The First Amendment is the cornerstone of our business. Without it, the comics and graphic novels we make and enjoy would not be as vital as they are today. But we live in an environment where our constitutional rights are constantly under attack, and that’s why the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund exists. For twenty years the Fund has defended the First Amendment rights we depend upon, and to make sure we’re around for another twenty years, we need your continued support.
This winter, the case of Georgia v. Gordon Lee will enter its third year. Since embarking on this defense in 2005, the Fund has spent over $72,000 defending Gordon Lee through numerous proceedings – including answering three sets of charges arising from the same incident. The Fund successfully knocked out five of the seven counts Lee originally faced, including both felony counts of “Dissemination of Unsolicited Nudity/Sexual Conduct” and three of the five misdemeanor “Harmful to Minors” counts he originally faced. However, Lee still faces two remaining misdemeanor charges of “Distribution of Harmful to Minors Materials.” If convicted, each charge carries penalties of up to 12 months in prison and a $1,000 fine. This case will finally go to trial early next year, and we need your support to have the money on hand for a vigorous defense.
Defending Gordon’s rights in Georgia isn’t all the Fund has done this year. Including costs from the Lee case, we’ve spent a total of $70,000 on our legal mission work in 2006. This work included two significant advocacy cases: an ongoing challenge to Utah’s draconian new Internet censorship law, and participation in the victorious outcome of Lyle v. Time-Warner, a California case that threatened free speech in the creative workplace. We have also assisted libraries on graphic novel challenges, including a letter in support of keeping Fun Home by Alison Bechdel and Blankets by Craig Thompson in the Marshall, MO public library system.
The Fund also expanded our educational advocacy work with the publication of Graphic Novels: Suggestions for Librarians and The Best Defense: The CBLDF Retailer Resource Guide. These publications are helping to educate libraries and booksellers on how to defend against the threat of censorship.
To continue these efforts, and to prepare for the casework at hand, we need you to take this moment to make a contribution to the Fund. If you need to renew your CBLDF membership, or if you have yet to join in the first place, now is the time. If you’re a retailer, please consider signing up at the $100 level or above, to get your own copy of The Best Defense.
If your membership is current, I thank you, and ask that you consider making an additional gift. If you can’t donate money, you can still help with a donation of original art, signed scripts, and other items that we can auction to help raise the money needed to maintain our work in the coming year. By donating money, collectibles, and/or time, you will help us continue to perform our very important work. And, of course, your contribution to the CBLDF is tax-deductible to the full extent permitted by law.
The work of the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund — to defend the First Amendment rights that we depend upon to read, make, buy, and sell comics — has not abated in the twenty years since our establishment. Please do your part to keep the Fund fighting the challenges we currently face, and whatever threats are on the horizon, by making a donation today.
Your friend thru comics,
Chris Staros
President
HOW YOU CAN HELP
Make a donation to the CBLDF
Sign up for membership!
Order a special CBLDF premium!
Bid on the CBLDF’s eBay auctions
Ending this week: one-of-a-kind Frank Miller, Will Eisner,
Neil Gaiman, and Moebius art & memorabilia, and much more!
For more information go to http://www.cbldf.org
• 
I don’t have to convince anyone (1) I can’t verify what Bush said in a meeting whose minutes I’m not privy to, or (2) he didn’t admit saying it. For those, there is no dispute, so there is no argument, and no need for persuasion.
3 and 4 can form one point. And I’m not arguing 5. Bill Mulligan already admits Bush’s alleged quote reflects the truth (his words), and that Clinton conspiring to smuggle drugs and murder is fantasy (also his word).
As for 6:
Bill Mulligan himself compared a belief he admitted reflected the truth to rumors about Bill Clinton he knows aren’t true.
Again, where there is no dispute, there is no argument. No need for persuasion.
You think wrong. By 5 hours.
And we could make it 7 — if it wasn’t already covered by 3/4 and 6.
In any case — except for what you said above that I bolded (again).
Because Bill Mulligan already established the degree of plausibility of the 2 rumors. The rumor of Bush reflects the truth (his words). The rumor of Clinton is fantasy (again, his word).
Pitiful.
Yeah, hope the future can find my factual inaccuracies when you can’t even find them yourself. That’s totally normal psychology.
No, no, you got it all wrong. Jeeze. If you were someone I cared about it would almost be worth the effort but A- You’re not so B- it isn’t and anyway C-nothing anyone can say will ever dissuade you.
Fortunately D- you don’t care that nobody seems to ever be persuaded by your arguing so in a way everyone wins. Isn’t that nice.
If I have it all wrong, why are you having so much trouble naming one thing I have wrong?
You conceded easy enough for me the rumor Bush disparaged the constitution reflected the truth.
…we could buy a bar and live together forever.
Jesus! What are you trying to do, give me a heart condition?
Ok, ok, I’ll bite…but I know I’ll hate myself in the morning…when did I “concede the rumor Bush disparaged the constitution reflected the truth”?
Posted by Bill Mulligan at December 27, 2006 04:00 PM
“”In the end, by majority, it went to the uniquely Scottish verdict of ‘Not Proven'”
That’s interesting…is there a diifference between that and “not guilty”? For example, if you are found “not proven” can you be tried again?”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven
“In modern use, the not proven verdict is used when the jury does not believe the case has been proven against the defendant but is not sufficiently convinced of their innocence to bring in a “not guilty” verdict. A person receiving a not proven verdict is not fined or imprisoned, and is not subject to double jeopardy. The real effect of a not proven verdict is stigma for the acquitted person. The verdict can tarnish a person’s reputation, as when socialite Madeleine Smith was charged with murder in nineteenth century Glasgow but acquitted with a not proven verdict.”
Posted by Micha at December 27, 2006 04:51 PM
“… it is preferable that society does not try to define ‘inappropriate’ if it can avoid it, and leave it to personal choice.”
As qualified, I’d go along with that.
Posted by Sean Scullion at December 27, 2006 11:40 PM
“Peter J. Poole AND Micha– if you’ll go along with me, here–I don’t know that any challenge to free speech is ever invalid, because it will show people that this is still STILL a thing worth fighting for, and always will be. Now, I don’t know if it’s the holidays or me writing again or what, but I’ve been feelng thoughtful lately, so sorry if this is a little hard to follow. I don’t know that ANY challenge to free speech is invalid, because for free speech to work and be appreciated, it NEEDS to be challenged, pushed to what some people consider the boundaries of taste or law or syntax or whatever. The law is like society, evolving and changing. Laws that worked years ago are no longer valid, and there are currently situations that our current laws are unable to deal with, because these new situations were never conceived of when the laws were written.”
And I pretty much go along with that, too. (Thursday is my day for being agreeable it seems…). See my earlier maunderings about Law and Justice.
On the Gordon Lee case, certainly it should not have taken three years and umpteen thousand dollars to not decide wtf happened…
Cheers
“where there is no dispute, there is no argument. No need for persuasion.”
Mike, I thought for a second that I was using the word argument incorrectly, so I checked my Hebrew-English dictionary to see if the Hebrew word I had in mind is translated as argument. It is. I then went to your favorite place, good old Merriam-Webster, and checked the word argument. The relevant definition is:
“b: a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion.”
My list all the statements that form the structure of your premise, whether or not they are in dispute, whether or not you are arguing them with your own words or attributing them to Bill Mulligan.
In any case, it was important to establish the question of the veracity of the statement attributed to Bush first, since it was the original issue in dispute until you helpfully prooved that said statement is an uncorroborated rumor.
“3 and 4 can form one point.”
No. 3 deals with the question: is it important whether Bush did or did not say what was attributed to him? 4 deals with his actions.
“This mission statement, I think, came after my brakedown.
You think wrong. By 5 hours.”
I stand corrected. I probably didn’t consider your mission statement to be part of your premise in the first run, and then I changed my mind. It is not really important, and quite silly actually, but it is seperate from the other six in that it states your motivation for 1-6. So I now added it.
“The point of his whole argument seems to be a personal attack against Bill Mulligan over the degree of plausibility of two unsubstantiated rumors.
If it requires no summary why does it discredit you?
Because Bill Mulligan already established the degree of plausibility of the 2 rumors. The rumor of Bush reflects the truth (his words). The rumor of Clinton is fantasy (again, his word).”
If Bill already established this (as you claim), and this is also your opinion (or else you would try to dispute it not assert it), why do you attack him for being partisan? And why does stating that this is your opinion and that you are attacking Bill with it in anyway discredit you?
In fact, not only didn’t I discredit you, I sheltered you by not writing in my summary:
The point of his whole argument seems to be a personal attack against Bill Mulligan over the degree of plausibility of two unsubstantiated rumors.
In order to do that Mike quotes Bill Mulligan’s words out of context, thus muddling Bill’s rguments completely, as can be seen by anyone who has read Bill’s original posts.
You are the only one discrediting yourself Mike. I didn’t want to add it, since this kind of I’m rubber you’re glue argument (from the famous rubber v. glue case) does not contribute anything to the discussion. In fact, when we reach this point, as we’ve seen in the past, it renders the whole discussion even more pointless than it was before (and also risks Bill Mulligan’s health). I had some interest in disentangling the issues of the truth of Bush’s statement from the issues of its plausability and te attack on Mulligan. But I don’t have any interest in the more childish stuff, so bye bye.
Sean wrote:
“Now, I don’t know if it’s the holidays or me writing again or what, but I’ve been feelng thoughtful lately.”
That’s always good.
I think the reason Western society has the concept of free speech is (in part) because of its belief that there is merit for the boundaries of taste to be constantly challenged, and therefore this process should not be impeded (in principal).
Historically speaking, western sociatey has been going through a process in which it had legal restrictions on free speech, and many of these were gradualy removed as society began to question its validity as part of a process of pushing the boundaries of taste. So now we accept much that was unacceptable, which is not to say that we should accept everything without question. With or without the law, questions of taste are worth discussing. Today the three main issues seem to be:
a) Parents worried that they are powerless to protect their children from being exposed by extremely powerful media to certain material.
b) Feminists who worry about the effects of certain material on women.
c) The use of free speech by terrorists.
You are correct that the fact that we don’t live in a society where free speech goes unchallenged makes us appreciate it even more.
“Okay, THAT being said, I don’t know that I would call the case against Gordon is a free speech case. Bill, I can see where you say they’re all related. But still, the cynical voice in my head sees this as a “Look how we’re protecting you!” case.”
I think Bill’s point is that by using the law in a case like this, that has no point other than a political: “Look how we’re protecting you!”, the prosecution harms free speech in general. It is the proseutorial equivalent of an unnecessary war.
Micha–okay, THAT I’ll go along with. The prosecution is also damaging their own reputation, and when they in charge of enforcing the laws aren’t respectable, neither are the laws themselves.
BTW, just an aside–I just saw an online ad for Capella University. Bet their singing classes are outstanding. Also bet that’s their entire music department.
I think I’ll make this my last post in this thread. I’ve made my argument as well as I can, and if anyone isn’t persuaded by now they aren’t going to be. BUT — I think there are a couple of things worth clarifying, so here goes…
Posted by: Micha at December 28, 2006 07:45 AM
I think Bill’s point is that by using the law in a case like this, that has no point other than a political: “Look how we’re protecting you!”, the prosecution harms free speech in general. It is the proseutorial equivalent of an unnecessary war.
That’s part of it. For reasons I articulated in a prior post, I do not believe the book at issue in the Gordon Lee case meets the definition of “harmful to minors” spelled out in the Georgia statutes under which Gordon is being prosecuted.
But more importantly, I also believe the laws in question are unconstitutional.
Posted by: ean Scullion at December 27, 2006 11:40 PM
Okay, THAT being said, I don’t know that I would call the case against Gordon is a free speech case. Bill, I can see where you say they’re all related. But still, the cynical voice in my head sees this as a “Look how we’re protecting you!” case.
Sean, I don’t believe the case against Gordon has any merit. I believe that the laws under which Gordon is being prosecuted are unconstitutional and unnecessary. And I don’t believe Gordon committed any crime as it is defined by the poorly written laws under which he has been charged. I believe the prosecution has a political agenda in this case. That’s why I’ve been urging everyone to contribute to the CBLDF — because we need them to help fight this crap.
This is a free speech case, however, because it has First Amendment implications. A conviction in this case could discourage other retailers from carrying certain comics, for fear of being similarly prosecuted.
Anyway, just thought I’d clarify my point of view. I’m off to do some other stuff! Later, all…
Just as the the statement “maybe doesn’t make it true” establishes the “maybe,” “Sorry, ‘reflects the truth’ doesn’t make it true” establishes the quote “reflects the truth.”
I even plainly thanked you for agreeing the quote was consistent with Bush’s performance as president. If you believed the quote didn’t reflect the truth, you never said so.
It isn’t like I bury what I say in a Borat-style consent-form. My posts make extensive use of indentation for easy review.
Each statement forms the structure of one argument. Not 6.
By equating the 2 rumors, he demonstrated his partisanship.
Why do you characterize a plain observation as an attack?
And yet you can’t cite what you are referring to.
I’ve invited you before to “find an instance where I’ve excluded a part of the discourse that surrounded such a quote crucial to its interpretation.” Care to make this a first?
I even plainly thanked you for agreeing the quote was consistent with Bush’s performance as president. If you believed the quote didn’t reflect the truth, you never said so.
Since it made no sense I didn’t bother. Your MO seems to be making up supposed statements or beliefs by people so that they feel obligated to respond. Since I’m not under any obligation to feed this need of yours I did not respond initially. After you kept repeating it over and over again I wondered if there was something to it–nobody would obsessively keep nagging at something for no reason, right–but clearly that isn’t the case.
When I used the phrase “reflects the truth” to Mike Weber I meant it as “is true”. Which is what I thought “reflects the truth” means.
You reply with all sorts of justifications for why, even if Bush didn’t say the quote in contention, it doesn’t matter because it “reflects the truth”. So I replied that “reflects the truth” doesn’t make it true. I should have made it clear that I was talking about YOUR use of the phrase, which is diffrent from mine.
From that you got me agreeing with you, which makes you very happy. Well, I feel special. Merry Christmas.
Pitiful.
There is no ambiguity.
If you’re going backpedal and try to obscure your meaning behind the pretense of casual ambiguity, it helps to avoid the obvious-wording you employed in the quotes I cite.
Not as special as your hope the Future™ can find any of the factual inaccuracies you can’t find yourself. Which, by the way, is completely normal, Psychologically™ speaking.
Ok, feeling a sense of deja vu here, but I’m going to try and jump in anyway…
So, Mike Weber says something…at this point, I don’t even think it’s important what Mike W said, but I think it was regarding the alleged Bush quote that the Constitution is just a piece of paper…and Bill M makes the statement about how he though that Mike W was someone who cared if the quotes he used reflected the truth, rather than what Mike W wants the truth to be.
So, then, I think Mike (just Mike) mentions how Bush’s suspension of habeus corpus reflects the truth of the quote in question.
Followed by Bill M’s? response that “‘reflects the truth’ doesn’t make it true.”
And now Mike’s saying…well, I’m not exactly sure (once again) what Mike is saying on this. Most of Mike’s other posts do make sense, and are logical, so I don’t know if he’s just being stubborn and baiting Bill M and others, or if he’s serious about this whole deal.
It seems pretty clear to me what the phrase “reflects the truth” means. Simply put, a statement that reflects the truth is in some way supported by fact and can be proven as true. Hence, referring to Mike W’s comment, Bill M held the belief that Mike W was someone that usually speaks from a position of fact, rather than conjecture. Going around saying Bush called the Constitution just a piece of paper is conjecture. There’s no evidence or fact that supports that belief. So statements to that effect do not reflect the truth.
It’s not accurate to state that Bush’s action reflect the truth, either, because there’s no fact to base that truth on. It’s conjecture. Bush can act in ways contrary to the limits of the Constitution all he wants, and you still can’t accurately say that his actions reflect the truth of Bush’s quote, because they don’t do a single thing to suppor the idea that he actually ever said those words.
And Mike’s position doesn’t hold up when you use logic, either. Saying something “reflects the truth” does not make something true, in the same way that saying something is red doens’t make it red. The fact that it absorbs the red band of light makes something red, not whatever you say about it. Saying Bush called the Constitution a piece of paper doesn’t mean he did. Nor do his actions that some find contrary to the limitations of the Constitution mean he said those words. Him saying those words, and direct evidence (tesitmony, contemporaneous notes that he said them, etc.) documenting that he said them, proves he said them.
I’ve noticed that “Pitiful” usually means “I have nothing to say”. You might consider a Mike to English dictionary at some point.
I only hope the future doesn’t include Peter saying what someone back in 2000 had to say: “My forum is boring the šhìŧ out of me. It was fun for a while, then Dave Van and Mike Leung showed up, and every one else left.”
Actually I’m not worried–folks here are made of stronger stuff and amazingly, we’ve seen worse. But it’s interesting that some things have changed so little in half a decade.
Let me help you:
…
It doesn’t need to be true for my point above to be true.
That quote — as it applies to me — is in reference to my one and only post to his forum. And — juxtaposing a couple of previous quotes — I didn’t even ask anyone to take my word on anything.
I’m using the word correctly.
OK, one more post.
I don’t dare try to rattle off all of the great people I’ve “met” here, because with my crappy memory I’ll leave someone off and that would be unfair.
The point is, I’ve encountered a handful of trolls here — and dozens of fantastic people. People who have changed me with their ideas and, in some cases, their friendship.
I’ve even had the privilege of interacting with Peter David, one of my favorite authors. How cool is that? 🙂
Only Peter can decide the future of his blog. His opinion, ultimately, is the only one that counts. I can only say this: Peter, I hope you get at least as much pleasure from running this blog as I do from participating in it. And I thank you for letting me play in your sandbox.
🙂
Mike wrote:
“I’ve invited you before to “find an instance where I’ve excluded a part of the discourse that surrounded such a quote crucial to its interpretation.” Care to make this a first?”
I believe I have discussed this issue at length in a previous post most of us would rather not revisit. If you must, you’ll have to go there on your own.
In order to avoid any repetition of that thread, this is my last word.
Wow, that must have been a classic Mike post. You certainly left an impression on folks at diarist.net. Google “Mike Leung” and “nutty” some time.
Yeah, what Bill Myers said. Mike, x-ray, Dee, those folks don’t begin to diminish how much fun this blog has been. It’s the closest thing to the great old APAs of the 80s.
It kind of looks like the serious posters are losing interest. Is there, I wonder, anyone who desperately wants to have the last word?
Pitiful.
I second what Bill said in the post above. I enjoy coming to this blog, and I am certain the majority here can avoid doing anything that will cause PAD to close it down.
Now Bill, I’ll try to drag you again into the original discussion.
I think you made a good case that the prosecution in the Lee case acted in a bad way.
You have also made a very good case concerning the threat to freedom of speech and to comic book readers, writers and vendors posed by such prosecution.
This aloe justifies supporting the CBLDF.
But I think we have to go back to the basic question of principle which is the cause of your disagreement with Peter Poole.
The question is:
Should the law and coercive power of the state be used to protect children from sexual content in art, and if so, how and to what degree?
In this question I find myself understanding the concern of parents Like Peter Poole, that their children will be exposed to material before the parents feel their children are ready.
Certainly we have laws that protect children from drinking, sexual intercourse prior to a certain age, and driving.
You have mentioned that you don’t believe that children are that harmed by such material. That’s an interesting point. I’ve always wondered whether a more puritanical upbringing or a more open upbringing is better. However that is an educational question. We all agree that education is the prerogative of the parents, and if they prefer to bring up their children in a more puritanical way, that’s their right. The question remains, should they enlist the help of the law?
PAD said that the law, by setting the limits of what is appropriate for minors, takes away the prerogative of parents. But parents could counter that when someone else exposes their children to such material, which is something they are powerless to prevent completely, then he is also taking away from their parental prerogative.
Furthermore, children don’t bring up their parents in isolation (unless they are really weird), so what children get exposed too is strongly influenced by the general tastes of society. whic change over time and space.
I also do not share your confidence in the free market. For all I know it could be extremely profitable from a market point of view to sell to young adolescents sexualy explicit material.
So for me there is a dilemma: how to address the understandable concerns of parents like Peter Poole without harming the principle of the freedom of speech?
In a way it could be claimed that placing restrictions on selling sexual material to minors is a way to guarentee the freedom to sell such material openly to adults.
I am uncertain on this issue so I’m trying to present both sides of the argument.
The Impression™ you refer to is one relevant return to a 4-year-old forum page. 1/3 the relevant returns for: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Bill%2BMulligan+Lennie-like&btnG=Search
For clarity: the “nutty Mike Leung” comment Bill wants you to read is stand-alone. The Mike in the forum-page referred to in the post isn’t me.
Correction:
I believe I have discussed this issue at length in a previous thread we are all familiar with but which most of us would rather not revisit. If you must, you’ll have to go there on your own. In order to avoid any repetition of that thread, this is my last word.
Not pitiful, pity. I have pity for you, Mike. It’s also a pity that serious discussions become derailed by childish behavior.
Review the bolded text.
You made an accusation against my behavior here. To substantiate it, you refer to another post.
You persist in making an accusation you can’t substantiate. What have I said that matches that for childish behavior? (Assuming you are making a stink over my behavior here.)
The thing that bothers me most about freedom of speech limitations is the concept that an idea can cause harm. Not one single person has been harmed by looking at a picture of a naked person. Or by looking at a picture of people having sex (we can argue about the people that are the subject of the photos being harmed, but that’s a different matter). An idea never harmed anyone. Can ideas lead people to commit acts that might harm them or others? Sure. But chances are, such folks might very well commit harmful acts with or without the idea presented to them by someone else.
Case in point: Xavier is now 14 months old. A couple months ago, he started spinning. Near as I can tell, he’d never seen anyone spin before. Not me, not his mother, not anyone on TV. He came up with it on his own. Figured out one day that he could do it, and did it. People are creative. They’ll invent things on their own according to their own motivations and interests. Sure, seeing ideas from other people might speed that process, but it’s not the idea that creates the action, it’s the person.
So sheltering children from certain images, in my mind, isn’t really protecting them. Why do such images cause problems for kids? Because of the way their parents the adults around them react. If a kid sees an image of adults engaged in sex, and their parent explains to them that what they’re seeing is a physical expression that adults do, that it’s not something children do, but like a lot of things, they’ll probably want to learn more about someday, that’ll probably be the end of it for a while. But if the parent reacts with shock, horror, outrage, whatever, the child’s going to learn that there’s something bad about sex. Which leads to laws like these Georgia laws being used the way they are.
I’ve no problem with a law that says that you can’t mail sexually explicit material without putting a cover on it. I have a problem with that law being applied to an instance of handing material with nakedness in it because no use of the postal system, which that law specifically refers to, was involved. I have some reservations about handing sexually explicit material to children because I do think that parents should be the ones to teach and educate their children about such matters, but I don’t think the accidental act of handing a child a mature comic calls for prosecution.
Bob you have made several interesting comments.
In the first part you presented an educational view that children are not harmed by sexual images. That’s very interesting in an of itself. It deserves furtther discussion. For now I can say that he people who seem to be the most affected by exposure to bad ideas are teenagers and not little children.
However, assuming your educational point of view is correct, this could lead to two approaches as far as freedom of speech is concerned.
1) Since ideas do not harm children, it is wrong to use the law to ‘protect’ children from ideas or images the way we protect them from drinking.
Or
2) Since some parents do not share your educational approach, and do not want their children exposed to certain ideas or images, the law should help them by preventing other parties from exposing them to such ideas and images.
In the last paragraph of your post you seem to lean toward the second option.
I think we are pretty much in agreement that someone who accidently handed sexual material to children should not be prosecuted. At this stage I’m concerned with three kinds of people:
1) Parents who want to control when and how their children are exposed to sexual images.
2) Artists, publishers and vendors who want to exercise their freedom of speech by publishing and selling or exhibiting sexualy explicit material without being restricted.
3) Hypothetical people who may see commercial or other interest in exposing children to sexual images against their parents’ will.
You have mentioned that you don’t believe that children are that harmed by such material. That’s an interesting point. I’ve always wondered whether a more puritanical upbringing or a more open upbringing is better.
That’s a very interesting question and one I can’t even try to answer with any degree of confidence. I was raised in a very open atmosphere and wouldn’t have wanted itotherwise. I think I ended up ok, despite my tragic number of google hits.
Then again, every day at work I see kids who are out and out disasters, whose parents can’t control them. I see others who were raised in a level of confinement that would make veal feel bad. Both have consequences but the ones with less discipline tend to make more long lasting mistakes than the controlled kids.
BUT…it’s quite possible that a lot of those controlled kids are just delaying their moment of anarchy until later and will end up just as badly.
Furthermore there is nothing so common as two kids from the same home who end up at complete opposite ends of the success in life scale. So you’ve got me.
Issues of race and class may play a part as well. A poor kid with less discipline at home may be in greater danger than a kid who is well off (at the very least, the rich kid will have access to better lawyers when he screws up.) You don’t see too many sons of the wealthy in gangs.
But for every generalization there are many exceptions. If you ever figure out the code write a book. Bestseller for sure.
The Impression™ you refer to is one relevant return to a 4-year-old forum page. 1/3 the relevant returns for: “>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Bill%2BMulligan+Lennie-like&btnG=Search
Yeah but Mike, those all came from you. And the “lennie-like” quote isn’t always directed at me–in most threads you end up using it or some equally lame insult against several people.
And at least I can smile at the thought that should anyone try to look up unkind thoughts about me they will inevitably lead to…you. Which will almost certainly make them want to re-evaluate their opinion of me for the better lest they end up looking like…well.
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: “O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.” And God granted it.
Voltaire
(Don’t get excited,Mike. You’re not my enemy. People care about their enemies.)
Oooh. You didn’t refer to a google search just to show us one page. You referred to a google search because the Future™ is going to google search “nutty Mike Leung.”
¡No, Nurse Ratched, no lo dice a mi madré!
Having a sample size of one child is a dangerous thing. We’re expanding that sample group to 2 sometime in March, so next year I can offer more analysis.
I’m somewhat torn on kids and child-rearing. I’d really like to think that my son’s current well-behaved and helpful demeanor is something he’s learning from us. Yet I don’t really know if that’s it, or is he’s just wired that way, because he’s really very young yet to have acquired many learned traits. So when I see kids that are out of control, I think it must be the parents’ fault at some point…they failed to instill the value of self-control at a younger age. Then again, I’ve seen formerly good kids get involved in bad crowds and take unfortunate paths regardless of good upbringing.
Back on regulating the exposure of ideas…as you can tell, I’m torn. But I think I come down on some regulation as allowed, if it’s restricted to limiting where and how you can sell some material. Require playboys to be held behind the counter, with the covers concealed, I don’t have a problem with. Limiting sale of such to adults I’m ok with. But I don’t think jail time for any breach of those regulations is appropriate. Impose a fine, certainly, but it seems to go too far to allow someone to lose their liberty because they handed out an idea, however objectionable some might consider that idea to be.
I wouldn’t consider any regulations like that to have a chilling effect on free speech, while being reasonably protective of those we might be concerned about.
A lot depends on what is the nature of the “adult” material we allow our kids to see. Sidney Lumet’s THE PAWNBROKER has nudity. So does AMERICAN PIE.
I think you can expose a normal child to all manner of “adult” material, if the material is “adult” in theme and you are willing to sit there and explain it. But some of the stuff that parades as adult material is just vulger trash and will not yeild positive results. in my opinion.
Posted by Bobb Alfred at December 28, 2006 03:20 PM
” An idea never harmed anyone. Can ideas lead people to commit acts that might harm them or others? Sure. But chances are, such folks might very well commit harmful acts with or without the idea presented to them by someone else. “
With respect, I think you are slightly overstating the harmlessness of ideas here…
“Maybe I could get someone else to work my plantation” and “We are the master race” are two doozies that caught on bigtime but didn’t work out so well in the long run. I’d agree that it’s impossible to stop people coming up with ideas, and that it’s the adoption and implementation stages where things can sometimes get sticky, but sometimes you really can’t have the enormous scale of one without that initial tiny glimmer of the other.
“… but I don’t think the accidental act of handing a child a mature comic calls for prosecution”
Thus making “Oops, sorry, my bad!” a universal ‘get out of jail free’ card?
Again, trying to avoid blurring general discussion and the GL case, I don’t KNOW what happened in the GL case but sometimes things have to go to court precisely in order to determine that they were accidental. (Though it shouldn’t take three years to do so, and that does assume some degree of impartial common sense in the process)
Cheers.
1) “I’m somewhat torn on kids and child-rearing.”
Nature v. nurture is one of the oldest questions. People have been debating for centuries and stil haven’t figured it out. I don’t have children, so I’m hardly in a position to give anybody advice. In principal it seems to me that the best course of action is less to protect children from ideas and images and more to give them the tools and discipline to process such ideas when they encounter them. But this is easier said than done, and I’m not going to be required to put this theory to the test any time soon.
2) “Back on regulating the exposure of ideas…as you can tell, I’m torn.”
I think that’s a good starting point.
3) “Thus making “Oops, sorry, my bad!” a universal ‘get out of jail free’ card?”
People usually distinguish between an honest mistake and criminal negligence, unless they are so intent on punishing someone that they don’t care.
4) “I don’t KNOW what happened in the GL case but sometimes things have to go to court precisely in order to determine that they were accidental.”
The courts don’t exist to investigae the details of a crime. That’s the job of the police and the prosecution. The job of the court is to see if the prosecution has done a good enough job.
PJ (I hope you don’t mind me calling you that…we call my favorite uncle PJ, so it’s sorta catchy for me), I guess my point is that those ideas alone hurt no one. It was people acting on those ideas that did the hurting. That’s a distinction, I know, but to tie in Micha’s point, if we give people the tools (morals, ethics, logic, emotion, etc.) to deal with ideas, then less people will act on ideas that hurt others. Slavery and expansionism can only exist when a large group of people don’t see anything wrong with carrying out those agendas. Today, we like to think that most people see slavery as evil, and expansionism as wrong. I think there’s plenty of evidence to support the contention that there’s still many, many people that have no problem with either concept, so long as they’re on the controlling side of the idea. But teaching someone about slavery or the history of the Nazi regime isn’t going to turn that person into a plantation owner or an SS officer.
Posted by: Micha at December 28, 2006 02:08 PM
Now Bill, I’ll try to drag you again into the original discussion.
Curse you, Micha. Curse you.
Posted by: Micha at December 28, 2006 02:08 PM
Not in my view. I believe the only justification for restricting speech is the prevention of a specific, measurable harm. There is no conclusive evidence that media content of any type harms children, and plenty of evidence that parental intervention influences children far more than the media ever could.
Posted by: Micha at December 28, 2006 02:08 PM
Certainly we have laws that protect children from drinking, sexual intercourse prior to a certain age, and driving.
All of the above pose a significant risk of a specific harm. Media content has not been proven to pose a similar risk.
Posted by: Micha at December 28, 2006 02:08 PM
You have mentioned that you don’t believe that children are that harmed by such material.
No, I said there is no conclusive evidence that children are harmed by such material. The existence of a causal relationship between media messages and harm to children hasn’t been disproven, either. But given that we cannot prove a threat exists, and that parental involvement has been shown to be the strongest influence on a child, bar none, I don’t think we have cause to restrict free speech for the sake of protecting kids from “dirty pictures” and such.
Posted by: Micha at December 28, 2006 02:08 PM
But parents could counter that when someone else exposes their children to such material, which is something they are powerless to prevent completely, then he is also taking away from their parental prerogative.
That’s where parental involvement comes in. Parents can teach their children not to accept gifts from strangers, for example.
Posted by: Micha at December 28, 2006 02:08 PM
I also do not share your confidence in the free market. For all I know it could be extremely profitable from a market point of view to sell to young adolescents sexualy explicit material.
I highly doubt it. Any business that wishes to maintain even the slightest reputation for respectability will avoid distributing sexual content to minors. Laws or no laws, the general public won’t stand for it.
I also can’t see anyone going to the trouble of trying to create a black market for pørņ for kids. You’d have to work pretty dámņ hard to stay under the community’s radar screen, all for the sake of getting junior to scrape together a few quarters to give you in exchange for your pornographic wares. Why bother? There’s a huge market for pørņ for adults who have money to spend.
It is more likely that children will end up being exploited by being made the subject of pornographic photos and/or films. That stuff is filth, it harms children, and does not deserve First Amendment protection. I’d rather focus our efforts on preventing that sort of thing.
Posted by: Micha at December 28, 2006 02:08 PM
In a way it could be claimed that placing restrictions on selling sexual material to minors is a way to guarentee the freedom to sell such material openly to adults.
You could make such a claim, but it doesn’t hold much water. The SCOTUS has tried for decades to come up with a definition of “obscenity” as it relates to sexual content in the media. All it has done is create a confusing and vague series of court precendents that have spawned equally confusing and vague laws. The result? Purveyors of entertainment can’t know whether they’re violating the law until after someone accuses them of a crime. That can create the “chilling effect” of which I’ve spoken. Why stick your neck out carrying controversial material if someone, somewhere, can apply a vague law and strip you of your property and even your freedom?
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 28, 2006 07:07 PM
“Maybe I could get someone else to work my plantation” and “We are the master race” are two doozies that caught on bigtime but didn’t work out so well in the long run.
In the case of the former, the U.S. fought a civil war to abolish that idea. We took care of it ourselves. In the latter case, Nazi Germany had to be defeated by external forces. One of the primary difference between the two: the U.S. had a Bill of Rights protecting certain freedoms, including the freedom to express ideas contrary to those preferred by the establishment. Nazi Germany was a repressive state that controlled the transmission of ideas, thus making it nearly impossible for the evil to be fought from within.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 28, 2006 07:07 PM
“Thus making “Oops, sorry, my bad!” a universal ‘get out of jail free’ card?
That’s a false dilemma. Opposing the criminalization of one specific act does not necessitate opposing the criminalization of any and all acts.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 28, 2006 07:07 PM
Again, trying to avoid blurring general discussion and the GL case, I don’t KNOW what happened in the GL case but sometimes things have to go to court precisely in order to determine that they were accidental.
Even in court, one must rely on accounts of what happened, rather than first-hand knowledge of what actually happened. Only the people who were there at the time a specific incident occurred can have that first-hand knowledge.
The fact that we are not participating in the trial does not preclude us from learning about the relevant facts of the case. Newsarama.com has done an excellent job of reporting on the case. Between that and some Internet research, I’ve learned a great deal about it.
That obviously isn’t true for music. Youth make up the bulk of music consumers, and the demand for sexually explicit content is substantial. Explicit lyrics warnings flag this material to kids.
Business considerations for respectability are secondary to profitability. To imagine otherwise is to drink the Free-Market Kool-Aid.
Sometimes profitability requires respectability. The music labeling to which a poster whose name needn’t be mentioned refers was spurred by a public outcry over explicit lyrics.
And does anyone believe that if Barnes & Noble began selling “Hustler” to kids, the townspeople wouldn’t be lining up with pitchforks and torches?
Mike’s right on the free market point. A truly free market isn’t really a great thing. You’ll lean toward monopolies that seek to cater to the highest profit. The only room you have for moral control is with the people involved, and if you allow a corporate system, morality gets insulated out of the equation. Does anyone truly think that the free market wouldn’t hesitate to support a child pørņ market if there was profit in it? The free market already supports the peddling of poison…the tobacco market…knowing that it not only causes harm to their customers, but also to those who are not their customers. You’d hope that morality would come into play and prevent smoking products from being sold. Instead, they’re fighting for their continued existance.
The only reason there isn’t a pørņ market openly available to children is because the current public sentiment makes it unprofitable. Change that sentiment, and we’ll start seeing a different kind of Teen Beat.
As an aside, my wife sometimes looks over my comics…she’ll very pointedly call various issues pørņ. And we’re not talking Comix…we’re talking Red Sonja, Avengers, X-Men, etc. Because some of the art through the years has indeed been akin to pørņ, minues the sex. Clearly, I don’t have that much of a problem with it, but she, and others, do. But that’s an example of a product that at some level is aimed at teens, rife with sexual images.
Bill, unless I’m mistaken, there are countries where magazines like Hustler are in fact sold to children. And the local torches and pitchfork crowd doesn’t bat an eyelash.
Maybe in most places in America there’s still a public sentiment that graphic sexual images are harmful to children, but that doesn’t make it a universal opinion. Native Americans lived in communal tents or lodges. Couples would do what couple do at night regardless of the fact that there were children present. History seems to be silent as to the masses of Native deviant children running around because they were witness to sexual acts.
Folks — I never said the free market was a cure for all of our ills. I was merely pointing out that if a bookstore, for example, was blatantly selling pørņ to kids, people could refuse to patronize that bookstore.
Of course we need laws to regulate the market. I’ve already explicitly said that pornography involving photos or film of actual children is filth that is rightly prohibited by law, for example. False advertising is illegal, and rightly so. Libel and slander are justifiably denied First Amendment protection. But we don’t need the government to regulate everything, now, do we?
Laws that are ostensibly designed to prevent children from being exposed to hard-core pørņ were also used some years ago to charge someone with letting his child look at an “Elfquest” comic which depicted child-birth (and it wasn’t even an explicit depiction — the female’s bøøbìëš were shown but the bulk of the birthing “ickiness” was not depicted). Is this the kind of society we want?
Posted by: Bobb Alfred at December 29, 2006 09:40 AM
Bill, unless I’m mistaken, there are countries where magazines like Hustler are in fact sold to children. And the local torches and pitchfork crowd doesn’t bat an eyelash.
Sorry, should have been more precise. My remarks were indeed intended to be limited to the situation in the U.S. The U.S. Constitution, after all, only applies to the U.S. 😉
In a way, however, you’ve further bolstered my point. If the prevailing culture accepts pornograhpy being distributed to children, then it will be. If the prevailing culture doesn’t accept it, it will be opposed. My only point is that the free market, while imperfect, is not wholly evil either. Sometimes a free market solution is more justified than a criminal penalty.
Posted by: Bobb Alfred at December 29, 2006 09:40 AM
Maybe in most places in America there’s still a public sentiment that graphic sexual images are harmful to children, but that doesn’t make it a universal opinion.
Certainly not. Hëll, I’m American and as I’ve said repeatedly in this thread, I don’t hold that opinion.
Sigh… you know, we could keep going ’round in circles on this one. I think I’m going to go back to “agree-to-disagree” country, because I’m repeating the same arguments over and over. I’ll keep reading the thread — it’s always interesting to hear what others have to say — but please don’t feel I’m ignoring you if I don’t respond further. It’s just that, frankly, I feel I’m running out of things to say — and have some personal projects demanding my attention.
I’ve enjoyed debating with all of you. See you all in future threads!
Bill, I think I see what you’re saying now…not that the free market will stop pørņ from being sold to children, but that the free market will not support such a product unless the consumers accept it. That’s true…a mostly free market will generally reflect the moral limitations of the consumer, as the differences between the American and other markets demonstrate.
Okay, really, seriously, my last post here: Bobb, to be fair, my earlier statements lacked qualifiers. You and (gasp!) Mike brought up some good points and provided some of the shading I did not.
HA! Made ya post 😛
I didn’t say profitability and respectability were mutually exclusive, and you didn’t contradict my point.
Not to regulate the market, but to prevent exploitation. However the law qualifies filth, there is no prohibition against filth simply on the grounds that it’s filth.
Posted by Micha at December 29, 2006 07:18 AM
Me: “I don’t KNOW what happened in the GL case but sometimes things have to go to court precisely in order to determine that they were accidental.”
Micha: “The courts don’t exist to investigae the details of a crime. That’s the job of the police and the prosecution. The job of the court is to see if the prosecution has done a good enough job”
Which often involves arriving at a concensus of where the truth lies. (“Where the truth lies” isn’t that a wonderful phrase?)
Police involvement can be as simple as taking statements, which can be conflicting statements. Prosecutors – in the UK, the Crown Prosecution Service or the Procurator Fiscal’s Office – determine if the alleged perpetrator has a charge to answer and then it goes to trial. The jury get to decide who they believe.
I freely admit that’s an idealised simplification of what should happen, and that there are numerous ways in which that system can fall short of perfection.
Bill Myers, your post of 08:04.
I’ve read your responses to my comments. I pretty much agree with everything you said, but I really just don’t see how you got there from what I said… Maybe we’ve passed through ‘agree to disagree’ and arrived at ‘totally fail to understand what either of us are burbling on about’?
“Britain and America, two countries seperated by a common language..” 😛
Posted by Bobb Alfred at December 29, 2006 08:14 AM
” PJ (I hope you don’t mind me calling you that…we call my favorite uncle PJ, so it’s sorta catchy for me), I guess my point is that those ideas alone hurt no one. It was people acting on those ideas that did the hurting. That’s a distinction, I know, but to tie in Micha’s point, if we give people the tools (morals, ethics, logic, emotion, etc.) to deal with ideas, then less people will act on ideas that hurt others. Slavery and expansionism can only exist when a large group of people don’t see anything wrong with carrying out those agendas”
PJ is fine, probably 75% of the people I know call me that anyway. I agree with a lot of what you say, but I think you missed my point – that the seed of an idea, falling into fertile cultural ground, as you describe above, can – in some cases – directly lead to harm that would not and indeed could not have occurred without the original idea.
Which is the price of ideas, and one worth paying. Ideas can and do change the world, which is always scary and always carries the potential for harm.
Cheers.
Okay, I’m going to stop promising not to post as its a promise I keep about as well as a someone with raging alcoholism vowing not to drink anymore.
But I really am disengaging from the debate. I’ve posted so many times this week that: a) PAD’s blog reeks way too much of me and that’s uncool; and b) people can justifiably question whether or not I have a job or a life.
Peter J. Poole, I’m not entirely sure which “how you got there from what I said” you’re referring to (there are at least a couple in my last response to you). Under other circumstances I might try to explore the misunderstanding in order to correct it. But I think this blog and I need to spend at least a couple of days apart, for both our sakes. 😉
Suffice to say that regardless of the initial friction between us, I have enjoyed our exchanges in this thread and hope you have as well. While there may still be some lingering misunderstandings between us, I think I understand your positions now better than I did initially, and that alone is worth something. I look forward to future exchanges with you.
I opted to sit this one out.
Happy New Year. y’all!
😉
Bill…is THAT what that smell was? 😉
PJ, I agree, and admit I’m drawing a fine distiction (it’s not the fall that kills you, it’s the sudden stop at the end). I think the risk is that too many see the idea being the thing they think they can stop, when it’s really the fertile ground they should be worried about. I’ll risk using Columbine as an example. Don’t worry so much about games like Doom and such inciting kids to go on shooting rampages. Worry more about the lack of compassion that allows a kid to develop the mentality that says it’s ok to bust into your school and kill people because you were picked on.