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
• 
Emotion is part of the human experience, and it has a necessary place in our lives. But in a forum where ideas are being discussed, logic and objectivity should rule the day.
Hëll yes.
Bottling emotion up to the extent the Vulcans did is unhealthy (for humans anyway; IIRC the Vulcan emotions were so strong that they almost wiped themselves out before chose to become a race full of stiffs), but when making decisions or making a case for/against something, there should be more logic than emotion. I’d say a LOT more.
I would like to point out that the ABA stopped coming to Atlanta after the Georgia legislature passed an obscenity law (and i don’t know if it was ever actually enforced or if it has been repealed or struck down, sorry) that would, according to attorneys who analysed it, have forbidden the sale of bibles in places that children had access to.
I would like to point out that the ABA stopped coming to Atlanta after the Georgia legislature passed an obscenity law (and i don’t know if it was ever actually enforced or if it has been repealed or struck down, sorry) that would, according to attorneys who analysed it, have forbidden the sale of bibles in places that children had access to.
P.S. Rex, I blew our campaign budget on beer, snacks, and pørņ.
Well, since that is essentially the entire platform of the party, I’d say that those were legitimate business expenses, wouldn’t you?
-Rex Hondo-
P.S. I hadn’t really gotten a squirrel reference in yet, so I had to before the joke was well and truly dead…
Posted by: mike weber at December 23, 2006 04:35 AM
I would like to point out that the ABA stopped coming to Atlanta after the Georgia legislature passed an obscenity law (and i don’t know if it was ever actually enforced or if it has been repealed or struck down, sorry) that would, according to attorneys who analysed it, have forbidden the sale of bibles in places that children had access to.
And that is precisely the reason why I donate to the CBLDF. Because these laws that exist to ostensibly protect adults from themselves, or to protect children from corrupting influences, invariably serve to restrict the flow of ideas. That’s too high a price to pay to protect us and our children from a “harm” that is neither specific nor provable. Especially when adults can make their own choices about what to hear/see/read, and responsible parents can make those choices for their children.
Books written from a human point of view tend to look at Vulcans as deficient. Sombody should write a book from a Vulcan point of view. To them, humans probably seem like a manic depressive, hysterical species.
“…have forbidden the sale of bibles in places that children had access to.”
Something has just struck me in the back of the head, and I’m quite sure it’ll leave a lump. People are so worried about books damaging kids, oh no, we can’t let them see a BODY PART! And yet, there are kids in that region of the country that are using rifles for hunting. Now, my problems with hunting aside, in the days post-Columbine and these terror alert times, I think giving kids access to firearms is much more damaging potentially than someone accidentally slipping a kid a comic book. And yet, you don’t see an uproar there, do you?
And Rex–that joke has been well and truly dead for a LONG time now, like roadkill on the side of the road. In fact, I think Bill Mulligan is thinking of putting it in his next zombie movie.
And Rex–that joke has been well and truly dead for a LONG time now, like roadkill on the side of the road. In fact, I think Bill Mulligan is thinking of putting it in his next zombie movie.
Well, my current zombie move (cough–the forever deade–cough–now available on dvd–cough–makes a great Christmas gift–cough) DOES have a scene where a roadkilled rabbit drags his sorry carcass across a street.
AQnd if I’d known how great a reaction that dman rabbit would get we would have had him in 10 times as many scenes. Oh well.
Mulligan: Check yer e-mail.
Everyone: I strongly encourage y’all to donate to the CBLDF. You don’t have to cough up a vital organ. Hëll, I can only afford to donate at the $25 level at the moment but anything you can do helps.
Gordon Lee has the most personal stake in his criminal case, obviously. But any of us that care about the comics medium and industry, and want to see it remain robust and healthy, have a stake in that case and others as well. A donation to the CBLDF isn’t charity. It’s an investment in and for ourselves, so that we may continue to enjoy all that this wonderful art-form has to offer.
Mulligan: Whoops, just checked my e-mail. I see that you already got my missive and responded to it. 🙂
Everyone: I know you all aspire to be as cool as me. Well, joining the CBLDF will go along way towards elevating you to my level of coolness! Do it! 😉
yea, what bill myers said in last post. join.
Gordon, good to hear from you! Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you and yours, tough as it may be to enjoy it under your current circumstances.
And may you win this fight. For yourself, for the comics industry, and for the principle of freedom of speech.
All: If I sound a bit maudlin, sorry. But this is something I really, really, really believe in. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is the key to the rest of our freedoms and the bedrock of our very republic.
Sean Scullion
And yet, you don’t see an uproar there, do you?
This comes up and then, but yeah, it’s pretty obvious that violence is ok in this country, but not our fellow man (or woman) in their birthday suit.
Go figure, eh?
On another forum, a right-winger made a crack about how the Democrats view the Constitution. I responded with how Bush views the Bill of Rights – every amendment crossed out save one, and I think, based on the comment above, you can figure out which one hasn’t been thrown out.
Posted by: Craig J. Ries
This comes up and then, but yeah, it’s pretty obvious that violence is ok in this country, but not our fellow man (or woman) in their birthday suit.
Go figure, eh?
On another forum, a right-winger made a crack about how the Democrats view the Constitution. I responded with how Bush views the Bill of Rights – every amendment crossed out save one, and I think, based on the comment above, you can figure out which one hasn’t been thrown out.
Considering the Shrub’s documented stated opinion of the Constitution (“It’s just a gød-dámņëd piece of paper”, for those who have forgotten), i find it too too amusing that a righ-winger would dare to talk about how Dems view it.
Or perhaps he was one of those right-wingers who thing Bush Minor isn’t conservative enough…
Considering the Shrub’s documented stated opinion of the Constitution (“It’s just a gød-dámņëd piece of paper”, for those who have forgotten), i find it too too amusing that a righ-winger would dare to talk about how Dems view it.
I guess tyhis is “documented” in the sense that there are documents that make the claim but can anyone actually point me to a source of this quote. I know the guy at Capital Hill Blue said that he heard from two unnamed White House sources who claim they heard it from other unnamed sources.
Which I guess is good enough for blogging accuracy but might explain why the quote has missed getting into more legit news outlets.
Bill Mulligan: It’s just a gød-dámņëd piece of paper.
This is really me, and not Bill Myers impersonating me. You can be sure of that because my name shows at the top of this post, and not Bill’s.
If you don’t believe me, you are a traitor.
🙂
Well, thank God at least that undead jokes are fairly harmless, all in all. Of course, it’s so much harder to get them to stay down than other undead.
Of course, the main similarity between an undead joke and an undead human?
They’re both groaners.
*Ba dum bum*
-Rex Hondo-
Wow, George Bush actually reads this blog? Boy are SOME people going to get audited this year…
Foregoing the quite obvious cheap joke…
Mr. Mulligan, I wouldn’t worry too much. Most genuine criticisms of the current POTUS have been of sufficient verbiage that I find it doubtful he would have truly understood what was being said. Unless he digs fairly far back in the archives. X-Ray may be just about at his reading comprehension level. 😛
-Rex Hondo-
Rex, I can only respond with one phrase.
UHHHHHNNNNNN…..
Anyways, for everybody ’round here that it applies to, Merry Christmas. And for those it doesn’t, Merry Sunday.
Micha-your Vulcan book? I think the word “hysterical” would apply. Somehow I get this picture of a Vulcan talk show with Spock hosting a panel of Soleta, Saavik, Tuvok and Don Pardo announcing. And dancing girls in white robes. I really shouldn’t think about these things when I’ve been working for thirteen hours.
Anyway, something ELSE hit me in the head; now I have matching lumps. What if the kid had gotten his hands on a National Geographic instead? What do you think the reaction would’ve been THEN? Just to satisfy my curiousity, does it say anywhere how many people were in the store at the time?
Posted by: Bill Mulligan
I guess tyhis is “documented” in the sense that there are documents that make the claim but can anyone actually point me to a source of this quote. I know the guy at Capital Hill Blue said that he heard from two unnamed White House sources who claim they heard it from other unnamed sources.
Which I guess is good enough for blogging accuracy but might explain why the quote has missed getting into more legit news outlets.
Okay, i remembered the piece as naming names. Sorry.
However, the story had wide currency, and no-one on the White House end of things denied it…
Which of course proves nothing.
I wish that the Press Corps were a little less pusillanamous (hhmmmm… “timid”) and someone had actually asked the Shrub point blank about it.
However, a failure to deny such a potentially damaging claim shows either a determination to avoid controversy or a fear that taking notice of it might lend credibility.
An Example:
Years ago, a writer for one of the auto magazines said something in his column that specifically questioned the honesty and disinterestedness of Consumer Reports/Consumer’s Union.
CU is known to be extremely litigious about its good name and perceived position of disinterest, and has regularly sued people who attempted to use its ratings in advertising.
The fact that, to the best of my knowledge, they failed to even demand a retraction, much less sue, led me to the conclusion that he was right – especially because CU’s descripton of/justification for the “test” in question in the original article was ludicrous anyway…
Posted by Micha at December 22, 2006 11:41 AM
“Peter, although Bill has been known at times to overreact to a perceived insilt, I too, sense a certain ‘rudeness’ to your style of writing. I don’t know what it, if it is deliberate or not. I can’t define it exactly. Perhaps a stinging variation of the famous British understatement? But I just wanted to say that Bill is not alone in sensing this attitude in your posts. If you can be more careful it would be appreciated.
I should also add that Bill usally apologizes when he overreacts.”
Sorry Micha, the style – I have style!?!?! – will almost certainly remain unchanged. A lot of it is British cultural humour, where we do say horrible things to and about people we hardly know without offence being intended or taken, partly it’s exaggeration for comic effect:
For example (paraphrasing) “I should be more careful what I say in case some guy in a squirrel costume comes running out of the undergrowth and starts humping my leg? I don’t @@@@ing think so!”
If it helps,try hearing it as being read by John Cleese. There’s – at worst – some gentle ribbing intended there, however anyone chooses to react.
Moving on..
A couple of posts (I think Micha and Bill) have – to me – very, very slightly glossed over the ‘harmful to children’ argument. If it comes to it, you can probably get qualified experts to stand up and argue passionately and logically for either side of that. (Possibly you can get the same expert to argue both sides if the appearance fee is good enough?).
The most I’d say is that it depends on the material and the child in each case, which is why we have trials that examine the evidence put before them.
So, new hypothetical: if there is some element of danger of harm to a child, easily quantifiable or not, where do you give the benefit of the doubt? Protect the child, or protect freedom of speech?
Cheers.
If it helps,try hearing it as being read by John Cleese.
Oh dear God, now I’m not going to be able to not hear his voice when reading your posts. And how long before I start assigning actor’s voices to other posters, as well? I’m already thinking about how my own post would sound as read by Bruce Campbell.
You have dealt a potentially serious blow to my mental health, dámņ you.
-Rex Hondo-
As I pointed out in a prior post, the Georgia laws under which Gordon Lee is being charged specify a series of tests a work must meet in order to be considered “harmful to minors.” I would urge anyone who has not done so to read the full text of those laws before forming an opinion about Gordon’s case. I provided links to those laws in a prior post.
Regardless of how one might feel about what Gordon has done, the question is whether he violated the law. For reasons I have articulated in a prior post, I do not believe Gordon nor the “agent” of his store “knowingly” distributed a book that is “harmful to minors” as both terms are defined under the law.
While earning my undergraduate degree in TV/Radio (a field I abandoned after two years, in case anyone is wondering — wasn’t a good fit for me), I had to take a couple of courses in mass media research and the effects of mass media. I read the published results many studies about the effects of media on children. I learned that social scientists had failed to reach any consensus about the impact media content has on children, and the extent of that impact. There are a host of reasons for this, chief among them being the inability of social scientists to isolate the variables being controlled in their studies from the environmental variables affecting children in their daily lives.
There is one thing, however, that social scientists by and large agree upon: parental intervention and involvement is far and away the single strongest influence on how children react to media messages. Parents who take the time to talk with their children about what they hear, see, and read are able to strongly influence how those things affect their children.
This forms the basis for my belief that laws designed to protect children from the harmful effects of mass media are unnecessary infringements upon our First Amendment rights.
Posted by: Rex Hondo at December 24, 2006 05:53 AM
You have dealt a potentially serious blow to my mental health, dámņ you.
And yet you’re still a fine candidate for whatever cabinet post I’ve promised you when the Guy Party takes the U.S. Government by storm in ’08.
And no, I cannot remember which post I promised you. We’ll sort it out after I’m elected. Or we’ll just get so dámņ drunk that none of us will give a dámņ.
However, a failure to deny such a potentially damaging claim shows either a determination to avoid controversy or a fear that taking notice of it might lend credibility.
But this quote was, to the best of my knowledge, only had wide currency in the left wing blogosphere. That’s probably off the radar scope of most people.
It would be like a legot reporter asking Bill Clinton about some of the more insane rumors ftom the hardcore right wingers. “Mr. Clinton, did you and your brother use the CIA to smuggle cocain into Arkansaw? Oh, and was Vince Foster murdered because he was Chelsea’s real dad?”
I don’t recall any denials of those two fantasies but that doesn’t make them any more legit in my eyes.
Given the somewhat dubious nature of the claim (Multiple sources go to a single blogger but not one goes to anyone at the Washington Post or New Yprk Times) I must continue to cast a skeptical eye on this.
Peter J Cleese– While I’m all about the kids, there are some tykes so damaged that virtually ANYTHING could be harmful to them. We’d end up in a Nerf World, with all our entertainment soft and spongy, with any and all hard edges removed.
Unfettered free speech with also have its drawbacks–idiots who take it too far just because they can (and lack the talent to actually do anything worthwhile). Given a choice between the two I’d prefer to take my risks with free speech (but I’m not pretending to be holier than thou–there are plenty of things said and written that piss me off and I see every day the damage caused by the coarsening of popular culture,)
As a White House lawyer, now-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales called the constitution quaint and outdated. Leave it to you to unambiguously compare George W. Bush saying the constitution was a “gøddámņëd piece of paper” — which can simply be confirmed or denied by checking the minutes to a specific meeting — to the fantasy-charges leveled against Bill Clinton.
Leave it to you to unambiguously compare George W. Bush saying the constitution was a “gøddámņëd piece of paper” — which can simply be confirmed or denied by checking the minutes to a specific meeting — to the fantasy-charges leveled against Bill Clinton.
Since nobody–Nobody–has produced such minutes, it would seem safe to say this particular urban legend is a myth. Much like the ones against Bill Clinton.
For me, whether something is true or not matters more than if it hurts someone I don’t like. Your mileage may vary.
I was curious about the statement attributed to Bush so I followed the links provided by Mike.
Here is the relevant passages from the second link refering to Bush:
“”Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a gøddámņëd piece of paper!”
I’ve heard from two White House sources who claim they heard from others present in the meeting that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a gøddámņëd piece of paper.”
The record shows the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States is little more than toilet paper stained from all the šhìŧ that this group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that “gøddámņëd piece of paper” used to guarantee.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the “Constitution is an outdated document.””
This is from a site called Capitol Hill Blue. I’m not familiar with it. But what it seems to be saying is:
a) Two sources in the White House say they heard from other people that Bush called the constitution a gøddámņëd piece of paper.
b) The record, i.e. Bush’s policies, show that he does not care about the constitution.
c) An example of the anti-constitutional attitude of Bush’s government is demonstrated by Gonzales having written that the constitution is an outdated document.
I then went to the first link, about Gonzales, from CNN.
“Indeed, Gonzales deemed international law — which becomes the law of the United States, under our Constitution, when properly ratified by the Senate — to be “quaint” and outdated when applied to the war on terrorism. To say this, is to say, in effect that the Constitution itself is quaint and outdated.”
What the CNN essay seems to be saying is that
a) Gonzales thing international law is outdated.
b) international law was ratified by the senate and thus is US law.
c) In so doing the Senate fullfilled its role under the US constitution
d) ergo: by saying that a law ratified by the senate is outdated, Gonzales is saying that the US constitution is outdated.
Now, as much as I disike Bush, this conclusion doesn’t seem to make sense to me.
It is also untrue that Gonzales said that the constitution is outdated. The person who wrote the essay said that if Gonzales thinks that international law is outdated, it follows that he should think that the constitution is outdated.
The fact that Capitol Hill Blue attributed such statement to Gonzales doesn’t reflect well on it.
This leaves Capitol Hill Blue with two arguments.
a) A quote attributed to the president by certain sources who heard them from sources. I am not a journalist, so I can’t judge the reliability of this information. But this info was not coroberated by Capitol Hill Blue by refering to the minutes of the meeting. It would be nice if the writer of the essay did that, but if he did, he did not say so.
b) The track record of Bush acting unconstitutionaly. This is very significant to the US, a deserves to be discussed, but it does not offer proof that Bush said the statement attributed to him, only that his actions show disregard to the the constitution.
So, I don’t know if Bush said or didn’t say that the constitution is a gøddámņëd piece of paper.
I know that I don’t find the two surces offered by Mike as very reliable as far as verifying quotes.
I know from other sources, that whatever Bush and Gonzales did or did not say, their policies seem unconstitutional (to my untrained eye). Unfortunatly, instead of discussing Bush’s actions we somehow ended up discussing words we don’t know if he actually said.
Posted by: Micha at December 25, 2006 10:14 PM
Unfortunatly, instead of discussing Bush’s actions we somehow ended up discussing words we don’t know if he actually said.
That’s the danger of the “telephone game” way of spreading “information.” Noah Leavitt drew certain inferences from something Gonzales said, and through the magic of “the telephone game” those inferences are now being misattributed as being direct quotes from Gonzales. A blogger cites mysterious “meeting minutes” that cannot be independently verified along with hearsay, and through the magic of the “telephone game” the remark allegedly made by Bush becomes established fact.
The Internet doesn’t help. It allows misinformation to spread like wildfire.
This illustrates the dangers of “unfettered free speech” as Bill Mulligan put it. On the other hand, this also demonstrates the power of the concept of the “free marketplace of ideas.” Misinformation has, in this case, been countered with more accurate information.
My understanding is that a meeting as described by capitalhillblue.com would have minutes.
In effect, capitalhillblue.com reported that, somewhere, there are minutes of a meeting where George W Bush said the constitution — to which declaring his loyalty is his first act in office — was a “gøddámņëd piece of paper.”
In your eyes, a reporter asking George W Bush if there are minutes of a meeting where he said what has been alleged he said is as inappropriate as a reporter asking Bill Clinton to address rumors no one can source that he conspired to smuggle drugs and murder, which you admit is fantasy.
For you, the easy and simple verification of a truth — which can’t hurt someone you do like if the topic gets dropped altogether — matters not at all.
“I’ve heard from two White House sources who claim they heard from others present in the meeting that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a gøddámņëd piece of paper.””
All I can say is that any editor who would run with a story that has that level of verification should be fired.
The sources heard from a guy who was there? No. If you have two sources who were there themselves and are describing what they themselves saw, then you go with it. But if the best you can do is hearsay, then you hold the story until you can get better confirmation or else you just spike it.
There have to be SOME standards in reportage.
PAD
Posted by: Peter David at December 25, 2006 11:45 PM
There have to be SOME standards in reportage.
I was a paid, professional reporter for two years. For real. I worked for a public radio station, and one of my reports was actually aired on National Public Radio.
So, no, there certainly do not have to be “some standards in reportage.” I’m living proof.
🙂
Unfortunately, we live in a hearsay society. I personally know people that don’t believe ANYTHING unless they personally witness it, and even then it’s iffy, and I also know people that as soon as any source but the Weekly World News or Bill Myers says it, they believe it with all their heart.
Bill–NPR report–let me guess, friend–squirrel attack?
(don’t worry, I’ll be right there in Hëll with ya.)
In effect, capitalhillblue.com reported that, somewhere, there are minutes of a meeting where George W Bush said the constitution — to which declaring his loyalty is his first act in office — was a “gøddámņëd piece of paper.”
“In effect” being defined as “not at all”.
In your eyes, a reporter asking George W Bush if there are minutes of a meeting where he said what has been alleged he said is as inappropriate as a reporter asking Bill Clinton to address rumors no one can source that he conspired to smuggle drugs and murder, which you admit is fantasy.
Inappropriate? I said no such thing. I think it would most likely make the reporter look very very stupid in both cases, giving legitimacy to sources that only the most gullible would give credance to. But it’s not my perception that matters–evidentally none of the legitimate reporters out there think much of Capital Hill Blue’s story, for reasons that PAD makes clear above.
I’m not trying to convince Mike Weber to suddenly become a big Bush supporter but he strikes me as someone who cares whether or not the quotes he uses reflect the truth, as opposed to what he wants the truth to be. Anyone who likes Once Upon A Time in the West, Steeleye Span, Mike Nesmith and Fairport Convention deserves the benefit of any doubt.
Posted by Rex Hondo at December 24, 2006 05:53 AM
“You have dealt a potentially serious blow to my mental health, dámņ you.”
It was a dirty job, but somebody had to do it.
Posted by Bill Myers at December 22, 2006 11:01 PM
“I blew our campaign budget on beer, snacks, and pørņ.”
Sure as Hëll gets you my vote…
Posted by Bill Myers at December 24, 2006 08:27 AM
“I would urge anyone who has not done so to read the full text of those laws before forming an opinion about Gordon’s case. I provided links to those laws in a prior post.”
Leads back to:
“According to the law, the work is “harmful to minors” when:
(A) Taken as a whole, [it] predominantly appeals to the prurient, shameful, or morbid interest of minors;
(B) [It] is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable material for minors; and
(C) [It] is, when taken as a whole, lacking in serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors. “
Do you know if A,B and C are connected by a logical ‘AND’ or a logical ‘OR’? (I’m assuming ‘OR’, but I could be wrong)
“I find it hard to believe that anyone can argue with a straight face that a fictional story that includes Picasso as one of the characters is “when taken as a whole, lacking in serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.”
Hmmm.. So someone could write the single most outrageous piece of obscene fiction in the history of forever, but get off – pardon the phrase – the hook by having one of the participants be a famous artist? (If the laws are chained by ‘OR’ I’d have thought it was ‘B’ that put this one in the cross hairs more than ‘C’ anyway)
I’ll echo the ‘Hmmm’ when people are arguing that a naked woman saying “Follow the sound. He’s in there mášŧûrbáŧìņg” ties in with an argument that the strip has no sexual content. I mean, OK, no blatant ‘putty insies’, but be fair, it is ever so slightly stretching the definitions envelope…
Meanwhile..
“I learned that social scientists had failed to reach any consensus about the impact media content has on children, and the extent of that impact.”
I concur. Lock ten experts in a room on this one and you’ll get at least eleven opinions, some of which indicate some degree of negative impact.
“parental intervention and involvement is far and away the single strongest influence on how children react to media messages.”
Yep, certainly agree…
“This forms the basis for my belief that laws designed to protect children from the harmful effects of mass media are unnecessary infringements upon our First Amendment rights.”
Ðámņ, and we were doing so well… 🙂
What about circumstances where Mum and Dad – cohabiting or not – can’t agree on what’s good or bad for Junior?
Or those where the parent(s) are – bluntly – not fit to raise hamsters, let alone kids?
Or where kids are ‘in the system’ and the state has the obligation to act as their parents?
Also, if we assume for a second that parents do have sole authority/responsibility over what their kids get to see, how would they seek redress if other people short circuit that authority? Say someone does give “feelthy post cards” to Junior. As the offended Dad, can I administer a bowel tremblingly terrifying finger wagging, burn down his house or just shoot him dead on the doorstep?
How about if someone tells my (hypothetical) five year old the truth about Santa Claus? Exactly how harmful is that? Enough for a $1000 fine?
(There’s also, btw, a flaw in the hypothetical I posed anyway; If Junior has already seen the material, the case is not about protecting that child, they’re either unscathed or they’re already condemned to a lifetime of compulsive mášŧûrbáŧìøņ and premature blindness, so the best you can do is assess any harm done, punish an offender if there is one and seek redress for any harm you agree has been done. “Protect the kids” really applies only to the next child who could be exposed to the material. Which by my own argument could have different results…)
I think we do need laws to put some – even if it is incredibly basic – kind of common framework in place, I think some material can be harmful to some kids, and I do think that between ‘protect the kids’ and ‘freedom of speech’ there will be times when you have to lick your finger, stick it in the air and say “This is the balance point, in this particular instance, and these are the ‘acceptable’ losses that go with that choice”
If there is a point to any of my ramblings, it’s that we’re arguing beliefs here. The belief that something is or isn’t ‘erotic/violent/offensive material’, the belief that specific and/or general ‘e/v/o material’ is or isn’t harmful to a specific child or kids in general and the belief that freedom of speech outweighs other concerns to such and such an extent in such and such circumstances… These all – to me – have to come down to personal judgement, so it’s hardly surprising that there is no obvious, universally acceptable ‘right’ answer.
Finally – hurrah! – allow me to digress slightly.
I just read that in Sweden, that well known hot bed of social repression, there is a government approved list of names that can be given to kids.
So while kindergarten access to Playboy may still be moot, at least the little perishers are saved from having to go through life as Tarquin, Lobelia or Trixibelle… 🙂
Cheers.
Peter said capitalhillblue should have held out for a more direct source. And, considering George Bush’s suspension of habeas corpus, the quote Mike Weber used reflects the truth unambiguously.
You, on the other hand, compared the rumor to fantasy — your word — not sitting in any meeting minutes that Bill Clinton conspired to smuggle drugs and murder.
For you, no speculation against a democrat is too outrageous to compare to the lapses of a republican, no matter how obvious his pattern of behavior. Pitiful.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 26, 2006 07:01 AM
“I blew our campaign budget on beer, snacks, and pørņ.”
Sure as Hëll gets you my vote…
Unfortunately, it’s a U.S. political party. So you can’t cast a vote for us.
If you want to establish a Guy Party in the U.K., here is a template to follow:
1. Get beer
2. Get snacks
3. Get pørņ
4. Put your favorite sport on the telly
5. Drink the beer, eat the snacks, and watch the game
6. When the game is over, put the pørņ in the DVD player
7. Get elected as your nation’s chief executive and win a majority in the federal legislature as well (as I understand it, in the U.K. doing the latter gets you the former).
I realize there is a hëll of a chasm between 6. and 7. Can’t help you there. We haven’t figured it out yet ourselves.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 26, 2006 07:01 AM
“(A) Taken as a whole, [it] predominantly appeals to the prurient, shameful, or morbid interest of minors;
(B) [It] is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable material for minors; and
(C) [It] is, when taken as a whole, lacking in serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors. “
Do you know if A,B and C are connected by a logical ‘AND’ or a logical ‘OR’? (I’m assuming ‘OR’, but I could be wrong)
A logical ‘AND.’ All three tests must be met for a work to be considered “harmful to minors.”
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 26, 2006 07:01 AM
“I find it hard to believe that anyone can argue with a straight face that a fictional story that includes Picasso as one of the characters is “when taken as a whole, lacking in serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.”
Hmmm.. So someone could write the single most outrageous piece of obscene fiction in the history of forever, but get off – pardon the phrase – the hook by having one of the participants be a famous artist? (If the laws are chained by ‘OR’ I’d have thought it was ‘B’ that put this one in the cross hairs more than ‘C’ anyway)
Well, first of all, I’d argue that the law runs afoul of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But, Gordon is being tried under the law as written, so…
Yeah, my statement was unintentionally over-broad. To be more precise: I find it hard to believe that a comic that depicts a nude Picasso in a non-sexual context could be construed to be “lacking in serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.” The absence of explicit sexual content and the inclusion of an historically important gives this work at the very least a modicum of artistic and literary value for minors.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 26, 2006 07:01 AM
I’ll echo the ‘Hmmm’ when people are arguing that a naked woman saying “Follow the sound. He’s in there mášŧûrbáŧìņg” ties in with an argument that the strip has no sexual content. I mean, OK, no blatant ‘putty insies’, but be fair, it is ever so slightly stretching the definitions envelope…
As I understand it, in that context “mášŧûrbáŧìņg” referred to the act of painting. You know, like referring to something as “intellectual mášŧûrbáŧìøņ.” No actual sexual activity was depicted.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 26, 2006 07:01 AM
“I learned that social scientists had failed to reach any consensus about the impact media content has on children, and the extent of that impact.”
I concur. Lock ten experts in a room on this one and you’ll get at least eleven opinions, some of which indicate some degree of negative impact.
My point was broader than that. As I said, social scientists have difficulty isolating the variables they’re controlling in their studies from variables in the test subjects’ environments. So even if a study finds a correlation between “x” and “y,” it’s impossible to know whether or not that correlation was influenced by factors external to the study.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 26, 2006 07:01 AM
What about circumstances where Mum and Dad – cohabiting or not – can’t agree on what’s good or bad for Junior?
Or those where the parent(s) are – bluntly – not fit to raise hamsters, let alone kids?
Or where kids are ‘in the system’ and the state has the obligation to act as their parents?
My girlfriend has worked in government social services for most of her career, so I know a bit about this. The simple answer to your inquiry is that in cases where parents are deemed to be unfit, the children are removed from the home and supervised by others. It becomes the legal guardian’s job to monitor what these children do. It does not require society to become sanitized. And it still does not justify punishing a man like Gordon Lee for a mistake that has led to no measurable harm.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 26, 2006 07:01 AM
Also, if we assume for a second that parents do have sole authority/responsibility over what their kids get to see, how would they seek redress if other people short circuit that authority? Say someone does give “feelthy post cards” to Junior. As the offended Dad, can I administer a bowel tremblingly terrifying finger wagging, burn down his house or just shoot him dead on the doorstep?
You can refuse to patronize the offending place of business, and prohibit your children from doing so as well. No need to burn down the house or murder the man.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 26, 2006 07:01 AM
How about if someone tells my (hypothetical) five year old the truth about Santa Claus? Exactly how harmful is that? Enough for a $1000 fine?
I’d tell ya both to get over it. Seriously.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 26, 2006 07:01 AM
If there is a point to any of my ramblings, it’s that we’re arguing beliefs here.
I know I’m at risk of being accused of trying to “win,” but it’s a risk I must take. My “beliefs” consist of premises based on knowledge I have gained over the years, and I am confident that the conclusions I have drawn from those premises are logical and sound. I’m not asking anyone for a “leap of faith.” I’m offering facts and logic.
That said, I believe we are rapidly approaching “agree to disagree” territory. Hëll, we may have passed it five exits ago.
I will always support your right to advocate what I consider to be unnecessary restrictions on free speech. I couldn’t be a free speech advocate otherwise. But — I will always fight to ensure that such unnecessary restrictions are removed from the law or never become law. That’s why I donate to the CBLDF, and encourage anyone who agrees with me to do the same.
Posted by Bill Myers at December 26, 2006 08:59 AM
“I know I’m at risk of being accused of trying to “win,” but it’s a risk I must take. My “beliefs” consist of premises based on knowledge I have gained over the years, and I am confident that the conclusions I have drawn from those premises are logical and sound.”
Well, what is a belief if not confidence in premises? I certainly wouldn’t discount your conclusions based on your experiences and interpretations, but after consideration I still have to go with mine, based on mine, so definitely we’re in ‘agree to disagree’ country.
Which is not too terrible a place to end up!
Cheers.
Peter said capitalhillblue should have held out for a more direct source. And, considering George Bush’s suspension of habeas corpus, the quote Mike Weber used reflects the truth unambiguously.
Sorry, “reflects the truth” doesn’t make it true. Wishing cannot make it so. “Fake but accurate” is no way to go though life, son.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 26, 2006 11:22 AM
“Fake but accurate” is no way to go though life, son.
It’s not????
Bummer.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 26, 2006 10:22 AM
Which is not too terrible a place to end up!
I’m rather fond of it. 🙂
Cheers to you as well.
There’s always “fat, drunk, and stupid” to fall back on.
HEY! I’m not drunk all the time!
“Sorry, “reflects the truth” doesn’t make it true. Wishing cannot make it so. “Fake but accurate” is no way to go though life, son.”
Ancient historians used to put in the mouth of historical characters words and speeches that reflected what they would have said.
“Unfortunately, it’s a U.S. political party. So you can’t cast a vote for us.
If you want to establish a Guy Party in the U.K., here is a template to follow:
1. Get beer
2. Get snacks
3. Get pørņ
4. Put your favorite sport on the telly
5. Drink the beer, eat the snacks, and watch the game
6. When the game is over, put the pørņ in the DVD player
7. Get elected as your nation’s chief executive and win a majority in the federal legislature as well (as I understand it, in the U.K. doing the latter gets you the former).
I realize there is a hëll of a chasm between 6. and 7. Can’t help you there. We haven’t figured it out yet ourselves.”
Every great march starts with a single step. A great movement starts with a single man and a dream.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 26, 2006 11:22 AM
“Fake but accurate” is no way to go though life, son.”
Well, “improper, but not illegal” was the wonderful bon mot used by our government’s standards committee to describe some of our government’s actions of late, so there’s a party slogan we could all get behind;
Vote for us, we’re improper but not illegal!
Posted by Micha at December 26, 2006 01:26 PM
“A great movement starts with a single man and a dream.”
Or a single man and a prawn vindaloo…
Cheers
Ancient historians used to put in the mouth of historical characters words and speeches that reflected what they would have said.
True enough, which has made it sometimes difficult to figure out what really happened. At any rate, the writers of Capital Hill Blue have advantages that Herodotus never did and thus far fewer excuses for innacuacies and/or reliance on second and thrid hand sources.
(And anyway, shouldn’t that be “reflected what the writer assumed they would have said?)
“(And anyway, shouldn’t that be “reflected what the writer assumed they would have said?)”
Yes, you’re right.
Thank you for agreeing Bush saying the constitution was a “gøddámņëd piece of paper” is consistent with his preformance as president and, therefore, not in the realm of fantasy.
Again, for you, no speculation against a democrat is too outrageous to compare to the lapses of a republican.