QED, what you say I said is not what I *actually* said at all.
I don't think you've proven anything to the extent you believe. I have a suggestion (and am hoping you'll take it in the friendly spirit with which it is intended): specificity and concrete examples help reduce the possibility of misunderstanding and misinterpretation. Your posts often hover at the abstract level, and many of your statements are more vague than you, I suspect, realize.
For my part, I acknowledge that I may be guilty of taking those vague statements and reading too much into them. Going forward, I will try to ask more questions of you in order to get a clearer understanding of your views before forming an opinion about what you are saying.
See? I'm not the villain you've made me out to be. I really am trying to meet you in the middle.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 22, 2006 07:04 AM
On which note, I'm out of here. I'll have limited net access from now until January, so feel free to burn me in effigy rather than in person!
If that jab is aimed in part at me, it's a bit unfair. I've disagreed with you, but, again -- it ain't personal.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 22, 2006 07:04 AM
Joking aside, I'm impressed by - and more than a little grateful for - the restraint and maturity most of you are showing in this conversation.
I can't tell if you believe I'm one of those who has failed to show "restraint and maturity." If you do, I'd like to point out in my defense that you took what was likely a simple misunderstanding between us and escalated it to a personal level. It takes two to tango.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 22, 2006 07:04 AM
Hope you all have a Cool Yule and a Happy Whatever!
To you as well.
The next time we "meet," I will follow through on my commitment to ask questions first and "shoot" later. I would like to ask in return that you give me the benefit of the doubt that I am not spoiling for a fight and am simply trying to explore and debate ideas.
Bill:
Me: "And you - as I interpret it - translate the word 'something' to *exclusively* mean "the right of someone to say something"."
You: "Now we're getting somewhere. You're asserting that my interpretation of what you said was overly broad. It didn't help that your statement was overly vague. But now, at least, we have a chance to arrive at a mutual understanding"
Umm... No.
I'm pointing out that you were selective and specific on something where I was deliberately open-ended and generic. So you're still/again about 180 degrees from where I was.
You again: "What sorts of things (besides distributing naughty material to minors) would you consider "indefensible?"
So you've unilaterally decided I'm not allowed to use my battleship? Isn't that a little bit like "Apart from causing cancer and killing people, why do you object to cigarettes"
How many do I need to name to win the round?
Sorry, being facetious - you are definitely bringing out the worst in me.
Seriously, you're asking me to set up a row of hypotheticals when the crux is that I may not know what the 'something' is until after someone is using 'my' money to defend it. Hence my sticking point is the handing over to someone else - however good intentioned and close to my perspective they may be - of the power to make choices I may not agree with.
I think, Bill, that you and I have different attitudes and styles. That's cool, different is different and not necessarily better or worse and all that jazz... FWIW the atmosphere on other (predominantly British, so may be a cultural thing) boards I post to is perhaps a bit more robust, where much harsher words than any I've used here are *really* not taken persoanlly.
But in three seperate threads now you've admitted to being 'excessive' in your response to what I've posted, up to and including 'America-hater' and 'opponent of free speech'. So please stop indicating that I'm the one trying to make things personal when your skin seems not only spikier but much, much thinner than mine.
You've spoken before of kicking ideas around in here and that's pretty much what I'm doing, often in a deliberately generic style. I'm open to that experience being informative, educational and entertaining, all of which it largely seems to be. You seem - to me, could be wrong - to be eager to move it more to a debate level in which things have a winner and a loser and are collapsed down to black and white.
I'm really not that interested in going there, so I may well decide to just ignore, or at least not respond, to more of what you post. Not because you're 'winning' or 'right' but just because it's not giving me anything I - personally - find worth the investment of time and effort in responding. Sorry if that sounds unduly harsh or rude, but it is honest!
Cheers
Peter, although Bill has been known at times to overreact to a perceived insilt, I too, sense a certain 'rudeness' to your style of writing. I don't know what it, if it is deliberate or not. I can't define it exactly. Perhaps a stinging variation of the famous British understatement? But I just wanted to say that Bill is not alone in sensing this attitude in your posts. If you can be more careful it would be appreciated.
I should also add that Bill usally apologizes when he overreacts.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 22, 2006 11:18 AM
Umm... No.
I'm pointing out that you were selective and specific on something where I was deliberately open-ended and generic. So you're still/again about 180 degrees from where I was.
You're absolutely right. But I think I get it now. See below.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 22, 2006 11:18 AM
So you've unilaterally decided I'm not allowed to use my battleship?
That wasn't my intention, but I see how my hypothetical question could have come off that way.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 22, 2006 11:18 AM
Isn't that a little bit like "Apart from causing cancer and killing people, why do you object to cigarettes"
I think the issue is a bit more complex than that. But, as I said, my question was poorly thought-out and therefore I see how you might have gotten the impression that my thinking was indeed that simplistic.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 22, 2006 11:18 AM
How many do I need to name to win the round?
You needn't do anything you don't want to do.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 22, 2006 11:18 AM
Sorry, being facetious - you are definitely bringing out the worst in me.
I think we're having that effect on each other.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 22, 2006 11:18 AM
Seriously, you're asking me to set up a row of hypotheticals when the crux is that I may not know what the 'something' is until after someone is using 'my' money to defend it. Hence my sticking point is the handing over to someone else - however good intentioned and close to my perspective they may be - of the power to make choices I may not agree with.
My apologies if I seem dense. I had had an exchange with someone else about this issue in another message board. It seems I was reading his attitudes into your posts.
I believe I do indeed understand now. Even if an advocacy group has a philosophy closely aligned with your own, there's always the possiblity that they could do something with your money that is contrary to what you find acceptable. So, when you say you cannot "in good faith" donate to the CBLDF, it's not because you "oppose free speech." It's because you never know what an organization might do in the future.
Gotcha.
Personally, I believe passionately in the mission of the CBLDF. Therefore, I believe it's important to contribute to the organization, even at the risk of enabling them to do something I find objectionable (in the case of the CBLDF, I believe the risk is negligible).
BUT -- it's your money, and therefore ultimately your choice.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 22, 2006 11:18 AM
Not because you're 'winning' or 'right' but just because it's not giving me anything I - personally - find worth the investment of time and effort in responding.
I must confess I'm a bit surprised. You didn't even find the links to the Georgia laws under which Gordon is being charged to be worthy of note? The links are to the Georgia State Legislature's Web site, so the content is authoritative. I personally thought it was a worthwhile contribution to the conversation. After all, they're the laws that form the basis of the case against Gordon.
And no, I don't view this forum as a place where people "win" or "lose." It's just a discussion. That's all. No more. No less.
Micha, thank you as always for being the voice of reason.
At one time, I was known as "one of the more reasonable posters" in this forum. I think I lost my way over the last few months by letting my emotions get the better of me. Emotion is part of the human experience, and it has a necessary place in our lives. But in a forum where ideas are being discussed, logic and objectivity should rule the day.
(And no, I am not aspiring to become a Vulcan.)
Man, I still can't believe this case is still being taken seriously in the courts, but then again this is Georgia, only two states to the east of my even more repressive homestate :-/. I will also make a donation (although it may have to wait until after tax return ^_^), and hope everything eventually goes well for the defendant.
At one time, I was known as "one of the more reasonable posters" in this forum. I think I lost my way over the last few months by letting my emotions get the better of me. Emotion is part of the human experience, and it has a necessary place in our lives. But in a forum where ideas are being discussed, logic and objectivity should rule the day.
It's all good. You're going to need that fire and that passion (properly focused, of course) if the Guy Party is going to take the White House in '08. ;)
Besides, I can't blame you if the squirrels are finally getting to you. The just never stop, with their mocking chittering...
-Rex Hondo-
Aw, heck.
The squirrels joke.
I've created a monster. I've created my own Hell.
And Hell is made... of squirrels.
P.S. Rex, I blew our campaign budget on beer, snacks, and porn.
Emotion is part of the human experience, and it has a necessary place in our lives. But in a forum where ideas are being discussed, logic and objectivity should rule the day.
Hell yes.
Bottling emotion up to the extent the Vulcans did is unhealthy (for humans anyway; IIRC the Vulcan emotions were so strong that they almost wiped themselves out before chose to become a race full of stiffs), but when making decisions or making a case for/against something, there should be more logic than emotion. I'd say a LOT more.
I would like to point out that the ABA stopped coming to Atlanta after the Georgia legislature passed an obscenity law (and i don't know if it was ever actually enforced or if it has been repealed or struck down, sorry) that would, according to attorneys who analysed it, have forbidden the sale of bibles in places that children had access to.
I would like to point out that the ABA stopped coming to Atlanta after the Georgia legislature passed an obscenity law (and i don't know if it was ever actually enforced or if it has been repealed or struck down, sorry) that would, according to attorneys who analysed it, have forbidden the sale of bibles in places that children had access to.
P.S. Rex, I blew our campaign budget on beer, snacks, and porn.
Well, since that is essentially the entire platform of the party, I'd say that those were legitimate business expenses, wouldn't you?
-Rex Hondo-
P.S. I hadn't really gotten a squirrel reference in yet, so I had to before the joke was well and truly dead...
Posted by: mike weber at December 23, 2006 04:35 AM
I would like to point out that the ABA stopped coming to Atlanta after the Georgia legislature passed an obscenity law (and i don't know if it was ever actually enforced or if it has been repealed or struck down, sorry) that would, according to attorneys who analysed it, have forbidden the sale of bibles in places that children had access to.
And that is precisely the reason why I donate to the CBLDF. Because these laws that exist to ostensibly protect adults from themselves, or to protect children from corrupting influences, invariably serve to restrict the flow of ideas. That's too high a price to pay to protect us and our children from a "harm" that is neither specific nor provable. Especially when adults can make their own choices about what to hear/see/read, and responsible parents can make those choices for their children.
Books written from a human point of view tend to look at Vulcans as deficient. Sombody should write a book from a Vulcan point of view. To them, humans probably seem like a manic depressive, hysterical species.
"...have forbidden the sale of bibles in places that children had access to."
Something has just struck me in the back of the head, and I'm quite sure it'll leave a lump. People are so worried about books damaging kids, oh no, we can't let them see a BODY PART! And yet, there are kids in that region of the country that are using rifles for hunting. Now, my problems with hunting aside, in the days post-Columbine and these terror alert times, I think giving kids access to firearms is much more damaging potentially than someone accidentally slipping a kid a comic book. And yet, you don't see an uproar there, do you?
And Rex--that joke has been well and truly dead for a LONG time now, like roadkill on the side of the road. In fact, I think Bill Mulligan is thinking of putting it in his next zombie movie.
And Rex--that joke has been well and truly dead for a LONG time now, like roadkill on the side of the road. In fact, I think Bill Mulligan is thinking of putting it in his next zombie movie.
Well, my current zombie move (cough--the forever deade--cough--now available on dvd--cough--makes a great Christmas gift--cough) DOES have a scene where a roadkilled rabbit drags his sorry carcass across a street.
AQnd if I'd known how great a reaction that dman rabbit would get we would have had him in 10 times as many scenes. Oh well.
Mulligan: Check yer e-mail.
Everyone: I strongly encourage y'all to donate to the CBLDF. You don't have to cough up a vital organ. Hell, I can only afford to donate at the $25 level at the moment but anything you can do helps.
Gordon Lee has the most personal stake in his criminal case, obviously. But any of us that care about the comics medium and industry, and want to see it remain robust and healthy, have a stake in that case and others as well. A donation to the CBLDF isn't charity. It's an investment in and for ourselves, so that we may continue to enjoy all that this wonderful art-form has to offer.
Mulligan: Whoops, just checked my e-mail. I see that you already got my missive and responded to it. :)
Everyone: I know you all aspire to be as cool as me. Well, joining the CBLDF will go along way towards elevating you to my level of coolness! Do it! ;)
Gordon, good to hear from you! Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you and yours, tough as it may be to enjoy it under your current circumstances.
And may you win this fight. For yourself, for the comics industry, and for the principle of freedom of speech.
All: If I sound a bit maudlin, sorry. But this is something I really, really, really believe in. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is the key to the rest of our freedoms and the bedrock of our very republic.
Sean Scullion
And yet, you don't see an uproar there, do you?
This comes up and then, but yeah, it's pretty obvious that violence is ok in this country, but not our fellow man (or woman) in their birthday suit.
Go figure, eh?
On another forum, a right-winger made a crack about how the Democrats view the Constitution. I responded with how Bush views the Bill of Rights - every amendment crossed out save one, and I think, based on the comment above, you can figure out which one hasn't been thrown out.
Posted by: Craig J. Ries
This comes up and then, but yeah, it's pretty obvious that violence is ok in this country, but not our fellow man (or woman) in their birthday suit.
Go figure, eh?
but if you got a gun it's legalOn another forum, a right-winger made a crack about how the Democrats view the Constitution. I responded with how Bush views the Bill of Rights - every amendment crossed out save one, and I think, based on the comment above, you can figure out which one hasn't been thrown out.
to display it on your hip
and you can show your butcher knives
to any interested kid
but if it's made for lovin', friend,
you better keep it hid
and they won't let ya show it at the beach
they think we're gonna grab it
if it comes within our reach
and they won't let ya show it at the beach
(the late, great, shel silverstein)
Or perhaps he was one of those right-wingers who thing Bush Minor isn't conservative enough...
Considering the Shrub's documented stated opinion of the Constitution ("It's just a god-damned piece of paper", for those who have forgotten), i find it too too amusing that a righ-winger would dare to talk about how Dems view it.
I guess tyhis is "documented" in the sense that there are documents that make the claim but can anyone actually point me to a source of this quote. I know the guy at Capital Hill Blue said that he heard from two unnamed White House sources who claim they heard it from other unnamed sources.
Which I guess is good enough for blogging accuracy but might explain why the quote has missed getting into more legit news outlets.
Bill Mulligan: It's just a god-damned piece of paper.
This is really me, and not Bill Myers impersonating me. You can be sure of that because my name shows at the top of this post, and not Bill's.
If you don't believe me, you are a traitor.
:)
Well, thank God at least that undead jokes are fairly harmless, all in all. Of course, it's so much harder to get them to stay down than other undead.
Of course, the main similarity between an undead joke and an undead human?
They're both groaners.
*Ba dum bum*
-Rex Hondo-
Wow, George Bush actually reads this blog? Boy are SOME people going to get audited this year...
Foregoing the quite obvious cheap joke...
Mr. Mulligan, I wouldn't worry too much. Most genuine criticisms of the current POTUS have been of sufficient verbiage that I find it doubtful he would have truly understood what was being said. Unless he digs fairly far back in the archives. X-Ray may be just about at his reading comprehension level. :P
-Rex Hondo-
Rex, I can only respond with one phrase.
UHHHHHNNNNNN.....
Anyways, for everybody 'round here that it applies to, Merry Christmas. And for those it doesn't, Merry Sunday.
Micha-your Vulcan book? I think the word "hysterical" would apply. Somehow I get this picture of a Vulcan talk show with Spock hosting a panel of Soleta, Saavik, Tuvok and Don Pardo announcing. And dancing girls in white robes. I really shouldn't think about these things when I've been working for thirteen hours.
Anyway, something ELSE hit me in the head; now I have matching lumps. What if the kid had gotten his hands on a National Geographic instead? What do you think the reaction would've been THEN? Just to satisfy my curiousity, does it say anywhere how many people were in the store at the time?
Posted by: Bill Mulligan
I guess tyhis is "documented" in the sense that there are documents that make the claim but can anyone actually point me to a source of this quote. I know the guy at Capital Hill Blue said that he heard from two unnamed White House sources who claim they heard it from other unnamed sources.
Which I guess is good enough for blogging accuracy but might explain why the quote has missed getting into more legit news outlets.
Okay, i remembered the piece as naming names. Sorry.
However, the story had wide currency, and no-one on the White House end of things denied it...
Which of course proves nothing.
I wish that the Press Corps were a little less pusillanamous (hhmmmm... "timid") and someone had actually asked the Shrub point blank about it.
However, a failure to deny such a potentially damaging claim shows either a determination to avoid controversy or a fear that taking notice of it might lend credibility.
An Example:
Years ago, a writer for one of the auto magazines said something in his column that specifically questioned the honesty and disinterestedness of Consumer Reports/Consumer's Union.
CU is known to be extremely litigious about its good name and perceived position of disinterest, and has regularly sued people who attempted to use its ratings in advertising.
The fact that, to the best of my knowledge, they failed to even demand a retraction, much less sue, led me to the conclusion that he was right - especially because CU's descripton of/justification for the "test" in question in the original article was ludicrous anyway...
Posted by Micha at December 22, 2006 11:41 AM
"Peter, although Bill has been known at times to overreact to a perceived insilt, I too, sense a certain 'rudeness' to your style of writing. I don't know what it, if it is deliberate or not. I can't define it exactly. Perhaps a stinging variation of the famous British understatement? But I just wanted to say that Bill is not alone in sensing this attitude in your posts. If you can be more careful it would be appreciated.
I should also add that Bill usally apologizes when he overreacts."
Sorry Micha, the style - I have style!?!?! - will almost certainly remain unchanged. A lot of it is British cultural humour, where we do say horrible things to and about people we hardly know without offence being intended or taken, partly it's exaggeration for comic effect:
For example (paraphrasing) "I should be more careful what I say in case some guy in a squirrel costume comes running out of the undergrowth and starts humping my leg? I don't @@@@ing think so!"
If it helps,try hearing it as being read by John Cleese. There's - at worst - some gentle ribbing intended there, however anyone chooses to react.
Moving on..
A couple of posts (I think Micha and Bill) have - to me - very, very slightly glossed over the 'harmful to children' argument. If it comes to it, you can probably get qualified experts to stand up and argue passionately and logically for either side of that. (Possibly you can get the same expert to argue both sides if the appearance fee is good enough?).
The most I'd say is that it depends on the material and the child in each case, which is why we have trials that examine the evidence put before them.
So, new hypothetical: if there is some element of danger of harm to a child, easily quantifiable or not, where do you give the benefit of the doubt? Protect the child, or protect freedom of speech?
Cheers.
If it helps,try hearing it as being read by John Cleese.
Oh dear God, now I'm not going to be able to not hear his voice when reading your posts. And how long before I start assigning actor's voices to other posters, as well? I'm already thinking about how my own post would sound as read by Bruce Campbell.
You have dealt a potentially serious blow to my mental health, damn you.
-Rex Hondo-
As I pointed out in a prior post, the Georgia laws under which Gordon Lee is being charged specify a series of tests a work must meet in order to be considered "harmful to minors." I would urge anyone who has not done so to read the full text of those laws before forming an opinion about Gordon's case. I provided links to those laws in a prior post.
Regardless of how one might feel about what Gordon has done, the question is whether he violated the law. For reasons I have articulated in a prior post, I do not believe Gordon nor the "agent" of his store "knowingly" distributed a book that is "harmful to minors" as both terms are defined under the law.
While earning my undergraduate degree in TV/Radio (a field I abandoned after two years, in case anyone is wondering -- wasn't a good fit for me), I had to take a couple of courses in mass media research and the effects of mass media. I read the published results many studies about the effects of media on children. I learned that social scientists had failed to reach any consensus about the impact media content has on children, and the extent of that impact. There are a host of reasons for this, chief among them being the inability of social scientists to isolate the variables being controlled in their studies from the environmental variables affecting children in their daily lives.
There is one thing, however, that social scientists by and large agree upon: parental intervention and involvement is far and away the single strongest influence on how children react to media messages. Parents who take the time to talk with their children about what they hear, see, and read are able to strongly influence how those things affect their children.
This forms the basis for my belief that laws designed to protect children from the harmful effects of mass media are unnecessary infringements upon our First Amendment rights.
Posted by: Rex Hondo at December 24, 2006 05:53 AM
You have dealt a potentially serious blow to my mental health, damn you.
And yet you're still a fine candidate for whatever cabinet post I've promised you when the Guy Party takes the U.S. Government by storm in '08.
And no, I cannot remember which post I promised you. We'll sort it out after I'm elected. Or we'll just get so damn drunk that none of us will give a damn.
However, a failure to deny such a potentially damaging claim shows either a determination to avoid controversy or a fear that taking notice of it might lend credibility.
But this quote was, to the best of my knowledge, only had wide currency in the left wing blogosphere. That's probably off the radar scope of most people.
It would be like a legot reporter asking Bill Clinton about some of the more insane rumors ftom the hardcore right wingers. "Mr. Clinton, did you and your brother use the CIA to smuggle cocain into Arkansaw? Oh, and was Vince Foster murdered because he was Chelsea's real dad?"
I don't recall any denials of those two fantasies but that doesn't make them any more legit in my eyes.
Given the somewhat dubious nature of the claim (Multiple sources go to a single blogger but not one goes to anyone at the Washington Post or New Yprk Times) I must continue to cast a skeptical eye on this.
Peter J Cleese-- While I'm all about the kids, there are some tykes so damaged that virtually ANYTHING could be harmful to them. We'd end up in a Nerf World, with all our entertainment soft and spongy, with any and all hard edges removed.
Unfettered free speech with also have its drawbacks--idiots who take it too far just because they can (and lack the talent to actually do anything worthwhile). Given a choice between the two I'd prefer to take my risks with free speech (but I'm not pretending to be holier than thou--there are plenty of things said and written that piss me off and I see every day the damage caused by the coarsening of popular culture,)
I wish that the Press Corps were a little less pusillanamous (hhmmmm... "timid") and someone had actually asked the Shrub point blank about it.But this quote was, to the best of my knowledge, only had wide currency in the left wing blogosphere. That's probably off the radar scope of most people.
It would be like a legot reporter asking Bill Clinton about some of the more insane rumors ftom the hardcore right wingers. "Mr. Clinton, did you and your brother use the CIA to smuggle cocain into Arkansaw? Oh, and was Vince Foster murdered because he was Chelsea's real dad?"
I don't recall any denials of those two fantasies but that doesn't make them any more legit in my eyes.
As a White House lawyer, now-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales called the constitution quaint and outdated. Leave it to you to unambiguously compare George W. Bush saying the constitution was a "goddamned piece of paper" --- which can simply be confirmed or denied by checking the minutes to a specific meeting -- to the fantasy-charges leveled against Bill Clinton.
Leave it to you to unambiguously compare George W. Bush saying the constitution was a "goddamned piece of paper" --- which can simply be confirmed or denied by checking the minutes to a specific meeting -- to the fantasy-charges leveled against Bill Clinton.
Since nobody--Nobody--has produced such minutes, it would seem safe to say this particular urban legend is a myth. Much like the ones against Bill Clinton.
For me, whether something is true or not matters more than if it hurts someone I don't like. Your mileage may vary.
I was curious about the statement attributed to Bush so I followed the links provided by Mike.
Here is the relevant passages from the second link refering to Bush:
""Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"
I've heard from two White House sources who claim they heard from others present in the meeting that the President of the United States called the Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper."
The record shows the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States is little more than toilet paper stained from all the shit that this group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that "goddamned piece of paper" used to guarantee.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the "Constitution is an outdated document.""
This is from a site called Capitol Hill Blue. I'm not familiar with it. But what it seems to be saying is:
a) Two sources in the White House say they heard from other people that Bush called the constitution a goddamned piece of paper.
b) The record, i.e. Bush's policies, show that he does not care about the constitution.
c) An example of the anti-constitutional attitude of Bush's government is demonstrated by Gonzales having written that the constitution is an outdated document.
I then went to the first link, about Gonzales, from CNN.
"Indeed, Gonzales deemed international law -- which becomes the law of the United States, under our Constitution, when properly ratified by the Senate -- to be "quaint" and outdated when applied to the war on terrorism. To say this, is to say, in effect that the Constitution itself is quaint and outdated."
What the CNN essay seems to be saying is that
a) Gonzales thing international law is outdated.
b) international law was ratified by the senate and thus is US law.
c) In so doing the Senate fullfilled its role under the US constitution
d) ergo: by saying that a law ratified by the senate is outdated, Gonzales is saying that the US constitution is outdated.
Now, as much as I disike Bush, this conclusion doesn't seem to make sense to me.
It is also untrue that Gonzales said that the constitution is outdated. The person who wrote the essay said that if Gonzales thinks that international law is outdated, it follows that he should think that the constitution is outdated.
The fact that Capitol Hill Blue attributed such statement to Gonzales doesn't reflect well on it.
This leaves Capitol Hill Blue with two arguments.
a) A quote attributed to the president by certain sources who heard them from sources. I am not a journalist, so I can't judge the reliability of this information. But this info was not coroberated by Capitol Hill Blue by refering to the minutes of the meeting. It would be nice if the writer of the essay did that, but if he did, he did not say so.
b) The track record of Bush acting unconstitutionaly. This is very significant to the US, a deserves to be discussed, but it does not offer proof that Bush said the statement attributed to him, only that his actions show disregard to the the constitution.
So, I don't know if Bush said or didn't say that the constitution is a goddamned piece of paper.
I know that I don't find the two surces offered by Mike as very reliable as far as verifying quotes.
I know from other sources, that whatever Bush and Gonzales did or did not say, their policies seem unconstitutional (to my untrained eye). Unfortunatly, instead of discussing Bush's actions we somehow ended up discussing words we don't know if he actually said.
Posted by: Micha at December 25, 2006 10:14 PM
Unfortunatly, instead of discussing Bush's actions we somehow ended up discussing words we don't know if he actually said.
That's the danger of the "telephone game" way of spreading "information." Noah Leavitt drew certain inferences from something Gonzales said, and through the magic of "the telephone game" those inferences are now being misattributed as being direct quotes from Gonzales. A blogger cites mysterious "meeting minutes" that cannot be independently verified along with hearsay, and through the magic of the "telephone game" the remark allegedly made by Bush becomes established fact.
The Internet doesn't help. It allows misinformation to spread like wildfire.
This illustrates the dangers of "unfettered free speech" as Bill Mulligan put it. On the other hand, this also demonstrates the power of the concept of the "free marketplace of ideas." Misinformation has, in this case, been countered with more accurate information.
For me, whether something is true or not matters more than if it hurts someone I don't like.
My understanding is that a meeting as described by capitalhillblue.com would have minutes.
In effect, capitalhillblue.com reported that, somewhere, there are minutes of a meeting where George W Bush said the constitution -- to which declaring his loyalty is his first act in office -- was a "goddamned piece of paper."
In your eyes, a reporter asking George W Bush if there are minutes of a meeting where he said what has been alleged he said is as inappropriate as a reporter asking Bill Clinton to address rumors no one can source that he conspired to smuggle drugs and murder, which you admit is fantasy.
For you, the easy and simple verification of a truth -- which can't hurt someone you do like if the topic gets dropped altogether -- matters not at all.
"I've heard from two White House sources who claim they heard from others present in the meeting that the President of the United States called the Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper.""
All I can say is that any editor who would run with a story that has that level of verification should be fired.
The sources heard from a guy who was there? No. If you have two sources who were there themselves and are describing what they themselves saw, then you go with it. But if the best you can do is hearsay, then you hold the story until you can get better confirmation or else you just spike it.
There have to be SOME standards in reportage.
PAD
Posted by: Peter David at December 25, 2006 11:45 PM
There have to be SOME standards in reportage.
I was a paid, professional reporter for two years. For real. I worked for a public radio station, and one of my reports was actually aired on National Public Radio.
So, no, there certainly do not have to be "some standards in reportage." I'm living proof.
:)
Unfortunately, we live in a hearsay society. I personally know people that don't believe ANYTHING unless they personally witness it, and even then it's iffy, and I also know people that as soon as any source but the Weekly World News or Bill Myers says it, they believe it with all their heart.
Bill--NPR report--let me guess, friend--squirrel attack?
(don't worry, I'll be right there in Hell with ya.)
In effect, capitalhillblue.com reported that, somewhere, there are minutes of a meeting where George W Bush said the constitution -- to which declaring his loyalty is his first act in office -- was a "goddamned piece of paper."
"In effect" being defined as "not at all".
In your eyes, a reporter asking George W Bush if there are minutes of a meeting where he said what has been alleged he said is as inappropriate as a reporter asking Bill Clinton to address rumors no one can source that he conspired to smuggle drugs and murder, which you admit is fantasy.
Inappropriate? I said no such thing. I think it would most likely make the reporter look very very stupid in both cases, giving legitimacy to sources that only the most gullible would give credance to. But it's not my perception that matters--evidentally none of the legitimate reporters out there think much of Capital Hill Blue's story, for reasons that PAD makes clear above.
I'm not trying to convince Mike Weber to suddenly become a big Bush supporter but he strikes me as someone who cares whether or not the quotes he uses reflect the truth, as opposed to what he wants the truth to be. Anyone who likes Once Upon A Time in the West, Steeleye Span, Mike Nesmith and Fairport Convention deserves the benefit of any doubt.
Posted by Rex Hondo at December 24, 2006 05:53 AM
"You have dealt a potentially serious blow to my mental health, damn you."
It was a dirty job, but somebody had to do it.
Posted by Bill Myers at December 22, 2006 11:01 PM
"I blew our campaign budget on beer, snacks, and porn."
Sure as Hell gets you my vote...
Posted by Bill Myers at December 24, 2006 08:27 AM
"I would urge anyone who has not done so to read the full text of those laws before forming an opinion about Gordon's case. I provided links to those laws in a prior post."
Leads back to:
"According to the law, the work is "harmful to minors" when:
(A) Taken as a whole, [it] predominantly appeals to the prurient, shameful, or morbid interest of minors;
(B) [It] is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable material for minors; and
(C) [It] is, when taken as a whole, lacking in serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors. "
Do you know if A,B and C are connected by a logical 'AND' or a logical 'OR'? (I'm assuming 'OR', but I could be wrong)
"I find it hard to believe that anyone can argue with a straight face that a fictional story that includes Picasso as one of the characters is "when taken as a whole, lacking in serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors."
Hmmm.. So someone could write the single most outrageous piece of obscene fiction in the history of forever, but get off - pardon the phrase - the hook by having one of the participants be a famous artist? (If the laws are chained by 'OR' I'd have thought it was 'B' that put this one in the cross hairs more than 'C' anyway)
I'll echo the 'Hmmm' when people are arguing that a naked woman saying "Follow the sound. He's in there masturbating" ties in with an argument that the strip has no sexual content. I mean, OK, no blatant 'putty insies', but be fair, it is ever so slightly stretching the definitions envelope...
Meanwhile..
"I learned that social scientists had failed to reach any consensus about the impact media content has on children, and the extent of that impact."
I concur. Lock ten experts in a room on this one and you'll get at least eleven opinions, some of which indicate some degree of negative impact.
"parental intervention and involvement is far and away the single strongest influence on how children react to media messages."
Yep, certainly agree...
"This forms the basis for my belief that laws designed to protect children from the harmful effects of mass media are unnecessary infringements upon our First Amendment rights."
Damn, and we were doing so well... :)
What about circumstances where Mum and Dad - cohabiting or not - can't agree on what's good or bad for Junior?
Or those where the parent(s) are - bluntly - not fit to raise hamsters, let alone kids?
Or where kids are 'in the system' and the state has the obligation to act as their parents?
Also, if we assume for a second that parents do have sole authority/responsibility over what their kids get to see, how would they seek redress if other people short circuit that authority? Say someone does give "feelthy post cards" to Junior. As the offended Dad, can I administer a bowel tremblingly terrifying finger wagging, burn down his house or just shoot him dead on the doorstep? <
