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 was assuming that “reflects the truth” means something different to you than it does to me, since to you it can mean, apparently, “what I (Mike) thinks is true” as opposed to “What actually happened”.
I certainly don’t want to put words in your mouth, so let me ask you outright–does it matter if the quote is true?
Did you just ask me if it matters if George W Bush admitted he isn’t qualified to fulfill his oath of office?
Bill, I think you wanted to ask “does it matter” to you (Mike) “if the quote is true?”
The answer, in this case, seems to be no.
As for myself. Trying to verify the alleged quote seems to me to distract from the real issue which is Bush’s actions.
In which case?
Did you just say that if it isn’t important to you (“As for myself. Trying to verify the alleged quote seems to me to distract from the real issue”), it just isn’t important (“The answer, in this case, seems to be no”)?
You should have told us you were issuing dictums that establishing motive is unimportant. It saves the courtrooms of the world the wasted effort of trying to establish it.
Did you just ask me if it matters if George W Bush admitted he isn’t qualified to fulfill his oath of office?
Err…no. I was asking if it mattered to you whether or not the alleged quote was an actual quote or just a story someone has made up. I’m getting the sense that you belive that it doesn’t matter, so I asked you outright. Didn’t think it was all that confusing a question but I’m happy to clarify.
Ancient historians used to put in the mouth of historical characters words and speeches that reflected what they would have said.
Ancient historians used to? Hëll, history is still written by the winners. Ain’t nothing changing that fact any time in the forseeable future.
As to the “protect the kids” debate, (without scouring for quotes and all) doesn’t there have to be a line somewhere? True, Gordon Lee’s case belongs in the “whoopsie” file more than it belongs in court, but if (purely hypothetical) creepy, greasy shop owner Bob is handing out hardcore pørņ to kids, surely parents need some legal recourse beyond “just don’t shop there.”
-Rex Hondo-
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.
Thank you very much, i think.
As to whether i care about the truth of what i quote – yes, i do.
And, like a dámņëd fool, i went on my memory of what i’d read, instead of going back and checking my source. Bad Me.
Now, that said, do i believe that Bush Minor might actually have said that (or something very similar)?
Yes, i do. It is entirely consistent with what i know and/or perceive about the man.
This is, after all, the man who said, even before he was appointed President by SCOTUS, that there’s such a ting as “too much freedom of speech”.
This is a man who seems to feel that (A) What he wants to do is The Right thing To Do and that (B) It’s perfectly all right to be a little less than truthful when arguing that we should do The Right Thing To Do and (C) that anyone who opposes his plans to do The Right Thing To Do is a traitor or, at the least, supports terrorism.
This is a man who sees no reason that he shouldn’t order actions that clearly violazte the Constitution, and then gets angry and then accuses of aiding the enemy anyone who tries to tell him he can’t or shouldn’t.
But, no, i have no Evidence that he did, indeed call the Constitution “a Gøddámņëd piece of paper”.
But i think he probabl;y did; certainly he seems to think of iot in that way.
Mike Weber, I don’t think Bush made that statement. He also doesn’t laugh a sinister laugh. What makes Bush a really bad guy is that he does bad things and thinks they are good. He probably thinks he is the greatest defender of the constitution, and that’s what makes him dangerous.
At the risk of riling some folks up, Bush’s thought processes regarding the Constitution of the United States would seem to closely resemble those of a great many “Christians” regarding the Bible. They claim to be the staunchest defenders of the faith, when their interpretations are just as selective, if not more so, than many of the people they claim to be defending us all from.
At the very least, some parts seem to be more important than others, according to some code that most of us rational people can’t seem to crack.
-Rex Hondo-
Yes. If George Bush admits he isn’t qualified to fulfill his oath of office in a minuted meeting, it goes a long way to thwarting partisans like you — comparing the allegations he made a quote you admit is consistent with his performance as president with the fantasy (your word) speculations Bill Clinton conspired to smuggle drugs and murder — from obstructing those who would fix his damage and heal the country.
This post is so far down the thread it probably won’t be read, but here goes:
Peter Poole the Spectacular BloggerMan:
“My instant – and quite possibly wrong – thought on what little I’ve read would be that a prison sentence would be overkill, but that a fine for being – bluntly – careless enough to get into the situation in the first place would not be unjust.
Where it seems to be now is that both sides have dug in their heels, invoked the matter of priciples clause, claimed the moral high ground and left the other side with no graceful way to back down… Which potentially sticks Mr Lee right on Ground Zero.”
I agree. To paraphrase “A Few Good Men” Gordon Lee is in the crossfire of an arguement that is smoke-filled coffee house crap. You wanna argue free speech? Pick another case. This one stinks like yesterday’s fish.
If I were Judge Naraht, I would have either dismissed the case for the prosecutions mistakes or fined Mr Lee $100 and sent him on his merry way THIRTY MONTHS AGO. If I were the judge today, I would dismiss the case with the courts apologies. No one should have to wait 3 years for justice on a case that the most high minded moralist among us would equate with selling alcohol to a minor. This case has long since served out it’s shelf life.
Sean Scullion: “All this could’ve been avoided if the woman had just gone into the shop with the kids. You know, taken an active role in the kids’ lives.”
What is getting lost in this debate is that Mr. Lee was set-up like bowling pins. It’s the difference between paper law and trial law. Now the DA wants to play fast and loose with who is the victim? Case Dismissed.
Bill Myers: “At one time, I was known as “one of the more reasonable posters” in this forum. I think I lost my way over the last few months by letting my emotions get the better of me.”
I believe I was one of the ones who has said that about you Bill, and I stand by it. Reasonable doesn’t mean you are always right. Reasonable means you make good points and admit it when you are wrong–an trait you have shown unswerving consistency. Besides that, I LOVE SQUIRRELS!
Peter Poole the Spectacular BloggerMan: “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 no Santa Claus…?? THERE’S NO SANTA CLAUS!!!?? AAAAWWGGGHHH!! But what about the….and the….? and AAAARGGHH!!!! squirrels in elf costumes!!! get em off me!!!!!
Rex Hondo: “True, Gordon Lee’s case belongs in the ‘whoopsie’ file more than it belongs in court, but if (purely hypothetical) creepy, greasy shop owner Bob is handing out hardcore pørņ to kids, surely parents need some legal recourse beyond ‘just don’t shop there.'”
Any update on a general rating system on comics? I know my SpiderMan subscription has PG-blahblahblah, but is there a system for the independents?
–Captain Naraht
P.S. Before you ask me about Ultimate Spiderman or FNSM I asked for a subscription for Christmas and no one gave it to me 🙁
This digression about whether George W. Bush called the U.S. Constitution a “gøddámņëd piece of paper” raises some interesting issues that are actually related to the thread topic.
In essence, what we are having is an epistemological debate. Epistemology is a branch of philosophy concerned with the nature, scope, and validity of knowledge.
mike weber has acknowledged he has no evidence George W. Bush called the U.S. Constitution a “gøddámņëd piece of paper,” but nevertheless believes it is “probably” true because it is consistent with his perception of the president. Mike Leung (he posts as “Mike,” but I’m using his last name to avoid confusion with mike weber) insists that hearsay and a citation of minutes that have not been proven to exist provide satisfactory evidence, again because the alleged quote is aligned with his preconceived notions about the president.
Both Mikes are putting the cart before the horse. I believe that external evidence should dictate one’s notions, rather than one’s notions dictating how evidence is perceived. We have no proof that George W. Bush called the U.S. Constitution a “gøddámņëd piece of paper,” yet some accept this as fact. This is how misinformation is spread, and it can be dangerous. In fact, this kind of cart-before-the-horse thinking is precisely why there are still people out there who believe that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda were collaborators. It’s the kind of thinking that allowed George W. Bush to take us into an unnecessary and costly war in Iraq.
Contrary to what some of you might believe, I accept that there are some things that fall outside the bounds of First Amendment protection. Libel and slander, for example, are out-of-bounds — and rightly so. One does not have a right to knowingly spread falsehoods about someone.
Legally speaking, however, the courts have held that you cannot libel a politician (or at least they did when I studied this about a decade ago). That places mike weber’s and Mike Leung’s statements well within the realm of that which is protected by the First Amendment.
Nevertheless, I believe responsible citizens need to be critical thinkers. Before communicating in a public forum, people need to ask themselves, “Do I really KNOW this? How do I know that I know this?”
It took me awhile to get the hang of it, and I still stumble on occasion; by and large, however, it ain’t that hard to do. Any time I am about to make an assertion of fact, I ask myself, “Where did this information come from?” If I can’t say for sure, I do some research. If I can verify the fact using a reliable source, then I go ahead and cite that fact. If I cannot verify it, I don’t repeat it. Moreover, if I can’t verify it, then I don’t allow it to influence my opinion.
Posted by: Captain Naraht at December 27, 2006 10:31 AM
I agree. To paraphrase “A Few Good Men” Gordon Lee is in the crossfire of an arguement that is smoke-filled coffee house crap.
I don’t believe that is the case. Remember, Gordon contacted the CBLDF and requested their help.
I didn’t know Gordon before this case became public news, but since then I have had occasion to correspond with him. He has wisely avoided discussing the case with me, but I have gotten a good sense of the kind of man he is. I am confident that he is fighting these charges vigorously because it is his wish, not because he is “caught in the crossfire” between an overzealous prosecutor and an overzealous defense lawyer.
Posted by: Captain Naraht at December 27, 2006 10:31 AM
You wanna argue free speech? Pick another case. This one stinks like yesterday’s fish.
But the case is still active, and could set a precedent. If Gordon is convicted, it could make it easier for prosecutors in other areas to streamroll local comics retailers and further erode our First Amendment rights.
So, no, I won’t “pick another case.” As long as Gordon’s livelihood and freedom are still at stake, it’s a fresh topic for discussion in my book.
Posted by: Captain Naraht at December 27, 2006 10:31 AM
I believe I was one of the ones who has said that about you Bill, and I stand by it. Reasonable doesn’t mean you are always right. Reasonable means you make good points and admit it when you are wrong–an trait you have shown unswerving consistency.
Thank you. That’s high praise coming from someone like you, who demonstrates high standards of thoughtfulness and civility.
Posted by: Captain Naraht at December 27, 2006 10:31 AM
Besides that, I LOVE SQUIRRELS!
Oh, God dámņ it. This joke will haunt me until I die… and maybe beyond. 🙁
George Bush’s behavior is consistent with a belief that can be summed as “We know we are strong from our dominance.” A belief such as that does not depend on taking his oath of office seriously.
It’s a belief based on a common misinterpretation of the theory of evolution, when Darwin included in one of his chapter titles a phrase common during his time, “survival of the fittest.” Darwin did not mean to imply an ideal evolutionary outcome.
I said the alleged quote is consistent with his performance, and Bill Mulligan agreed. If I deviate from that, please provide the quote.
Oh, one other thing. A certain individual with a grudge has repeatedly asserted across multiple threads that Bill Mulligan is a partisan who glosses over Republicans’ misdeeds while exaggerating those of Democrats. This is patently and demonstrably untrue. In fact, in one prior thread, Mr. Mulligan went so far as to say that the Republicans richly deserved being swept from office. In another, Mulligan acknowledged some of Bill Clinton’s strengths.
Mulligan is a conservative Republican, and I am a liberal Democrat. Yet I find it easy to discuss politics with him precisely because he is not partisan, and because he is willing to acknowledge when his own preferred party is in the wrong. Would that everyone had Mr. Mulligan’s attitude. Our nation would run much more smoothly.
Mike, in this one instance, I will address you directly — but only because there are others who may share your misconceptions, and those others may be receptive to logic in a way that you are not.
You stated that the quote “reflects the truth unambiguously.” I took that to mean that you considered the quote to be a proven fact. Apparently, you believe it means something else.
A quote cannot “reflect the truth unambiguously” unless that quote is accurate. The only way to determine the accuracy of the quote is verify it through credible sources. No one who attended the meeting that allegedly took place has corroborated the story, nor have the minutes been produced. There is no credible evidence to back up the claim that Bush called the Constitution a “gøddámņëd piece of paper.” Therefore it is not “reflective of the truth,” but merely an unsubstantiated accusation. It is irresponsible to repeat it if it cannot be proven.
Mike, I realize you will merely respond by insulting me, as your hatred of me overrides all else. Again, it’s an outlet you seem to need, so have at it. My primary goal was to reach others who might be more receptive, anyway.
Sigh… before anyone jumps on me… if an accusation is worth investigating, it is not “irresponsible to repeat it” until it is proven. Otherwise, no one could ever report on trials in progress.
It is irresponsible to repeat this supposed “quote” from President Bush, however, because there is not enough credible evidence to even make it worth investigating.
Just thought I should clarify. 🙂
Thanks Bill but frankly Mike Leung’s personal attacks have ceased to mean much. You can only go to the well so many times. I’ll continue to engage him on the issues, if it suits me but it seems to me that NOT responding to him A-clearly annoys him and B-probably makes me look better than any reply ever could. A great combination.
And I’ll take exception to being labled a “conservative Republican” if it means (as it does to many) that I would vote republican even if the candidate was in my mind the inferior choice. I’ll keep conservative, though it’s my own version of such–far more Buckley than Bennett (for that matter, I think you are not a typical liberal though, as always, I admit that overexposure to college administrators may have permenantly damaged my perception of waht a “typical liberal” is)
Anyway, Merry Christmas and, more imporatantly, Happy Bill’s Birthday. Yep, I turned 46 today, or, as I like to say, “middle aged”. People yell at me for that. “I’m older than you and I’M not middle aged!” they shriek. I point out that at 50 they are probably well past middle aged, unless they seriously believe they will live to be older than 100. This observation has drastically cut down on the number of people who come to talk to me during my planning period, allowing me to nap.
And, like a dámņëd fool, i went on my memory of what i’d read, instead of going back and checking my source. Bad Me.
Nothing to be upset over–the tale has been retold many many times. At least you aren’t stubbornly insisting that it must be true. And the rest of your post illustrates the danger of such tales: you’re opinions on Bush are perfectly valid and reasoned (which is not to say I agree with them all) and deserve to stand on their own, not be dragged down by the inclusion of an urban myth.
Yes. If George Bush admits he isn’t qualified to fulfill his oath of office in a minuted meeting, it goes a long way to thwarting partisans like you — comparing the allegations he made a quote you admit is consistent with his performance as president with the fantasy (your word) speculations Bill Clinton conspired to smuggle drugs and murder — from obstructing those who would fix his damage and heal the country.
Weeding out the silly stuff we get:
Yes.
Ok. Cool.
Bill Squirrel err..Myers:
“But the case is still active, and could set a precedent. If Gordon is convicted, it could make it easier for prosecutors in other areas to streamroll local comics retailers and further erode our First Amendment rights. So, no, I won’t “pick another case.” As long as Gordon’s livelihood and freedom are still at stake, it’s a fresh topic for discussion in my book.”
I am in complete agreement with this. But please see that my point isn’t that Mr. Lee shouldn’t be fighting this but rather a critisism of the case itself. I was hoping you would quote me on “the difference between paper law and trial law”:
Paper Law: Philisophical stuff. Bill Myers vs Peter Poole the Spectacular BloggerMan. Moralists vs Free Speech. Should comics have a rating system? etc etc etc….
Trial Law: A legal process. Gordon Lee getting set up in the first place, then getting hosed by a DA who changes the victim in his case and takes three years to prove something that should take six months tops–whether you agree with it or not.
My point is, even someone feeling that Mr. Lee crossed the line should be appauled at how this has played out for him.
Capt and Bill: “Besides that, I LOVE SQUIRRELS!
Oh, God dámņ it. This joke will haunt me until I die… and maybe beyond.”
Yes. Yes it will. Heheheheheheheh……
–Captain Naraht
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 27, 2006 11:28 AM
And I’ll take exception to being labled a “conservative Republican” if it means (as it does to many) that I would vote republican even if the candidate was in my mind the inferior choice.
Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa. Never meant to imply that you are some knee-jerk who only votes for one party. I tend to think of you as a conservative and a Republican in the best sense of both “labels:” you hold to certain principles of conservatism, and to many (but not all) of the values the Republican party espouses. But I know from experience that you allow neither ideology nor party to limit your thinking.
I meant it when I said that the country would be better off if more of us had your attitude.
Yeah, I know, Mike’s insults have become devalued currency by virtue of the fact that the market has been flooded with them. But they gave me an excuse to compliment my good friend Mr. Mulligan. I like to publicly stand up for my friends from time to time, and say, “Hey, everyone, this is good people over here.”
And Happy Birthday!!!!!!!
But I find it hard to believe that you’re only… er, uhm, I — I mean I can’t believe you’re 46! You look so much younger!
😉
All right, I’d better make this my last post for awhile, so let’s make it a good one…
Posted by: Captain Squirrel…er Naraht at December 27, 2006 11:36 AM
I am in complete agreement with this. But please see that my point isn’t that Mr. Lee shouldn’t be fighting this but rather a critisism of the case itself.
Sorry I didn’t get that. But seriously, you should know by now how dense I am! If you don’t say it in one- or two-syllable words, it goes over my head!
Posted by: Captain Squirrel…er Naraht at December 27, 2006 11:36 AM
Paper Law: Philisophical stuff. Bill Myers vs Peter Poole the Spectacular BloggerMan. Moralists vs Free Speech. Should comics have a rating system? etc etc etc….
Trial Law: A legal process. Gordon Lee getting set up in the first place, then getting hosed by a DA who changes the victim in his case and takes three years to prove something that should take six months tops–whether you agree with it or not.
A good point, and a distinction I hadn’t given much thought to. Thanks for opening up my thinking yet again.
As I cited him before, Bill Mulligan made “reflect the truth” a qualifier.
I never insisted the quote was true.
This is grounds for you retract from “[Mike] insists that hearsay and a citation of minutes that have not been proven to exist provide satisfactory evidence [the quote is true], again because the alleged quote is aligned with his preconceived notions about the president.”
But you won’t. Because you continue to reserve for yourself the right to mischaracterize what I say and continue your failure to cite quotes to back your assertions. The grudge is obviously yours.
Mike L:
To paraphrase They Might Be Giants (badly):
“Not to put to fine a point on it
Say I’m the only bee in your bonnet
Put a little squirrel house in your soul….”
I think the horse of your point has been beaten to death.
—Captain Naraht
I’d call him a sadistic, hippophilic necrophile, but that would be beating a dead horse.
Woody Allen, What’s Up Tiger Lily?
Well, that’s what you get for denying the obvious, and abandoning any moral ground.
“But the case is still active, and could set a precedent. If Gordon is convicted, it could make it easier for prosecutors in other areas to streamroll local comics retailers and further erode our First Amendment rights.”
I’m not so clear about the freedom of speech aspect of this case.
If I understand correctly, Mr. Lee is charged with violating the law by selling to a minor something with sexual content that he is by law forbidden to sell to minors.
This could be considered a free speech issue if:
1) We assume absolute free speech — namely that Mr. Lee has the constitutional right to sell such material.
2) Or, if we assume that the law is being used too broadly in order to prevent selling to minors something that does not fall under the legal definition. [i.e. that we accept that some stuff should not be sold to minors, and we accept the limits provided by the written law, but think that the standard applied by the prosecution in this case was too conservative according to the limits set by the written law.]
3) Or if we assume that the law of the state is too conservative and includes material that should be sold to minors. [i.e. that we accept that some material should not be sold to minors, but that the range of the restriction should be narrower than it is right now].
4) Or that to prosecution or somebody else is actually using prosecution in bad faith in order to prevent Mr. Lee from selling material containing sexual content to adults, thus infringing on his freedom of speech]. [i.e. we don’t assert the right to sell such material to minors, but we think that the real agenda of the case is the right to sell such material to adults].
I’ve heard on this thread other issues that are not related to free speech:
1) That Mr. Lee is being prosecuted on what was actually an honest mistake.
2) That the case is not important enough to be prosecuted with such effort, but is actually a small offence solved by a fine.
3) That vendors should not be the ones to enforce restrictions on minors — it is the parents’ responsibility.
4) That minors are not that harmed by being exposed to suchmaterial anyway (that’s an educational question).
etc.
I’d like to clarify these issues. I haven’t made up my mind yet.
——–
It is snowing in Jerusalem. It is a rare and beautiful event.
I know I said I would stop posting, but I’m very passionate about First Amendment cases. So, y’know, it’s Micha’s fault. 🙂
Posted by: Micha at December 27, 2006 12:17 PM
I’m not so clear about the freedom of speech aspect of this case.
If I understand correctly, Mr. Lee is charged with violating the law by selling to a minor something with sexual content that he is by law forbidden to sell to minors.
Not so. The comic that was accidentally distributed to a minor at Gordon’s shop depicted non-sexual nudity. As Peter J. Poole correctly pointed out, the word “mášŧûrbáŧìøņ” was used in the comic, but as I understand it it was meant to be a reference to Picasso engaging in the act of painting (much in the same way that one might refer to certain intellecutal pursuits as “intellectual mášŧûrbáŧìøņ”).
This is a free speech issue for a couple of reasons. First, the laws in question are overly broad and vague, so much so that the Statue of David could be construed to be “harmful to minors” as it is defined by the law. Assuming, of course, that you ignore the educational and artistic value of that sculpture. Given that the law provides no guidance as to what has “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors,” that’s a very real issue.
Second, a conviction against Gordon could set a precedent that scares other retailers into carrying a less diverse line of books for fear of being shut down in the event that they make a similar mistake. This is often referred to as a “chilling effect.”
Posted by: Micha at December 27, 2006 12:17 PM
I’ve heard on this thread other issues that are not related to free speech:
1) That Mr. Lee is being prosecuted on what was actually an honest mistake.
2) That the case is not important enough to be prosecuted with such effort, but is actually a small offence solved by a fine.
3) That vendors should not be the ones to enforce restrictions on minors — it is the parents’ responsibility.
4) That minors are not that harmed by being exposed to suchmaterial anyway (that’s an educational question).
I disagree. No concept exists in a vacuum, and these issues are all very related to free speech. No right is absolute, not even the right to free speech. But every time the government even contemplates restricting our First Amendment rights in the U.S., we need to ask questions about issues like the ones above in order to determine whether the speech that is to be restricted truly poses a danger, whether that danger truly outweighs First Amendment considerations, and whether the remedy places undue restrictions on speech.
Thanks Bill for clarifying. I would say that the freedom of speech issues you mention in your reply fall under my 3 and a soft 4, namely that the law is too broad, and that applying the law harms free speech i a way not related to exposure to minors.
Your second reply points to me another aspect related to freedom of speech that I should have mentioned.
5) That unnecessary prosecution with regard to freedom of speech causes harm to freedom of speech in general. [i.e. we do not despute that freedom of speech should be restricted in some cases (to protect children fro explicit sexuality?), but by applying it in this unnecessary case, the prosecution is undermining the general principal of freedom of speech, thus showing poor judgement].
Happy birthday Bill Mulligan.
———–
I think I was able to locate the point of Mike’s current argument.
Here is what he’s saying:
1) Mike does not know if Bush said that the constitution is a gøddámņëd piece of paper.
2) He didn’t claim that he did.
3) Had he said it, that would be significant, but we don’t know that he did.
4) Bush’s behavior shows disregard to the constitution that speaks lowder than whatever he may or may not have said.
All these are basically good points. Although if I recall correctly, Mike at first did claim that Bush said what was attributed to him. But he seems to have stepped back from that.
Then we get to the 5th, which is a little strange.
5) Although, as far as we know, it is untrue that Bush said that the constitution is a gøddámņëd piece of paper, just as, as far as we know, it is untrue that Clinton sold drugs, the first, although untrue, is a more credible fiction than the second. i.e. if you heard the first you were more likely to believe it than the second.
This is somewhat true. But since we established, thatnks to the links provided by Mike, that the statement attributed to Bush is unverified, the level of its credibiility is only relevant in order to establish the level a gullability of the people who though the statement was true.
In the case of Mike Weber, Bill Mulligan already said that Mike Weber’s belief that the statement attributed to Bush was true, was understandable. He was not accused of being extremly gullible.
In the case of the Capitol Hill Blue reporter, as PAD pointed out, the problem was not that he was gullible, as much as he acted unprofessionaly, by punlishing something he could not corroberate.
Then we get to Mike’s 6th argument:
6) That by suggesting that we should avoid believing unsubstantiated rumors about either Bush or Clinton, Bill Mulligan has claimed that the unsubstantiated rumor about Bush is exactly as unbelievable as the unsubstantiated rumor about Clinton. And that this is proof of Bill Mulligan’s terrible partisan nature.
I think Bill is completely correct that we should be careful of believing unsubstantiated rumors, even if they seem credible to us because of our political beliefs. That’s a very important point.
I don’t think the degree of belivability of the rumor about Bush is that important, now that we have established that it is unsubstatiated.
I don’t think Bill claimed both rumors were equally unbelievable, only that they are equally unsubstatiated.
I don’t think Bill is blinded by partisanship, since his initial post was crticism of people believing unsubstatiated rumors, regardless of political affiliation.
Based on my limited acquaintance with Bill on the board, his nature is not terrible at all. The opposite is true. He is quite good natured.
Happy birthday again Bill.
Posted by: Micha at December 27, 2006 01:42 PM
Based on my limited acquaintance with Bill on the board, his nature is not terrible at all. The opposite is true. He is quite good natured.
In general, I would agree with you that Bill Mulligan is good-natured. A shadow has been cast over his reputation, however, by recent allegations that he was witnessed being borderline-impolite to a puppy.
If I understand correctly, Mr. Lee is charged with violating the law by selling to a minor something with sexual content that he is by law forbidden to sell to minors.
IIRC, the comic in question was part of Free Comic Book Day. No selling to anybody involved.
It is snowing in Jerusalem. It is a rare and beautiful event.
Oh please take pictures. The mind boggles. All those folks who stayed away this Christmas missed out on something amazing.
Micha–waaaay too much thinking going on! It’s so much easier to just react emotionally. That said, you seem to have nailed it.
In general, I would agree with you that Bill Mulligan is good-natured. A shadow has been cast over his reputation, however, by recent allegations that he was witnessed being borderline-impolite to a puppy.
Were you there? Were you there, Myers???
Look, that puppy’s got a vicious streak a mile wide! ! Bones of full fifty men lie strewn about its lair!
If you are going to summarize someone’s position, what objectivity is demonstrated in making the summary more convoluted than the actual stated point?
Micha, if you are trying to discredit me, don’t feel like you have to stop at saying I wasn’t in Cambodia on Christmas in 1968, or saying I fathered a black baby. You don’t let anything else stop you.
Posted by Micha at December 27, 2006 01:05 PM
“5) That unnecessary prosecution with regard to freedom of speech causes harm to freedom of speech in general. [i.e. we do not despute that freedom of speech should be restricted in some cases (to protect children fro explicit sexuality?), but by applying it in this unnecessary case, the prosecution is undermining the general principal of freedom of speech, thus showing poor judgement]”
Which still leaves you behind the eight ball of who defines “unnecessary” and how… 🙁
I’ve tried – probably with variable success – to keep my whitterings about the topic in general and the Gordon Lee case in particular seperate.
I don’t know enough about the specific case to have any valid opinion, and without benefit of a TARDIS I never will. That’s why we have trials and call winesses who were actually there, with Colonel Mustard and the lead pipe in the conservatory.
(Which also has variable success; I got called for jury service a couple of years back, and that was an eye opener. It was a messy assault case, with some really, *really* badly presented and self-contradictory evidence and testimony. In the end, by majority, it went to the uniquely Scottish verdict of ‘Not Proven’)
On the general argument, any one case is too small a sample group to be significant.
Oh, and apparently I’m Spectacular! That’s amazing!
Cheers!
Craig, darn you, I was going to say the same thing, and wonder if THAT made any difference to the case. Also wondered if someone in Georgia could throw out a bunch of Playboys, then tell their child to take the garbage to the curb, and if the child found it in the garbage, would the adult then be violating this law? Go with me here, before you say this is different, if anybody was going to, because the employee in Gordon’s shop didn’t realize the book was in what the child was given. So, would my theoretical adult be liable? Something else I was wondering. Do ALL cases in this jurisdiction get prosecuted with the same vehemence?
Zombill Mulligan–happy birthday, my friend.
Micha–enjoy the snow. Send some to Philadelphia, okay? Brian(my 5 year old) said the other day just COULDN’T be Christmas because there was no snow.
And my other co-members of the Guy Party might think I’m nuts or it’s my brain damage talking, but seriously, I thought Mike Leung was being much better, y’know, actually contributing to the discussion rather than just focusing in on one item of minutiae and making it personal.
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?
Sean–I think he’s trying but it isn’t easy.
You have yet to refer to anything I’ve said your assessment refers to.
…applies to.
“It is snowing in Jerusalem. It is a rare and beautiful event.
Oh please take pictures. The mind boggles. All those folks who stayed away this Christmas missed out on something amazing.”
I did take some pictures. Mostly around the house. But my equpment is not that great, and I didn’t venture out, and it was already late. I’m afraid by tomorrow there will be mostly slush. Hopefully not. However, snow does fall on Jerusalem once a year or less. When it does, many take pictures. When I was in the army my commander would present any officer leaving the unit with a collage of Jerusalem in the snow. If you google you will find many pictures.
Christians who would have gone to Jerusalem or (I think) Nazareth, could enjoy the snow right now over religiously significant sites. Beit Lechem (spl?) is probably also covered with snow. It is safe, but it controled by the Palestinian authority. Their Santa Claus belongs to Hamas (I’m not kidding, it was on the news).
If the snow remains tomorrow, maybe I’ll try to go see the city.
————-
“If you are going to summarize someone’s position, what objectivity is demonstrated in making the summary more convoluted than the actual stated point?”
My objective was not to summarize but to disentangle and seperate the arguments, and then address each.
“Micha, if you are trying to discredit me, don’t feel like you have to stop at saying I wasn’t in Cambodia on Christmas in 1968, or saying I fathered a black baby. You don’t let anything else stop you.”
I really have no idea what your’re talking about. But if you’ve fathered a black baby that’s fine with me. In any case, I wasn’t trying to discredit you, just to break down the argument and address its parts.
—————
“5) That unnecessary prosecution with regard to freedom of speech causes harm to freedom of speech in general. [i.e. we do not despute that freedom of speech should be restricted in some cases (to protect children fro explicit sexuality?), but by applying it in this unnecessary case, the prosecution is undermining the general principal of freedom of speech, thus showing poor judgement]”
Which still leaves you behind the eight ball of who defines “unnecessary” and how… :(“
In this case ‘unnecessary’ refers to the professional decision of the prosecution to prosecute, even if the letter of the law was violated. That decision could be questioned professionaly, since sometimes the police and prosecution let certain violations pass since they feel that there is no public interest to pursue a case. Some may argue that this is such a case. I don’t know.
I think you understood my use of the word ‘unnecessary’ differently. I think you thought I meant how to decide what’s appropriate.
That’s actually a very important reason for freedom of speech. Since people differ in their sensitivity to what constitutes inappropriate content, and since defining it according to the tastes of the most liberal members of society or the most conservative members is problematic, it is preferable that society does not try to define ‘inappropriate’ if it can avoid it, and leave it to personal choice.
“I’ve tried – probably with variable success – to keep my whitterings about the topic in general and the Gordon Lee case in particular seperate.
I don’t know enough about the specific case to have any valid opinion, and without benefit of a TARDIS I never will. That’s why we have trials and call winesses who were actually there, with Colonel Mustard and the lead pipe in the conservatory.”
Me too. That’s why I’ve tried to present the principles behind the case and to outline different options, without actually making a choice on this specific case.
“And my other co-members of the Guy Party might think I’m nuts or it’s my brain damage talking, but seriously, I thought Mike Leung was being much better, y’know, actually contributing to the discussion rather than just focusing in on one item of minutiae and making it personal.”
It seemed that way for second, but no. The point of his whole argument seems to be a personal attack against Bill Mulligan over the degree of plausibility of two unsubstantiated rumors.
Pitiful.
Mike, do you wish to correct any part of my brakedown of your argument?
Your argument is wrong in that I’m not arguing 6 things:
I plainly cite concessions by Bill. Where Bill concedes, there is no contention.
You then try to discredit me by summarizing a point that requires no summary:
Of course, to summarize a point that requires no summary, you selectively withhold the application of your own stated principles:
Abandoning standards you hold others to because they no longer suit your agenda. Pitiful.
Micha, you should know by now that Mike’s mind is unfettered by the bounds of logic and reason. For him, this isn’t about advancing and justifying propositions or exchanging ideas. It’s about one-upsmanship, and “winning” at all costs.
Trust me, I understand the temptation to play his game. I’ve been sucked in more than once. But these days I remember part of a famous quote from Nietzche: “Battle not with monsters, lest you become a monster…”
I don’t mean to sound preachy, Micha. I hope I don’t. It’s just that I think you’re an extremely intelligent person whose time and energies could be spent more productively.
Don’t worry Bill, I’m not going to be be dragged into a flame war.
I couldn’t help myself in trying to deconstruct Mike’s argument. I’m interested in the way people think. But I do not expect to debate Mike on this issue. That would be pointless. I think Bill Mulligan and Mike Weber pretty much finished with that topic, but if not I’ll be happy to discuss it with them or others.
I also have to admit that Mike was useful in providing the source for the alleged Bush statement, so we could see that it lacked sufficient corroboration. Beyond that I think we’re pretty much finished with this topic, and he did’t add much. But we should be grateful to him for enriching our knowledge in that respect.
I’m not concerned about a battle taking place with monsters, because, in this case unlike the previous time, I’m not that emotionaly involved, so I don’t fear I will lose my calm. So there will be no monsters here.
“I don’t mean to sound preachy, Micha. I hope I don’t.”
Don’t worry about it.
“It’s just that I think you’re an extremely intelligent person whose time and energies could be spent more productively.”
I’m very grateful for the compliment. I’m afraid my greatest mortal sin is wasting time. Mike is a symptom, not the disease, and not even an important symptom. This is a problem I have to handle myself, which has little to do with this little discussion. At least this discussion was somewhat enriching up to this point. Now that it no longer is, I’ll stop it. My tendancy to waste time will reqire a more aggresive approach which is not relevant to this board.
Yet you can’t cite an example.
Isisting people take you on your word is not in the canon of logic.
You persist in citing logic but, while taking credit for logic, you don’t demonstrate any.
Pitiful.
Mike, you wrote:
“Your argument is wrong in that I’m not arguing 6 things:”
Allow me to explain. You said:
“If George Bush admits he isn’t qualified to fulfill his oath of office in a minuted meeting, it goes a long way to thwarting partisans.”
That’s two arguments:
1) Mike does not know if Bush said that the constitution is a gøddámņëd piece of paper.
3) Had he said it, that would be significant, but we don’t know that he did.
The third argument is implied by the same section. But I think somewhere up there you said it outright.
2) He didn’t claim that he did.
“partisans like [Bill Mulligan] — comparing the allegations he made a quote [Bill admits] is consistent with his performance as president with the fantasy ([Bill’s] word) speculations Bill Clinton conspired to smuggle drugs and murder”
That’s the three other arguments:
4) Bush’s behavior shows disregard to the constitution
that speaks lowder than whatever he may or may not have said. (This part you didn’t say outright, but it is implied from the above, since you don’t know what Bush did or did not say but you believe his actions show disregard for the constitution.)
5) Although, as far as we know, it is untrue that Bush said that the constitution is a gøddámņëd piece of paper, just as, as far as we know, it is untrue that Clinton sold drugs, the first, although untrue, is a more credible fiction than the second. i.e. if you heard the first you were more likely to believe it than the second.
6) That by suggesting that we should avoid believing unsubstantiated rumors about either Bush or Clinton, Bill Mulligan has claimed that the unsubstantiated rumor about Bush is exactly as unbelievable as the unsubstantiated rumor about Clinton. And that this is proof of Bill Mulligan’s terrible partisan nature.
To this we should probably add a 7th argument:
“thwarting partisans — from obstructing those who would fix his damage and heal the country.”
This mission statement, I think, came after my brakedown. In any case, what I did was not summarize but elaborate each aspect of your argument, so I could deal with each seperatly. It was quite fun, even if it was a waste of time like Bill Myers corectly says. It’s very Talmudic. Take it as a compliment.
Then Mike, you wrote that:
“You then try to discredit me by summarizing a point that requires no 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.”
If it requires no summary why does it discredit you? In this case what I said closely resembles what you said in the second half of the quote above.
“Of course, to summarize a point that requires no summary, you selectively withhold the application of your own stated principles:
I have full faith in your commitment to ignore any attempt of he who must not be named to goad you into a flame war by reading your statements out of context. If anybody is at fault, it is me by reacting at all to the decontextualizer’s post.
Abandoning standards you hold others to because they no longer suit your agenda.”
It is kind of you Mike to worry about my abandoning my principles. But I would hardly consider not arguing with you to be one of my principles. At best it is a rule of thumb.
If I have a principle, it is to try to be civil, and to be sensitive to other people’s feelings, which was why I was in a hurry to reassure Bill Myers that I didn’t think he was going to be dragged into a flame war with you, and taking the blame on myself. I certainly did not criticize Bill for abandoning any standards I held him to. On the contrary, I complimented him for keeping to the standards he set for himself. So far I’ve also kept to my own standard by not loosing my temper when dealing with you, so I’m not worried that it could lead to anything ugly. This discussion is pretty much over anyway. Soon PAD will probably post something else and we’ll move to that.
I also hardly have an agenda in this issue. I was only indulging in three of my vices:
1) Intersting discussion (with Bil Mulligan mostly).
2) deconstructing things — in this case your argument.
3) Avoid dealing with my life by wasting time.
Harmless fun really.
Mike, you wrote:
“Your argument is wrong in that I’m not arguing 6 things:”
Allow me to explain. You said:
“If George Bush admits he isn’t qualified to fulfill his oath of office in a minuted meeting, it goes a long way to thwarting partisans.”
That’s two arguments:
1) Mike does not know if Bush said that the constitution is a gøddámņëd piece of paper.
3) Had he said it, that would be significant, but we don’t know that he did.
The third argument is implied by the same section. But I think somewhere up there you said it outright.
2) He didn’t claim that he did.
“partisans like [Bill Mulligan] — comparing the allegations he made a quote [Bill admits] is consistent with his performance as president with the fantasy ([Bill’s] word) speculations Bill Clinton conspired to smuggle drugs and murder”
That’s the three other arguments:
4) Bush’s behavior shows disregard to the constitution
that speaks lowder than whatever he may or may not have said. (This part you didn’t say outright, but it is implied from the above, since you don’t know what Bush did or did not say but you believe his actions show disregard for the constitution.)
5) Although, as far as we know, it is untrue that Bush said that the constitution is a gøddámņëd piece of paper, just as, as far as we know, it is untrue that Clinton sold drugs, the first, although untrue, is a more credible fiction than the second. i.e. if you heard the first you were more likely to believe it than the second.
6) That by suggesting that we should avoid believing unsubstantiated rumors about either Bush or Clinton, Bill Mulligan has claimed that the unsubstantiated rumor about Bush is exactly as unbelievable as the unsubstantiated rumor about Clinton. And that this is proof of Bill Mulligan’s terrible partisan nature.
To this we should probably add a 7th argument:
“thwarting partisans — from obstructing those who would fix his damage and heal the country.”
This mission statement, I think, came after my brakedown. In any case, what I did was not summarize but elaborate each aspect of your argument, so I could deal with each seperatly. It was quite fun, even if it was a waste of time like Bill Myers corectly says. It’s very Talmudic. Take it as a compliment.
Then Mike, you wrote that:
“You then try to discredit me by summarizing a point that requires no 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.”
If it requires no summary why does it discredit you? In this case what I said closely resembles what you said in the second half of the quote above.
“Of course, to summarize a point that requires no summary, you selectively withhold the application of your own stated principles:
I have full faith in your commitment to ignore any attempt of he who must not be named to goad you into a flame war by reading your statements out of context. If anybody is at fault, it is me by reacting at all to the decontextualizer’s post.
Abandoning standards you hold others to because they no longer suit your agenda.”
It is kind of you Mike to worry about my abandoning my principles. But I would hardly consider not arguing with you to be one of my principles. At best it is a rule of thumb.
If I have a principle, it is to try to be civil, and to be sensitive to other people’s feelings, which was why I was in a hurry to reassure Bill Myers that I didn’t think he was going to be dragged into a flame war with you, and taking the blame on myself. I certainly did not criticize Bill for abandoning any standards I held him to. On the contrary, I complimented him for keeping to the standards he set for himself. So far I’ve also kept to my own standard by not loosing my temper when dealing with you, so I’m not worried that it could lead to anything ugly. This discussion is pretty much over anyway. Soon PAD will probably post something else and we’ll move to that.
I also hardly have an agenda in this issue. I was only indulging in three of my vices:
1) Intersting discussion (with Bil Mulligan mostly).
2) deconstructing things — in this case your argument.
3) Avoid dealing with my life by wasting time.
Harmless fun really.
I also have to admit that Mike was useful in providing the source for the alleged Bush statement, so we could see that it lacked sufficient corroboration.
Hey, I thought I was the one who found it!
Micha, obviously the best thing to do is ignore the personal nonsense and only address his factual innacuracies that don’t deal with you. Mike will find whatever it takes to imply that you have suddenly “agreed” with him and hope that saying so will draw you into giving him the attention he needs. Skip it. Future historians/archeologists/ grad students doing term papers on abnormal psychology will be able to scan through the thread and assertain the obvious truth.
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.
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. Another case that’s going on in good old Rome is the case against a 37 year old woman that married a 15 year old, but they could legally get married because she was pregnant. The local representative had no idea this was a law. Funny, I thought the people that were making the laws and enforcing should, sort of, you know, KNOW WHAT THE LAWS ARE. Now, I would say THIS case is kinda serious, but what do most people seem to be worried about? Not the fact that this 37 year old is pregnant by a 15 year old, but the FACT THAT UNDER THE LAW, THEY CAN BE MARRIED REGARDLESS OF AGE. I wanted to see what ELSE was happening in Rome, so I checked the Floyd County news, and THAT seemed to be the topic of the day.