There’s a certain type of individual whom I refer to as a FAB–a First Amendment But-head (FABhead). This person can always be spotted by speaking a variation on the following sentence: “I completely support the First Amendment but…” There’s always a but, at which point all the words that come after the but undercut everything that comes before. Because, putting aside such limits as slander and libel and, God, please, the falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater example that’s invariably misquoted, there should be no “but.” You either support it or you don’t.
The reason I bring this up is because I want to give you guys a little taste of what I have to deal with, simply because some people disagree with me. This is, unfortunately, only the latest example, of someone endeavoring to cost me work or shut me up. Come inside and see…
The following letter was sent to Joe Quesada and is reprinted here with his permission. I am not listing the writer’s name since I wasn’t the original recipient, and besides, he didn’t actually give his full name, which tells you something right there. He wrote:
“I am sending this to you because of your position as Editor In Chief of Marvel Comics. Let me start by saying I agree with and understand the first amendment. That being said, I will never again buy a book written by Peter David. I still think he id (sic) one of the best writers out there, in any genre. But having been to his personal website several times, I have come to realize that he is nothing more than a propagandist and conspiracy theorist. As I have said, I agree with the first amendment, but that does mean (sic: Presumably he meant “doesn’t mean”) I have to be a part of supporting anyone that sides with the enemies of our country. Just thought I should let someone know why I will no longer buy his
books. Thank you for your time. I am sending this to this address because I could not find an address for Nachie Castro.”
(The last sentence apparently means he wanted to send it to my editor on “Fallen Angel” as well, but “could not find an address.” Apparently the street address printed on every DC comic was too elusive for him to track down.)
Understand the mentality at work. Understand the stunning hypocrisy. He says he believes in the First Amendment. The right to express oneself. But at the same time, he bìŧçhëš–not to me, not to others on the board–but to the people who hire me. Why? Only one possible reason: To try and make me look bad. To tell them, “This guy is costing you sales. He’s turning away readers with his opinions. This is a problem you should be aware of.” That’s the obvious subtext. No one in their right mind bìŧçhëš to a company head just to let off steam. They want someone to do something about it.
Basically, he’s trying to punish me for using my First Amendment rights. Now…do you punish someone because you believe they’re doing right? Or doing wrong? Obviously the latter. So he believes that my expressing opinions that he finds upsetting is wrong. Which means he doesn’t really support the First Amendment but only says he does. QED.
“Enemies of our country?” There’s all kinds of enemies of our country. If 250 years ago people had supported “my government right or wrong” and intrusion into rights of privacy and punitive measures taken against those who speak out when they feel injustice is being done, this country would never have been founded in the first place. This country was founded, not by those who believe in lockstep obedience, but those with big mouths who sign their full names to protesting documents and were liberal minded enough to say, “This is wrong, something should be done, let’s do it.”
You want enemies of our country? Sometimes you need look no further than those who want to do everything they can to hurt someone or disenfranchise them or screw them just because they disagree with their opinions. People who have no true respect for the First Amendment, people who think they should be allowed to talk and no one else, people who–as Aaron Sorkin put it–claim to love America but hate Americans, these, my friends, are true enemies of our country. I complain about America because I care about America, while FABheads complain about me because they care about themselves.
Would you like to know why I’m different from this…person?
My politics could not be further away from Charlton Heston’s. But I saw the “Planet of the Apes” remake for exactly one reason: To see his cameo. If he made more films, I’d go see them.
If Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Bush-supporting Republican who calls Democrats girly men, gets back into acting and makes T4, I’m there with money in hand.
If John Byrne, who has said more lies and vicious things about me than just about anyone in the industry, ever comes out with a new series of “NeXt Men,” I’d buy it in a heartbeat.
Because I can separate the work from the person. Because if their work entertains me, that is absolutely all that matters.
Because I support the First Amendment.
No ifs, ands…or buts.
PAD
• 
I think that if someone doesn’t like a particular writer’s politics, it’s perfectly legitimate for that someone to not only stop reading/buying said particular writer’s material, but to also tell the publisher why.
Personally, I’ve of two minds on the subject. Though generally able to separate work from man (or woman), there are those whose work I will NOT support due to the things they did.
Leni Riefenstahl was one of the greatest filmmakers in the first half of film’s lifetime. But while she was alive, you would never have caught me doing anything which might have put money in her pocket or which would in any way have exalted her.
And in a period where filmic giants wlked the earth, Elia Kazan was right up there with the greats. But for his efforts against American freedoms, I would not support the man.
There is also the other side, where the stuff expressed by or in a person’s work offends me, and I will not buy it. Johnny Hart is a good example of this, as is Dennis Miller.
(and, of course, it goes without saying that Carrot Top will never get my entertainment dollar.)
But if the Ku Klux Klan were to get a permit to demonstrate in my city, and people were trying to deny them that right, I would have to argue for their rights. Then, too, I would BE at that march, hurling invective upon them.
(It should be pointed out that I also see Klansmen and neo-Nazis as a “Free Play” of sorts; if you preach the eradication of me and mine, I reserve the right to–should you act upon your beliefs rather than just speaking on them–kick the living scheiss out of you with impunity. Not exactly kosher with my liberal cred, but there you are …)
But no one’s art should be censored due to their beliefs, unless it advocates outright riot or violence. The only censors should be the Points of Sales–or the lack thereof. Even THAT is not the final word: Commercial success may escape those who reach artistic success–after all, Van Gogh sold exactly ONE painting in his lifetime–but that by no means means that their voices, dances, brushes, instruments should be silenced.
Don’t like it? Don’t BUY it–and trust that enough will share your taste to let the market decide.
(A caveat: While lies [“and the lying liars who tell them”?] should not necessarily be censored, they should ever be exposed, and, if slander or libel or incitement be part of them, should be cause for prosecution.)
And he takes a big swing at the point…and misses it! Ohhh! The crowd moans.
It’s not a question of legitimacy. It’s a question of hypocrisy.
Either you support free expression or you don’t. If you don’t, then don’t. If you do, you do. But don’t take retaliatory steps against someone simply because you don’t like their opinion and then pretend you’re an advocate of free speech. Once you take action to hurt someone simply because you disagree with them, you forfeit any claim to the axiom, “I disagree with all you have to say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.”
PAD
Clearly this is the exact same jáçkášš that forced you to turn this board into registration-only. He can’t get in here anymore, so he’s trying to spread his ignorance and vitriol in other directions. If Voltaire had heard what this cementhead says, he would’ve only defended his right to say it to the mild wounding.
“Leni Riefenstahl was one of the greatest filmmakers in the first half of film’s lifetime. But while she was alive, you would never have caught me doing anything which might have put money in her pocket or which would in any way have exalted her.
And in a period where filmic giants wlked the earth, Elia Kazan was right up there with the greats. But for his efforts against American freedoms, I would not support the man.”
Okay, but you DO realize there’s a world of difference when discussing someone who made a film exalting a man who killed six million Jews, or a man whose testimony and cooperation destroyed careers and livelihoods, as opposed to someone who just says stuff you disagree with. Right?
The fact that Johnny Hart uses “B.C.” to elevate Christianity over Judaism on rare occasions didn’t stop me from collecting glasses with his characters on them. As for Dennis Miller, granted, I was turned off by his liberal-bashing and support of Iraq, but you didn’t see me writing to his sponsors about it.
Although we ARE on the same page about Carrotop.
PAD
“And he takes a big swing at the point…and misses it! Ohhh! The crowd moans. It’s not a question of legitimacy. It’s a question of hypocrisy.”
I would say the hypocrisy lies with those who believe that someone can say whatever they want without feeling some sort of repercussion.
“I would say the hypocrisy lies with those who believe that someone can say whatever they want without feeling some sort of repercussion.”
Well, you can say that, but it’s no more on point than your previous comment. I will, however, defend your right to say it, and there will be no repercussions for your saying it.
By the way, before someone else brings it up, I thought the Hollywood backlash against Vanessa Redgrave, just because she supported the Palestinians, was wholly unjust as well. Either the woman is a great actress or she’s not. That should be the only thing that matters in hiring her. If anything I was far angrier with her over her molesting of the lyrics of “Where are the Simple Joys of Maidenhood” than I was her political beliefs.
PAD
Peter, nobody exists in a consequence-free environment.
A person who responds to remarks made by an entertainer, regardless of intent of the response, is exercising the very same right that the entertainer exercised. There’s no hypocrisy.
“Either you support free expression or you don’t. If you don’t, then don’t. If you do, you do. But don’t take retaliatory steps against someone simply because you don’t like their opinion and then pretend you’re an advocate of free speech.”
“Taking retaliatory steps,” in this case complaining to a publisher, is an exercise of free expression.
“A person who responds to remarks made by an entertainer, regardless of intent of the response, is exercising the very same right that the entertainer exercised. There’s no hypocrisy.”
No, he’s not, and yes, it is.
“Responding to remarks made” means doing what you’re doing: Saying to him, “You think this? Well, I think that.” To go to an entertainer’s employer and essentially endeavor to cost the entertainer his livelihood is not responding to the remarks. It is attacking the entertainer. It is punitive. It is pathetic. It is unAmerican. And it is not in the spirit of free speech. And for someone to claim they favor free speech while trying to punish those who use it is hypocrisy.
PAD
Peter David: There’s a certain type of individual whom I refer to as a FAB–a First Amendment But-head (FABhead). This person can always be spotted by speaking a variation on the following sentence: “I completely support the First Amendment but…” There’s always a but, at which point all the words that come after the but undercut everything that comes before.
Luigi Novi: Kinda reminds me of when Whoopi Goldberg, in one of her standup routines, mentioned some people who start a sentence with, “Now, I don’t wanna seem like a racist or anything….”
As for patronizing the works of people you don’t like, I see nothing wrong with choosing not to. Patronization of works is entirely voluntary, and since it is driven by the whimsical and prejudicial aspects of the psyche like taste, emotion, impression, etc., you cannot apply concepts of “right” or “wrong” to it. You want to patronize the work of a dìçkhëád? Hey, have a party. You choose not too? Same thing. No right or wrong about it. It is no less “wrong” to do so than to choose to abstain from a particular genre of movie, music, or theater because of the impression you have from the ads for it that you won’t like it. Not very scientific, but not necessarily “wrong.”
But Peter, since we’re now talking about patronizing the work of artists, I’d like to ask you a question, being that I’m an aspiring illustrator. If these folllowing works of art were to your liking artistically, would you hang them on your wall (if you were the hanging-art-on-the-wall type)?
http://www.williams.edu/WCMA/prelude/images/mtn%20chapel.jpg
http://www.snyderstreasures.net/images/artworks/rottdam.jpg
http://www.snyderstreasures.net/images/artworks/AHGermaniaOALarge.jpg
I’d like to know. I’d like to know everyone else’s answers to that question too.
“”Taking retaliatory steps,” in this case complaining to a publisher, is an exercise of free expression.”
Bûllšhìŧ. The remarks he didn’t like weren’t under the purview of the publisher. They were things that were said here. So instead of just responding here, or saying, “Oh well, I just won’t read his website,” he said, “That bášŧárd. I’ll get HIM.”
That’s an unAmerican view of the right to free speech.
PAD
“To go to an entertainer’s employer and essentially endeavor to cost the entertainer his livelihood is not responding to the remarks. It is attacking the entertainer. It is punitive. It is pathetic. It is unAmerican. And it is not in the spirit of free speech. And for someone to claim they favor free speech while trying to punish those who use it is hypocrisy.”
Peter, it is the very essence of free speech. Free speech isn’t always good. The point is we all have the freedom to express ourselves and bear the consequences of doing so. We don’t have the right to be heard, but we have the right to express. Speech can be power, used for multiple purposes including positives and negatives. To only allow positives… THAT is un-American. A person who claims they favor free speech while using free speech to affect those who also use it isn’t hypocrisy. The hypocrisy lies with those who think they can say something and that others with the same right can’t protest it.
“I completely support the First Amendment but…” There’s always a but, at which point all the words that come after the but undercut everything that comes before.
Hmm. While I disagree with you that there are no buts to the First Amendment (case in point, I’ve never agreed with your position that in order to be committed to the FA, you had to tolerate people being abusive on your website for as long as you did), obviously this guy does not have any respect for the FA. You’ve done nothing more than state your political views, none of which encourage or support harm to anyone, and that is not a good enough reason to try to affect someone’s livelihood. It was the same deal with the Dixie Chicks.
PAD:
“Because I can separate the work from the person. Because if their work entertains me, that is absolutely all that matters.”
Exactly! I don’t buy Dixie Chicks music, but not because of their comments about President Bush, but because their music makes me want to stick sharp objects into my ears. I don’t agree with Linda Ronstadt, but that doesn’t stop me from putting in the ‘Round Midnight CD’s. I still love her version of Desperado.
I don’t think anyone here is going to change someone’s mind about political matters. It’s just nice to have a place where a (usually) polite discussion can happen, all while wrapped around the respect we have for PAD’s works.
“If these folllowing works of art were to your liking artistically, would you hang them on your wall (if you were the hanging-art-on-the-wall type)?”
Sure I would. And then if someone said, “Wow, that’s gorgeous, who painted that?” I would naturally reply, “Adolf Hitler” because, y’know, I’m not an idiot, Luigi, did you think I wouldn’t recognize some of those pieces? And the viewer would say, “Oh my God, to think such a monster had such a capability of beauty in his soul,” and it could lead to some very interesting discussions.
PAD
This is the dilema of the entertainer. Since their livelihood depends on popularity, they are in the position to potentially kill their own livelihood if they express an unpopular opinion. Elvis new this. Every time he was asked for his opinion on a political issue, he would answer “I’m an entertainer.” Now, I’m not saying that entertainers need curb their expressions on certain subjects, but in their case, the natural consequences of expressing themselves politically have a greater effect on them than on someone who works in a factory.
There’s a bit of a slippery slope here. One problem is the references to the First Amendment, which is a red herring all around here on both sides.
Here’s what the First Amendment says:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
It says nothing about anyone other than Congress (and by extension with regards to the making and thus enforcement of law by other federal parties, so I’m assuming [probably unwarranted in the mind of John Ashcroft] that the Executive Branch can’t issue special orders doing the things forbidden vis a vis law) not being able to restrict freedom of speech. One could very easily be an extremely strong First Amendment supporter vis a vis the government not being able to restrict speech, while also strongly supporting the belief that if someone says something you dislike while they’re on your property, you can tell them to get over the property line pronto. And remember, the ACLU in cases like the neo-Nazis marching through Skokie was acting to allow them to assemble on public property, not people’s homes and yards.
And I think very few people would argue against the premise that if you disagree with what someone says or their stated views, it’s your decision whether you want to support them, either financially, emotionally, or whatever. And there’s my old .sig quote about my supporting to the death your right to say something…but I never said I’d have to listen to it.
But there are camps all over the political spectrum that do feel it’s reasonable to boycott, both personally and in terms of trying to persuade others to do so as well, individuals or businesses based on their stated beliefs. Offhand, from the traditionally left side, I recall campaigns in the 80s and 90s against Domino’s Pizza since it’s then (at least two sales of the company ago) primary owner donated a fair amount to anti-abortion causes.
I think my personal take is that I believe it’s everyone’s choice how far (within the law and without invoking governmental authority) they choose to go in deciding both what beliefs and level of same they can choose to boycott someone on, and how much they can try to influence others to go along with them.
In this particular case, the claim that Peter is an “enemy of America” is absurd (particularly if you assume [which of course, is always dangerous] that Arthur’s speech about what makes America great in One Knight Only is representative of why Peter believes such; excellent arguments there Peter). Fortunately, JoeQ also realized such.
“Elvis new this.”
Yes, that should have been “knew” not “new.”
The first ten ammendments in the Bill of Rights pretty much deal with what the government can’t do.
“The hypocrisy lies with those who think they can say something and that others with the same right can’t protest it.”
He’s not protesting it. He’s trying to punish me for saying it and–ideally–make it so that I would be afraid to say anything else he doesn’t like lest it cost me my livelihood, if it hasn’t already. All the while, of course, cloaked in anonymity.
It’s a difference you cannot and will not see for reasons that I could easily guess at, but won’t.
PAD
“While I disagree with you that there are no buts to the First Amendment (case in point, I’ve never agreed with your position that in order to be committed to the FA, you had to tolerate people being abusive on your website for as long as you did),”
Well, that was a matter of personal choice. If I’m going to make a mistake when it comes to free expression, I feel honor bound to make it a mistake erring on the side of permissiveness. It may sound pretentious, but I feel compelled to hold myself to as high a standard as possible in that regard.
Tolerance of free speech–true tolerance–is the hardest test of American values there is. Many, in my opinion, fail it…and don’t even realize they’re doing so.
PAD
“He’s not protesting it.”
Protesting doesn’t just take place at rallies and on the sidewalk.
“Tolerance of free speech–true tolerance–is the hardest test of American values there is.”
I’d say tolerance of the consequences of free speech is.
Darin:
“Peter, it is the very essence of free speech. Free speech isn’t always good. The point is we all have the freedom to express ourselves and bear the consequences of doing so. We don’t have the right to be heard, but we have the right to express. Speech can be power, used for multiple purposes including positives and negatives. To only allow positives… THAT is un-American. A person who claims they favor free speech while using free speech to affect those who also use it isn’t hypocrisy. The hypocrisy lies with those who think they can say something and that others with the same right can’t protest it.”
Wrong. The person that wrote the letter is obviously trying to get PAD in trouble with an employer because of personal beliefs. Not criminal actions, but something as simple as a personal political belief. This wasn’t a complaint about a comic book. Then, by all means, send the letter. But not because of something that has NOTHING to do with the job.
Does this person have the “right” to write the letter? Sure, but (there’s that word again) it’s wrong to try to cause punitive action based on something totally unrelated to the job. If the letter were based on something in one of PAD’s Marvel books, then as an employeer Joe Q. could possibly take some action, but I doubt it would happen.
“One could very easily be an extremely strong First Amendment supporter vis a vis the government not being able to restrict speech, while also strongly supporting the belief that if someone says something you dislike while they’re on your property, you can tell them to get over the property line pronto.”
Well, yeah, but that’s not a free speech issue, that’s just trespassing. If someone is standing on my property and just staring at me, I’d still tell them to get the hëll out of here if I didn’t know who they were. I told kids who were using my back yard as a shortcut some years ago to knock it off. They weren’t saying anything. They just kept cutting through while my young daughters were outside and I didn’t like it. Again, not free speech. Just being a concerned dad.
PAD
“Tolerance of free speech–true tolerance–is the hardest test of American values there is.”
“I’d say tolerance of the consequences of free speech is.”
I would agree with you if you were right.
PAD
“Wrong. The person that wrote the letter is obviously trying to get PAD in trouble with an employer because of personal beliefs.”
What’s wrong? Oh, I’m sure he’s trying to get a reaction of some sort. It’s his right to do so and he’s not being hypocryphal (is that a word?) for doing so. The letter was all about why someone was dropping a Marvel title. A loss of revenue has got to be of some interest to Marvel, right?
“I would agree with you if you were right.”
Gotta love these little drive-by’s of ours …(including this very one!)
Correct me if I’m wrong:
1) I believe that the U.S. has laws forbidding speech which incites hatred against a particular ethnic group. I know that here in Canada we do, and it extends to the dissemination of hate literature as well, with fairly severe penalties. Witness the Ernst Zundel case.
2) I believe that the Bill Of Rights renders the Patriot Act unconstitutional, and I wonder why someone hasn’t made a constitutional challenge to it as of yet.
3) Given that #2 is true, how are we to enact legislation on either side of the border to eradicate the internal fifth column of terrorist sleepers who most likely exist in our midst?
So where do we draw the line and at whose convenience?
What that scumbag did (yes, I know I shouldn’t use bad language guys, but call a duck a duck) was dirty. Take solace in the fact that he or she is a coward, and that’s the way that cowards act. Same thing with kidnappers in Iraq or terrorists in Israel. You never see the unmasked faces because they’ve got yellow stripes down their backs a mile wide. Which is why I again go back to my original advocacy of exposing the name and contact info on that person so that everyone could give him or her the what for that was deserved.
But I digress…..
If I had an employee whose opinions were costing me money, I’d want to know about it.
“If I had an employee whose opinions were costing me money, I’d want to know about it.”
Well, fortunately Joe Quesada has more class than apparently you, as an employer, would, since he’s not going to do a thing about this and sees it for what it is: Retaliation and nothing more.
However, if you ever DO have an employee whom you decide to fire because he expressed liberal opinions on a computer board that you didn’t like…enjoy your richly deserved wrongful termination lawsuit.
PAD
Darin:
“If I had an employee whose opinions were costing me money, I’d want to know about it.”
If that employee were doing so on the job, I would tend to agree with you. However, this isn’t about anything done in a comic book. This is about a personal belief on his own website that has nothing to do with the employer.
For example, if in MadroX, PAD has Guido say “Bush is an idiot”, then it can be attributed to the character. No fault, no foul.
But, if in a commentary page at the back of the book PAD says “Bush is an idiot”, then it would be someone’s prerogative to complain to the publisher that they don’t agree and won’t buy another book again. At that point, it’s up to the publisher to ignore the letter, talk to the writer about it not happening again, or replacing the writer.
“However, if you ever DO have an employee whom you decide to fire because he expressed liberal opinions on a computer board that you didn’t like…enjoy your richly deserved wrongful termination lawsuit.”
He/she would have to cost the company significant money in doing so first before I’d even think about it.
One person’s purchases don’t qualify as “significant” in this context, Darin.
As for what you called a “drive-by,” well, that was just the consequence of you exercising your free speech, so you have to tolerate it.
I happen to agree with Peter. Though he may have said things that someone may disagree with, and although people have the right to say whatever they wish in response, it is wrong and unAmerican to hurt someone’s livelihood because of their opinions. I wish I could say people should not be allowed to do such a thing, but then we’re flirting with more free speech nightmares.
I’m remembering an issue of Supergirl about free speech in which there was an uproar when controversial speakers came to a school. Best Steel appearance ever.
Question: I don’t mean to start fights or anything, but… (thus, undermining whatever preceded the “but”)… What is the difference between attempts to undermine you to your boss and attempts to undermine Bush to the American people? Why is Bush-bashing fair game? What makes Bush-bashing right and PAD-bashing (in the manner of this gentleman) wrong? Both seek to undermine the person to those who keep him in business. Theoretically. Am I making sense?
Luigi asks:
“If these following works of art were to your liking artistically, would you hang them on your wall (if you were the hanging-art-on-the-wall type)?”
Me, I’d hang them in my classroom, since one of the things I always try to drill into their tiny little heads is that they should nurture and use whatever talents God gave them. We could see that Hitler had a (modest) talent for art and wonder if, had he pursued that area fully, if he would have achieved some level of satisfaction with his life and spared the world the horrors of World War 2.
Of course, the next time there was a slow news day in Sanford North Carolina there would be a newspaper headline in the local paper talking about “Bill The Hitler-Loving Science Teacher”
I think that Tyg makes an excellent point. One CAN be for the First Amendment and still be the kind of dìçk who writes letters to Marvel trying to get people fired. The Amendment isn’t about freedom of expression, only about the governments ability to limit speech. I could support the Second Amendment while still calling the cops to come take my drunken neighbor’s shotgun away from him.
That said, PAD is right that such actions may be un-American (though one must be very very careful in throwing around that judgment unless one is Theresa Heinz Kerry).
It would be hard, though, to find many people who are pure on this issue. How many folks were equally outraged at the treatment of both the Dixie Chicks AND Dr Laura Shleishenger (sp?)? Linda Ronstadt AND Anita Bryant?
Does it bother anyone else that the DNC is sending letters from Lawyers trying to stop a group of Vietnam Vets from running ads attacking Kerry’s war record?
For that matter, how is it consistent with the First Amendment that tobacco companies are not allowed to advertise on TV or at sports events?
(Keep in mind I am in no way endorsing Dr Laura, Anita, tobacco, etc etc. Just asking, is all).
No idea who said it but one of my favorite quotes is “The only thing scarier than what this person is saying is someone trying to take away his right to do so…” or something to that effect.
Peter… I couldn’t agree with you more on this binary b&w issue… Either you support the TFA or you don’t.. no middle ground.
Rgds,
Rob
“The hypocrisy lies with those who think they can say something and that others with the same right can’t protest it.”
To put it more suscinctly, there IS a difference between telling someone you believe they are wrong, or posting notes to that effect, and walking up to them and giving them a good, hard punch. What the twit writing to PAD’s bosses at the comics company was doing was figuratively the latter.
“2) I believe that the Bill Of Rights renders the Patriot Act unconstitutional, and I wonder why someone hasn’t made a constitutional challenge to it as of yet.”
Conspiracy types might think it’s because people are afraid that …
1 – they’d lose and then they’re really screwed, or
2 – they’d win, but then the administration would change things such as to make it a meaningless victory anyway.
“if he would have achieved some level of satisfaction with his life and spared the world the horrors of World War 2.”
I doubt it would have worked out that way.
For one thing, Japan was already dangerously stirring things up in Asia and probably would have caused a major conflict anyway. Failing that, one wonders what Stalin would have done had he not had the Nazis to distract him. Maybe set things up for a worse conflict years later? What a concept for a SLIDERS reunion movie.
“http://www.williams.edu/WCMA/prelude/images/mtn%20chapel.jpg”
… etc
Mr. David, any chance we might catch a glimpse of Dolph’s art collection some day? 😉
I don’t see any problem with refusing to give money to a person who’s views on anything you disagree with. If the view in question is offensive enough, I don’t see anything wrong with letting other people know that you won’t support a person, and why. It’s my money, and my right to spend it where I please supersedes an artists constitutionally protected right to get paid for expressing their beliefs.
I would call it an act of cowardice not to confront the person “face to face” when they are willing to let you do so on their own message board. Going behind your back to tell on you like some preschooler is not exactly a shining moment in this person’s record as an adult, but I wouldn’t really call it hypocrisy.
“If you cannot defend what – to you – is unpalatable, then you do not believe in free speech. You only believe in the free speech of those who agree with you.”
Salman Rushdie in “Dirty Pictures” (2000)
Well, given his history, this kinda means a thing… or two.
Tim.
Because I can separate the work from the person. Because if their work entertains me, that is absolutely all that matters.
There’s the key phrase right there. You can separate them. Others can’t, and they exercise their own rights of speech and property to not indirectly fund something they find offensive.
Your name on a book is your way of saying, this is my work, and I’m proud of it, the same is true for your political views. However, by attaching your name to both, you link them so that they have the potential to affect each other. The reason companies put “image” clauses in contracts with a spokesperson is because of that type of linkage.
Everybody seems to be wanting (and arguing for) a simple black-or-white position on something that is very nuanced.
Technically, Peter can write what he pleases where he pleases (and/or it pays) and the anonymous writer of the letter can also write what he pleases to whom he pleases. If you want that blinding shade of white, there you go, both covered by the First Amendment.
However! There’s a whole palette of shades of grey here. There’s the moral duplicity of the letter writer’s refusing to sign their name while Peter’s is right out there in front of everyone. If the letter writer wants to stand up and be counted, why not admit to who they are? There’s the hypocrisy, and yes, it is sheer hypocrisy to insist that the letter writer supports the First Amendment except when Peter uses it. And there’s the ethical slander of stating that while all speech is free, speech that disagrees with the writer is defacto anti-American. This is not a clear-cut issue.
And then the element of professional blackmail opens a whole new paintbox. Peter’s right, the only reason to write to an employer is to suggest that said employer should cut loose or reprimand said employee. If the writer of the letter wanted to simply make their feelings known, they could have written a LoC, a bad review, directly to Peter… but no, they went straight to the source and suggested not just a moral, but an economic drawback to continuing to employ him.
Darin says, “If I had an employee whose opinions were costing me money, I’d want to know about it.”
Define “costing me money.” A little parable:
This issue has also recently shown up on alt.fairs.renaissance, where one fair performer defended his right to harass patrons who show up in unRenaissance costumes. This started the inevitable firestorm and accusations of selfishness between the people who think “if you don’t do it right, you’re ruining it for everyone” and the people who think “if you paid to get in the door, you have the same right to be treated with the kindness given the historically costumed patrons and Bubba in his T and jeans.” The argument finally flickered out with a bunch of people sniffing “well, if that’s the way you’re going to be, I’ll never spend one red cent at YOUR faire!”
It’s a free dress issue instead of a free speech issue, but the bottom line for the employer/fair manager remains the same – $$$. And for every person who doesn’t buy the comic/go to the fair because they’re insulted that it’s not in accordance with their political beliefs/historical enough, there is another person who will vote with their wallet the other way. Maryland’s Renfair used to be snotty about patrons who weren’t in historical costume. Then they discovered that groups like the Klingons didn’t straighten up and dress right, they went elsewhere, taking their good money with them – and now you can see Klingons at the fair all the time. For another example, the Dixie Chicks used their free speech in a method that pìššëd a lot of people off and got them banned from some radio stations – and also drove album sales *up.*
So while a complaint about an employee to an employer is an obvious attempt to hurt that employee, the actual cost of one person’s boycott as obvious.
After it looked ok when I posted it, I now noticed that my remark is in the “Who`s your canditate” poll. I have no idea how it migrated there.
I tried to copy and paste it here, nothing worked.
I really love reading this website, but I am getting more and more frustrated using it. It seems, one day, I will stop posting here altogether.
Even though the tactics of the author of the letter are scummy, from a legal stand point he has the right to do it. It is up to the editors and business owners to not fall for this crap. One letter is not a big deal. The problem comes when groups like the American Families Association get people to do this on a large scale. In most cases the people sending the letters never previously purchase the products of the company in question that they are claiming to boycott. To combat this, I would insist that any one sending a letter that claimed that they were boycotting my company
PAD’s site does not fail to let me down yet again.
Much going on here. First off, there are limits to “free” speech. There’s a line (which only Supreme Court Justices have been granted to power to see) where speech crosses over from the individual’s right to make it, and imfringes on someone else’s right, and the OTHER right trumps the right to free speech. The refered to and misquoted allowing someone to shour “FIRE!” in a crowded theater when no fire exists, while an expression of free speech, puts too many people in risk of losing Life (or Limbs) in the panic that is likely to result that we limit the individual’s right to free speech in order to preserve the group’s right to protection of life.
All that aside, many of the comments supporting the author of the letter’s comments as free speech miss the point. It’s not the fact that the comments were made, it’s the fact that they were prefaced with the “I’m all for free speech” statement. It IS hypocritical to say you support free speech, but then take economic action against someone who says something politically that you disagree with. Because, otherwise, what’s the point of free speech, if it doesn’t mean that you can safely say anything (within reason, see above) and not fear the economic or political backlash for expressing an opinion that others might disagree with.
The Constitutional right of free speech was included to prevent the imprisonments and fines England imposed against those who spoke out against the king. Our government wanted the free expression of ideas to be nurtered. We don’t have private protections against free speech, because to do so would in fact be a constraint on free speech. But the IDEA should be embraced a core value of our country. Personnaly, I find organized boycotts to be counter to that core value, since they are nothing more than an economic censure on a certain idea or ideology. They attempt to do what the government cannot: erase a political opinion through economic force. And ANY time a voice is silenced, it’s a failure of our coutry’s ideals, because that silence is one of the main reasons why we broke away from our legal and legitimate leaders of the past.
Everyone who thinks along the lines of “there are consequences of free speech” really needs to look hard at that statement.
I’ll start by breaking down the word “free.” Webster’s has a whole slew of uses for free, among them “a : relieved from or lacking something unpleasant or burdensome b : not bound, confined, or detained by force…not costing or charging anything.”
Based on that, if you feel that exercising your right of free speech has consequences, maybe we should start calling it something else?
“1) I believe that the U.S. has laws forbidding speech which incites hatred against a particular ethnic group. I know that here in Canada we do, and it extends to the dissemination of hate literature as well, with fairly severe penalties. Witness the Ernst Zundel case.”
Ok, I just had to comment on this one. In America, people do have the right to say things that incites hatred agains a particular ethnic group. I have the right to say that Purple People are evil and if something is not done about all the purple people who are in positions of power and migrating to this county, this country is going down the tubes and it is really to bad the US doesn’t do to Purple People Land what they did to Hiroshima. What I don’t have a right to do is say, hey everybody! Go out, take a shot gun and kill every single purple person you know. Becuase if somebody actually acted on that, I could be arrested for inciting violence.
(I could be wrong, but that is my understanding of the law. When it comes to free speech, you have to take the good with the bad.)
While what PAD is describing above is a bit of a gray area. The person has the right not to buy PAD’s books. And if enough people do that, then PAD and they stop making money, then PAD would be fired. The person also has the right to tell people why he isn’t buying PAD’s books.
This person, however, is trying to skip a few steps. First, he is trying to use intimidation tactics to get PAD to shut up on his personal website. He is saying, “If you don’t stop giving your personal opinions, I am going to your boss and trying to get you fired.” People should be able to express their personal opinions outside of work without fear of losing your job.
But they skipped past the part of trying to boycott things and tried intimidation tactics to get him fired.
Of course, talking about what is morally right and constitutionally right is two different things.
And on a different topic, I always loved this quote by Teddy Rosevelt: “To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Nea Posted: “It’s a free dress issue instead of a free speech issue, but the bottom line for the employer/fair manager remains the same – $$$. And for every person who doesn’t buy the comic/go to the fair because they’re insulted that it’s not in accordance with their political beliefs/historical enough, there is another person who will vote with their wallet the other way.”
There is a difference between what happened at the fair and what happened with PAD. PAD was not making his comments in the Marvel Books or in any capacity where he would be directly representing Marvel Comics. He made comments (the author never even said what specific comments) on his personal web sight. Not only that, he is being attacked for making comments that are not even comic book related. For the Fair analogy to be correct, PAD would have been harassing his readers for not reading the books in the proper manner.