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
Posted by Peter David at December 20, 2006 08:43 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingI'm not familiar with the Utah law. Can anyone give some details?
This winter, the case of Georgia v. Gordon Lee will enter its third year.
Which just goes to show how badly our legal system is messed up.
A case like this, with or without merit, should not drag on for three years.
It seems like the State's best defense (and it certainly isn't limited to this particular case) is to drag things out as long as possible, regardless of cost, in the hope that the other side gives up.
It's pretty damn sickening.
Den, I found this article from the ACLU Utah website (June, 2005) about their case against the law, and what it says are the components of the law:
On Georgia vs Gordon Lee,try:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/13/AR2006071301108.htm
for background and:
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2006/07/13/PH2006071301114.html
for the comic page in question.
Cheers.
Posted by Craig J. Ries
This winter, the case of Georgia v. Gordon Lee will enter its third year.
Which just goes to show how badly our legal system is messed up.
A case like this, with or without merit, should not drag on for three years.
It seems like the State's best defense (and it certainly isn't limited to this particular case) is to drag things out as long as possible, regardless of cost, in the hope that the other side gives up.
It's pretty damn sickening.
Are you familiar with the case of Dragon*Con founder Ed Kramer?
Ed's been under arrest and/or house arrest - under circumstances leading to severe damage to his health - for six years now in Gwinnett County north of Atlanta. (I point out as a sidebar that some people may find the name of Gwinnett County familiar; in another Great Moment In Free Speech In Georgia, Larry Flynt was shot from ambush while he was on trial in Gwinnett.)
Ed has apparently filed a new motion for dismissal on "speedy trial" grounds - but meanwhile, so far as i can determine, remains under house arrest on charges that look thinner and thinner all the time.
Thanks for the link, Craig. This provision made me nearly fall out of my chair:
2) The Utah Attorney General must create a public registry of Internet sites worldwide containing “material harmful to minors” — speech that is unlawful to intentionally distribute to minors but that is constitutionally protected for adults.
A registry of internet sites "worldwide" that contain "adult" material!
So, I guess the attorney general has nothing else to do with his time but surf the web to find every single site with adult content? To they understand how much is out there? The "tubes" of his "internets" are going to working overtime.
Damn, shouldn't people be required to actually understand what the internet is before they start regulating it?
Gordon can get a year in prison for something like obscenity? I have no idea what to say, it's just so unbelievable.
How long has that law been on the books?
If somebody printed something really, extremely, eye-gougingly awful and despicable, I *might* agree with a hefty fine...but PRISON?!? My god...
Posted by Rob Brown at December 20, 2006 12:15 PM
"Gordon can get a year in prison for something like obscenity? I have no idea what to say, it's just so unbelievable."
Not exactly. And exactitude is where the rubber meets the road if it's a legal issue.
See, this is why I tried to post the link to a - hopefully - neutral source. Sadly I screwed up the link. Sigh. Add an 'l' to the end of the first url and you'll get:
"District Attorney Leigh Patterson charged Lee with two counts of felony and five counts of misdemeanor. He had, she argued, violated two Georgia laws: the Distribution of Material Depicting Nudity or Sexual Conduct law and the Distribution of Material Harmful to Minors law.
The first makes it a felony to deliver printed materials that contain nudity with out enclosing said materials in a properly-labeled envelope.
The second, a misdemeanor, is being applied in a way that suggests that no retailer can give minors materials that contain nudity, even if the material isn't sexual"
Arghh. It's a 'Dammit!' moment...
I'm probably going to have to come back to this, and I'm probably going to say some things that people will disagree with, and have to defend/justify them, and I am *insanely* busy with other stuff right now...
Arghh!!
Cheers.
So, I guess the attorney general has nothing else to do with his time but surf the web to find every single site with adult content?
As "Dilbert" put it:
"I was *this* close to making it my job to search the Internet looking for porn."
"It's probably just as well; I would have had to kill you."
I got this same letter a few weeks back. As it happens, I missed SPX this year (which is my usual reminder to renew my membership) and hadn't renewed yet. I re-upped the day after getting the letter.
Sometimes i'm really glad i live in the netherlands. I work on a small press release with several local artists and if that comic gets you sued in the states our comic would most certainly would. We even released one issue themed Porn and stuck a condom on each of the booklets. It was for sale in local comic bookstores, no hassles. Of course us dutch are a little more mellow than americans in general, that is on the surface because underneath the government repression americans aren't all that different. I'd say the netherlands generally has a healthier attitude towards such things as drugs and sex. Rather than repress we educate, the positive results of which can easily be read from statistics concerning crime rates and teenage pregnancies.
Unfortunately as a starting artist i don't have money to spare and my artwork is not that well known yet .. (shameless plug: www.nightowlarts.nl)
Good cause though. Art should have the freedom to explore venues that might offend some people if it serves a purpose in the artwork without having to defend that right in court.
Honestly next they'll pull Botticelli's Venus from museums because someone gets offended for seeing a nipple!
OK, here I go...
Let's talk about censorship.
Firstly, I'd like to seperate data protection from censorship - there's factual information that for purely practical reasons should not be in the public domain. What, you want your bank statements available to anyone who asks? Or military information that would - beyond all doubt - compromise the safety of 'our' troop? Or the address of everyone in the Witness Protection Programme?
So when I talk about censorship, I'm talking mainly about the censoring of either fiction or opinions or ideas.
The anti-censorship argument says that no one should say what anyone else can write, publish or read. To a degree I support that argument. I'm old enough - 49, dammit - that I can pretty much use my own judgement to take or leave anything put in front of me.
The problem I have, is that if you extend that argument, then anybody can see anything and everybody can see everything.
Which gives me a problem, because I do genuinely think some subject material has to be looked at in the context of being "Age Appropriate".
I have a daughter, who will be 15 next month. Over the years I have - many times - agonised about what is or is not suitable for her to have access to. (Luckily I have a wife who also puts in time and effort on the subject). Sometimes I have to take my instinct to protect and stamp on it, because it's no good trying to raise a child wrapped in cotton wool. But sometimes I have probably erred on the side of caution. So - since age 13 or so - she gets to read Strangers in Paradise, and Sandman, and Mary Janice Davidson... But there's still stuff I don't want her to read yet. She's big on anime, but she's not getting to watch some of the more extreme hentai material that's available. A year from now, she's on her own and get's to see whatever she wants to. (Rule of thumb; you're old enough to do it, you're old enough to read about it)
But, that parental duty to assess what your kids get to see has - for me - to also exist in a societal context. It's not for anyone else, however well intentioned, to say "Here kid, take a look at this, I think you'll really like it, especialy the orgy scenes.."
All of which leads to why I can't - in good faith - give money to CBLDF.
If you oppose someone telling people what they can or can't see, how can you support someone doing the same thing, even though - or because - what they're saying is 'everybody can see everything'?
I can see the broad appeal, and again I support that people should not be allowed to say 'you can not write/publish that', and appreciate that 'everybody can see everything' still gives leeway for parents to have some control on the age appropriate front... But that argument, for me, is still going for an easy answer instead of the right answer. And, even if I don't know what the 'right' answer is, I just can't so that.
Because I have to wonder, what if I donate money which is then used to defend something I personally would find indefensible?
I was going to comment specifically on the Gordon Lee case, but again I'm out of time...
Later, maybe.
Cheers!
[b]Because I have to wonder, what if I donate money which is then used to defend something I personally would find indefensible? [/b]
But you must also ask the reverse question: what if someone objects to something you don't find objectionable solely bassed on their personal set of guidelines for judging something indefensible.
Whose guidelines do we follow because varying groups have varying parameters of what they find objectionable.
Peter (J. Poole, that is.)
I'm in total agreement with your stance, and I believe that a growing number in the comics retailership and readership community are joining in. I detailed my own opinions (after bottling them up for too long) in "It's Time for Comic Books to Show Us What They're Made Of!" when I called for a point-of-sale method of content labelling. Marvel's leading the way on this, and I've noticed that Scholastic has been putting content tags on their GRAPHIX line of books, so I expect others will follow suit in time.
1Posted by Pro at December 21, 2006 08:35 AM
"[b]Because I have to wonder, what if I donate money which is then used to defend something I personally would find indefensible? [/b]
But you must also ask the reverse question: what if someone objects to something you don't find objectionable solely bassed on their personal set of guidelines for judging something indefensible.
Whose guidelines do we follow because varying groups have varying parameters of what they find objectionable."
Fair question.
Definitions of 'obscene' and 'pornographic' are extremely hard to pin down in the first place, and tend to change over time anyway.
In the UK, we've had legislation that female nudity was OK on stage so long as the models didn't move, and - IIRC - legislation that images of a flaccid penis were OK but that images of an erect penis were obscene because it showed sexual intent! God alone knows what the female legal equivalent would be...
We also have the old chestnut about Queen Victoria approving legislation against male homosexuality but not against female homosexuality because she did not believe that women 'would ever indulge in that kind of behaviour'.
So, one person's art is always going to be another person's porn. The only half way valid litmus test so far seems to be to take it to court and try to get some local concensus from a jury on which it is within "their local group".
That is, after all, how "Lady Chatterley's Lover" was able to win the case when its publishers were tried under the Obscene Publications Act back in 1960.
(Digression; Just did a Wiki on the Lady C Trial, and apparently some of the book was based on a place called Ilkeston, in Derbyshire. Which is where I was born and raised! I never knew that!!)
Cheers.
"But, that parental duty to assess what your kids get to see has - for me - to also exist in a societal context. It's not for anyone else, however well intentioned, to say "Here kid, take a look at this, I think you'll really like it, especialy the orgy scenes.."
All of which leads to why I can't - in good faith - give money to CBLDF."
Then you've just abrogated your parental rights.
If one is willing to give rights away to authority, rest assured that authority will snap those rights up, take them and run. The CBLDF fights for the very right that you say you hold so dear: The right to decide as a parent what your children should and should not read.
In refusing to support the CBLDF and fobbing the responsibility onto "society," then you are--to use your words, in "extending the argument"--accepting the notion that someone ELSE should get to decide what is and is not age appropriate for YOUR child.
What if someone else's fifteen year old is found reading "Strangers in Paradise," has a fit, and decides that no one under the age of 18 should be allowed to read it because of its portrayal of lesbians? They go to the authorities, the authorities agree, they go after the store and shut the store down.
Now you might say, "Ah, but they'd have no right to do so because no reasonable person could possibly say that 'Strangers in Paradise' fits the Miller test and the definitions of obscenity." And you'd be correct But *our* contention is that the material in question in the Gordon Lee case *likewise* doesn't meet those obscenity tests.
Plus--in the words of Vizzini--you've fallen victim to one of the classic blunders. In virtually every case in which the CBLDF has been involved, the scenario you've put forward simply hasn't taken place. Retailers have been prosecuted for selling adult comic books to adults (including undercover cops), not children. In the Lee case, allegedly a child was involved (that aspect still remains unclear), but even *if* that is the case, it was an instance of an error, not salacious intent. I tend to think that losing one's livelihood and liberty over an error that harmed no one is a touch extreme, don't you?
When someone supports their own right to decide what's best for their children, but no one else's right to do so, then their own right is at risk whether they realize it or not.
PAD
I knew this was going to be time consuming... :)
But it's an important enough issue that I have to make the time.
1) Fobbing? I see no fobbing... I state that I believe society has a duty to protect the rights of parents to decide what their kids get to see over the rights of *anyone* else to decide what their kids get to see.
2) Society/the authorities will always have input over what kids - and people in general - get to see. In democratic theory, the authorities represent the will of society. I know that reality often falls lamentably short of the theory, but concensus and generalities are what legislation has to be founded on.
3) I'm well aware of the dangers of authority being.. let's say 'over zealous'... in their definitions of what they're protecting us from. My take on that is that it's then my responsibility to defy that, as and when I feel it's right to do so, privately or publicly. If TPTB say SiP is banned, I'd still let my daughter read it. If they want to take me to court, bring it on! Where we're disagreeing is that I'm not convinced that financially supporting CBLDF is the best way of addressing that danger, because there - from my personal perspective - I would be, in your words, "fobbing off" the choice of which battles to fight and how to fight them to someone else.
4) My comments were on the topic in general, and not on the Lee case in particular. I have comments to make on that, I just didn't have time to post 'em. (Plus I thought I'd see how badly I got mauled in the general round before attempting a specialised one!) I'll still try to get around to that at some point.
5) Sticking to the general round though, I believe I've seen the argument on this board that - like pregnancy - there's no such thing as being 'a little bit OK with censorship'? By that same token then "In virtually every case in which the CBLDF has been involved, the scenario you've put forward simply hasn't taken place." implies that in some cases it has taken place. Minuscule though that number may be.
6) I'm not saying "Don't support CBLDF". If people believe in what they are doing and how they are doing it, then they should support it. It may be that I am 'wrong' in some way or ways for not doing so - I don't claim infallibility as an attribute. What I am saying is that on matters as important as these we need to have thought through *all* the implications of doing something.
Cheers.
Which gives me a problem, because I do genuinely think some subject material has to be looked at in the context of being "Age Appropriate".
I certainly agree with you there, Peter; I simply believe that a prison sentence is too harsh. A fine would be just as effective as a deterrant; nobody wants to pay fines, fines can even put you out of business if they're big enough.
In refusing to support the CBLDF and fobbing the responsibility onto "society," then you are--to use your words, in "extending the argument"--accepting the notion that someone ELSE should get to decide what is and is not age appropriate for YOUR child.
I really should take the time to read exactly how the law reads one of these days. For now, I must regretfully speak from ignorance, for the first time in my life, too! (j/k, of course)
If the law prohibits the selling of certain R- or X-rated material to an unaccompanied minor, I don't have any objection to that.
If, OTOH, the law says that a parent cannot legally buy certain material and give it to their child, then the law is wrong.
Like the S.R.A. in "Civil War", my primary objection is to how this law is being enforced; the penalty is simply too harsh for the offense.
"Plus--in the words of Vizzini--you've fallen victim to one of the classic blunders."
PAD, with all due respect, I don't think it'll do anybody any good to talk to somebody like that.
I realize it's not extremely insulting or condescending or anything. Lately however, something possessed me to try engaging people in the comments section of the blog of a conservative Republican in rational discussion and debate, to at least try to get through to them and convince them that their ideas of a big Muslim-and-illegal-alien conspiracy to destroy America might not be true...and despite being as civil as I could, I have gotten myself flamed over and over for having a different viewpoint.
Your "blunders" comment is nothing on the scale of the kind of insults I've been subjected to there, but nevertheless, can we try to be the complete opposite of the people I just described? We're supposed to be better than them, after all. We're supposed to be the reasonable, rational ones. Getting confrontational with one another, even a little bit confrontational, will accomplish nothing.
Plus--in the words of Vizzini--you've fallen victim to one of the classic blunders.PAD, with all due respect, I don't think it'll do anybody any good to talk to somebody like that....
Your "blunders" comment is nothing on the scale of the kind of insults I've been subjected to there, but nevertheless, can we try to be the complete opposite of the people I just described? We're supposed to be better than them, after all. We're supposed to be the reasonable, rational ones. Getting confrontational with one another, even a little bit confrontational, will accomplish nothing.
Everyone else heard Peter's "blunders" comment in the voice of the "inconceivable!" guy -- which he said right before he himself dies from his own blunder.
Oooh, Trivia Bonus round!
"Plus--in the words of Vizzini--you've fallen victim to one of the classic blunders."
This is a Princess Bride quote. I'm interpreting it as part of keeping a difference of opinions considerably more Civil than Warlike, and am not offended by the 'B' word.
Let's talk about Law and Justice for a moment. (Humour me, it's not quite as big a digression as it may seem!)
Laws are - ideally - supposed to be just, but they're not necessarily about Justice.
Justice needs to fit the context of circumstances in individual cases. It's like a bespoke suit.
Laws are attempts to define rules that can apply to a majority of circumstances, hopefully delivering as much justice as is practical without having 50, or 500, or 5000 amendments to each law to try and fit it to more circumstances. Law is like an off the peg suit from a low cost retail store.
Maybe sometimes the only thing that can be said about a law is that it fits everyone equally badly. That's still - arguably - better than going without any laws.
Then take on board that laws can be amended, that the evolve, and that the criminal justice system gives judges and juries some discretion about how laws are interpreted and applied as part of the trial process, as well as having an appeal system that's supposed to correct the worst mistakes of the initial trial if it comes to that.
There's also, I guess, room in the system for some common sense actually getting a look in sometimes... (He said, with a touching degree of optimism!)
So, the same law about giving materials to a minor has the option of being applied differently in practice to someone accidentally handing a comic of arguable content to a child and to the convicted sex-offender handing out hard core porn in the playground...
Which brings us - finally - to the Gordon Lee case.
I don't claim to have researched that in detail, but the Washington Post article certainly seems to give cause for some concern. Taking three years to still not resolve the case seems ludicrous, and the prosecution backing off to take two or three different stabs at what they were actually accusing Mr Lee of - and indeed changing their mind about who may or may not be the victim - does not inspire a lot of faith in their approach to resolving the matter.
Swiftly re-capping the charges:
"He had, she argued, violated two Georgia laws: the Distribution of Material Depicting Nudity or Sexual Conduct law and the Distribution of Material Harmful to Minors law.
The first makes it a felony to deliver printed materials that contain nudity with out enclosing said materials in a properly-labeled envelope.
The second, a misdemeanor, is being applied in a way that suggests that no retailer can give minors materials that contain nudity, even if the material isn't sexual"
The actual phrasing of the two laws in question seem - to me personally - to be somewhere between 'overkill' and 'somewhat fuzzy', but they are still the laws of the land.
Overkill for the 'nude material must be in a properly labelled envelope' though I would suggest that anything containing nudity should be labelled or other wise identifiable so those likely to be offended have the option of not looking. (A "Definitely does contain nuts" sticker might suffice!)
Material Harmful to Minors is just begging for trouble because you're instantly into a hissy fit about what is or isn't 'harmful', and it seems - again, to me personally - that it's overkill to try applying that to 'anything containing nudity'.
So, I'll grant you two 'fuzzy' laws, being applied with perhaps more enthusiasm than a lot of people might be instantly comfortable with.
But they are laws. And I do believe that people have to take the consequences of their actions, even if the action was accidental or negligent.
So if that comic did end up in the hands of a 9 year old or a 6 year old the only defence position left is to argue that the material is not harmful, which again comes back to individual interpretations. For the record, I'd tend to think that a comic strip containg full frontal male and female nudity, mention of masturbation and the deathless prose "Go fuck yourself little man!" is going to take some effort to sell as "harmless when shown to 9 or 6 year olds" from a juror perspective.
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.
(Does anyone know if that option was ever on the table?)
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.
Finally, back to my initial post and highlighting a distinction, even if the CBLDF is completely absolutely 100% right in fighting this particular case it does not invalidate my overall concern on the generic level.
Cheers.
If one is looking for "exactitude," rather than going to a newspaper article, I'd suggest reading the full text of the Georgia laws under which Gordon Lee is being charged.
Here is a link to Georgia Statute 16-12-103:
legis.state.ga.us/legis/GaCode/?title=16&chapter=12§ion=103
The statute makes it a crime to knowingly disseminate to a minor material that is deemed "harmful to minors."
Here's a link to Georgia Statute 16-12-102, where the terms "knowingly," "harmful to minors," and "minor" are defined:
legis.state.ga.us/legis/GaCode/?title=16&chapter=12§ion=102
(NOTE: I had to "munge" the urls to get past the spam filter. Just copy and paste the urls into the address bar of your browser, add "www." at the beginning, and they should work fine).
The law states that "knowingly" can mean someone had "...reason to know, or a belief or ground for belief which warrants further inspection or inquiry of... the character and content of any material described in this part which is reasonably susceptible to examination." The question is: did Gordon Lee have "reason to know, or a belief or ground for a belief" that the book distributed to a minor by an "agent" of his store could be "harmful to minors?"
The cover of the book didn't scream "naughty material" by any stretch of the imagination. Moreover, the "mature readers" label was on the back cover, and was not very promintent. I can't think of any valid argument to be made that Mr. Lee or the agent of his store gave the book to a minor "knowingly" as it is defined under the law.
In addition, there are a number of tests a work must meet in order to be considered "harmful to minors" under the Georgia statutes. 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. "
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."
There are so many holes in the prosecution's case that it not only doesn't hold water, it's gushing out all over the place. Moreover, as the CBLDF has pointed out, this law, as written, may be superseded by case law at the state and federal levels. And ultimately this law appears to be unconstitutional.
Peter J. Poole, you cannot say you are an advocate of free speech and then express opposition to free speech. I realize you will probably bristle at being labeled an "opponent" of free speech. By definition, however, that is what you are, regardless of the emotional reaction that label may provoke. As attorney and author Alan Dershowitz once pointed out, one cannot claim to be a proponent of free speech unless one is willing to fight for the right of someone to express something one finds repugnant.
Rob Brown, again, I think your heart is in the right place. But in admonishing PAD, you're failing to distinguish between criticizing someone's ideas, which is fair game in any debate; and attacking someone personally. PAD very clearly avoided attacking Peter J. Poole on any personal level.
Oh, one other thing: a fine is no less excessive than a jail sentence in the Gordon Lee case. First, for reasons I have articulated above, I believe he did not break the laws as they are written. Second, I believe the laws, as written, are unconstitutional.
Therefore, a jail sentence, a fine, community service, or any other kind of penalty would be unjust.
Proponents of "merely levying a fine" are forgetting something, by the way: most comic-book retailers I know take care to make sure that adult material doesn't get into minors' hands because it's good business. They don't need fines to motivate them. And the threat of fines could discourage retailers from carrying books that we as adults may find artistically worthwhile. That's commonly referred to as a "chilling effect."
In refusing to support the CBLDF and fobbing the responsibility onto "society," then you are--to use your words, in "extending the argument"--accepting the notion that someone ELSE should get to decide what is and is not age appropriate for YOUR child.
You contradict yourself. How can anyone have a duty to protect a parental sovereignty they are the exception to?
If you make no exception to your sovereignty as a parent, then you are simply arguing for delegation of authority. By making an exception to your authority -- and consenting to that exception to your authority to speak in your place you -- you move from delegating your authority to abdicating it.
You have to pick 1 or 2. You can't have both. By refusing to support the CBLDF, you've simply defaulted to picking 2 -- fobbing.
In the states, you see the same conflict with the issue of prayer in public schools. Parents who support school prayer not only abdicate their own authority, but seek to dilute the authority of the other parents.
Rob Brown, again, I think your heart is in the right place. But in admonishing PAD, you're failing to distinguish between criticizing someone's ideas, which is fair game in any debate; and attacking someone personally. PAD very clearly avoided attacking Peter J. Poole on any personal level.
Yes, my bad and my sincere apologies. (Clearly I need to rent more movies...) I thought I saw things going down a certain road and wanted to nip it in the bud.
Mike:
"You have to pick 1 or 2. You can't have both. By refusing to support the CBLDF, you've simply defaulted to picking 2 -- fobbing."
Sure I can have both. (I am large, I contain platitudes..) 1 indicates a belief in the ideal situation, 2 indicates acceptance that reality may well fall short. If you read the rest of what I said I express that while different authorities may have input - be it legislative or coming round and setting your house on fire - I do not cede them final authority and would oppose that input if I felt justified in doing so. (Probably more vociferously in the legislative scenario than in the combustive one)
I still think I'm pretty fob-free.
Bill:
Do try to follow the plot son.. I've already acknowledged the argument published in here that you can't partially support free speech, and nowhere do I put myself up as 'an advocate of free speech'. You seem regularly determined to nit pick me for things I didn't actually say, which seems an unusual debating style to me.
(For the record, I do fully support "the right of someone to express something one finds repugnant", sometimes with little or no actual bristling. You, however seem to be positively porcupinesque at most of my posts to date)
I'm assuming that you do see yourself as a proponent of free speeech - correct me if I'm wrong by all means - so do you believe that everyone, regardless of age, should be able to read or view any and all fictional/entertainment/opinion/idea based material they want to, regardless of content?
Cheers.
Hmm, actually Mike there may not be as much of a contradiction as there first seems to be here. We have the statements:
"I believe society has a duty to protect the rights of parents to decide what their kids get to see over the rights of *anyone* else to decide what their kids get to see."
and
"Society/the authorities will always have input over what kids - and people in general - get to see."
Society and the authorities are the ones who first make the laws that determine what can legally be sold and what can't. Child porn can't be legally sold, to take the obvious example.
After the lawmakers have outlined what's off-limits, people have a selection of legal stuff to choose from in stores or libraries. Peter Poole may be saying that he wants to be the one to make the decision on whether or not his children read something that can be legally sold, yet contains mature content. He can tell me whether I'm right or wrong in his next post.
The cover of the book didn't scream "naughty material" by any stretch of the imagination. Moreover, the "mature readers" label was on the back cover, and was not very promintent. I can't think of any valid argument to be made that Mr. Lee or the agent of his store gave the book to a minor "knowingly" as it is defined under the law.
Um. It DOES seem that this particular case has been blown out of proportion.
Therefore, a jail sentence, a fine, community service, or any other kind of penalty would be unjust.
What I said previously was "If somebody printed something really, extremely, eye-gougingly awful and despicable, I *might* agree with a hefty fine...but PRISON?!?"
I tried visiting the links to the Washington Post article and the offending page, but they don't appear to be working, therefore I don't know what exactly we're talking about here. IMO, Mr. Gordon should absolutely not be put in prison, and based on earlier posts and what they've said about the situation, it looks like he doesn't deserve a fine either
Sure I can have both. (I am large, I contain platitudes..) 1 indicates a belief in the ideal situation, 2 indicates acceptance that reality may well fall short.
Well, sure, and war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength. No doublethinking going on there at all.
Society/the authorities will always have input over what kids - and people in general - get to see....I do not cede them final authority and would oppose that input if I felt justified in doing so.
And how would you remove the influence of something whose omnipresence you accept?
And how would you remove the influence of something whose omnipresence you accept?
In theory, the people who make the laws re. what people can and cannot see are the ones elected by the people, and therefore are answerable to the people. So if Peter thought that they were using their influence the right way, he'd support them, and if he thought they were going too far, he'd oppose them and vote against them.
In practice, elected officials are not extensions of the people's will and even if they're wildly unpopular they don't have to worry about any immediate consequences. So if Peter didn't like the limits being set by the democratically empowered authorities, he might not find himself in a position to do anything about it.
Society and the authorities are the ones who first make the laws that determine what can legally be sold and what can't.
Yes, where fulfilling market demand endangers the consumer or vulnerable species, not to censor.
Child porn can't be legally sold, to take the obvious example.
Yes, where the practice creates a victim, not to censor.
In the US, text is protected free speech and the supreme court ruled that prohibition against simulated child porn was unconstitutional. The practice is illegal, but there is no law against having the perversion of pedophilia.
Rob, my question refers specifically to PJP's inconsistency. I believe I can challenge his inconsistency without devaluing the election process.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 21, 2006 07:33 PM
Do try to follow the plot son.. I've already acknowledged the argument published in here that you can't partially support free speech, and nowhere do I put myself up as 'an advocate of free speech'. You seem regularly determined to nit pick me for things I didn't actually say, which seems an unusual debating style to me.
(For the record, I do fully support "the right of someone to express something one finds repugnant", sometimes with little or no actual bristling. You, however seem to be positively porcupinesque at most of my posts to date)
In an earlier, post, you wrote the following:
"The anti-censorship argument says that no one should say what anyone else can write, publish or read. To a degree I support that argument. I'm old enough - 49, dammit - that I can pretty much use my own judgement to take or leave anything put in front of me."
In other words, you tried to say that you sorta kinda support free speech. What I am saying is: you can't "to a degree... support that argument." You either believe in free speech or you do not.
You have stated that you cannot in "good faith" give money to the CBLDF. To give us some insight into the reasoning behind that, you asked the following rhetorical question:
"Because I have to wonder, what if I donate money which is then used to defend something I personally would find indefensible?"
If you are not willing to defend the right of someone to say something you personally find "indefensible," you cannot say that you support the right of someone to say things you find repugnant.
I am not sure how you figure that you "didn't actually say" things you clearly said. Perhaps you are not expressing yourself as well as you believe.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 21, 2006 07:33 PM
I'm assuming that you do see yourself as a proponent of free speeech - correct me if I'm wrong by all means - so do you believe that everyone, regardless of age, should be able to read or view any and all fictional/entertainment/opinion/idea based material they want to, regardless of content?
I believe that parents should regulate what their children are exposed to, not the government.
Am I the only one who, when the term "society" is used, considers myself a part of that term, rather than an outsider to it? Society determines things, and we are that society.
Congratulations, Mr. Poole: you've already turned the opponents in this grand and longevitous debate to defending the practice of "virtual child pornography." :)
"Am I the only one who, when the term "society" is used, considers myself a part of that term, rather than an outsider to it? Society determines things, and we are that society."
In modern democracies the power of society as a collective is offset by the rights of the individual such as freedom of speech, and the freedom to determine one's taste. Otherwise you have a tyrany of the majority. Neither are considered absolute in such societies. However, these principles are designed to protect you even if you are an outsider.
Another distinction that should be made in that context is between society and the government. While in a democratic society the government is controled in principal by society, society has other tools beyond the coercive power of the state. So, there is a difference between using the power of the state to silence speech which society considers unacceptable, and society in general having a negative pinon of certain speech, but not using power against it.
"Congratulations, Mr. Poole: you've already turned the opponents in this grand and longevitous debate to defending the practice of "virtual child pornography." :)"
If we assume that taste is a matter of individual choice, than the government cannot act against child pornongraphy on the grounds that it is disgusting, although most of society considers it disgusting. However, the government should act to protect actual minors from sexual abuse, regardless of whether there is a camera present or not. Which is why most democratic societies accept adult pornography but oppose child pornography -- because the issue is not taste but the difference between concenting adults (in principle) and exploited minors. But this opens a loophole trough which virtual child pornography can slip through whether we as a society like it or not. The question is how far is society wiling to curtail individual free speech and taste in order to plug this loophole?
When I was in highschool we were required to read a book that had a sexual scene involving a 15 year old. Another famous book to depict something that could be described as child pornography is Lolita (which I haven't read). G. R. R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire had one or two sexual scenes involving minors. All these cases are protected by freedom of speech according to the princiles mentioned above.
"I believe that parents should regulate what their children are exposed to, not the government."
The idea that the state should use its powerr to protect children (unfortbuatly sometimes from the parents themselves) is usually accepted in modern democracies. This argument has been used by opponents of pornography who claim the the need to protect children from pornographic or erotic or just nude material places a limit on free speech. In this case you have a loophole that allowes the state to decide in issues of taste in order to determine what's accptable and accessable to children. Furthermore, some have claimed that in the current age of mass media it becomes more and more difficult for parents to regulate what their children are exposed to.
In principle I find these concerns valid. In practice it opens a whole new can of worms.
So if that comic did end up in the hands of a 9 year old or a 6 year old the only defence position left is to argue that the material is not harmful, which again comes back to individual interpretations. For the record, I'd tend to think that a comic strip containg full frontal male and female nudity, mention of masturbation and the deathless prose "Go fuck yourself little man!" is going to take some effort to sell as "harmless when shown to 9 or 6 year olds" from a juror perspective.
Peter, you linked to the offending comic pages yourself. If a 9-year-old views that page by following your link, you are as guilty as Lee is of giving away that comic. If such takes place over the lifetime of the internet, will you surrender yourself to trial where you've broken the law?
Posted by: R.J. Carter at December 21, 2006 09:31 PM
Am I the only one who, when the term "society" is used, considers myself a part of that term, rather than an outsider to it? Society determines things, and we are that society.
Nope. And I don't know why you would, for one moment, believe that you were. Defending the First Amendment is indeed a societal issue. It determines how we, as a society, regard the role of government. If I didn't consider myself a part of "society," I wouldn't bother to have this conversation.
Posted by: R.J. Carter at December 21, 2006 09:31 PM
Congratulations, Mr. Poole: you've already turned the opponents in this grand and longevitous debate to defending the practice of "virtual child pornography." :)
No. You've done that by creating a "straw man" argument. It's nothing to congratulate Peter J. Poole, nor yourself, over.
Posted by: Micha at December 21, 2006 10:18 PM
In modern democracies the power of society as a collective is offset by the rights of the individual such as freedom of speech, and the freedom to determine one's taste. Otherwise you have a tyrany of the majority. Neither are considered absolute in such societies.
I believe the First Amendment to the United States Constitution does not provide "absolute" protection for all speech. Libel, child pornography involving depictions of actual children, and shouting "fire" in a crowded theater where there is no fire are all examples of speech that is not protected by the First Amendment. The common thread between these examples is that there is an identifiable, tangible, and imminent harm created in each instance.
We must take great pains, however, to prevent the government from using the concept of "harm" as an excuse to restrict the expression of ideas. I have yet to hear anyone -- anyone -- even articulate precisely what harm could befall a child who read a comic like the one accidentally distributed to a minor at Gordon Lee's store, much less prove that such a harm would indeed result. Yet that doesn't stop some people from advocating punishments for Gordon that could cost him his livelihood, and even his freedom. Punishing Gordon in this fashion would be unjust to him as an individual, of course. But it would also be unjust on a societal level, as it could scare other retailers into carrying a less diverse product line.
Posted by: Micha at December 21, 2006 10:18 PM
Another distinction that should be made in that context is between society and the government. While in a democratic society the government is controled in principal by society, society has other tools beyond the coercive power of the state. So, there is a difference between using the power of the state to silence speech which society considers unacceptable, and society in general having a negative pinon of certain speech, but not using power against it.
Yep. The free market can "punish" Gordon if "punishment" is needed. If enough people object to his business practices, he has two choices: adapt or perish. The government needn't be involved.
Posted by: Micha at December 21, 2006 10:18 PM
If we assume that taste is a matter of individual choice, than the government cannot act against child pornongraphy on the grounds that it is disgusting, although most of society considers it disgusting. However, the government should act to protect actual minors from sexual abuse, regardless of whether there is a camera present or not. Which is why most democratic societies accept adult pornography but oppose child pornography -- because the issue is not taste but the difference between concenting adults (in principle) and exploited minors. But this opens a loophole trough which virtual child pornography can slip through whether we as a society like it or not. The question is how far is society wiling to curtail individual free speech and taste in order to plug this loophole?
When I was in highschool we were required to read a book that had a sexual scene involving a 15 year old. Another famous book to depict something that could be described as child pornography is Lolita (which I haven't read). G. R. R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire had one or two sexual scenes involving minors. All these cases are protected by freedom of speech according to the princiles mentioned above.
You hit the nail right on the head. "Virtual child pornography" becomes a slippery slope. The only sane way to regulate "child pornography" is to restrict such regulations to content depicting actual children, because children are indeed harmed when they are exploited to create such filth.
Posted by: Micha at December 21, 2006 10:18 PM
The idea that the state should use its powerr to protect children (unfortbuatly sometimes from the parents themselves) is usually accepted in modern democracies. This argument has been used by opponents of pornography who claim the the need to protect children from pornographic or erotic or just nude material places a limit on free speech. In this case you have a loophole that allowes the state to decide in issues of taste in order to determine what's accptable and accessable to children. Furthermore, some have claimed that in the current age of mass media it becomes more and more difficult for parents to regulate what their children are exposed to.
In principle I find these concerns valid. In practice it opens a whole new can of worms.
Just because it is "accepted" doesn't necessarily make it right. I do not believe people should be punished for mistakes where the supposed "harm" cannot be articulated nor proven to be a result of said mistakes. Again, the free market can correct the actions of retailers who insist on distributing material to children that parents find objectionable.
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.
R.J. Carter: There is a certain poster whose posts I have not been reading with regularity. I glanced at them a few minutes ago and realized that "virtual child pornography" was indeed a topic of conversation before you brought it up.
That said, it is still inaccurate to say that Peter J. Poole "forced" anyone into "defending the practice." It is more accurate to say that a commitment to the principles of free speech inevitably necessitates the defense of certain types of speech that one finds objectionable, including "virtual kiddie porn." That's not something that Peter J. Poole "forced;" it's simply a logical consequence of a belief in free speech.
You have stated that you cannot in "good faith" give money to the CBLDF. To give us some insight into the reasoning behind that, you asked the following rhetorical question:
"Because I have to wonder, what if I donate money which is then used to defend something I personally would find indefensible?"
If you are not willing to defend the right of someone to say something you personally find "indefensible," you cannot say that you support the right of someone to say things you find repugnant.
While Peter J. Poole is probably capable of defending his own statements, I must say that that's not how I interpreted his statement.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Poole, but I believe what is being said, in essence, is a desire for some assurance that one's money is not going to be used, for example, in the defense of a shop owner or worker who knowingly, or through gross negligence, distributed adult-only materials to a minor or minors.
-Rex Hondo-
Posted by Mike at December 21, 2006 10:23 PM
"Peter, you linked to the offending comic pages yourself. If a 9-year-old views that page by following your link, you are as guilty as Lee is of giving away that comic. If such takes place over the lifetime of the internet, will you surrender yourself to trial where you've broken the law?"
Oh Bugger! I seem to have just invented a brand new classic blunder. You got me.
If local authorities want to prosecute, or remote authorities want to extradite and prosecute I don't think they'd wait for me to surrender myself. I do accept that I should take the consequences of my actions, even the inadvertant ones, if that's what you're asking. I will however be citing the Washington Post and the administrators of this board as co-defendants :P
Rex Hondo:
You're partially right. What I'm saying is that if I give money to a cause - any cause, be it professional, charitable or political - I need to know to a degree that I am comfortable with, what work will be done with that money. Simple as that.
It's a personal stance, not intended to in any way criticise or defame CBLDF in particular, and anyone who is happy to support them should by all means do so.
Bill:
"In other words, you tried to say that you sorta kinda support free speech. What I am saying is: you can't "to a degree... support that argument. You either believe in free speech or you do not."
I believe in free speech to the same extent that you do. I think anyone should be able to write and/or publish anything they want to. I have a problem with "free listening" because I think there is a duty on parents to control what their kids get exposed to.
"
"Because I have to wonder, what if I donate money which is then used to defend something I personally would find indefensible?"
If you are not willing to defend the right of someone to say something you personally find "indefensible," you cannot say that you support the right of someone to say things you find repugnant.
"
I am willing to support their right to say it, I'm not so keen on having someone else decide to support their right to say it to my kids. If that makes me an "opponent of free speech" or any other emotive and inflammatory label you care to wheel out, then - as I have already indicated - I can live with that.
"I am not sure how you figure that you "didn't actually say" things you clearly said. Perhaps you are not expressing yourself as well as you believe."
Could well be. I'm still not claiming infallibility. Or it could be that you're not hearing what I am saying, or have some difficulty in reconciling it with your view of what people can or can not say.
For example:
I say: "to defend something I personally would find indefensible"
And you - as I interpret it - translate the word 'something' to *exclusively* mean "the right of someone to say something".
Based on which you go on to tell me that "you cannot say" what I just said. (I'll presume you're inserting a 'logically' or 'truthfully' in there instead of just globally dictating what I can or can not say.)
But, QED, what you say I said is not what I *actually* said at all.
On which note, I'm out of here. I'll have limited net access from now until January, so feel free to burn me in effigy rather than in person!
Joking aside, I'm impressed by - and more than a little grateful for - the restraint and maturity most of you are showing in this conversation.
Hope you all have a Cool Yule and a Happy Whatever!
Cheers.
Posted by: Sean Scullion at December 22, 2006 01:50 AM
"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."
Well, she could still have thrown a hairy hissy fit and called the cops when she saw someone *attempting* to corrupt her offspring... As the man says, "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity".
Cheers!
"I believe in free speech to the same extent that you do. I think anyone should be able to write and/or publish anything they want to. I have a problem with "free listening" because I think there is a duty on parents to control what their kids get exposed to."
1) Nobody disputes the duty of parents to control what their children are exposed to. The question is to what degree they should be using the coercive power of the state to do so.
This is partialy because:
2) How do you prevent free listening? Do you do it by using your parental power on your childrebn to prevent them from having access to offensive material? Or do you use the power of the state on the people publishing or selling this material in order to prevent them from being accessable to your children. If the second, than by definition you are reducing the free speech of the publishers in order to curtail the free listening of the children. One may or may not feel it is justified to use such methods to control what your children get exposed to, but you cannot claim the distinction between free speech and free listening in this case.
---------
"Again, the free market can correct the actions of retailers who insist on distributing material to children that parents find objectionable."
I do not share your faith in the free market. It seems there is a pretty good market for some disgusting stuff. But free speech is a very important principle, so even if the free market alone is insufficient, I would still be very hesitant to reduce free speech in the name of defending children from the supposed harm of exposure to certain material.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 22, 2006 07:04 AM
I believe in free speech to the same extent that you do. I think anyone should be able to write and/or publish anything they want to. I have a problem with "free listening" because I think there is a duty on parents to control what their kids get exposed to.
Agreed. Completely. Parents should be the "filters" because every child is different, and who is in a better position to gauge a child's emotional and intellectual development than that child's parents? (Assuming, of course, that the kid doesn't have crappy parents. But that's a topic for another discussion.)
Nevertheless, I don't believe it logically follows that the government must be allowed to prosecute retailers who accidentally distribute to minors comics depicting non-sexual nudity and containing coarse language. As Sean Scullion rightly pointed out, the parents could have accompanied their children into the store and perused what they were being given. Moreover, I still have yet to hear anyone articulate precisely what kind of harm has befallen the minors in the Gordon Lee case, nor how we know that said harm was a direct result of reading the comic in question.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 22, 2006 07:04 AM
I am willing to support their right to say it, I'm not so keen on having someone else decide to support their right to say it to my kids. If that makes me an "opponent of free speech" or any other emotive and inflammatory label you care to wheel out, then - as I have already indicated - I can live with that.
Perhaps calling you an "opponent of free speech" was excessive. But at least it was an attack on your ideas and not on you as a person. You seem to reserve for yourself the privilege of dragging things to an unnecessarily personal level, such as when you condescendingly asked me to "try to follow the plot, son." Yet when I take issue with your ideas in a non-personal fashion, you become indignant.
I'm finding it increasingly difficult to debate with you for that reason. We got off on the wrong foot, and I am willing to acknowledge that I am partially to blame. What must I do to convince you that I am merely trying to debate ideas -- that I am open to persuasion -- and that I am not your enemy?
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 22, 2006 07:04 AM
Could well be. I'm still not claiming infallibility.
Nor am I.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 22, 2006 07:04 AM
Or it could be that you're not hearing what I am saying, or have some difficulty in reconciling it with your view of what people can or can not say.
It's possible that I am misinterpreting you. You're certainly not making it any easier on me, though, by making this personal. If you believe I've misinterpreted you, say so. I'm willing to listen.
I disagree with Bill Mulligan quite a bit -- yet we're actually friends outside of this forum. I even met the man in person, and he bought lunch for my girlfriend and me. Nice guy. So, y'know, disagreements don't have to be personal.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 22, 2006 07:04 AM
And you - as I interpret it - translate the word 'something' to *exclusively* mean "the right of someone to say something".
Now we're getting somewhere. You're asserting that my interpretation of what you said was overly broad. It didn't help that your statement was overly vague. But now, at least, we have a chance to arrive at a mutual understanding, if not agreement (assuming you have a chance to see this while the thread is still fresh). What sorts of things (besides distributing naughty material to minors) would you consider "indefensible?"
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 22, 2006 07:04 AM
Based on which you go on to tell me that "you cannot say" what I just said. (I'll presume you're inserting a 'logically' or 'truthfully' in there instead of just globally dictating what I can or can not say.)
Yes, yes, of course that's what I meant. Man, I'm trying to defuse the tension between us, but you keep spoiling for a fight. Why?
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 22, 2006 07:04 AM
But, QED, what you say I said is not what I *actually* said at all.
I don't think you've proven anything to the extent you believe. I have a suggestion (and am hoping you'll take it in the friendly spirit with which it is intended): specificity and concrete examples help reduce the possibility of misunderstanding and misinterpretation. Your posts often hover at the abstract level, and many of your statements are more vague than you, I suspect, realize.
For my part, I acknowledge that I may be guilty of taking those vague statements and reading too much into them. Going forward, I will try to ask more questions of you in order to get a clearer understanding of your views before forming an opinion about what you are saying.
See? I'm not the villain you've made me out to be. I really am trying to meet you in the middle.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 22, 2006 07:04 AM
On which note, I'm out of here. I'll have limited net access from now until January, so feel free to burn me in effigy rather than in person!
If that jab is aimed in part at me, it's a bit unfair. I've disagreed with you, but, again -- it ain't personal.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 22, 2006 07:04 AM
Joking aside, I'm impressed by - and more than a little grateful for - the restraint and maturity most of you are showing in this conversation.
I can't tell if you believe I'm one of those who has failed to show "restraint and maturity." If you do, I'd like to point out in my defense that you took what was likely a simple misunderstanding between us and escalated it to a personal level. It takes two to tango.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 22, 2006 07:04 AM
Hope you all have a Cool Yule and a Happy Whatever!
To you as well.
The next time we "meet," I will follow through on my commitment to ask questions first and "shoot" later. I would like to ask in return that you give me the benefit of the doubt that I am not spoiling for a fight and am simply trying to explore and debate ideas.
Bill:
Me: "And you - as I interpret it - translate the word 'something' to *exclusively* mean "the right of someone to say something"."
You: "Now we're getting somewhere. You're asserting that my interpretation of what you said was overly broad. It didn't help that your statement was overly vague. But now, at least, we have a chance to arrive at a mutual understanding"
Umm... No.
I'm pointing out that you were selective and specific on something where I was deliberately open-ended and generic. So you're still/again about 180 degrees from where I was.
You again: "What sorts of things (besides distributing naughty material to minors) would you consider "indefensible?"
So you've unilaterally decided I'm not allowed to use my battleship? Isn't that a little bit like "Apart from causing cancer and killing people, why do you object to cigarettes"
How many do I need to name to win the round?
Sorry, being facetious - you are definitely bringing out the worst in me.
Seriously, you're asking me to set up a row of hypotheticals when the crux is that I may not know what the 'something' is until after someone is using 'my' money to defend it. Hence my sticking point is the handing over to someone else - however good intentioned and close to my perspective they may be - of the power to make choices I may not agree with.
I think, Bill, that you and I have different attitudes and styles. That's cool, different is different and not necessarily better or worse and all that jazz... FWIW the atmosphere on other (predominantly British, so may be a cultural thing) boards I post to is perhaps a bit more robust, where much harsher words than any I've used here are *really* not taken persoanlly.
But in three seperate threads now you've admitted to being 'excessive' in your response to what I've posted, up to and including 'America-hater' and 'opponent of free speech'. So please stop indicating that I'm the one trying to make things personal when your skin seems not only spikier but much, much thinner than mine.
You've spoken before of kicking ideas around in here and that's pretty much what I'm doing, often in a deliberately generic style. I'm open to that experience being informative, educational and entertaining, all of which it largely seems to be. You seem - to me, could be wrong - to be eager to move it more to a debate level in which things have a winner and a loser and are collapsed down to black and white.
I'm really not that interested in going there, so I may well decide to just ignore, or at least not respond, to more of what you post. Not because you're 'winning' or 'right' but just because it's not giving me anything I - personally - find worth the investment of time and effort in responding. Sorry if that sounds unduly harsh or rude, but it is honest!
Cheers
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.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 22, 2006 11:18 AM
Umm... No.
I'm pointing out that you were selective and specific on something where I was deliberately open-ended and generic. So you're still/again about 180 degrees from where I was.
You're absolutely right. But I think I get it now. See below.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 22, 2006 11:18 AM
So you've unilaterally decided I'm not allowed to use my battleship?
That wasn't my intention, but I see how my hypothetical question could have come off that way.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 22, 2006 11:18 AM
Isn't that a little bit like "Apart from causing cancer and killing people, why do you object to cigarettes"
I think the issue is a bit more complex than that. But, as I said, my question was poorly thought-out and therefore I see how you might have gotten the impression that my thinking was indeed that simplistic.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 22, 2006 11:18 AM
How many do I need to name to win the round?
You needn't do anything you don't want to do.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 22, 2006 11:18 AM
Sorry, being facetious - you are definitely bringing out the worst in me.
I think we're having that effect on each other.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 22, 2006 11:18 AM
Seriously, you're asking me to set up a row of hypotheticals when the crux is that I may not know what the 'something' is until after someone is using 'my' money to defend it. Hence my sticking point is the handing over to someone else - however good intentioned and close to my perspective they may be - of the power to make choices I may not agree with.
My apologies if I seem dense. I had had an exchange with someone else about this issue in another message board. It seems I was reading his attitudes into your posts.
I believe I do indeed understand now. Even if an advocacy group has a philosophy closely aligned with your own, there's always the possiblity that they could do something with your money that is contrary to what you find acceptable. So, when you say you cannot "in good faith" donate to the CBLDF, it's not because you "oppose free speech." It's because you never know what an organization might do in the future.
Gotcha.
Personally, I believe passionately in the mission of the CBLDF. Therefore, I believe it's important to contribute to the organization, even at the risk of enabling them to do something I find objectionable (in the case of the CBLDF, I believe the risk is negligible).
BUT -- it's your money, and therefore ultimately your choice.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 22, 2006 11:18 AM
Not because you're 'winning' or 'right' but just because it's not giving me anything I - personally - find worth the investment of time and effort in responding.
I must confess I'm a bit surprised. You didn't even find the links to the Georgia laws under which Gordon is being charged to be worthy of note? The links are to the Georgia State Legislature's Web site, so the content is authoritative. I personally thought it was a worthwhile contribution to the conversation. After all, they're the laws that form the basis of the case against Gordon.
And no, I don't view this forum as a place where people "win" or "lose." It's just a discussion. That's all. No more. No less.
Micha, thank you as always for being the voice of reason.
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. 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.
(And no, I am not aspiring to become a Vulcan.)
Man, I still can't believe this case is still being taken seriously in the courts, but then again this is Georgia, only two states to the east of my even more repressive homestate :-/. I will also make a donation (although it may have to wait until after tax return ^_^), and hope everything eventually goes well for the defendant.
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. 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.
It's all good. You're going to need that fire and that passion (properly focused, of course) if the Guy Party is going to take the White House in '08. ;)
Besides, I can't blame you if the squirrels are finally getting to you. The just never stop, with their mocking chittering...
-Rex Hondo-
Aw, heck.
The squirrels joke.
I've created a monster. I've created my own Hell.
And Hell is made... of squirrels.
P.S. Rex, I blew our campaign budget on beer, snacks, and porn.
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.
Hell 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 porn.
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. Hell, 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! ;)
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?
but if you got a gun it's legalOn 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.
to display it on your hip
and you can show your butcher knives
to any interested kid
but if it's made for lovin', friend,
you better keep it hid
and they won't let ya show it at the beach
they think we're gonna grab it
if it comes within our reach
and they won't let ya show it at the beach
(the late, great, shel silverstein)
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 god-damned 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 god-damned 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. :P
-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, damn 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, damn 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 damn drunk that none of us will give a damn.
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,)
I wish that the Press Corps were a little less pusillanamous (hhmmmm... "timid") and someone had actually asked the Shrub point blank about it.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.
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 "goddamned 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 "goddamned 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 goddamned 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 goddamned 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 shit that this group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that "goddamned 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 goddamned 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 goddamned 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.
For me, whether something is true or not matters more than if it hurts someone I don't like.
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 "goddamned 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 goddamned 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 Hell 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 "goddamned 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, damn 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 porn."
Sure as Hell 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 masturbating" 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."
Damn, 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 masturbation 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.
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.
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 porn."
Sure as Hell 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 porn
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 porn 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 hell 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 masturbating" 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 "masturbating" referred to the act of painting. You know, like referring to something as "intellectual masturbation." 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. Hell, 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.
"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 porn
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 porn 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 hell 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.
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.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.
Thank you for agreeing Bush saying the constitution was a "goddamned 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.
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?
...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? Hell, 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 porn 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 damned 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 Goddamned 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-
...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?
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.
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 porn 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 "goddamned 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 "goddamned 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 "goddamned 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 damn it. This joke will haunt me until I die... and maybe beyond. :(
...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.
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.
[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.
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 "goddamned 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 damned 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 damn 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.
I said the alleged quote is consistent with his performance, and Bill Mulligan agreed. If I deviate from that, please provide the quote.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.
As I cited him before, Bill Mulligan made "reflect the truth" a qualifier.
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.
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?
I think the horse of your point has been beaten to death.
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 "masturbation" 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 masturbation").
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 goddamned 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 goddamned 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!
I think I was able to locate the point of Mike's current argument.
If you are going to summarize someone's position, what objectivity is demonstrated in making the summary more convoluted than the actual stated point?
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 [Bill Mulligan] -- comparing the allegations he made a quote [Bill] admit[s] is consistent with his performance as president with the fantasy ([Bill's] word) speculations Bill Clinton conspired to smuggle drugs and murder -- from obstructing those who would fix his damage and heal the country.
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.
If you are going to summarize someone's position, what objectivity is demonstrated in making the summary more convoluted than the actual stated point?...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.
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.
"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.
I think I was able to locate the point of Mike's current argument....
My objective was not to summarize but to disentangle and seperate the arguments, and then address each.
Pitiful.
Mike, do you wish to correct any part of my brakedown of your argument?
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:
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 [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 -- from obstructing those who would fix his damage and heal the country.
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:
The point of his whole argument seems to be a personal attack against Bill Mulligan over the degree of plausibility of two unsubstantiated rumors.
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.context, n.
- the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning
- the interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs : ENVIRONMENT, SETTING
If you review my posts, you will see I've been including the quotes I refer to. If you can find an instance where I've excluded a part of the discourse that surrounded such a quote crucial to its interpretation, do so. Make it a first.
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.
Micha, you should know by now that Mike's mind is unfettered by the bounds of logic and reason.
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 goddamned 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 goddamned 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 goddamned 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 goddamned 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.
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 goddamned piece of paper.3) Had he said it, that would be significant...
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.
I don't have to convince anyone (1) I can't verify what Bush said in a meeting whose minutes I'm not privy to, or (2) he didn't admit saying it. For those, there is no dispute, so there is no argument, and no need for persuasion.
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 murderThat'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 goddamned 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.
3 and 4 can form one point. And I'm not arguing 5. Bill Mulligan already admits Bush's alleged quote reflects the truth (his words), and that Clinton conspiring to smuggle drugs and murder is fantasy (also his word).
As for 6:
I don't recall any denials of those two fantasies but that doesn't make them any more legit in my eyes.
Bill Mulligan himself compared a belief he admitted reflected the truth to rumors about Bill Clinton he knows aren't true.
Again, where there is no dispute, there is no argument. No need for persuasion.
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.
You think wrong. By 5 hours.
Posted by: Mike at December 27, 2006 08:26 AM
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.
...
Posted by: Micha at December 27, 2006 01:42 PM
I think I was able to locate the point of Mike's current argument.
And we could make it 7 -- if it wasn't already covered by 3/4 and 6.
In any case, what I did was not summarize but elaborate each aspect of your argument...
In any case -- except for what you said above that I bolded (again).
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?
Because Bill Mulligan already established the degree of plausibility of the 2 rumors. The rumor of Bush reflects the truth (his words). The rumor of Clinton is fantasy (again, his word).
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.context, n.
- the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning
- the interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs : ENVIRONMENT, SETTING
If you review my posts, you will see I've been including the quotes I refer to. If you can find an instance where I've excluded a part of the discourse that surrounded such a quote crucial to its interpretation, do so. Make it a first.
Abandoning standards you hold others to because they no longer suit your agenda.
...I would hardly consider not arguing with you to be one of my principles.
Pitiful.
Future historians/archeologists/ grad students doing term papers on abnormal psychology will be able to scan through the thread and assertain the obvious truth.
Yeah, hope the future can find my factual inaccuracies when you can't even find them yourself. That's totally normal psychology.
No, no, you got it all wrong. Jeeze. If you were someone I cared about it would almost be worth the effort but A- You're not so B- it isn't and anyway C-nothing anyone can say will ever dissuade you.
Fortunately D- you don't care that nobody seems to ever be persuaded by your arguing so in a way everyone wins. Isn't that nice.
No, no, you got it all wrong. Jeeze.
If I have it all wrong, why are you having so much trouble naming one thing I have wrong?
Fortunately D- you don't care that nobody seems to ever be persuaded by your arguing...
You conceded easy enough for me the rumor Bush disparaged the constitution reflected the truth.
If you were someone I cared about...
...we could buy a bar and live together forever.
Jesus! What are you trying to do, give me a heart condition?
Ok, ok, I'll bite...but I know I'll hate myself in the morning...when did I "concede the rumor Bush disparaged the constitution reflected the truth"?
Posted by Bill Mulligan at December 27, 2006 04:00 PM
""In the end, by majority, it went to the uniquely Scottish verdict of 'Not Proven'"
That's interesting...is there a diifference between that and "not guilty"? For example, if you are found "not proven" can you be tried again?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven
"In modern use, the not proven verdict is used when the jury does not believe the case has been proven against the defendant but is not sufficiently convinced of their innocence to bring in a "not guilty" verdict. A person receiving a not proven verdict is not fined or imprisoned, and is not subject to double jeopardy. The real effect of a not proven verdict is stigma for the acquitted person. The verdict can tarnish a person's reputation, as when socialite Madeleine Smith was charged with murder in nineteenth century Glasgow but acquitted with a not proven verdict."
Posted by Micha at December 27, 2006 04:51 PM
"... it is preferable that society does not try to define 'inappropriate' if it can avoid it, and leave it to personal choice."
As qualified, I'd go along with that.
Posted by Sean Scullion at December 27, 2006 11:40 PM
"Peter J. Poole AND Micha-- if you'll go along with me, here--I don't know that any challenge to free speech is ever invalid, because it will show people that this is still STILL a thing worth fighting for, and always will be. Now, I don't know if it's the holidays or me writing again or what, but I've been feelng thoughtful lately, so sorry if this is a little hard to follow. I don't know that ANY challenge to free speech is invalid, because for free speech to work and be appreciated, it NEEDS to be challenged, pushed to what some people consider the boundaries of taste or law or syntax or whatever. The law is like society, evolving and changing. Laws that worked years ago are no longer valid, and there are currently situations that our current laws are unable to deal with, because these new situations were never conceived of when the laws were written."
And I pretty much go along with that, too. (Thursday is my day for being agreeable it seems...). See my earlier maunderings about Law and Justice.
On the Gordon Lee case, certainly it should not have taken three years and umpteen thousand dollars to not decide wtf happened...
Cheers
"where there is no dispute, there is no argument. No need for persuasion."
Mike, I thought for a second that I was using the word argument incorrectly, so I checked my Hebrew-English dictionary to see if the Hebrew word I had in mind is translated as argument. It is. I then went to your favorite place, good old Merriam-Webster, and checked the word argument. The relevant definition is:
"b: a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion."
My list all the statements that form the structure of your premise, whether or not they are in dispute, whether or not you are arguing them with your own words or attributing them to Bill Mulligan.
In any case, it was important to establish the question of the veracity of the statement attributed to Bush first, since it was the original issue in dispute until you helpfully prooved that said statement is an uncorroborated rumor.
"3 and 4 can form one point."
No. 3 deals with the question: is it important whether Bush did or did not say what was attributed to him? 4 deals with his actions.
"This mission statement, I think, came after my brakedown.
You think wrong. By 5 hours."
I stand corrected. I probably didn't consider your mission statement to be part of your premise in the first run, and then I changed my mind. It is not really important, and quite silly actually, but it is seperate from the other six in that it states your motivation for 1-6. So I now added it.
"The point of his whole argument seems to be a personal attack against Bill Mulligan over the degree of plausibility of two unsubstantiated rumors.
If it requires no summary why does it discredit you?
Because Bill Mulligan already established the degree of plausibility of the 2 rumors. The rumor of Bush reflects the truth (his words). The rumor of Clinton is fantasy (again, his word)."
If Bill already established this (as you claim), and this is also your opinion (or else you would try to dispute it not assert it), why do you attack him for being partisan? And why does stating that this is your opinion and that you are attacking Bill with it in anyway discredit you?
In fact, not only didn't I discredit you, I sheltered you by not writing in my summary:
The point of his whole argument seems to be a personal attack against Bill Mulligan over the degree of plausibility of two unsubstantiated rumors.
In order to do that Mike quotes Bill Mulligan's words out of context, thus muddling Bill's rguments completely, as can be seen by anyone who has read Bill's original posts.
You are the only one discrediting yourself Mike. I didn't want to add it, since this kind of I'm rubber you're glue argument (from the famous rubber v. glue case) does not contribute anything to the discussion. In fact, when we reach this point, as we've seen in the past, it renders the whole discussion even more pointless than it was before (and also risks Bill Mulligan's health). I had some interest in disentangling the issues of the truth of Bush's statement from the issues of its plausability and te attack on Mulligan. But I don't have any interest in the more childish stuff, so bye bye.
Sean wrote:
"Now, I don't know if it's the holidays or me writing again or what, but I've been feelng thoughtful lately."
That's always good.
I think the reason Western society has the concept of free speech is (in part) because of its belief that there is merit for the boundaries of taste to be constantly challenged, and therefore this process should not be impeded (in principal).
Historically speaking, western sociatey has been going through a process in which it had legal restrictions on free speech, and many of these were gradualy removed as society began to question its validity as part of a process of pushing the boundaries of taste. So now we accept much that was unacceptable, which is not to say that we should accept everything without question. With or without the law, questions of taste are worth discussing. Today the three main issues seem to be:
a) Parents worried that they are powerless to protect their children from being exposed by extremely powerful media to certain material.
b) Feminists who worry about the effects of certain material on women.
c) The use of free speech by terrorists.
You are correct that the fact that we don't live in a society where free speech goes unchallenged makes us appreciate it even more.
"Okay, THAT being said, I don't know that I would call the case against Gordon is a free speech case. Bill, I can see where you say they're all related. But still, the cynical voice in my head sees this as a "Look how we're protecting you!" case."
I think Bill's point is that by using the law in a case like this, that has no point other than a political: "Look how we're protecting you!", the prosecution harms free speech in general. It is the proseutorial equivalent of an unnecessary war.
Micha--okay, THAT I'll go along with. The prosecution is also damaging their own reputation, and when they in charge of enforcing the laws aren't respectable, neither are the laws themselves.
BTW, just an aside--I just saw an online ad for Capella University. Bet their singing classes are outstanding. Also bet that's their entire music department.
I think I'll make this my last post in this thread. I've made my argument as well as I can, and if anyone isn't persuaded by now they aren't going to be. BUT -- I think there are a couple of things worth clarifying, so here goes...
Posted by: Micha at December 28, 2006 07:45 AM
I think Bill's point is that by using the law in a case like this, that has no point other than a political: "Look how we're protecting you!", the prosecution harms free speech in general. It is the proseutorial equivalent of an unnecessary war.
That's part of it. For reasons I articulated in a prior post, I do not believe the book at issue in the Gordon Lee case meets the definition of "harmful to minors" spelled out in the Georgia statutes under which Gordon is being prosecuted.
But more importantly, I also believe the laws in question are unconstitutional.
Posted by: ean Scullion at December 27, 2006 11:40 PM
Okay, THAT being said, I don't know that I would call the case against Gordon is a free speech case. Bill, I can see where you say they're all related. But still, the cynical voice in my head sees this as a "Look how we're protecting you!" case.
Sean, I don't believe the case against Gordon has any merit. I believe that the laws under which Gordon is being prosecuted are unconstitutional and unnecessary. And I don't believe Gordon committed any crime as it is defined by the poorly written laws under which he has been charged. I believe the prosecution has a political agenda in this case. That's why I've been urging everyone to contribute to the CBLDF -- because we need them to help fight this crap.
This is a free speech case, however, because it has First Amendment implications. A conviction in this case could discourage other retailers from carrying certain comics, for fear of being similarly prosecuted.
Anyway, just thought I'd clarify my point of view. I'm off to do some other stuff! Later, all...
...when did I "concede the rumor Bush disparaged the constitution reflected the truth"?
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.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.
Thank you for agreeing Bush saying the constitution was a "goddamned piece of paper" is consistent with his [performance] as president and, therefore, not in the realm of fantasy.
Just as the the statement "maybe doesn't make it true" establishes the "maybe," "Sorry, 'reflects the truth' doesn't make it true" establishes the quote "reflects the truth."
I even plainly thanked you for agreeing the quote was consistent with Bush's performance as president. If you believed the quote didn't reflect the truth, you never said so.
It isn't like I bury what I say in a Borat-style consent-form. My posts make extensive use of indentation for easy review.
Then we get to Mike's 6th argument...b: a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion.
[I] list all the statements that form the structure of your premise...
Each statement forms the structure of one argument. Not 6.
Because Bill Mulligan already established the degree of plausibility of the 2 rumors. The rumor of Bush reflects the truth (his words). The rumor of Clinton is fantasy (again, his word).If Bill already established this (as you claim), and this is also your opinion (or else you would try to dispute it not assert it), why do you attack him for being partisan?
By equating the 2 rumors, he demonstrated his partisanship.
Why do you characterize a plain observation as an attack?
In order to do that Mike quotes Bill Mulligan's words out of context, thus muddling Bill's rguments completely, as can be seen by anyone who has read Bill's original posts.
And yet you can't cite what you are referring to.
I've invited you before to "find an instance where I've excluded a part of the discourse that surrounded such a quote crucial to its interpretation." Care to make this a first?
I even plainly thanked you for agreeing the quote was consistent with Bush's performance as president. If you believed the quote didn't reflect the truth, you never said so.
Since it made no sense I didn't bother. Your MO seems to be making up supposed statements or beliefs by people so that they feel obligated to respond. Since I'm not under any obligation to feed this need of yours I did not respond initially. After you kept repeating it over and over again I wondered if there was something to it--nobody would obsessively keep nagging at something for no reason, right--but clearly that isn't the case.
When I used the phrase "reflects the truth" to Mike Weber I meant it as "is true". Which is what I thought "reflects the truth" means.
You reply with all sorts of justifications for why, even if Bush didn't say the quote in contention, it doesn't matter because it "reflects the truth". So I replied that "reflects the truth" doesn't make it true. I should have made it clear that I was talking about YOUR use of the phrase, which is diffrent from mine.
From that you got me agreeing with you, which makes you very happy. Well, I feel special. Merry Christmas.
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.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....
When I used the phrase "reflects the truth" to Mike Weber I meant it as "is true". Which is what I thought "reflects the truth" means.
Pitiful.
I should have made it clear that I was talking about YOUR use of the phrase, which is diffrent from mine.
There is no ambiguity.
If you're going backpedal and try to obscure your meaning behind the pretense of casual ambiguity, it helps to avoid the obvious-wording you employed in the quotes I cite.
From that you got me agreeing with you, which makes you very happy. Well, I feel special.
Not as special as your hope the Future™ can find any of the factual inaccuracies you can't find yourself. Which, by the way, is completely normal, Psychologically™ speaking.
Ok, feeling a sense of deja vu here, but I'm going to try and jump in anyway...
So, Mike Weber says something...at this point, I don't even think it's important what Mike W said, but I think it was regarding the alleged Bush quote that the Constitution is just a piece of paper...and Bill M makes the statement about how he though that Mike W was someone who cared if the quotes he used reflected the truth, rather than what Mike W wants the truth to be.
So, then, I think Mike (just Mike) mentions how Bush's suspension of habeus corpus reflects the truth of the quote in question.
Followed by Bill M's? response that "'reflects the truth' doesn't make it true."
And now Mike's saying...well, I'm not exactly sure (once again) what Mike is saying on this. Most of Mike's other posts do make sense, and are logical, so I don't know if he's just being stubborn and baiting Bill M and others, or if he's serious about this whole deal.
It seems pretty clear to me what the phrase "reflects the truth" means. Simply put, a statement that reflects the truth is in some way supported by fact and can be proven as true. Hence, referring to Mike W's comment, Bill M held the belief that Mike W was someone that usually speaks from a position of fact, rather than conjecture. Going around saying Bush called the Constitution just a piece of paper is conjecture. There's no evidence or fact that supports that belief. So statements to that effect do not reflect the truth.
It's not accurate to state that Bush's action reflect the truth, either, because there's no fact to base that truth on. It's conjecture. Bush can act in ways contrary to the limits of the Constitution all he wants, and you still can't accurately say that his actions reflect the truth of Bush's quote, because they don't do a single thing to suppor the idea that he actually ever said those words.
And Mike's position doesn't hold up when you use logic, either. Saying something "reflects the truth" does not make something true, in the same way that saying something is red doens't make it red. The fact that it absorbs the red band of light makes something red, not whatever you say about it. Saying Bush called the Constitution a piece of paper doesn't mean he did. Nor do his actions that some find contrary to the limitations of the Constitution mean he said those words. Him saying those words, and direct evidence (tesitmony, contemporaneous notes that he said them, etc.) documenting that he said them, proves he said them.
I've noticed that "Pitiful" usually means "I have nothing to say". You might consider a Mike to English dictionary at some point.
I only hope the future doesn't include Peter saying what someone back in 2000 had to say: "My forum is boring the shit out of me. It was fun for a while, then Dave Van and Mike Leung showed up, and every one else left."
Actually I'm not worried--folks here are made of stronger stuff and amazingly, we've seen worse. But it's interesting that some things have changed so little in half a decade.
And now Mike's saying...well, I'm not exactly sure (once again) what Mike is saying on this.
Let me help you:
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 [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 -- from obstructing those who would fix his damage and heal the country.
...
It's not accurate to state that Bush's action reflect the truth
It doesn't need to be true for my point above to be true.
My forum is boring the shit out of me. It was fun for a while, then Dave Van and Mike Leung showed up, and every one else left.
That quote -- as it applies to me -- is in reference to my one and only post to his forum. And -- juxtaposing a couple of previous quotes -- I didn't even ask anyone to take my word on anything.
pitiful, adj. 2 b: exciting pitying contempt
I'm using the word correctly.
OK, one more post.
I don't dare try to rattle off all of the great people I've "met" here, because with my crappy memory I'll leave someone off and that would be unfair.
The point is, I've encountered a handful of trolls here -- and dozens of fantastic people. People who have changed me with their ideas and, in some cases, their friendship.
I've even had the privilege of interacting with Peter David, one of my favorite authors. How cool is that? :)
Only Peter can decide the future of his blog. His opinion, ultimately, is the only one that counts. I can only say this: Peter, I hope you get at least as much pleasure from running this blog as I do from participating in it. And I thank you for letting me play in your sandbox.
:)
Mike wrote:
"I've invited you before to "find an instance where I've excluded a part of the discourse that surrounded such a quote crucial to its interpretation." Care to make this a first?"
I believe I have discussed this issue at length in a previous post most of us would rather not revisit. If you must, you'll have to go there on your own.
In order to avoid any repetition of that thread, this is my last word.
Wow, that must have been a classic Mike post. You certainly left an impression on folks at diarist.net. Google "Mike Leung" and "nutty" some time.
Yeah, what Bill Myers said. Mike, x-ray, Dee, those folks don't begin to diminish how much fun this blog has been. It's the closest thing to the great old APAs of the 80s.
It kind of looks like the serious posters are losing interest. Is there, I wonder, anyone who desperately wants to have the last word?
In order to do that Mike quotes Bill Mulligan's words out of context, thus muddling Bill's rguments completely, as can be seen by anyone who has read Bill's original posts.
...
I believe I have discussed this issue at length in a previous post most of us would rather not revisit. If you must, you'll have to go there on your own. In order to avoid any repetition of that thread, this is my last word.
Pitiful.
I second what Bill said in the post above. I enjoy coming to this blog, and I am certain the majority here can avoid doing anything that will cause PAD to close it down.
Now Bill, I'll try to drag you again into the original discussion.
I think you made a good case that the prosecution in the Lee case acted in a bad way.
You have also made a very good case concerning the threat to freedom of speech and to comic book readers, writers and vendors posed by such prosecution.
This aloe justifies supporting the CBLDF.
But I think we have to go back to the basic question of principle which is the cause of your disagreement with Peter Poole.
The question is:
Should the law and coercive power of the state be used to protect children from sexual content in art, and if so, how and to what degree?
In this question I find myself understanding the concern of parents Like Peter Poole, that their children will be exposed to material before the parents feel their children are ready.
Certainly we have laws that protect children from drinking, sexual intercourse prior to a certain age, and driving.
You have mentioned that you don't believe that children are that harmed by such material. That's an interesting point. I've always wondered whether a more puritanical upbringing or a more open upbringing is better. However that is an educational question. We all agree that education is the prerogative of the parents, and if they prefer to bring up their children in a more puritanical way, that's their right. The question remains, should they enlist the help of the law?
PAD said that the law, by setting the limits of what is appropriate for minors, takes away the prerogative of parents. But parents could counter that when someone else exposes their children to such material, which is something they are powerless to prevent completely, then he is also taking away from their parental prerogative.
Furthermore, children don't bring up their parents in isolation (unless they are really weird), so what children get exposed too is strongly influenced by the general tastes of society. whic change over time and space.
I also do not share your confidence in the free market. For all I know it could be extremely profitable from a market point of view to sell to young adolescents sexualy explicit material.
So for me there is a dilemma: how to address the understandable concerns of parents like Peter Poole without harming the principle of the freedom of speech?
In a way it could be claimed that placing restrictions on selling sexual material to minors is a way to guarentee the freedom to sell such material openly to adults.
I am uncertain on this issue so I'm trying to present both sides of the argument.
You certainly left an impression on folks at diarist.net. Google "Mike Leung" and "nutty" some time.
The Impression™ you refer to is one relevant return to a 4-year-old forum page. 1/3 the relevant returns for: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Bill%2BMulligan+Lennie-like&btnG=Search
For clarity: the "nutty Mike Leung" comment Bill wants you to read is stand-alone. The Mike in the forum-page referred to in the post isn't me.
Correction:
I believe I have discussed this issue at length in a previous thread we are all familiar with but which most of us would rather not revisit. If you must, you'll have to go there on your own. In order to avoid any repetition of that thread, this is my last word.
Not pitiful, pity. I have pity for you, Mike. It's also a pity that serious discussions become derailed by childish behavior.
Review the bolded text.
You made an accusation against my behavior here. To substantiate it, you refer to another post.
You persist in making an accusation you can't substantiate. What have I said that matches that for childish behavior? (Assuming you are making a stink over my behavior here.)
The thing that bothers me most about freedom of speech limitations is the concept that an idea can cause harm. Not one single person has been harmed by looking at a picture of a naked person. Or by looking at a picture of people having sex (we can argue about the people that are the subject of the photos being harmed, but that's a different matter). An idea never harmed anyone. Can ideas lead people to commit acts that might harm them or others? Sure. But chances are, such folks might very well commit harmful acts with or without the idea presented to them by someone else.
Case in point: Xavier is now 14 months old. A couple months ago, he started spinning. Near as I can tell, he'd never seen anyone spin before. Not me, not his mother, not anyone on TV. He came up with it on his own. Figured out one day that he could do it, and did it. People are creative. They'll invent things on their own according to their own motivations and interests. Sure, seeing ideas from other people might speed that process, but it's not the idea that creates the action, it's the person.
So sheltering children from certain images, in my mind, isn't really protecting them. Why do such images cause problems for kids? Because of the way their parents the adults around them react. If a kid sees an image of adults engaged in sex, and their parent explains to them that what they're seeing is a physical expression that adults do, that it's not something children do, but like a lot of things, they'll probably want to learn more about someday, that'll probably be the end of it for a while. But if the parent reacts with shock, horror, outrage, whatever, the child's going to learn that there's something bad about sex. Which leads to laws like these Georgia laws being used the way they are.
I've no problem with a law that says that you can't mail sexually explicit material without putting a cover on it. I have a problem with that law being applied to an instance of handing material with nakedness in it because no use of the postal system, which that law specifically refers to, was involved. I have some reservations about handing sexually explicit material to children because I do think that parents should be the ones to teach and educate their children about such matters, but I don't think the accidental act of handing a child a mature comic calls for prosecution.
Bob you have made several interesting comments.
In the first part you presented an educational view that children are not harmed by sexual images. That's very interesting in an of itself. It deserves furtther discussion. For now I can say that he people who seem to be the most affected by exposure to bad ideas are teenagers and not little children.
However, assuming your educational point of view is correct, this could lead to two approaches as far as freedom of speech is concerned.
1) Since ideas do not harm children, it is wrong to use the law to 'protect' children from ideas or images the way we protect them from drinking.
Or
2) Since some parents do not share your educational approach, and do not want their children exposed to certain ideas or images, the law should help them by preventing other parties from exposing them to such ideas and images.
In the last paragraph of your post you seem to lean toward the second option.
I think we are pretty much in agreement that someone who accidently handed sexual material to children should not be prosecuted. At this stage I'm concerned with three kinds of people:
1) Parents who want to control when and how their children are exposed to sexual images.
2) Artists, publishers and vendors who want to exercise their freedom of speech by publishing and selling or exhibiting sexualy explicit material without being restricted.
3) Hypothetical people who may see commercial or other interest in exposing children to sexual images against their parents' will.
You have mentioned that you don't believe that children are that harmed by such material. That's an interesting point. I've always wondered whether a more puritanical upbringing or a more open upbringing is better.
That's a very interesting question and one I can't even try to answer with any degree of confidence. I was raised in a very open atmosphere and wouldn't have wanted itotherwise. I think I ended up ok, despite my tragic number of google hits.
Then again, every day at work I see kids who are out and out disasters, whose parents can't control them. I see others who were raised in a level of confinement that would make veal feel bad. Both have consequences but the ones with less discipline tend to make more long lasting mistakes than the controlled kids.
BUT...it's quite possible that a lot of those controlled kids are just delaying their moment of anarchy until later and will end up just as badly.
Furthermore there is nothing so common as two kids from the same home who end up at complete opposite ends of the success in life scale. So you've got me.
Issues of race and class may play a part as well. A poor kid with less discipline at home may be in greater danger than a kid who is well off (at the very least, the rich kid will have access to better lawyers when he screws up.) You don't see too many sons of the wealthy in gangs.
But for every generalization there are many exceptions. If you ever figure out the code write a book. Bestseller for sure.
The Impression™ you refer to is one relevant return to a 4-year-old forum page. 1/3 the relevant returns for: ">http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Bill%2BMulligan+Lennie-like&btnG=Search
Yeah but Mike, those all came from you. And the "lennie-like" quote isn't always directed at me--in most threads you end up using it or some equally lame insult against several people.
And at least I can smile at the thought that should anyone try to look up unkind thoughts about me they will inevitably lead to...you. Which will almost certainly make them want to re-evaluate their opinion of me for the better lest they end up looking like...well.
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it.
Voltaire
(Don't get excited,Mike. You're not my enemy. People care about their enemies.)
You certainly left an impression on folks at diarist.net. Google "Mike Leung" and "nutty" some time.
...at least I can smile at the thought that should anyone try to look up unkind thoughts about me they will inevitably lead to...you.
Oooh. You didn't refer to a google search just to show us one page. You referred to a google search because the Future™ is going to google search "nutty Mike Leung."
¡No, Nurse Ratched, no lo dice a mi madré!
Having a sample size of one child is a dangerous thing. We're expanding that sample group to 2 sometime in March, so next year I can offer more analysis.
I'm somewhat torn on kids and child-rearing. I'd really like to think that my son's current well-behaved and helpful demeanor is something he's learning from us. Yet I don't really know if that's it, or is he's just wired that way, because he's really very young yet to have acquired many learned traits. So when I see kids that are out of control, I think it must be the parents' fault at some point...they failed to instill the value of self-control at a younger age. Then again, I've seen formerly good kids get involved in bad crowds and take unfortunate paths regardless of good upbringing.
Back on regulating the exposure of ideas...as you can tell, I'm torn. But I think I come down on some regulation as allowed, if it's restricted to limiting where and how you can sell some material. Require playboys to be held behind the counter, with the covers concealed, I don't have a problem with. Limiting sale of such to adults I'm ok with. But I don't think jail time for any breach of those regulations is appropriate. Impose a fine, certainly, but it seems to go too far to allow someone to lose their liberty because they handed out an idea, however objectionable some might consider that idea to be.
I wouldn't consider any regulations like that to have a chilling effect on free speech, while being reasonably protective of those we might be concerned about.
A lot depends on what is the nature of the "adult" material we allow our kids to see. Sidney Lumet's THE PAWNBROKER has nudity. So does AMERICAN PIE.
I think you can expose a normal child to all manner of "adult" material, if the material is "adult" in theme and you are willing to sit there and explain it. But some of the stuff that parades as adult material is just vulger trash and will not yeild positive results. in my opinion.
Posted by Bobb Alfred at December 28, 2006 03:20 PM
" An idea never harmed anyone. Can ideas lead people to commit acts that might harm them or others? Sure. But chances are, such folks might very well commit harmful acts with or without the idea presented to them by someone else. "
With respect, I think you are slightly overstating the harmlessness of ideas here...
"Maybe I could get someone else to work my plantation" and "We are the master race" are two doozies that caught on bigtime but didn't work out so well in the long run. I'd agree that it's impossible to stop people coming up with ideas, and that it's the adoption and implementation stages where things can sometimes get sticky, but sometimes you really can't have the enormous scale of one without that initial tiny glimmer of the other.
"... but I don't think the accidental act of handing a child a mature comic calls for prosecution"
Thus making "Oops, sorry, my bad!" a universal 'get out of jail free' card?
Again, trying to avoid blurring general discussion and the GL case, I don't KNOW what happened in the GL case but sometimes things have to go to court precisely in order to determine that they were accidental. (Though it shouldn't take three years to do so, and that does assume some degree of impartial common sense in the process)
Cheers.
1) "I'm somewhat torn on kids and child-rearing."
Nature v. nurture is one of the oldest questions. People have been debating for centuries and stil haven't figured it out. I don't have children, so I'm hardly in a position to give anybody advice. In principal it seems to me that the best course of action is less to protect children from ideas and images and more to give them the tools and discipline to process such ideas when they encounter them. But this is easier said than done, and I'm not going to be required to put this theory to the test any time soon.
2) "Back on regulating the exposure of ideas...as you can tell, I'm torn."
I think that's a good starting point.
3) "Thus making "Oops, sorry, my bad!" a universal 'get out of jail free' card?"
People usually distinguish between an honest mistake and criminal negligence, unless they are so intent on punishing someone that they don't care.
4) "I don't KNOW what happened in the GL case but sometimes things have to go to court precisely in order to determine that they were accidental."
The courts don't exist to investigae the details of a crime. That's the job of the police and the prosecution. The job of the court is to see if the prosecution has done a good enough job.
PJ (I hope you don't mind me calling you that...we call my favorite uncle PJ, so it's sorta catchy for me), I guess my point is that those ideas alone hurt no one. It was people acting on those ideas that did the hurting. That's a distinction, I know, but to tie in Micha's point, if we give people the tools (morals, ethics, logic, emotion, etc.) to deal with ideas, then less people will act on ideas that hurt others. Slavery and expansionism can only exist when a large group of people don't see anything wrong with carrying out those agendas. Today, we like to think that most people see slavery as evil, and expansionism as wrong. I think there's plenty of evidence to support the contention that there's still many, many people that have no problem with either concept, so long as they're on the controlling side of the idea. But teaching someone about slavery or the history of the Nazi regime isn't going to turn that person into a plantation owner or an SS officer.
Posted by: Micha at December 28, 2006 02:08 PM
Now Bill, I'll try to drag you again into the original discussion.
Curse you, Micha. Curse you.
Posted by: Micha at December 28, 2006 02:08 PM
Not in my view. I believe the only justification for restricting speech is the prevention of a specific, measurable harm. There is no conclusive evidence that media content of any type harms children, and plenty of evidence that parental intervention influences children far more than the media ever could.
Posted by: Micha at December 28, 2006 02:08 PM
Certainly we have laws that protect children from drinking, sexual intercourse prior to a certain age, and driving.
All of the above pose a significant risk of a specific harm. Media content has not been proven to pose a similar risk.
Posted by: Micha at December 28, 2006 02:08 PM
You have mentioned that you don't believe that children are that harmed by such material.
No, I said there is no conclusive evidence that children are harmed by such material. The existence of a causal relationship between media messages and harm to children hasn't been disproven, either. But given that we cannot prove a threat exists, and that parental involvement has been shown to be the strongest influence on a child, bar none, I don't think we have cause to restrict free speech for the sake of protecting kids from "dirty pictures" and such.
Posted by: Micha at December 28, 2006 02:08 PM
But parents could counter that when someone else exposes their children to such material, which is something they are powerless to prevent completely, then he is also taking away from their parental prerogative.
That's where parental involvement comes in. Parents can teach their children not to accept gifts from strangers, for example.
Posted by: Micha at December 28, 2006 02:08 PM
I also do not share your confidence in the free market. For all I know it could be extremely profitable from a market point of view to sell to young adolescents sexualy explicit material.
I highly doubt it. Any business that wishes to maintain even the slightest reputation for respectability will avoid distributing sexual content to minors. Laws or no laws, the general public won't stand for it.
I also can't see anyone going to the trouble of trying to create a black market for porn for kids. You'd have to work pretty damn hard to stay under the community's radar screen, all for the sake of getting junior to scrape together a few quarters to give you in exchange for your pornographic wares. Why bother? There's a huge market for porn for adults who have money to spend.
It is more likely that children will end up being exploited by being made the subject of pornographic photos and/or films. That stuff is filth, it harms children, and does not deserve First Amendment protection. I'd rather focus our efforts on preventing that sort of thing.
Posted by: Micha at December 28, 2006 02:08 PM
In a way it could be claimed that placing restrictions on selling sexual material to minors is a way to guarentee the freedom to sell such material openly to adults.
You could make such a claim, but it doesn't hold much water. The SCOTUS has tried for decades to come up with a definition of "obscenity" as it relates to sexual content in the media. All it has done is create a confusing and vague series of court precendents that have spawned equally confusing and vague laws. The result? Purveyors of entertainment can't know whether they're violating the law until after someone accuses them of a crime. That can create the "chilling effect" of which I've spoken. Why stick your neck out carrying controversial material if someone, somewhere, can apply a vague law and strip you of your property and even your freedom?
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 28, 2006 07:07 PM
"Maybe I could get someone else to work my plantation" and "We are the master race" are two doozies that caught on bigtime but didn't work out so well in the long run.
In the case of the former, the U.S. fought a civil war to abolish that idea. We took care of it ourselves. In the latter case, Nazi Germany had to be defeated by external forces. One of the primary difference between the two: the U.S. had a Bill of Rights protecting certain freedoms, including the freedom to express ideas contrary to those preferred by the establishment. Nazi Germany was a repressive state that controlled the transmission of ideas, thus making it nearly impossible for the evil to be fought from within.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 28, 2006 07:07 PM
"Thus making "Oops, sorry, my bad!" a universal 'get out of jail free' card?
That's a false dilemma. Opposing the criminalization of one specific act does not necessitate opposing the criminalization of any and all acts.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 28, 2006 07:07 PM
Again, trying to avoid blurring general discussion and the GL case, I don't KNOW what happened in the GL case but sometimes things have to go to court precisely in order to determine that they were accidental.
Even in court, one must rely on accounts of what happened, rather than first-hand knowledge of what actually happened. Only the people who were there at the time a specific incident occurred can have that first-hand knowledge.
The fact that we are not participating in the trial does not preclude us from learning about the relevant facts of the case. Newsarama.com has done an excellent job of reporting on the case. Between that and some Internet research, I've learned a great deal about it.
I also do not share your confidence in the free market. For all I know it could be extremely profitable from a market point of view to sell to young adolescents sexualy explicit material.I highly doubt it. Any business that wishes to maintain even the slightest reputation for respectability will avoid distributing sexual content to minors. Laws or no laws, the general public won't stand for it.
That obviously isn't true for music. Youth make up the bulk of music consumers, and the demand for sexually explicit content is substantial. Explicit lyrics warnings flag this material to kids.
Business considerations for respectability are secondary to profitability. To imagine otherwise is to drink the Free-Market Kool-Aid.
Sometimes profitability requires respectability. The music labeling to which a poster whose name needn't be mentioned refers was spurred by a public outcry over explicit lyrics.
And does anyone believe that if Barnes & Noble began selling "Hustler" to kids, the townspeople wouldn't be lining up with pitchforks and torches?
Mike's right on the free market point. A truly free market isn't really a great thing. You'll lean toward monopolies that seek to cater to the highest profit. The only room you have for moral control is with the people involved, and if you allow a corporate system, morality gets insulated out of the equation. Does anyone truly think that the free market wouldn't hesitate to support a child porn market if there was profit in it? The free market already supports the peddling of poison...the tobacco market...knowing that it not only causes harm to their customers, but also to those who are not their customers. You'd hope that morality would come into play and prevent smoking products from being sold. Instead, they're fighting for their continued existance.
The only reason there isn't a porn market openly available to children is because the current public sentiment makes it unprofitable. Change that sentiment, and we'll start seeing a different kind of Teen Beat.
As an aside, my wife sometimes looks over my comics...she'll very pointedly call various issues porn. And we're not talking Comix...we're talking Red Sonja, Avengers, X-Men, etc. Because some of the art through the years has indeed been akin to porn, minues the sex. Clearly, I don't have that much of a problem with it, but she, and others, do. But that's an example of a product that at some level is aimed at teens, rife with sexual images.
Bill, unless I'm mistaken, there are countries where magazines like Hustler are in fact sold to children. And the local torches and pitchfork crowd doesn't bat an eyelash.
Maybe in most places in America there's still a public sentiment that graphic sexual images are harmful to children, but that doesn't make it a universal opinion. Native Americans lived in communal tents or lodges. Couples would do what couple do at night regardless of the fact that there were children present. History seems to be silent as to the masses of Native deviant children running around because they were witness to sexual acts.
Folks -- I never said the free market was a cure for all of our ills. I was merely pointing out that if a bookstore, for example, was blatantly selling porn to kids, people could refuse to patronize that bookstore.
Of course we need laws to regulate the market. I've already explicitly said that pornography involving photos or film of actual children is filth that is rightly prohibited by law, for example. False advertising is illegal, and rightly so. Libel and slander are justifiably denied First Amendment protection. But we don't need the government to regulate everything, now, do we?
Laws that are ostensibly designed to prevent children from being exposed to hard-core porn were also used some years ago to charge someone with letting his child look at an "Elfquest" comic which depicted child-birth (and it wasn't even an explicit depiction -- the female's boobies were shown but the bulk of the birthing "ickiness" was not depicted). Is this the kind of society we want?
Posted by: Bobb Alfred at December 29, 2006 09:40 AM
Bill, unless I'm mistaken, there are countries where magazines like Hustler are in fact sold to children. And the local torches and pitchfork crowd doesn't bat an eyelash.
Sorry, should have been more precise. My remarks were indeed intended to be limited to the situation in the U.S. The U.S. Constitution, after all, only applies to the U.S. ;)
In a way, however, you've further bolstered my point. If the prevailing culture accepts pornograhpy being distributed to children, then it will be. If the prevailing culture doesn't accept it, it will be opposed. My only point is that the free market, while imperfect, is not wholly evil either. Sometimes a free market solution is more justified than a criminal penalty.
Posted by: Bobb Alfred at December 29, 2006 09:40 AM
Maybe in most places in America there's still a public sentiment that graphic sexual images are harmful to children, but that doesn't make it a universal opinion.
Certainly not. Hell, I'm American and as I've said repeatedly in this thread, I don't hold that opinion.
Sigh... you know, we could keep going 'round in circles on this one. I think I'm going to go back to "agree-to-disagree" country, because I'm repeating the same arguments over and over. I'll keep reading the thread -- it's always interesting to hear what others have to say -- but please don't feel I'm ignoring you if I don't respond further. It's just that, frankly, I feel I'm running out of things to say -- and have some personal projects demanding my attention.
I've enjoyed debating with all of you. See you all in future threads!
Bill, I think I see what you're saying now...not that the free market will stop porn from being sold to children, but that the free market will not support such a product unless the consumers accept it. That's true...a mostly free market will generally reflect the moral limitations of the consumer, as the differences between the American and other markets demonstrate.
Okay, really, seriously, my last post here: Bobb, to be fair, my earlier statements lacked qualifiers. You and (gasp!) Mike brought up some good points and provided some of the shading I did not.
Any business that wishes to maintain even the slightest reputation for respectability will avoid distributing sexual content to minors. Laws or no laws, the general public won't stand for it.That obviously isn't true for music. Youth make up the bulk of music consumers, and the demand for sexually explicit content is substantial....
Business considerations for respectability are secondary to profitability. To imagine otherwise is to drink the Free-Market Kool-Aid.
Sometimes profitability requires respectability.
I didn't say profitability and respectability were mutually exclusive, and you didn't contradict my point.
Of course we need laws to regulate the market. I've already explicitly said that pornography involving photos or film of actual children is filth that is rightly prohibited by law, for example.
Not to regulate the market, but to prevent exploitation. However the law qualifies filth, there is no prohibition against filth simply on the grounds that it's filth.
Posted by Micha at December 29, 2006 07:18 AM
Me: "I don't KNOW what happened in the GL case but sometimes things have to go to court precisely in order to determine that they were accidental."
Micha: "The courts don't exist to investigae the details of a crime. That's the job of the police and the prosecution. The job of the court is to see if the prosecution has done a good enough job"
Which often involves arriving at a concensus of where the truth lies. ("Where the truth lies" isn't that a wonderful phrase?)
Police involvement can be as simple as taking statements, which can be conflicting statements. Prosecutors - in the UK, the Crown Prosecution Service or the Procurator Fiscal's Office - determine if the alleged perpetrator has a charge to answer and then it goes to trial. The jury get to decide who they believe.
I freely admit that's an idealised simplification of what should happen, and that there are numerous ways in which that system can fall short of perfection.
Bill Myers, your post of 08:04.
I've read your responses to my comments. I pretty much agree with everything you said, but I really just don't see how you got there from what I said... Maybe we've passed through 'agree to disagree' and arrived at 'totally fail to understand what either of us are burbling on about'?
"Britain and America, two countries seperated by a common language.." :P
Posted by Bobb Alfred at December 29, 2006 08:14 AM
" PJ (I hope you don't mind me calling you that...we call my favorite uncle PJ, so it's sorta catchy for me), I guess my point is that those ideas alone hurt no one. It was people acting on those ideas that did the hurting. That's a distinction, I know, but to tie in Micha's point, if we give people the tools (morals, ethics, logic, emotion, etc.) to deal with ideas, then less people will act on ideas that hurt others. Slavery and expansionism can only exist when a large group of people don't see anything wrong with carrying out those agendas"
PJ is fine, probably 75% of the people I know call me that anyway. I agree with a lot of what you say, but I think you missed my point - that the seed of an idea, falling into fertile cultural ground, as you describe above, can - in some cases - directly lead to harm that would not and indeed could not have occurred without the original idea.
Which is the price of ideas, and one worth paying. Ideas can and do change the world, which is always scary and always carries the potential for harm.
Cheers.
Okay, I'm going to stop promising not to post as its a promise I keep about as well as a someone with raging alcoholism vowing not to drink anymore.
But I really am disengaging from the debate. I've posted so many times this week that: a) PAD's blog reeks way too much of me and that's uncool; and b) people can justifiably question whether or not I have a job or a life.
Peter J. Poole, I'm not entirely sure which "how you got there from what I said" you're referring to (there are at least a couple in my last response to you). Under other circumstances I might try to explore the misunderstanding in order to correct it. But I think this blog and I need to spend at least a couple of days apart, for both our sakes. ;)
Suffice to say that regardless of the initial friction between us, I have enjoyed our exchanges in this thread and hope you have as well. While there may still be some lingering misunderstandings between us, I think I understand your positions now better than I did initially, and that alone is worth something. I look forward to future exchanges with you.
I opted to sit this one out.
Happy New Year. y'all!
;)
Bill...is THAT what that smell was? ;)
PJ, I agree, and admit I'm drawing a fine distiction (it's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop at the end). I think the risk is that too many see the idea being the thing they think they can stop, when it's really the fertile ground they should be worried about. I'll risk using Columbine as an example. Don't worry so much about games like Doom and such inciting kids to go on shooting rampages. Worry more about the lack of compassion that allows a kid to develop the mentality that says it's ok to bust into your school and kill people because you were picked on.
