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
• 
But here’s the thing about hypocrisy, PAD. He believes in the First Amendment. Its absolute powers. You believe in the same.
Saying that, he has every right to say whatever he wants to the editor, even if it’s “get rid of PAD” because he’s expressing himself–if we’re talking about holding the First Amendment at its strictest possible sense. That all speech/expression shouldn’t be restricted.
You’re saying he shouldn’t be able to do say what he said because it could affect your livelihood? Free Speech is Free Speech. You only want free speech if it doesn’t affect your livelihood? C’mon.
Okay Darin
What other reason other than an attempt to solicit punitive measures could the writer have written to Peter’s “boss”? Freedom to disagree? Well in essence he didn’t disagree. He could have done that *here* but no, instead he chose to attempt to create a problem for Peter.
As for this:
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
I really hope Mr Quesada doesnt take one person and their opinion as a reason to not feature any of PAD’s work in the future.There are several people that produce or write material i dont find entertaining or even good ,my reaction i dont provide them with my money.Their personal opinions on things i could care less.Used to love Dennis Miller but IMO he turned into an unfunny
human being so i dont watch his show.Has nothing to do with politics.Whil i tend to swing slightly to left i used to enjoy G.Gordon liddy when i was in maryland.He was at least well thought and sometimes dámņ funny.
Anyone who reads my posts knows i dislike Claremont and Rob Liefelds work ,has nothing to do with them personally ,its just i dont like the material.Brad Meltzer(Identity Crisis)will never recieve any more of money,as i feel the death/rape of Sue Dibny was done for shock value and was exploitive.I know its a fictional character but for a comic with no mature label i thought it was inappropriate.
There are people i work with that wont eat Ben &Jerry”s ice cream cause they support mumia abu jamal.Sorry ,thats dámņ good ice cream ,politics be dámņëd.:).Bruce willis and others are considered conservatives and that is their right as american citizens.
I guess my point is judge a person’s work on the work itself not their political or personal opinions.
Just my opinion i could be wrong….:)
BTW Carrot Top isnt funny and he scares me to look at :0
I don’t agree with much of your political opinions, but I will continue to support your Art. ( Looking forward to the next NF installment! )
If you truly believe in free speech though, you cannot deny his/her right to “mail” an opinion either.
Even though I do think it is rather small of the person.
It is my observance that if one is not under critical attack, then one is not really saying or doing any thing of significance at all.
Well, I’m glad to have been responsible for such a long thread. A couple points. First, my letter was not intentionally anonymous. I wrote to DC first, from their website, and they specifically said first name and last initial only. So that is what I did. The e-mails to Marvel and Dark Horse were simply copies of the DC e-mail, hence the last initial only. If it is so important to some of you, my name is Charles Zerillo, though I don’t see how this matters.
Second, my intentions were not to try to get PAD fired. Do I think my opinions would cause this? Certainly not. I was simply notifying the companies as to why I would not buy PAD’s books anymore. If I was trying to affect his livlihood I would have also notified whoever publishes his novels (which I don’t read), and whoever airs Space Cases (which I don’t watch). A possible mistake I made was sending the e-mail to Joe Quesada’s personal e-mail address. I maybe should have tried harder to find his work related address.
Third. As far as PAD’s political views not carrying over to his work, has anyone read Captain Marvel #13/48? Does anyone really think this is NOT about Afghanistan and/or Iraq? Perhaps I should have mentioned this specifically, but to be honest, I didn’t think my e-mail would even be given a second thought by the powers-that-be. Apparently I was wrong.
Fourth. I would like to thank Joe Quesada for forwarding my e-mail to PAD. At least that way it got read, unlike when I tried to send e-mails to PAD personally. But I understand. They probably ended up in his junk mail folder.
Fifth. No, I have not been banned from this forum (yet). I have not posted here in the past simply because I find message boards, or forums, or whatever you want to call them, a rather unsatisfying way to hold a conversation or conduct a debate. I’m sure you all disagree, but that is just my opinion.
And lastly (I think, though I might think of something else), for those of you who called me scummy, dìçk-hëád, and what-not, hey, opinions are like a-holes, everybody has one and they all stink.
I thought of something else. For those who think it is ok to strongly disagree with someones political beliefs, and still help to finance them (PAD’s remarks about Charlton Heston comes to mind), it is my OPINION that you lack the courage of your convictions. That is all.
Questions? Comments? weewillyreefer@hotmail.com
czerillo:
Seperate the sin from the sinner.
Yer on a 2 edged sword here.
If you deny his rights, you deny yours. And vice versa.
David:
The Act is primarily about wiretap administration and money laundering.
And which of those two items was used to justify the Act’s role in taking down a Stargate fan site a month or two back?
[http://www.sg1archive.com/nightmare.shtml , in case you aren’t familiar with it.]
By the way, what’s wrong with Carrot Top apart from the fact that he is the least funny comedian since Joe Piscopo?
Y’know, for a minute there I read that as “funniest” rather than “least funny” and was all set to fear for your mental state. At least at this point, all I can do is say that Piscopo isn’t nearly in Carrot-Top territory: I think Piscopo managed to do at least one or two funny things a year when in his prime.
Czerillo:
First, kudos for showing up here to talk about this. People weren’t wondering whether you’d been banned — they were wondering whether a person who’d recently been banned happened to be the same person who wrote the letter. There is a difference.
Second — a quick correction. Given that “Space Cases” has been off the air for a number of years, I think your information is just a wee bit out of date. Just FYI.
TWL
Czerillo:
>For those who think it is ok to strongly disagree with someones political beliefs, and still help to finance them (PAD’s remarks about Charlton Heston comes to mind), it is my OPINION that you lack the courage of your convictions. That is all.
What does courage of conviction have to do with buying a product from someone whose personal opinion I disagree with? Unless the guy spends the money that I give him to club homeless, drug-addicted, baby seals, how does one positively or negatively influence the other? Possibly a more important question….. since you enjoy the man’s professional work and cite him as one of the best writers in comics, why would you deprive yourself of the enjoyment of product and send letters to his bosses based on a difference in preference?
Fred
Czerillo: I find message boards, or forums, or whatever you want to call them, a rather unsatisfying way to hold a conversation or conduct a debate.
I can fairly assure you that sending a letter to a man’s boss will not foster conversation or debate either. My opinion: Bad form, dude.
Catori,
I’m not sure you aren’t a bit confused on this whole Kranish book deal. The review you link to is to the book “John F. Kerry: The Complete Biography By The Boston Globe Reporters Who Know Him Best”. The book that Darin speak of is called “Kerry/Edwards: Their Plans and Promises”. The book was just stuff taken off of the Kerry website.
I’m still not clear on what Kranish’s role was in all this. Why a reporter actively engaged in reporting a candidate would write an intro to a book that is just an advertisement for a candidate is a bit of a mystery to me. Maybe I’m wrong but I always imagined people like Edward R Murrow as being very unlikely to get so personally involved with the people they report on (but then again, people like Murrow were more interested in journalism than in be celebrities themselves).
“What other reason other than an attempt to solicit punitive measures could the writer have written to Peter’s “boss”?”
Maybe he wrote it because he’s a faithful Marvel reader who felt he needed to inform the company why he was no longer buying the product? There are such people out there, you know.
Zeek. I’m not sure I understand what “Seperate the sin from the sinner.” actually means. Sorry. And I’m not trying to deny anybody their right to do anything. I was just explaining to the publishers/editors why I was no longer going to be purchasing the products. I think that is fair, and probably more than most people do. If someone was to stop buying my product, I would want to know why.
Tim. Thank you for the clarifications and corrections. (Not Sarcasm)
Fred. Perhaps “courage of your convictions” was a mis-use of the term. But what if the guy IS clubbing homeless, drug-addicted baby seals? Would you still buy from them? I’m pretty sure I have a good idea of what charities/organizations/political causes PAD might give to, if he were so inclined. But I could be wrong. As for denying myself “enjoyment of product”, This is something I’ve thought alot about recently, and have come to the conclusion that my personal enjoyment is probably, no, definately, the least important thing happening in the world right now. Someday I hope for it to not be so low on the list, but I don’t see it in the near future.
“Why a reporter actively engaged in reporting a candidate would write an intro to a book that is just an advertisement for a candidate is a bit of a mystery to me.”
All in the name of objective reporting, I guess! 😉 The Boston Globe article was obviously done to provide something (something!) with which to use against the Swiftboat Vets. The article was an act of desperation really… by paid Kerry biographer. http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc89.htm
Catori. Actually I’m kind of getting the hang of this, and maybe my comments about message boards and forums was premature. But, my letters to the Editors were not meant to start a conversation or debate, although JQ did reply, to my surprise. Now I open myself up to comments like “Oh, he’s just mad because PAD snubbed him.”, but, my unanswered e-mail to PAD WAS an attempt at conversation and debate. I only mention this because someone had commented on “going over his head” or “going to the source”. And in response to someone else way up on the thread, I had previously tried to post here, but it was difficult getting signed up. It only seems to work from certain pages or something. I would attempt to sign in, then scroll down to post reply link, and it would still tell me I needed to sign in. But I’ve figured it out. I’m sure to some peoples displeasure.
Me: The Act is primarily about wiretap administration and money laundering.
TWL: And which of those two items was used to justify the Act’s role in taking down a Stargate fan site a month or two back?
Wiretapping. You’re confusing the use of the power with the power itself. Generally speaking, law enforcement officers can ask a judge to order the release of any information that’s useful in an investigation. (You probably don’t want to know how easy it is to get someone’s medical records, incidentally.) The Congress passed an exception for wiretapping back in the 1960s, and the PATRIOT act seems to be an attempt to roll back part of that exception. That’s all it is. Blaming your example on PATRIOT is like blaming a petroleum refinery for an arson case. Reread your article again: all the Act was used for was getting his billing information from his ISP. The “Clean out the room” search warrant has been legal since the Republic was founded.
[http://www.sg1archive.com/nightmare.shtml , in case you aren’t familiar with it.]
I wasn’t. Using this degree of Federal police power on a copyright infringement case is like swatting a fly with a hand grenade. It sounds like an abuse of discrtion, much like the prosecution in Schenck, but then again we’ve only heard the defendant’s side of things.
Peter David: 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?
Luigi Novi: So anyone who doesn
Hmm..
I’m a supporter of the letter of the first amendment (which means I will NEVER support goverment censorship) but not the Spirit as PAD tends to view it. I NEVER EVER think the goverment should get involved in censorship, and I’m a big supporter of the CBLDF.
But on the flip side, if someone opened a pørņ shop across the street from my son’s school, I would be out front protesting it with everyone else. While the goverment shouldn’t get involved, consumers and the public stand.
I’m glad you have the strength of your convictions, and I understand as an author, this means more to you than it would to just a consumer. I don’t separate the artist from the message. Sorry.
Jerry
Posted by: Darin at August 6, 2004 09:04 PM “Why a reporter actively engaged in reporting a candidate would write an intro to a book that is just an advertisement for a candidate is a bit of a mystery to me.”All in the name of objective reporting, I guess! 😉 The Boston Globe article was obviously done to provide something (something!) with which to use against the Swiftboat Vets. The article was an act of desperation really… by paid Kerry biographer. http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc89.htm
Act of desperation? Hardly. It was an inflamatory ad instigated by men who didn’t like Kerry’s protests after he returned from Vietnam, pure and simple. Elliott had spoke in favor of Kerry during other races and admitted that he had been pressured and rushed into signing the document on the swift boat page and now regrets doing so.
Let’s also once more make the distinction between these men and the ones who actually served with Kerry and under his command. They did not. The act of desperation comes more from a party that sees their control slipping. Ironically this ad will do more for Kerry and damage the credibility of George Bush simply because he did not take given opportunities to disassociate himself from it.
I’m really surprised you’re quoting Drudge tho. Not exactly the thinking man’s news source.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at August 6, 2004 08:47 PM Catori,I’m not sure you aren’t a bit confused on this whole Kranish book deal. The review you link to is to the book “John F. Kerry: The Complete Biography By The Boston Globe Reporters Who Know Him Best”. The book that Darin speak of is called “Kerry/Edwards: Their Plans and Promises”. The book was just stuff taken off of the Kerry website.I’m still not clear on what Kranish’s role was in all this.
Bill, Darin keeps referring to Kranish as the Kerry biographer as if Kerry hired Kranish to write. That book is the only biography Kranish has participated in and it was a collaborative effort between Boston reporters. My posting of the link was to clear up the misinformation being written.
Man… PAD… you’ve stirred up quite a debate, but after reading everyone’s points, I’m gonna have to agree with yours.
Given that the things you said here on your blog did not appear in , nor were pertaining to any of your published work, no one really has any right to complain to the EiC about it.
It would be different if someone wrote to JoeQ and said they won’t buy any more PAD books because Euology claimed that the fans don’t care, that would be different since that actually appeared in Marvel Comic…
but since Captain Marvel wasn’t full of “Bush sucks!” references, then I see no reason for JoeQ to be involved.
I agree in defending “free” speech, and I mean “free” literally, as in I don’t have to pay to hear it or read it and can easily avoid it or respond to it. If you were to ever start charging for this blog, or your personal politics end up being all over your next comic, novel, ect., then I’d complain to the people over your head.
Interestingly enough (well, it’s interesting to me, anyway) I had a brief encounter with a first amendment issue this morning. After 12 years writing comic books, working for Disney, writing a comic strip and several articles, The first time I get censored in the slightest is when working on a pizza menu.
See, a good friend of mine owns a pizza place nearby and asked me to throw together a new menu and a couple of ads for him. Sure, I thought, why not? But the problem I encountered while writing was that I found the project tremendously boring. So, occasionally throughout the menu, I decided to improvise. Amidst the usual disclaimer information, I added the line: “All our pizzas our made fresh from tiny elves bound by unbreakable shackles”.
Now, the owner had no problem with this, so I sent it out to his various advertising people. One of which included SBC (formerly known as Pacific Bell). Nothing for three weeks.
Today, I get a call from my friend. He told me that a very irate woman, who identified herself as black, took great personal offense at the line in the disclaimer information. She felt that it somehow endorsed slavery. Unfortunately, neither myself or my friend fielded this call, as we certainly would have answered with a resounding “Yeah. It endorses the slavery of tiny mythical creatures. And you have a problem with this… why?”. Anyway, this by itself would not have bothered me, then my friend tells me about the other problem. Apparently “discomforted” by the inflammatory wording in the menu, SBC is striking the text. Okay, sure. Not really a big deal. It’s just a menu, right? But, the worst part is, they are going to fine their own proof reader a large sum of money. The incident is going down on his permanent record and he might lose his job. Apparently, my friend is in the process of faxing over all sorts of assertions that the responsibility is not with the luckless proof reader, but with us at the pizza place.
This is ridiculous. Both instances are ridiculous. Particularly since the menu also featured about three non serious remarks (one of which was an entire paragraph about the poor lost souls trapped in the icy depths of the walk in freezer) and a tiny icon of a dominatrix with a whip and a word balloon saying “We dominate the competition”. I’d be curious what other people think about this. It seems really, really ridiculous to me. But perhaps I am simply too close to it.
Welp, I think it’s a bit over the top to say you don’t like something, are not going to buy, then tell the owners who are free to hire/publish freely what to do. I disagree with your politics Cowboy Pete, but I sure as hëll love your books.
Carl (the big Punisher guy at Dreamcon)
until we as a civilization realize that a garden variety anti-Semitic politician managed to kill six million people
Eleven million people were killed during the Holocaust. Why do people always forget the five million non-Jews that were also killed?
Scavenger said:
I DISAGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAID.
If I support the First Amendment . . .
1) Can I say I disagree with your speech, and maybe even say why I disagree?
2) Can I say I think you stop saying something disagreeable?
3) Can I sue for Sexual Harrasment if it such speech happens in a work / government environment (and the speech makes comments of a sexual nature that I find make the environment distressing)?
ALSO
Does the First Amendment protect speech that is “inappropriate” or “immoral”? Should it? Should I be able to SAY things that others find are politically incorrect or that they find immoral? at work? at school? at government functions? to the public at large?
— Ken from Chicago
P.S. Is censorship “okay” if I censor a) what I listen to? b) what my underage kids (if I had any) listen to? c) what someone else says on my property, in my product, with my resources, but don’t try to get others, including the national government, to censor them?
JeffGillmer writes:
“Wrong. The person that wrote the letter is obviously trying to get PAD in trouble with an employer because of personal beliefs.”
Darin responds:
“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?”
My turn.
Here’s a very real scenario, although nobody has tried to retaliate against me, that I’m aware of: Every so often, I will write a letter to the editor of my local newspaper. These letters are openly critical of President Trifecta, and tend to focus on the hypocricies practiced by he and his misadministration. In order to print these letters, the newspaper requires a full name — “Anonymous” won’t cut it, and while I could lie, it’s just easier being honest, and not having to remember what name I faked when they call me back to confirm I actually wrote the letter. I’ve submitted easily a half dozen, maybe as many as eight letters since spring 2003, but I know I’ve had three printed this year alone. So, my opinion has been aired, with my real name, for the world to see.
Now, there are dozens, maybe a hundred or so, of people whose acquaintances I’ve made in this community in the 8 years I’ve lived here since 1991 (I moved away for awhile, and then returned), many of whom undoubtedly remember my name. My place of employment isn’t necessarily a secret, and even those I’ve lost touch with could easily find out through the “grapevine”. If one of these people decides that they don’t like my opinion (I never said everyone I met likes *me* 😉 ), they could look up the number of my employer and complain about me and my LTTE.
What would be the purpose of such an exercise? Clearly they aren’t calling just to “express their opinion” of me. Since I work for one of those companies that is essentially a “monopoly,” it’s not as if they’re saying “I’ll never shop there again,” as it would be akin to telling the city “shut off the water, I’m gonna draw directly from the river from now on” — it’s possible, but the alternative is horrendously inefficient. The only possible explanation is that the filer of the complaint would be attempting to cost me my job, for making public comments about things that have nothing to do *with* my job, in a medium that likewise has nothing to do with my job. (I’m confident that my bosses would shrug and say “so what” and not even bother me with the details, but not everybody has that luxury.)
The First Amendment has been rendered meaningless if a very vocal small minded minority of people can incite fear of reprisal in gainfully employed citizens who speak their mind in public forums unrelated to their job. So no, Darin, the person who wrote the letter to Marvel Comics was way off base on this one.
“Third. As far as PAD’s political views not carrying over to his work, has anyone read Captain Marvel #13/48? Does anyone really think this is NOT about Afghanistan and/or Iraq?”
Only if someone is thick enough to think that the attack on Iraq occurred in some sort of historic vacuum. The words of Santayana and all that. The “commentary” in that issue of “Captain Marvel” was purposely designed to be broad and sweeping enough that it could apply to Iraq, or Vietnam, or religious wars dating back centuries. It was about making a general point regarding man’s history of behavior, not a single instance. But, of course, anyone with an agenda could say I was simply attacking Bush.
“I thought of something else. For those who think it is ok to strongly disagree with someones political beliefs, and still help to finance them (PAD’s remarks about Charlton Heston comes to mind), it is my OPINION that you lack the courage of your convictions. That is all.”
My conviction is that I celebrate and support diversity of opinion, as this country was and is intended to do. Your conviction is that those who disagree with you do not deserve your support and, ideally, should be made to feel the ramifications of your disagreement. You believe in free speech when and where it serves you, and nowhere else, and that is pathetic and sad.
PAD
“If I support the First Amendment . . .
1) Can I say I disagree with your speech, and maybe even say why I disagree?”
Sure.
“2) Can I say I think you stop saying something disagreeable?”
I presume you mean “should stop saying”, and yeah, sure.
“3) Can I sue for Sexual Harrasment if it such speech happens in a work / government environment (and the speech makes comments of a sexual nature that I find make the environment distressing)?”
Can you? Yes. Should you? That’s another matter. I hate that sexual harassment has been corrupted from the very serious offense that it was–a boss using his power of hire-and-fire over a female employee to force sexual favors from her–into such an amorphous mess that a random woman who overhears a joke she doesn’t like can file a lawsuit. Frankly, I think the “You’re sexually harassing me” mentality we see in today’s workplace doesn’t empower women, but depowers them. It implies that they cannot handle boorish coworkers on their own, but instead are oversensitive and need the courts to step in, and I think that’s insulting to women.
“Does the First Amendment protect speech that is “inappropriate” or “immoral”? Should it? Should I be able to SAY things that others find are politically incorrect or that they find immoral? at work? at school? at government functions? to the public at large?”
Should you be ABLE to? Yeah, I suppose. But there’s the consideration of consideration. Of having a sense of when and where, time and place.
Case in point: There was a guy who hated everything I wrote. Everything. He showed up at a bookstore signing I was doing and stood there for twenty minutes, shouting at the people standing in line waiting for me to sign books, telling them how everything I wrote sucked and what was wrong with them? Now…did he have the right to say it? Yeah. But his timing sucked and was inconsiderate, rude, and designed to try and drive fans away.
There’s nothing wrong with hammering nails. But doing it at 3 in the morning when the neighbors are trying to sleep…there’s something wrong with that.
Showing up on my website and complaining to me about my opinions here…nothing wrong with that. But turning around and making a point of bìŧçhìņg about me to an employer with the obvious agenda of trying to sully me to that employer…that’s, at the very least, bad form.
PAD
The letter writer is an áššhølë, thats is not in doubt.
But the áššhølë has a right to be an áššhølë.
This kind of reminds me of the “9/11-was-a tragedy-BUT” crowd.
I have an opinion on this that goes beyond first amendment rights….and i apologize to anyone else if they said this first, but I dont feel like reading through the 100+ comments before mine 🙂
Peter, this being your blog…to me its like a personal journal. On a normal basis, we wouldnt have access to your private thoughts, and while it may not be like a teenage girl’s journal where they are going to be upset because you snooped around and found out about the boy they like, this is still YOUR space. And you have been kind enough to let us in, and see whats going on in your life, to an extent. Are some of us going to disagree? Hëll yeah, I certainly do sometimes. But you don’t walk into someone’s house and pee on the toilet seat and leave it there, and you don’t dirty up their dishes and leave them in the sink for them to clean. As far as I am concerned, anyone who comes into your house (blog) needs to show a certain amount of respect. And part of that respect means having a level of intelligence and understanding of what it is that is going on in here, and the privelege they should feel by being allowed an inside view. If they disagree…thats fine, but they also need to realize they shouldnt have access to any of your private thoughts in the first place, and should be grateful they get to learn more about a writer they admire, who in other cases, would know nothing about.
The problem with people today isnt that they disagree. Its that when they disagree, they feel the need to eradicate or ruin the person/thing they disagree with.
Mike
Me: until we as a civilization realize that a garden variety anti-Semitic politician managed to kill six million people
He: Eleven million people were killed during the Holocaust. Why do people always forget the five million non-Jews that were also killed?
We don’t forget. There are just varying estimates of the fatalities in the Holocaust. I will admit that the figures I’ve seen range from four to eight million, so your 11 million is a new one on me. I always understood the six million figure to be the generally-accepted estimate; I’d be interested to know your source. (Lest I be misunderstood, I’m not really challenging you; my history degree is in American Legal History, so I fully expect to be occasionally misinformed in subjects this far out of my field.)
Showing up on my website and complaining to me about my opinions here…nothing wrong with that. But turning around and making a point of bìŧçhìņg about me to an employer with the obvious agenda of trying to sully me to that employer…that’s, at the very least, bad form.
I completely agree with PAD on that point (and the bit about harassment laws, for that matter). I think formal, public boycotts are obnoxious, and the fact that the letterhack had the right to do it doesn’t absolve him of that. The only thing I disagreed with was the characterization of “hypocrisy.” “Obnoxious,” “rude,” “bad form,” absolutely.
PAD. “The “commentary” in that issue of “Captain Marvel” was purposely designed to be broad and sweeping enough that it could apply to Iraq, or Vietnam, or religious wars dating back centuries. It was about making a general point regarding man’s history of behavior, not a single instance. But, of course, anyone with an agenda could say I was simply attacking Bush.”
If this were true, I would still have to question the timing. But having read posts on this site, It’s fairly obvious to me that it was a bash of the administration’s policies, though not necessarily Bush himself.
“My conviction is that I celebrate and support diversity of opinion, as this country was and is intended to do. Your conviction is that those who disagree with you do not deserve your support and, ideally, should be made to feel the ramifications of your disagreement. You believe in free speech when and where it serves you, and nowhere else, and that is pathetic and sad.”
Whether you deserve my support or not is not the issue. It’s the fact that I CHOOSE not to support you. As is my right. And what ramifications? Did Joe Q. slap your wrist? I didn’t expect anything to be done because of my letter. I know I’m not that important. The letters were just a courtesy that I would want if someone stopped buying my product, as I’ve said in earlier posts. Pathetic and sad? Well, that is your opinion. It seems though, that to be consistent, you would also have to label yourself as such, due to your reaction to my expression of free speech, that you do not agree with.
AnthonyX. “The letter writer is an áššhølë, thats is not in doubt.”
Maybe I am. And maybe I am. The beauty of living in America.
“This kind of reminds me of the “9/11-was-a tragedy-BUT” crowd.”
Anybody who puts a “but” at the end of that sentence is WAY out of my league in the áššhølë department.
the comment was made that by supporting someone we have a difference in opinion over values or politics we are cowards our convictions.Im paraphrasing but i believe that was the comment.I strongly disagree with that.As i stated before Ben & jerry may support a cop killer ,but i enjoy the ice cream.I disagree with PAD on some topics ,but i enjoy his work and am actually interested hearing opinions other than my own.Doesnt lessen my convictions just means i can separate the opinions from the work.
Another example, my local comics shop was selling recent issues of Supreme Power in a plastic bag.I thought it was directd by Marvel,i a mistaken.It seems that the owner felt the nudity
in recent issues was something he didnt want the kids seeing.At which point i looked at him like he had three heads considering other things i found offensive in other books that were not so packaged.He in turn looked at me like a fool cause i thought the nudity was not an issue.Disagree with the opinion ,still support the store. Hope i made the point,i sometimes ramble on
czerillo—
There must have been dozens of comics that you stopped reading over the years. Did you write to the Editor-In-Chief each time to express your reasons for not continuing to read that comic? I would suspect not.
And if you agreed with Peter David’s political views, but didn’t like his writing, would you then write a letter to the E-I-C stating so? I again suspect not.
This is what makes your actions the actions of a hypocrite.
Alan Coil
John:
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.
And therein lies the rub. He doesn’t once tell Joe Quesada to fire PAD. He doesn’t even suggest that PAD be fired. He doesn’t even say that he’s organizing a boycott. What he does say, essentially, is that “one of your employees has offended me in some way and I am exercising my right of the free market not to support this author and by extension the company he works for.”
Other than the fact that he wrote the letter to Joe Quesada, (and quite honestly now that I’ve read the letter again, assuming it was complete, I can’t really see what the problem is).
PAD suggest that the letter is an attempt (perhaps) to get him fired. Frankly, I can’t see how more effective or different the letter is than a post I’ve written over at the DC Comics Wonder Woman message board regarding Greg Rucka in which I wrote (paraphrasing) ” Greg Rucka’s writing sucks. Somebody email me when his writing tour on Wonder Woman is over so I can stat buying the book again.
I rather doubt that DC is going to fire Rucka over that post, nor do I want them to. And I know for a fact, that I’m not alone in my sentiments regarding Rucka’s writing on Wonder Woman. So the question is: Was I wrong to write that post on DC’s own message board forum? If so, why? I don’t see it. Help me discern the difference.
JW in Iowa brought up that little story about the poor little Swedish pastor who was 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.”
Actually, from what I’ve read of that, he didn’t “simply” say any such thing. His comments included such brilliant lines as “homosexuals are the cancerous tumor within the body of the society” and “homosexual men prefer sex with dogs and other animals”. The pastor invited the media to witness his willing violation of Sweden’s Constitution (refer to Chapter Two, Articles 1, 13, 14, 15 and 16) which does not give a completely unrestricted freedom of speech.
This is not altogether unusual anywhere in Europe (France, for example, bars most representations of the Nazi swastika; I would also remind you that under Thatcher, there was an effort to remove “homosexual” from the dictionary after the introduction of Clause 28).
I would argue that this pastor was aware that he would be violating the law AND was willing to take the consequences of his actions. Swedish authorities noted that there was nothing they could do IF the pastor had restricted his comments solely to actual Biblical passages (this makes sense as the Bible also commands that adulterers and disobedient children be put to death, that slavery is permissible, that certain foods are not permitted to be eaten and that polygyny is condoned, yet none of those “laws” are upheld within the body of Swedish law). He went well out of bounds in his comments though, as far as Swedish law allows.
This is the thread that finally convinced me to register on Type Key. I took Fallen Angel off of my pull list after number 3. In that issue the lead character says, “Fortunately abortion is legal at least for the moment.” That is a sentiment I disagree with. I didn’t write to you or to DC. I just dropped to book. I didn’t want to force you to change your character’s view, (I doubt that I could), I just decided I didn’t need to afford to buy a book in which the main character turned me off.
It is certainly your right as a creator to give your characters any view you wish. As you so eloquently wrote in the recent CBG, “There are risks to having characters take definitive stands about things that matter.” At least you agree that abortion is a thing that matters.
Deano. To each his own. You buy the ice cream, I will not. Hooray for the free marketplace.
Alan Coil. Your suspicions would be wrong. No hypocrisy involved. Say what you want, write what you want, but I don’t have to buy it.
EClark1849. You’ve hit it right on the head. I’d have a pretty big head if I thought my letter could get PAD fired.
I want to thank PAD for allowing me to rebut on this forum. It being his domain, he could just as easily have blocked my posts, and I would have understood entirely.
czerillo wrote/quoted: “This kind of reminds me of the “9/11-was-a tragedy-BUT” crowd.”
Anybody who puts a “but” at the end of that sentence is WAY out of my league in the áššhølë department.
Agreed.
I want to thank PAD for allowing me to rebut on this forum. It being his domain, he could just as easily have blocked my posts, and I would have understood entirely.
That should further absolve you of the “hypoctite” label, but it does rather nicely sum up the difference between your attitude toward disagreeable speech and PAD’s: he avoids depriving people of even private fora for their opinions except in extremis. I think his attitude makes for a healthier society than yours does. That doesn’t make you a bad person, but I sharply disagree with your methods.
I would argue that this pastor was aware that he would be violating the law AND was willing to take the consequences of his actions. Swedish authorities noted that there was nothing they could do IF the pastor had restricted his comments solely to actual Biblical passages (this makes sense as the Bible also commands that adulterers and disobedient children be put to death, that slavery is permissible, that certain foods are not permitted to be eaten and that polygyny is condoned, yet none of those “laws” are upheld within the body of Swedish law). He went well out of bounds in his comments though, as far as Swedish law allows.
And that’s just another reason for me not to move back to my ancestral homeland (along with the weather and not actually speaking Swedish). The Swedish law is indefensible if it’s being accurately portrayed on this blog. I’m not thrilled about gay-bashing either (as Eddie Izzard says, it should be done in a closet and away from respectable people), but that doesn’t mean it’s worth sending someone to prison. In the United States, we send someone to prison for fighting words, for soliciting desertion (Schenck), for inciting a riot, but not for mouthing off.
“Why you think they (or I) are or were
I missed the following in Ken’s earlier posting:
“P.S. Is censorship “okay” if I censor a) what I listen to? b) what my underage kids (if I had any) listen to? c) what someone else says on my property, in my product, with my resources, but don’t try to get others, including the national government, to censor them?”
I don’t know what A: “censor what I listen to” means. If you mean is it okay that you heard something you didn’t like and therefore attempt to censor it so no one else hears it, no, that’s not all right. If you mean do you have the right to select what it is you choose and do not choose to listen to…yes, of course that’s all right. Freedom of speech should also mean the right to freedom FROM speech. No one should be FORCED to listen or watch material they find objectionable.
The thing is, freedom from speech should end at your channel selector. You choose what you want to see and not see. But if you don’t want to see it, don’t start going after sponsors or lobbying congress with the intention of driving it off the air so that I or someone else can’t see it.
In terms of (B), absolutely. Overseeing your child’s viewing or listening is your prerogative and responsibility. It’s also work. A lot of parents these days seem to lack the parenting tools to control their kid’s viewing habits. When I was a kid, there was certain shows that my dad did not want me to see. And he said, “You cannot watch these shows.” And if those shows were on and my folks weren’t home, even if I were home alone, such was my respect for my father’s edicts that I wouldn’t dare turn them on (at some level I just thought he’d KNOW somehow.)
As for (C), I’m not trying to be difficult, but you got so many conditional clauses in there that I read it three times and I’m still not sure what you’re asking. So I’ll go with “maybe.”
PAD
“If this were true, I would still have to question the timing. But having read posts on this site, It’s fairly obvious to me that it was a bash of the administration’s policies, though not necessarily Bush himself.”
Well, gee, I’m glad that you’re willing to place your own agenda over what I said the story was about. The “timing?” The point is that it could have seen print at any time in exactly the same form and been about just about any occupant in a top position of power in any country with a military for the last hundred years.
I mean, why stop there? Since my views on Bush’s actions are well known, why not just say that the entire story arc focusing on Captain Marvel’s insanity was one long, prolonged bashing of Bush? That works, right? The story of a guy so overwhelmed with power that he just goes completely nuts, sees things that aren’t there, plays soldier, keeps a gun at his side like a cowboy (Texas angle! Reference to Bush with Saddam’s gun! See the evil liberal subtext?) and attacks whoever catches his eye…all while trying to please his father. Why heck, I even brought up the father angle explicitly in Captain Marvel #5, so that’s what the whole series has to be about, right? Bush destroying the universe. Makes perfect sense.
By the way, another poster made a very valid point. Since you claim you were just being a conscientious consumer, rather than trying to retaliate against me, just how many times in the past have you written to the EIC when you dropped a book for whatever reason. I’m curious.
PAD
Peter David said:
Your conviction is that those who disagree with you do not deserve your support and, ideally, should be made to feel the ramifications of your disagreement. You believe in free speech when and where it serves you, and nowhere else, and that is pathetic and sad.
So, in other words, if I boycott a creator for disagreeing with (or not liking) him outside of his work, I am against his freedom of speech? Do you have any idea how emotionally mature you have to be in order to separate art from artist? What about the opposite? What happens if you support art not for its own quality, but for the quality of the artist? For instance, you buy a book because you agree with the artist’s political views, not necessarily because you enjoy the book, (although enjoyment might take place). Is that also against freedom of speech?
There are just varying estimates of the fatalities in the Holocaust. I will admit that the figures I’ve seen range from four to eight million, so your 11 million is a new one on me. I always understood the six million figure to be the generally-accepted estimate; I’d be interested to know your source.
I had a hëll of a time finding that stat. Everybody reports the six million Jews killed during the Holocaust while completely ignoring the other deaths. Here’s such an example:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/h/holocaus.asp
By the end of the war 6 million Jews had been systematically murdered.
But I finally found a few sources for the eleven million total deaths during the Holocaust.
http://www.world-war-2.info/holocaust/
In some circles, the term holocaust is used to describe the systematic murder of the other groups which were exterminated in the same circumstances by the Nazis, including ethnic Roma and Sinti (also known as Gypsies), political dissidents, communists, homosexuals, mental patients, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Russians, Poles, and other Slavs, raising the total number of victims of Nazis to between ten and fourteen million civilians, and up to 4 million POWs.
http://www.holocaustforgotten.com/
http://www.remember.org/forgotten/
Eleven million precious lives were lost during the Holocaust of World War II. Six million of these were Polish citizens. Half of these Polish citizens were non-Jews.
http://holocaust.hklaw.com/essays/1999/99GA1.htm
Between 1939-1945, on Hitler’s order, eleven million people were killed during the Holocaust (6 million Jews of which 1.5 million were children).
This book seems to be the primary source of that stat.
Inferno, Vol. 5: July 1943 to April 1945, by Eleanor H. Ayer and William Shulman.
What’s the difference between a boycott and campaigning? Does David have a right to job security that the President does not? I think either his view of the First Amendment is half-baked or this is just another case of liberals torturously appealing to their one truly held value–a disdain for perceived hypocrisy.
Rev Prez
Peter David: Luigi, you’re reading way too much into what was a flip comment that, had I said it to you out loud in the tone I intended it, you wouldn’t have given a second thought. You didn’t offend me and if I offended you, which was not at all my intention, I certainly apologize.
Luigi Novi: Ditto all around. Sometimes I fail to pick up certain
I guess you can stop buying anything you want for whatever reason you want. And if I personally found someone’s extracurricular actions SO morally questionable (we each have that point of no return, however different)I might well be tempted to stop supporting their other professional endevours if I felt so offended.
But if the person hasn’t done anything illegal, I wouldn’t try to get them fired. There’s a fine line between boycotting (or merely switching allegiances)and becoming an active campaigner against something.
I tend to come down on Peter’s side of the fence a lot of the time (though sometimes a different part of the lawn)but that’s nothing to do with supporting his right to express his opinions. I’m certainly rarely in the same post/zip-code as Bill O’Reilly’s belief system, but I’m not writing to FOX News expressing my concerns over the man.
Opinions are not dangerous unless actions are taken on their behalf that invalidate the right for others to have theirs.
John
Posted by Rev Prez: What’s the difference between a boycott and campaigning? Does David have a right to job security that the President does not?
A couple of people have posted this point. I am surprised, because to me the difference seems obvious.
Peter David is a comic book writer. His political opinions, expressed on his own web site, are irrelevant to the job he does. He should neither be hired nor fired as a comic book writer because of them.
During the 1950s, one of the more shameful things done was to blacklist people to prevent them from working in Hollywood. Many writers — excellent writers, well-qualified for the jobs they were seeking — could not be hired because of this pressure.
(Some were able to continue working by getting others to front for them. The blacklisted writer would write a screenplay, but another person would be the one listed as the writer. Under this arrangement, the studios were willing to buy the work. Obviously, then, the problem was not with the banned writers’ writing abilities — it was because of their political views.)
George Bush and John Kerry are not seeking the job of comic book writer; they are interested in the job of US president. Their political opinions are directly relevant to that job (while their comic book writing skills are largely irrelevant). It is therefore not only fair but a good idea for their prospective employers (the US citizens) to examine these men’s political opinions and hire or fire based on those opinions.
The issue is not that Peter David is above criticism but George Bush is not. If someone does not like Peter David’s writing style, then it would be appropriate for them to write to his publisher saying they did not enjoy the way he wrote a book they published. Likewise, if someone doesn’t like Bush’s politics or governing style, it is quite appropriate for them to take this into account when casting their vote and to comment on it in trying to affect other people’s votes.
This is not to condone either Bush-bashing or David-bashing. If George Bush on leaving the White House wishes to write comics, I would hope his efforts would be judged on their merits. If someone were to try to deny Bush a job as a comic writer because they did not approve of Bush’s views on abortion or gay marriage, that would as morally wrong in my eyes as trying to deny David work on that basis. (It would, however, be quite reasonable to deny Bush a job as a comic book writer if it turned out his writing sucked.)
Please note that I said morally wrong. Like Peter David and others here, I strongly support the First Amendment. No one is trying to take away the right for people to hold and express rude, nasty, or misguided opinions. All I’m saying is trying to get someone fired because you don’t like their political opinions is a low, unadmirable thing to do.
A lot of people… okay, that’s not fair… some people probably don’t know who Ezra Pound is.
Ezra Pound was the “grandfather” of Modern American poetry. The :grandfather: of Modernism in literature.
So?
He was also an expatriate… he disagreed with so much of American policy and its involvement in WW II. He was anti-semetic at the very least. He thought Mussolini was the savior of mankind.
Point?
Without him, The Waste Land by T.S. Eliot would not have been the same. Without him, William Carlos Williams, H.D. and Eliot would not be as prominent as they are.
In other words, “Not With A Bang, but a Whimper” most likely wouldn’t be quoted today.
Eliot and Pound were both Student and Master and peers. Pound and Eliot influenced each other and challenged each other.
Without Pound, possibly the greatest American poet (eliot) would not be known.
I despise what Old Red (Pound) believed, but dámņ was he a poet! And his influence extends to amazing lengths. Separating the art from the artist is difficult at least.
But if you can’t do it… then you won’t enjoy art that much. Because all artists are flawed, because they are human. And even if their flaws are great, it shouldn’t lessen the talent they have.
My opinion as always,
Travis