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
• 
The Constitutional right of free speech was included to prevent the imprisonments and fines England imposed against those who spoke out against the king. Our government wanted the free expression of ideas to be nurtered. We don’t have private protections against free speech, because to do so would in fact be a constraint on free speech. But the IDEA should be embraced a core value of our country. Personnaly, I find organized boycotts to be counter to that core value, since they are nothing more than an economic censure on a certain idea or ideology. They attempt to do what the government cannot: erase a political opinion through economic force. And ANY time a voice is silenced, it’s a failure of our coutry’s ideals, because that silence is one of the main reasons why we broke away from our legal and legitimate leaders of the past.
Everyone who thinks along the lines of “there are consequences of free speech” really needs to look hard at that statement.
You answered your own question in your point. The government cannot attempt to restrain speech, but individuals cannot be prevented from doing so because that imposes on their rights. As a result, if I am offended by your statements and choose not to shop at your store anymore, then we have both exercised our rights. No government intervention required, and in fact it would be wrong to force me to continue to shop somewhere.
It is generally accepted that with freedom a person must accept responsibility for their own actions. However, another way of saying that is that with freedom, one must accept the consequences on one’s actions. To say are freedom should have no consequences for ourselves is absurd.
Ðámņ, I hate that the preview still isn’t quite right. The italicized quote should have gone on for another sentence/paragraph.
I agree with M. David on this issue.
The fact is, this person does have the right to boycott Mr. David’s work. That’s not all that uncommon. He also has the right to notify Mr. David’s publishers of his decision.
I do feel, however, that the first is a silly choice to make (especially in light of his comments regarding the quality of Mr. David’s work.)
The second, I feel is cowardly. It is a deliberate attempt to silence a dissenting opinion through coercing a third party to do something about it. To me, this smacks of someone who doesn’t believe they can support their own beliefs. Therefore, rather than lose the argument, they try to get their opponant shut down.
Those that have mentioned that this is not a direct First Amendment issue, are correct by the letter of the law. The rub, to me, is that it does violate the spirit of freedom of speech.
Wow. Quite the explosive thread.
For what it’s worth, I think the only real place I’m disagreeing with PAD is the “separate the person from the work” point. I often have great difficulty doing exactly that, and don’t necessarily feel it’s inappropriate for me to make a personal judgement linking them.
I also wonder: there was a semi-organized boycott of DC’s Trek comic for a little while in ’90-91 shortly after Richard Arnold forced PAD off the book. That could be different, as one could claim RA’s interference led to the comics and novels being less enjoyable than they’d previously been … but it’s still a boycott of sorts that’s not based on the work itself. PAD, any thoughts on that one?
All of that said — the letter-writer in question here is a twit and a coward. I completely agree that the way to respond to free speech is with more free speech. If this clown had seriously felt you were a problem, he/she/it can speak out publicly on that score. Talk to friends. Post to Usenet. Start up another blog. Etc. etc. But an anonymous hit-piece to an employer is way out of line, and kudos to Joe for taking it exactly as seriously as was deserved.
(A few years ago, a parent of one of my students called the ninth grade dean to complain that I was “far and away the hardest” of the conceptual physics teachers, and that her daughter was suffering at my hands (metaphorically!). She closed with “oh, but don’t tell Mr. Lynch I called.” Said dean was in my office within the hour, saying “by the way, you ought to know this happened, and here’s how I responded.” Now that’s professionalism.)
TWL
I remember when I discovered the owner of Domino’s pizza was a pro-lifer and gave lots of money to pro-life causes. I stopped eating there. I didn’t want my money going there.
I have stopped giving my money to the United Way because they support the Boy Scouts, which in turn promote bigotry and hatred.
I don’t shop at Sam’s or Walmart due to the way they treat their workers.
Am I against the First Amendment for doing so, or am I doing my own speaking, by boycotting these establishments?
I can certainly see someone look at your political posts, decide you are clearly spending the money you earn to support causes they don’t appreciate, and decide they don’t want their money going in that direction.
Boycotting one’s work due to their political veiwpoints is as much of an expression of the First Amendment as your blog.
What I consider hypocritical are those who say they dislike Barbra Streisand and the Dixie Chicks — not because of their politics — but because they choose to express their politics when they should just be entertaining. But these same people have no problem with Charlton Heston. So yes, their problem is with the actual politics, they just refuse to admit it.
They have every right not to buy Streisand and Dixie Chicks CDs. Or buy your books. And beyond their right, I would argue their actions are justified as a means of expression in and of themselves. However, I do feel it is morally unacceptable to burn/destroy CDs and/or books of authors/artists you dislike. The destruction of art in any form is detestable.
Rest assured that for every person who decides not to buy your books because of your political opinions, there’s another person encouraged to buy even more of your stuff — wondering if – hoping – some of those political opinions might creep into your work. And the vast majority don’t care, and are only interested in whether or not you spin a good yarn.
(Unfortunately, it is human nature to speak loudest when you’re complaining. You would probably appreciate those of us who are changing our purchasing habits in a more positive direction writing to Queseda and letting him know…)
“Boycotting one’s work due to their political veiwpoints is as much of an expression of the First Amendment as your blog.”
Actually, it’s not. It’s an expression of your freedom to spend or not spend your money as you desire (outside of taxes). Making a written or verbal statement that you disagree with someone’s political viewpoints is an expression of the concept of free speech. Boycotting a person’s work is a total violation of the concept of free speech. So is the idea that our exercise of free speech carries consequences. If it carries consequences, or in other words, has a negative “cost”, then it’s not “free.”
Think about this: the entertainment industry is perhaps the most visible example of an individual’s personal beliefs impacting on their ability to work. Do any of us not in the Biz run the risk of losing our jobs, or being forced to take a pay cut, move, etc., depending on who we vote for in the coming election? If we were to face those consequences, would we think that fair? If employers were free to fire you for a political statement, would that have a positive or negative impact on the cultivation and expression of ideas?
These are the ideals the Freedom of Speech embraces, and that boycotts against political statements made by companies/entertainers/artists, etc., violates.
“I also wonder: there was a semi-organized boycott of DC’s Trek comic for a little while in ’90-91 shortly after Richard Arnold forced PAD off the book. That could be different, as one could claim RA’s interference led to the comics and novels being less enjoyable than they’d previously been … but it’s still a boycott of sorts that’s not based on the work itself. PAD, any thoughts on that one?”
But this is a different situation. PAD is saying that is wrong to write to Marvel about comments that were made on his personal website. If PAD made these comments in a Marvel comic, then the person would be on better moral standing to write to Joe Quesada and complain. However, these are comments that Peter David made in his own forum on his own time. And people are saying that political comments made outside of work should not effect you work environment.
The Star Trek thing (although I am not sure if I approve of that boycott either) was about comics and the work place, so it was directed at the comic book company and PAD’s work place.
Just a question:
Could this have been The Shrouded One?
And besides that, I agree 100% with PAD on freedom of speech.
Travis
“One person’s purchases don’t qualify as “significant” in this context, Darin. “
I didn’t say it was. First, I said that if an employee’s remarks were costing me (i.e. the company) money, I’d want to know about it. Then Peter jumped to the an “if you ever DO have an employee whom you decide to fire because he expressed liberal opinions on a computer board that you didn’t like…enjoy your richly deserved wrongful termination lawsuit.” To which I said that I wouldn’t even think of firing anybody unless they cost the company significant money. No where did I equate a significant financial loss and this guy dropping Peter’s book. But I did say that I’d want to KNOW if a regular consumer decided to drop the title.
“As for what you called a “drive-by,” well, that was just the consequence of you exercising your free speech, so you have to tolerate it.”
Did I not say that I in fact LOVED the drive-bys?
I’m inclined to agree that it may very well be the goof who recently revealed his idiocy on this board. He claims to be a fan, although I suspect he found this place via net search and claimed his “being a fan” to make himself more legitimate to anyone reading. That would explain his lack of response to any thread regrading PAD’s work, his generic letter to Quesada, as well as his inability to find the Fallen Angel mailing address.
A nobody attempting to have any effect on the world that he can. Since he can’t do it in logical debate or conversation, since he no longer elicited any reaction from this board, since he was banned….. well, makes sense that he’d do this. Funny though… even in his letter, his logic entails apples and oranges…. “I hate McDonalds, so I’m not going to eat at Burger King.”
Fred
Darrin was known to post on the Byrne board under the female alias “Kim Reagan” until he was exposed. This is how he exercises first amendment rights. I’m sure he won’t have a problem with me exercising mine. Any regular Byrne board follower can confirm this, by the way–
I wonder how many people know, or work to learn, the politics of the writers/musicians/artists/actors that they enjoy. I don’t know the political leanings of Tom Waits, or Neil Gaiman, or Bruce Campbell — but I enjoy their works, and will continue to do so (unless they start supporting Nazis or slaughtering millions).
What’s amazing here is that the intial letter writer wasn’t complaining about PAD’s comics, but a completely unrelated website.
“Okay, but you DO realize there’s a world of difference when discussing someone who made a film exalting a man who killed six million Jews, or a man whose testimony and cooperation destroyed careers and livelihoods, as opposed to someone who just says stuff you disagree with. Right?”
Sorry, PAD; chalk it up to posting after a long and brain-draining night. I was trying to show the instances where I personally cannot separate Work and The Man–and thought by my choice of examples that it would show it takes a LOT for me to lump the two together. Should have made that more explicit.
PAD:
Is Marvel holding you accountable for expressions left on your website? In the debate that has been going on here, that is one aspect that has not been touched. I would hope that Marvel’s response would be that the personal views of its artists are not the concern of the company. As long as anyone’s personal opinions make it’s way into the pages, the point should be moot.
If they were to put pressure on you in any way to change what you chosse to say in your personal life, that I would choose not to support that company.
This is where I think we fail as a society and the hypocracy emerges. The author of the letter would have no power in what he or she writes to an editor if the company truly supports the artist’s freedoms. Where is the pressure from the consumers whenever any corporation decides to impact the livelyhood of its employees based on personal views?
Again,I have no idea what Marvel’s response to the letter was, but I hope it reflected 100% support in your freedom of speech.
Ian Martin
PAD,
I agree with the central point, that free speech by definition should have the barest amount of limits. I would suggest the only true limits are consequences (such as being sued for libel or slander). However, this is a LEGAL issue. The government should not restrict speech. Your example is of an individual writing a company.
His letter says he believes in the first amendment. That amendment says the government cannot restrict speech. It says nothing about what a company or organization can do. So it is not hypocritical to ask the company to quit publishing you. The reality is, if you are making money for Marvel, they will laugh at this letter. If you are not, then they might look to the content to see if it has a clue as to why. There is no threat to take legal action to stop you from saying a thing.
Bottom line, you are very worked up about something that is not even a true threat. Nor is it truly hypocritical (as written).
Let me give you a real, true life example. In Sweeden, a pastor has been imprisoned because he dared to say he believed that homosexual acts are a sin. He did not in any way say that a homosexual should be beaten, etc. He simply said that a man having sex with a man was wrong, just as a man having sex with a woman outside of marriage is wrong.
This issue is currently on the line in Canada, and I suspect it will be here as well. You want to look at a true threat to free speech? That is it.
This is not meant to interject the debate of gay marriage, etc., and I will ignore any responses to that part of my post. It is simply to give a real life example of how a supposedly “free” society is putting the muzzle on religious free speech. Which is different than an individual asking a company to quit publishing a comic, comic strip (such as Hart’s), etc.
We have free speech. We also have free companies which can decide what they want and don’t want to print, publish, etc.
(I find this debate ironic in light of the book coming out about Kerry and Kerry’s lawyers trying to stop the ad by the Swift Boat Captains being run. It was fair game to make allegations about Bush and his National Guard service, but guess it doesn’t cut the other way. Personally, I think the book is as biased one way as Farenheit 911 was the other. I look at what Bush and Kerry have done in office the last 10 years and what they say they want to do in the next 4 to determine which one I will vote for.)
Jim in Iowa
Hey, Darin:
Online columnist Augie De Blieck used to read this blog regularly. He no longer does so, because he didn’t agree with Peter using it as a political forum.
How do I know this? Because he said so here. Not in an angry letter to Joe Quesada or Dan Didio, or even Glenn Hauman, but right here. He brought the complaint to the correct venue. That was an appropriate method of voicing his displeasure.
The tactics of Letterhack X. Anonymous, however, were to write to Peter’s boss and complain about the stuff he said “off the clock,” so to speak. I’m currently unemployed, but if I weren’t, and someone tried to get me in trouble at work because of online political comments I made from the privacy of my own home, I’d be well and truly pìššëd. Peter has every justification to be disgusted with this behavior, because it’s disgusting.
As for “he has a right to say why he’s not buying the comics,” he could just as easily have addressed the letter to Peter in care of Marvel (or DC, or Pocket Books, or whomever), and kept it between the two of them. Instead, he didn’t, which again casts aspersions on his motives. For me, anyway.
Stop trying to bring up the “Swiftboat veterens” ads. The issue about it has nothing to do with free speech, and everything to do with people LYING, or at the very least being purposly misleeding. None of the people truely served with Kerry, as they claim in the ad. They were in the same war as him, but did not serve under him, next to him, above him, or even know him.
“None of the people truely served with Kerry, as they claim in the ad.”
To say that demonstrates that you don’t know how PBRs were deployed in Vietnam. It wasn’t “Apocalypse Now.”
“One letter is not a big deal. The problem comes when groups like the American Families Association get people to do this on a large scale. “
While I somewhat agree, I have to laugh at the example. BOTH political sides use this tactic. I have no problem if they inspire a 1,000 people to write their own letter. But (there’s that word again!) if they actually read what they are sending and actually mean it, then it is still a valid expression of their speech.
On another note, I am beginning to have a hard time separating the author from the work. I still read PAD and will get the next New Frontier novel and will try out Madrox. But what was only “background noise” before with some of his comments, I now read into based on what I have read here. I am sure I am not always right by what I read into it, but it does not matter. When I feel there is political commentary written into a story (as there was in at least one issue of Captain Marvel), then it does take me out of the story and into a mental debate with the author of the story. If that happens too much, I don’t buy it (as has happened with Fallen Angel — not because of political commentary, but because of the world view it portrays).
Jim in Iowa
I wish I was clever enough to come up with an equivalent to “First Amendment But-heads” that described people who talk about pure commerce issues as if they had even the slightest resemblance to 1st Amendment matters.
I can’t decide if I think it should be two seperate terms or not, to cover those who aren’t smart enough to understand the distinction and those who should but keep harping because claiming a legal protection is less nebulous than the “I deserve not to be the recipient of crappy behavior.”
“Stop trying to bring up the “Swiftboat veterens” ads. The issue about it has nothing to do with free speech, and everything to do with people LYING, or at the very least being purposly misleeding. None of the people truely served with Kerry, as they claim in the ad. They were in the same war as him, but did not serve under him, next to him, above him, or even know him.”
The issue has EVERYTHING to do with free speech when it deals with whether they should be allowed to try to sell the ads to a station. No station has to buy them. The makers of the ad do not have the “right” to force anyone to see them. And if they are false, Kerry has every right to sue them for libel.
But your last sentence is exactly why speech should not be limited. They did not claim to serve in the same boat with him. But they were in the same war and did serve at the same time an in the same area. So it is possible they have first hand knowledge about him.
Why do you want to stop what they are saying? Because you don’t agree with their opinion? Two people could be in the same battle. One can honestly believe Kerry was right in how he acted and another honestly believe he was wrong. Should either be prevented from sharing their opinion? (Note: That is hypothetical example. I have not, and probably won’t, read the book.)
Bottom line, both sides get touchy when the other attacks. The shoe is just on the other foot. I believe most Americans will wait for evidence before they jump to conclusions. But to get that evidence, both sides need to be free to talk, which does include even airing an ad if a station is willing to carry it.
As I said, it is ironic how this cuts both ways.
Jim in Iowa
One more thought about the Swiftboat ads: I look at Farenheit 911 the same way as you described these ads. I think it was at least misleading in how it portrayed the last 4 years. I refuse to see it (though I have read the transcript online, so I do know what it says, just have not seen the pictures). I do not recall Bush’s lawyers sending a letter to theater owners implying they might be sued for libel if they showed the movie.
As I said, this cuts both ways.
Jim in Iowa
MarkL says “Ðámņ, I hate that the preview still isn’t quite right. The italicized quote should have gone on for another sentence/paragraph.”
Yeah well, the preview isn’t quite PREVIEW for me in Mozilla – if I click it all I get is a reload of the comments page. The smallest of favors is that while not working it at least keeps what I have typed in the edit box while completely failing to show a preview of my comments. Haven’t bothered to try it in IE – I just press ‘post’ and hope for the best.
Gonna disagree with Peter here.
The person for whatever reason for whatever reason, your politics, your puns, or the vest you wear to conventions has decided to stop buying books you write. He disagrees with you, he’s voting with his dollar. He sends a letter to Marvel saying why he’s doing so.
Has he taken ads out saying that you suck? No.
Has he organized boycotts against you? No.
Has he gone to conventions with signs and a bullhorn denouncing you? No.
Did he even say to Quesada that you should be fired? No.
He wrote a letter, because he doesn’t agree with you, he’s no longer buying your stuff.
Speech can have consequences. That’s why John Hancock wrote his name so large. So the King knew that he was one standing up.
In this case, the consequence of Peter’s speech was that Marvel lost a customer. Obviously Joe Quesada’s not losing sleep over it (and not like he doesn’t know that Peter is…shall we say..opinionated).
I agree with the first amendment but.
I agree with Mr. David on this completely. What many people (FABheads) seem to forget is that the first amendment is there to protect one thing. The speech you do not like. The dissenting speech, the criticizing speech, and the speech that pìššëš you off. Its one of the things that make our country great. Its something that many of our closest allies do not have. We are lucky to have it, and should endeavor to remember that constitutional amendments are there to guarantee freedoms, not limit them. A subtle point that our current administration seems to have difficulty with.
I mispoke before…Kerry did serve under one of the people in the ads, Admiral Roy Hoffman, so he is someone to speak on this:
as reported in the Milwalkie Journal Sentinel:
…Hoffmann acknowledged he had no first-hand knowledge to discredit Kerry’s claims to valor and said that although Kerry was under his command, he really didn’t know Kerry much personally.
or not…
http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/may04/227671.asp
“Sure I would. And then if someone said, “Wow, that’s gorgeous, who painted that?” I would naturally reply, “Adolf Hitler” because, y’know, I’m not an idiot, Luigi, did you think I wouldn’t recognize some of those pieces? “
Ha! now that was funny.
“However, if you ever DO have an employee whom you decide to fire because he expressed liberal opinions on a computer board that you didn’t like…enjoy your richly deserved wrongful termination lawsuit.”
I’d have to enjoy it in Imaginary Land because no lawyer would represent someone in such a case against me unless I was a government agency. The employment at will that covers the majority of workes in the US completely protects my rights to fire someone because I dislike their choice in footwear, eye makeup and more serious matters like public speech.
Behaving in such a way would make me a real scumbag but it wouldn’t make me a lawbreaker unless I was in a protected group, of which Republican, Democrat, Green or Libertarian (and really, they wouldn’t want to be one anyways, right?) are not. You can educate yourself somewhat on the matter with this quite good article at http://www.aarp.org/money/careers/jobloss/Articles/a2004-04-28-yrrights.html
Mr. David,
It looks like you may have a stalker on your hands. This person types (at least the way I read the letter) the same way that one person who spammed your blog did (Dee, was it?). It makes no sense to me why this person hates you so much to take the time to complain to Mr. Quesada about you, but that’s what kinda makes me worry.
Anyway, this person does have the right to write this letter, but…I also think this person has some serious moral failings. It’s wrong to tattle on people, and that’s what this is. This person wants you fired because you disagree about certain issues.
Well whoop-dee-doo. Just about everyone disagrees with everyone about certain issues. And, if this is the same person who spammed you before, the person never made an intelligent argument to begin with.
Basically, this person is just trying to get you worked up. Hey, maybe you can use this experience in something you write in the future? There is definately some good stuff here.
And as far as separating a person’s views from their work, sometimes I can do it, and sometimes I can’t. For instance, no, I would not hang a painting by Hitler on my wall.
However, although I am offended by Mel Gibson’s religious views, if he ever makes a Leathal Weapon 5, I will see it (even though I was disapointed with 4), because I do enjoy his acting.
Oh, and one more comment. Alhtough I have posted here before, once, I think, I did use this same alias. I would just use my name, but I have been posting on other boards for so long (DC, RKMBS), that this the name people know me by.
-Brad
I’m an example of someone who doesn’t agree with you to a degree of great anger “in the subject of handling the Israel” problim, but i still and will continue to read your work “wether you want to or not”
meshal, from Saudi Arabia
People confuse the First Amendment with the Right to Free Speech. And too many people confuse the Right to Free Speech with a desired Right To Do Exactly What They Want, Exactly How They Want To Do It, And Get Exactly The Reaction They Think They Deserve.
On the whole, I think it’s great when idiots like the original correspondent speak out the way he or she did. It makes them easier to identify than the quiet idiots. But I’m getting weary of hearing people wave around The First Amendment as though it’s a combination of Santa and Jesus that excuses any behavior and, in their own minds, equates even their most ignorant and thuggish actions to those of Gandhi, King, or Nathan Hale.
These thoughts are still pretty fresh in my mind. I live in Boston. Protesters at the Democratic Convention were angry that their demonstrations were being limited to a “Free Speech” zone. Well, actually, no, the police always said that they were free to protest wherever they wanted so long as they didn’t block off the streets. They did that anyway, but the cops allowed them to continue to protest until they started building a bonfire out of placards. Even then, the cops let them continue to protest until an officer spotted someone with a Molotov cocktail, at which point the cops allowed the protest to continue but sent in four policemen (wearing standard uniforms and with no weapons drawn) to arrest the gentleman with the bomb.
And then the protesters formed a (well-rehearsed) ring around the police, trapping them inside the crowd, and attempted to pull the arrestee away. At which point, yes, a bunch of guys in riot gear felt the need to get in there, rescue the cops, take the guy with the bomb into custody, and sort of underscore the point that the protesters can’t declare martial law in the city of Boston.
The Molotov, incidentally, was a replica made out of newspaper — bottle, wick, and all — clearly designed to provoke an extreme police response while leaving no evidence behind that would incriminate the protesters.
And still, after making three arrests (one for the Molotov, one for a can of lighter fluid, one for striking a police officer) the cops withdrew and allowed the protest to continue, though of course at that point it became more of a thirty-way press conference than a protest. So what was the protesters’ response to the media? This from one woman describing herself as one of the protest leaders: “This is all the cops’ fault. We _told_ them that if they sent officers into the crowd, they’d be in danger…they _created_ this situation!”
And, of course…sing it along with me…
“THEY DON’T CARE ABOUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT!”
The first thing that true advocates of free speech need to do is to reclaim the phrase “First Amendment” from the yahoos. Same thing with “civil disobedience.” If these people read any history at all, they’d understand that their actions would cause the originators of those phrases to mambo in their crypts.
“None of the people truely served with Kerry, as they claim in the ad. They were in the same war as him, but did not serve under him, next to him, above him, or even know him.”
Wrong. In fact one of them was Kerry’s commanding officer (Captain George Elliot). These were men whose own PBRs operated with Kerry’s in the same unit. PBRs were not encapsulated from one another. They implemented coordinated patrol patterns of two or more boats and also moved in convoys. So, yes, these men did serve next to and above him and they most assuredly did know him. What I find particularly interesting is today’s Boston Globe article by Mike Kranish, who wrote a story that purports that Cpt. Elliot retracted a criticism of Kerry. Later this morning, Elliot stated that this was wholey innaccurate and that his views were highly mistated. Elliot then went on to affirm his statements in the infamous tv ad and in the forthcoming book by the Swiftboat vets.
Mike Kranish, by the way, is the author of the Kerry/Edwards campaign book. He’s a paid biographer of Kerry’s. This basically means that the Boston Globe has exposed itself as an arm of the Kerry Campaign. No conflict of interest there, right?
DW
“”However, if you ever DO have an employee whom you decide to fire because he expressed liberal opinions on a computer board that you didn’t like…enjoy your richly deserved wrongful termination lawsuit.”
I’d have to enjoy it in Imaginary Land because no lawyer would represent someone in such a case against me unless I was a government agency. The employment at will that covers the majority of workes in the US completely protects my rights to fire someone because I dislike their choice in footwear, eye makeup and more serious matters like public speech.”
Like many on this thread are over- or mis-stating Freedom of Speech (or getting the First Amendment protections crossed with the ideal of freedom of speech), your not quite on with at-will employment. Wrongful Termination is a legal action, at-will employee notwithstanding, that, when an employer terminates an employee for cause not-related to the workplace, it gives rise to a potential cause of action. So, firing someone because of a political statement that you read on their (private yet publically accessible web-site) could lead to a wrongful termination suit. And as the previous poster noted, as the employer would be known as Mr. Scumbag, he’d be best advised to open up his wallet and start writing checks.
Those so-called protected classes aren’t written in stone, and we’re just a jury decision away from “political party affiliation” being declared a protected class.
Plus, most larger companies have disciplinary procedures in place, and to arbitrarily violate those procedures to fire someone is also grounds for a wrongful termination act.
At-will employment is one of those legal fictions that we like to say applies, but there are so many qualifications and exceptions to the rule that it has practically ceased to exist, other than as a theory employers use to prevent digruntled ex-employees from seeking legal recourse.
Guess, I’m going to bea FAB-head, because once again I disagree with Peter.
Not that he isn’t entirely right about the dìçk-hëád who’s trying to cost him work and money, but PAD’s interpretation of the First amendment is wrong. PAD seems to be of the mind that he is. or at least theoretically, should be able to say what he wants without fear of consequences… from anybody. The Constitution DOES NOT say that and as it has already been pointed out, it only refers to Congress and the government.
I challenge PAD to point out the part in the First Amendment where it refers to anyone else OTHER than Congress and the government.
Peter’s remedy is to NOT wrap himself up in the First Amendment which does not apply, but to SUE the person for libel, assuming what the man says is false. Peter is saying that EVEN IF what the man is saying is totally TRUE, he shouldn’t be allowed to seek a remedy from Peter’s employer.
In fact, libel and slander laws exist purely as an EXCEPTION to the First Amendment and seeks to do exactly what Peter says he’s against, seek consequences for someone’s false words.
AS much as I don’t like the man’s writing to Quesada trying to get Peter into trouble, the man has no power to do PAD any real harm. The boycotters who didn’t buy the Dixie Chick’s music, and even the radio stations that boycotted their music might be able to affect their bank accounts, but that’s still a free market effect. They did not have the authority or power to take away any of The DC’s rights of Free speech. The government does.
The guy writes a letter. No problem. States why he’s not buying a product. Again, no problem.
He’s harming your livelihood by writing a single letter that will (and should have only) reach a single person? Oh, for crying out loud, give me a break.
He’s not the one posting it on a message board for anyone to see. He wrote a letter. You’re doing more harm to your livelihood than he could with one single letter.
So he doesn’t put his name on the letter. Doesn’t reduce his message any. Personally, I don’t agree with it, but I don’t downgrade the essence of the message because of it either.
Face it, some people will shun you and your work if they read this site. I think your opinions are out there (the political realm), but they’re your opinions. I usually just stick to reading your comments on comics.
And with this Web site, you have to expect those kind of letters because you’ve made yourself more of a public person.
If you’re a strict backer of the First Amendment, then you shouldn’t have a problem with what the letter writer did. Personally, I find your view on this matter hypocritical.
I will still enjoy your Fallen Angel and have ordered your first issue of MadroX. Later.
Arrgh! And another one misses the point.
To try and get back again…
PAD isn’t saying mr. letterwriter can’t/shouldn’t be able to complain to his employer based on PAD’s political views. The whole thread started with a guy saying, basically, “I’m all for Free Speech, except in the case of PAD, where I want you to know that I disagree with him, and I’m not going to buy the comics Marvel produces written by him, simply because I disagree with his political view, in an effort to wipe that political view off the face of the earth by cutting off PAD’s income, so he goes away and can’t afford to spread his drivel around any more.”
Highly, highly paraphrased.
So grind on into redundancy, to state that you support Freedom of Speech, and I’m assuming he meant it in the more liberal term rather than the strictly legal Constitutional term, and then take an action that can have no other intent than to stop a certain political speaker from speaking flies totally in the face of what Free Speech stands for. Which is where the hypocrasy of the act comes into play, generating PAD’s original comment.
No where have I seen PAD state that he has a problem with the act itself. Just the framing of the act.
Frankly, I’m surprised there’s so much debate about this issue. To me, it seems pretty clear cut. Does the shrouded one (the likely author of the letter) have the “right” to pen an epistle to Joe Quesada complaining about PAD’s political views on an unrelated website? Sure, just as I have the right to write to the McDonald’s Corp. to say I won’t eat there anymore because Gerald Ford once had a Big Mac and Ford pardoned Nixon.
But in both cases, the complaint is directed to the wrong party, and thus, ridiculous. The fact that the person didn’t sign their name (or at least their full name) to the letter about PAD’s politics only makes him or her look cowardly as well.
That’s on top of the whole cowardly action of complaining to an employer about something that had nothing to do with PAD’s work for that employer.
Joe Quesada took the proper response to this letter; he treated it as the waste of a tree that it is. Plus, I’m sure he realizes that this is one lone person with some sort of grievance against PAD, and that Marvel is not likely to get scores of letters complaining about an employee’s opinions in an unrelated forum.
Now, if he started getting complaint letters about things PAD was saying in a Marvel Comic (or was having characters say) , then he might take some sort of action. But this is hardly the same thing. Say I have a next door neighbor who works at Kroger and blows his leaves onto my property. I would complain to him directly (and perhaps to the neighborhood association, if there is one). I wouldn’t write a letter to his boss saying I won’t be buying my groceries at Kroger any more because of that.
Unfortunately, there are probably a lot of people who would do just that, and are probably a lot of companies that do “cave in” when someone complains about something completely unrelated to whatever business that company does (To the best of my knowledge, Kroger is not one of them). Groups that organize boycotts (or threaten to) of products or services they don’t actually use or know anything about are probably most responsible for this attitude. Instead of looking into it and seeing if these people have legitimate grievances or are just trying to stir up trouble, most companies, sadly, would probably take the easy and cowardly way out.
I wonder how many people have jumped on a anti _____ bandwagon without really knowing what it was all about. I’m reminded of the “For Better or For Worse” episodes where Michael and some friends go downtown and march in a protest rally, unsure of what they’re protesting. They just get caught up in the excitement, and Michael ends up being interviewed on TV (with the reporter asking some leading questions). Michael, again, has no real clue what it’s all about, so basically just agrees. Later, when his father comes to pick him up and explains to him and his friends the full facts of the issue (I think it was about the bus service in town), the boys realize just how ignorant they’d been.
Some people speak out against something or someone without really knowing why; while others, like the letter writer, seem to have some sort of a personal grudge. This person clearly wants PAD punished for having an opinion contrary to his or her own, and instead of writing to PAD directly or registering and posting in this forum, he or she basically stamps their feet and goes off in a huff. “I’m telling on you.”
To which I say, “grow up.” You don’t like PAD’s views, tell him so yourself, or stop visiting his site and/or buying his books. Don’t go crying to someone else in an obvious and transparent attempt to cause them economic harm because they don’t see the world the way you do.
Rick
EClarke1849
PAD hasn’t once said, I don’t beleive, that it violates the First Amendment constitutionally, or that he believes he has any legal redress, just that it violates the spirit behind the first amendment. Those who truly support the first amendment wouldn’t try to get someone fired for speaking.
His argument is that people are free to buy or not buy — and let the free market decide whether the author/artist succeeds. If Peter’s offend/agreement ratio is too low among people who base their purchases on politics, and his sales are affected, then the publishers will likely do something about it. (Not because of PADs opinions, but because of his sales)
But by writing to his boss, the author of the letter is trying to override the free market, and see if they can get Peter fired based solely on their viewpoint. They’re basically saying “Peter David offended me. I realize I am just one person, and I’m not going to make that much of a difference in his sales. So I hope you ignore the sales receipts, and fire him just to make me happy.”
If that’s not how they felt, they would have been satisfied with their decision not to purchase, and satisfied that whatever affect it had on his sales Peter deserved. And that’s that. There would have been no cause to write Queseda. (Maybe there would have been cause to write Peter and tell him why he was losing sales)
I do think entertainment figures, authors, and artists should expect consequences for stating opinions. There will be people who stop sending them money if they disagree. It shouldn’t stop them from speaking. There are a lot of people who will also agree with them.
Freedom of Speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. This is an immutable law of the universe.
But by writing Queseda the individual was declaring themselves more important than the laws of the universe.
I’m all for Free Speech even it’s from a person I disagree with (My brother in-law for example). Otherwise, It wouldn’t be free speech. It would be YOU MUST AGREE WITH ME OR ELSE. I saw a film like this once, but I couldn’t understand what what was said because the man was speaking German. I believe the man speaking was named Adolf Hitler.
Anyway, I buy a book, comic book, film, music, etc. BECAUSE I AM A FAN OF THE ARTIST THAT DID IT! Political preference and other things don’t matter to me. That being said, I think Mister Letter Writer should think about what Free Speech REALLLY is and aim his comments to the person for whom he intends them. Don’t take this to a person that hired him or her. In other words, FABS really break my balls too.
JHL
Before I present my question, I’ll confess that I don’t like Sean Connery’s belief that it is fine to hit a woman to keep her in line (1987 interview with Barbara Walters), but I’ve seen almost every movie he’s in, so — *if* I’m understanding the secondary point of the original post here — I’m a “Me Too!” on the whole matter.
That said, and granted that the following condition would still leave plenty of room for general offense-taking, here’s my question:
If Letterhack X. Anonymous (thank you, Michael Pullmann!) had not started out his attempted economic bullying with that key phrase “I agree with and understand the first amendment”, would Mr. David’s reaction to the event not include the complaint of “hypocrisy”?
And another question, contingent on the first answer being “correct”:
Was that originally meant to be your point, that Anonymous would’ve not vexed you quite so much if only he’d left all mention of the First Amendment out of it?
{Sorry for the verbosity. I tend toward wordiness when I think I might’ve misunderstood an obvious point. Also, I think Kingbobb might’ve beat me to this, but again, I have this itch to doublecheck myself.}
“So grind on into redundancy, to state that you support Freedom of Speech, and I’m assuming he meant it in the more liberal term rather than the strictly legal Constitutional term, and then take an action that can have no other intent than to stop a certain political speaker from speaking flies totally in the face of what Free Speech stands for. Which is where the hypocrasy of the act comes into play, generating PAD’s original comment.”
It seems to me that there’s a bit of “mind reading” here (or, I suppose, paranoia). The guy’s intent was to inform the EIC of Marvel why he was dropping PAD’s title. That’s it. Nowhere did the guy say or even hint that he wanted to adversely affect Peter David’s livelihood.
“The whole thread started with a guy saying, basically, “I’m all for Free Speech, except in the case of PAD, where I want you to know that I disagree with him, and I’m not going to buy the comics Marvel produces written by him, simply because I disagree with his political view, in an effort to wipe that political view off the face of the earth by cutting off PAD’s income, so he goes away and can’t afford to spread his drivel around any more.”
“
Once again the letter writer is misquoted. He states: “Let me start by saying I agree with and understand the first amendment.” While I understand this is often used to refer to free speech, the writer never actually says that. The first amendment solely focuses on the GOVERNMENT not being able to restrict speech.
I think the letter is a joke and should not be taken seriously. But it is not the level of hypocrisy some seem to portray it. Peter is free to say what he wants. He does not have the “right” that Marvel continues to publish his comics. That is up to Marvel. Two related but different issues are being confused here.
Jim in Iowa
Oh, so the letter writer was merely stating an opinion. Why then write to one of the people who affect PAD’s livlihood? Of course he wanted to cause trouble for PAD. Otherwise he could have just stopped buying PAD’s stuff and left the loss of income for the company to find.
Darin,
I don’t care for your comments. I think they are abusive and unamerican. Could you send me the address of your employer so I might send them a letter saying you should be fired for your abuse of free speech?
“Darin,
I don’t care for your comments. I think they are abusive and unamerican. Could you send me the address of your employer so I might send them a letter saying you should be fired for your abuse of free speech?”
Did the guy in the letter Peter David shared with us ask to Joey Q to fire Peter? Seems to me you’ve lost your focus on this subject. But, if you’d like the name and address of my current employer, you can have it.
“If Letterhack X. Anonymous (thank you, Michael Pullmann!) had not started out his attempted economic bullying with that key phrase “I agree with and understand the first amendment”, would Mr. David’s reaction to the event not include the complaint of “hypocrisy”?”
Of course not. I’ve seen any number of letters from guys who say, “I don’t like Peter David’s opinions, therefore I’m not buying his books anymore, so there, nyaah.” I think it’s kind of a stupid way to deal with the world, as I noted above, and it’s not the way I do business, but it’s not hypocrisy.
“And another question, contingent on the first answer being “correct”:
Was that originally meant to be your point, that Anonymous would’ve not vexed you quite so much if only he’d left all mention of the First Amendment out of it?”
Sure. That’s why the first sentence was about “FABheads” and why I was so quick to say that comments centering on someone’s “right” to crab to Marvel’s EIC were utterly beside the point. My point was, don’t take actions designed to stifle someone’s free speech or punish them for their opinions while claiming you support free speech.
PAD
Darin, you surely aren’t going to be so disingenious to suggest the letter was written simply to, as someone put it, blow off steam? It was meant to be punitive.
The issue is hypocrisy. The danger lies in an employer who would fall victim to the ruse. It is a means to attempt to silence opposing viewpoints, a situation that occurs more and more. The move to silence opposing views is a move towards the loss of more of America as we know it. Was the letter writer wrong? Yes. Had he not wanted to read Peter’s views there was a simple solution. Stop Coming To The Website. This has no bearing on Peter’s job.
btw Darin
There are no new quotes being given by Elliott. If you look closely at the documents displayed on the Swift Boat page you’ll see that it is the same statement he retracted this morning. The only comments there are by the organization itself. Elliott himself has issued no such statement.
The word “with” as in “served with” is misleading. These men did not “serve with” as in on the same boat, with Kerry. They were in nam at the same time. Their attack is motivated by their dislike of his testifying before congress in the 70’s and has little to do with truth.
I like how you quoted the comment about Mike Kranish who wrote an introduction to a book about Kerry and Edwards goals. Hardly the same as writing their campaign book. A suggestion: Check the links on the stories you read before you take them at face value.
“It was meant to be punitive.”
As evidenced by what in his letter? One cannot glean that it was meant to be punitive by what was expressed in the quoted letter. The letter itself/alone doesn’t justify the that extrapolation.
“These men did not “serve with” as in on the same boat, with Kerry.”
They never claimed to serve on the same boat with Kerry. But they nonetheless served with him. These were his peers, in many cases. Fellow PBR officers who served in the same unit as he did. So, yes, they did serve with him.
“I like how you quoted the comment about Mike Kranish who wrote an introduction to a book about Kerry and Edwards goals. Hardly the same as writing their campaign book.”
Kranish is Kerry’s paid biographer. If you read this link, you will find that his book on Kerry is now being shelved in light of this Globe blunder. This all happened since I posted the information above. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/story/219589p-188612c.html) Furthermore, his role in the campaign book was also adjusted today in response to this same blunder on the part of himself and the Globe.
As for Elliot, this is what is said today in response to the Globe by the Swift Boat Vets: “The following statement from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth concerns an article appearing in [today’s] Boston Globe… [Viet Vet] Captain George Elliott describes an article appearing in today
Correct me if I’m wrong:
Sure thing.
1) I believe that the U.S. has laws forbidding speech which incites hatred against a particular ethnic group. I know that here in Canada we do, and it extends to the dissemination of hate literature as well, with fairly severe penalties. Witness the Ernst Zundel case.
The US does periodically pass laws forbidding hate speech, but they tend to be struck down as quickly as a challenge can be brought into an appropriate court. The US Supreme Court is on record http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=505&invol=377 pointing out that viewpoint discrimination–limiting or punishing expression based solely on the content of the expression– is precisely the sort of thing that the First Amendment is designed to prevent. As for Canada, there are a variety of objections I have to the Canadian constitution, and its preference for equality over liberty is one of them.
2) I believe that the Bill Of Rights renders the Patriot Act unconstitutional, and I wonder why someone hasn’t made a constitutional challenge to it as of yet.
Actually, people have been challenging the USAPATRIOT Act since its inception. The reason the challenges have done so little to strike down the USAPATRIOT Act is that the Act’s opponents generally have a poor understanding of what the Act is actually about. The Act is primarily about wiretap administration and money laundering. The parts of the Act that implicate First Amendment issues are a trivial part of the Act itself. I could understand privacy objections to the Act, but frankly there’s not a dámņëd thing in the Act that I couldn’t have done in 2000 AD as a state court prosecutor. Take a look yourselves. http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/patriotact.pdf And for a dissenting opinion, check out: http://practice.findlaw.com/cyberlaw-0903.html
3) Given that #2 is true, how are we to enact legislation on either side of the border to eradicate the internal fifth column of terrorist sleepers who most likely exist in our midst?
The answer to this question (to the extent that the question isn’t a massive non sequitur) is the issue that I suspect made PAD lump me in as a FABhead last month: there is a tremendous difference between discussing an issue and engaging in a conspiracy or solicitation to commit a felony. The message I took from Schenck was that the First Amendment doesn’t provide a shield for you to hide behind when you’re plotting a crime.
I’ve always considered myself to be something very close to a free speech absolutist. That doesn’t mean I agree with PAD about the nutjob who wrote the letter to Quesada. He has the same right to be heard as PAD. PAD’s Voltaire quote applies to Letterhack X. Anonymous as well: I think it’s obnoxious, and I prefer to try to distinguish people’s works from their personalities, but he’s perfectly free to choose otherwise. Boycotting and free speech are in no way mutually exclusive.
Incidentally, I distinguish my own refusal to see Fahrenheit 9/11 on three grounds. 1) Michael Moore is actively engaged in opposing a political party of which I am a member, so I’m disinclined to assist his endeavors by sending him money by way of an admission ticket; I might consider watching it on tv however. 2) I do like REM, with whom I substantially disagree over politics, so I’m fairly sure my boycott is specific to Michael Moore; with regard to REM, I just skip the “Ignoreland” track on Automatic for the People. And 3) I have utterly detested Moore since I saw Roger & Me and I think he’s a jerk and I hate his movies. Those are perfectly good reasons not to go see his films. By contrast, I disagree with Spielberg’s decision not to support Max through Amblin. The report is that he read the script, felt it was a good film, but felt it was disrespectful to Holocaust survivors to be a part of a film that portrayed Hitler as human. I disagree with him on two counts, 1) I don’t feel the idea is disrespectful to the survivors, and 2) respect or not, I am constantly worried that the continued dehumanizing of Hitler will erode any lessons we as a species can learn from the Nazi ascension; until we as a civilization realize that a garden variety anti-Semitic politician managed to kill six million people we are at risk of having a similar fiasco in the future. But that’s Spielberg’s choice, and I don’t think that merely making the wrong choice also makes him a First Amendment traitor.
By the way, what’s wrong with Carrot Top apart from the fact that he is the least funny comedian since Joe Piscopo?