I’ve returned from Las Vegas, where the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund had a two day brainstorming board meeting to discuss the Fund’s future, the cases on our dockets, changes in by-laws, and pretty much everything else having to do with the past, present and future of the CBLDF.
Why Vegas? Lots of cheap airfares (since we paid our own way), lots of cheap hotel rooms, plus stuff to do in the evening after long days of work. Particularly entertaining was Thursday night when Neil arranged for the bunch of us to see his pals, Penn and Teller, performing in their new permanent theater. We went back stage and hung with them for a bit afterward, so that was cool.
With various states stepping up various laws ostensibly designed to “protect the children,” but which can be used to cripple comic book stores (not just comic book stores, but book stores, magazines, even 7-11s), we’re thinking that the next year (or four, if Ashcroft remains around) could potentially be a horror show of litigation. Check in with the CBLDF site for details, and watch for announcements as to future activities.
PAD
• 
we’re thinking that the next year (or four, if Ashcroft remains around) could potentially be a horror show of litigation.
I hope people will continue to support the CBLDF even if Mr Ashcroft is not the Attorney General. Lest they think that all evil doth flow from a Republican administration, they should remember who was President when poor Jesus Castillo was arrested.
Welcome back, Mr. David.
I’ve had a thought blowing around in my head for awhile concerning the CBLDF and raising money and/or awarness for it and what it does. How about some sort of campaign aimed at gettting everyone who buys comic books to donate a single dollar to the cause. I don’t know how many people actually read comics numbers wise, but I’d bet it’s quite a lot (even taking into account that a single person often buys multiple titles). Perhaps it’s already been tried, but I think it would be relatively easy to convince publishers to throw in a free ad page, since it’s something that affects them pretty seriously. I don’t know, just a thought that’s probably already been thought.
Monkeys
Crap. You mean we were both in Vegas at the same time and didn’t run into each other? What are the odds?
(‘Course, I was only there for 15 hours or so, with the last two and a half waiting for my plane home…)
At any rate, welcome back — and I hope you and the rest of the CBLDF’ers are ready for the year. I think you’re right (as is Bill) — it could be very ugly regardless of which way the election goes.
TWL
Toby,
Great idea–you’d think they would have already taken this step. My guess is that the big publishers are hoping to just sit back and let the occasional indie comic producer or seller take one right in the nads, as long as it stays relatively quiet and the blood doesn’t spill onto them.
They’re wrong, of course. All it would take would be the right case on a slow news week and “comic book pørņ” could be the next scandal du jour.
I noticed on the CBLDF website that my old employer and PAD’s favorite comic book retailer, Chuck Rozanski, won an award for his support of the fund. Some things are important enough for everyone to stick together.
And welcome back, PAD. I’m going to miss your ANGEL commentary almost as much as I’ll miss ANGEL.
Wow. You’re back. And here I was thinking you’d taken this whole “banning posters” thing way beyond the realm of reasonability and banned yourself.
Either that or someone in the Justice Department had heard that you had once espoused a liberal sentiment and you were still being searched for your outgoing flight.
I hope people will continue to support the CBLDF even if Mr Ashcroft is not the Attorney General. Lest they think that all evil doth flow from a Republican administration, they should remember who was President when poor Jesus Castillo was arrested.
Actually, they should remember who was governor of Texas, since Jesus Castillo was arrested under a state law, not a federal one.
“Great idea–you’d think they would have already taken this step. My guess is that the big publishers are hoping to just sit back and let the occasional indie comic producer or seller take one right in the nads, as long as it stays relatively quiet and the blood doesn’t spill onto them.” -Bill Mulligan.
Thanks. Unfortunately, it may take one of the big guys coming under fire to get some real solid backing of the CBLDF. The concept that comic books and graphic novels could be so demonized, and that people (who don’t read comics) just assume that it’s a childrens medium frightens me. I wish there were some way to break that stereotype. Maybe make “Understanding Comics” required reading in high school or something. (Scott McCloud is great, by the way). It’s pretty discouraging, at least in my own personal experience. I went to school and got a degree in illustration and a degree in painting, all with the dream of making comics. You wouldn’t believe the negative criticisms and upturnednose looks I got from my professors and advisors when I told them what I wanted to do with my life. Everything from “you’re too good to do THAT” to “don’t waste your time” to “you can’t make any money” (because it’s impossible that my life might NOT actually be centered around money) to “the market is too unstable and on it’s way out” (said by a professor who hadn’t actually picked up a comic book in eons but had read the headline about Marvel filing for bankruptsy).
I just wish comics/sequential storytelling was better understood and more accepted.
I apologize for the somewhat aimless rant. But I don’t apologize for…
Monkeys
Did you see the flap about the latest edition of “Asimov’s” being considered pornographic and unsuitable for children, when it was sold as part of a magazine sale fundraiser for a middle school?
Here’s a link that shows Asimov’s side of that story:
http://www.asimovs.com/_issue_0403/response.shtml
It should be pointed out that supporting the CBLDF is not as obvious for retailers and fans as one might think. At the comics shop where I get my fix, the owner believes that the Mike Diana case was solely about child pørņ and so he won’t personally support the CBLDF. Their connection to the ACLU is another reason for him not to support the CBLDF. He fills my orders for CBLDF merchandise but that is the limit.
I have another friend who really dislikes the actions of the ACLU and was greatly bothered when I pointed out that the ACLU provides some funding to the CBLDF.
At another store, I pay for the store to get and distribute the “Busted” newsletter. They used to get it and had stopped because of the cost to them and the apparent lack of interest by their customers. If your favorite store doesn’t want to foot the bill (remember times are tougher than ever for stores), you might – it tends to be something like $8 or $11 for a bundle of 25 each issue.
Actually, they should remember who was governor of Texas, since Jesus Castillo was arrested under a state law, not a federal one.
If it’s any consolation, the governor of Texas is perhaps a week away from being nationally exposed as a hypocrite of epic proportions. (It hasn’t made the papers yet, but it’s kind of an open secret here in Austin.)
the governor of Texas is perhaps a week away from being nationally exposed as a hypocrite of epic proportions.
Which hypocrasy is being exposed this time??
yeah c’mon spill it please?
The current scuttlebutt is that the Gov of Texas was caught by the Mrs in a compromising position or two with a fellow member of the male gender.
Of course this could all be just rumourmongering like the last Kerry affair claim. Wouldn’t have much to do with the Castillo case, since this isn’t the guy who was Gov (personally, I was trying to point out how silly it is to blame the guy at the top for what happens at a local level. There’s serious crap going on here in Sanford, North carolina but I don’t blame Gov Easley who, I hope, has better things to worry about).
Not sure if any of this would make him a hypocrite. It would certainly make him gay though.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that…
Comics and computers are mysteries to most of the population, so it’s easy to label them as ‘evil’ and seek to ban them with the ignorant majority support.
It’s because these kinds of ‘protect us from evil’ crusades are based solely on lack of education. With daily reports of viruses, spyware, spam, unsolicited email pørņ, and hackers, of course computers are evil and should be banned or heavily regulated. Yes, by all means, let the FBI into our living rooms to protect us.
Same is true for comics. People who’ve never seen a comic before see a little image of the cover of Mar-Ville in the newspaper next to a headline that claims comics are as bad for kids as Hustler magazine, and before long a city like Cincinnati (which prosecuted Larry Flynt twice) ends up banning the sales of all comics.
I was in Vegas a few nights before you were. We also saw the Penn & Teller show; it was great fun, and the bit with the flag was every bit as supercharged as they intended.
I hope you won my money back from the casinos.
Rob
Monkeys? Monkeys?
Gerbils!!!
I have another friend who really dislikes the actions of the ACLU and was greatly bothered when I pointed out that the ACLU provides some funding to the CBLDF.
While I support many of the things that the CLDF stand for, I don’t agree that they should have recently thrown their support behind the ACLU’s suit against Section 215 of the Patriot Act. This tangent is pretty far from the original charter of the CLDF, in my opinion. I’ve indirectly supported the CLDF a number of times over the years, but I’ve never thrown significant financial support behind it because I’ve never been convinced that the CLDF is not going to become just a carbon copy of the ACLU — a suspicion that has only been been proved increasingly likely with the passage of time.
I’d be more inclined to support the CBLDF if they’d separate themselves from the ACLU.
Because while I support some of the stuff the ACLU does, they are a thorn in everybody’s side for some of the god awful and stupid things they send their legal hounds after.
In defense of the ACLU, their position is that Constitutional rights apply to *all* US citizens, and they’re going to step in and defend those rights, especially when citizens can’t, even when it’s not the popular stance.
They also don’t feel it’s their place to endorse (or not) a particular person’s or organization’s message — they’re just there to defend their right to say it.
The best way to learn about who they are and why they do what they do is to see for yourself (and not rely on the opinions of others — even mine!)… Here’s there FAQ. Check it out! http://www.aclu.org/info/info.cfm?ID=14684&c=248
PAD, was it hard to get much work done with everybody screaming “The sky is falling! The sky is falling!” ?
Did you discuss more ways to spin things to make them sound like you are doing something legitimate and fool the comic book reading public like you did with the Jesus Castillo case?
Ken, uh, what? Would you care to elaborate?
Monkeys
And here I thought all the spin in the Jesus Castillo case belonged to those in Texas that got him arrested, including the lawmakers and their silly “obscenity” laws.
For the legal truth:
http://www.5thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/as_web.exe?c05_02.ask+D+11251151
Check any CBLDF press release on their site or newsarama.com or any other comic related site to see their spin of half-truths and lies.
I think it takes a certain degree of mental disconnect to imply that, on the one hand, the CBLDF is exaggerating the growing threat of censorship, while in the same breath citing a recent case that is a perfect example of exactly what we’re the most concerned about.
We advocate that–among many other freedoms–adults should be entitled to purchase adult comic books if they see fit. The Castillo case advocated the exact opposite, with the DA giving a nudge-nudge wink-wink summary to the jury that said, in essence, “Ignore their expert testimony; common sense tells you comic books are for children.” Now if people are comfortable with that, well, okay. But I’m not, nor is the CBLDF, and I’m not certain why any comics fan would be.
Citing the higher court’s upholding the jury verdict not only doesn’t contradict a single thing the CBLDF stated in any of its press releases, but it underscores the most problematic and unfair aspect of obscenity charges. The vagueness of the law indicates that community standards are to be a major factor. The defense presented examples of other publications, sold in stores within the same area as Castillo’s store, that were far more intense in their subject matter. The fact that these stores remain unmolested indicates the reasonable assumption that community standards tolerates them. Instead the upper court responded, Well, gee, maybe those are obscene, too.
See the insanity of it? It’s like driving down an unmarked street at 30 MPH, being arrested and hauled into court where the jury decides after the fact that, you know what? That street should really have a maximum speed of 15 MPH.
There’s just no way of knowing, and it creates a chilling effect that spreads far beyond the sale of hard core manga. And I know whereof I speak, because I’m the one who had retailers in Arkansas and Texas flipping out over “Fallen Angel,” convinced that passing reference to someone being “blown” in issue #2 (nothing was shown, there was no sex) would be enough to get stores shut down
As for the ACLU, they have proven a valuable resource. Their mere presence has added sufficient gravitas in some instances that cases which might have been pursued by overzealous prosecutors against comic stores were quietly dropped when they realized just how big a fight they were going to be in for. You don’t hear about those cases, though. We keep them quiet because–naturally enough–many retailers aren’t anxious to advertise that they were being eyed for prosecution as alleged purveyors of smut…charges which, by the way, over the years have included such incredibly smutty books as “Elfquest.”
Now if you don’t agree with everything the ACLU does, okay, that’s fine. But I don’t see why it has to be an all-or-nothing deal.
PAD
PAD wrote The defense presented examples of other publications, sold in stores within the same area as Castillo’s store, that were far more intense in their subject matter. The fact that these stores remain unmolested indicates the reasonable assumption that community standards tolerates them. Instead the upper court responded, Well, gee, maybe those are obscene, too.
I agree there is probably a double standard in the area of accountability between comics and, say, Penthouse. But when you say the other publications were “far more intense in their subject matter,” you are exaggerating. If anything, based on the court opinion, they sound like they had just about the same intensity of the comic. Regardless, the whole argument of the defense begs me to ask the question: If the comic book in question , “Demon Beast Invasion,” supposedly isn’t obscene, then just what is?
Here’s an excerpt of the court opinion regarding Demon Beast Invasion:
“Reynerson said the comic book depicted genitals in a state of arousal and contained acts of sodomy, mášŧûrbáŧìøņ, excretory functions, sadism, and masochism. Reynerson described one scene in which a demon, transformed into a tree, penetrated a female with its roots. After reviewing the book and comparing it to other materials, he concluded the book was obscene.”
I’m a reasonable man. I not some naive, cloistered person who just fell off of the turnip wagon. Although I haven’t read the comic DBI, from the description of the contents, it sounds pretty obscene to me. And of course Scott McCloud, expert witness that he is, would never point to any comic and utter the “o-word.” Why? Because once a person commits to a blanket “anti-censorship” platform, that person can no longer censure any publication without coming across as a hypocrite. And it’s this all or nothing stance of organizations like the ACLU that I just can’t, in good conscience, support.
I just can’t agree with the logic of some who seem to say in their battle against censorship, “nothing is obscene, and anything goes.” Call me ignorant, but I don’t think the Founding Fathers had “Demon Beast Invasion” in mind when the formulated the Bill of Rights.
The Castillo case advocated the exact opposite, with the DA giving a nudge-nudge wink-wink summary to the jury that said, in essence, “Ignore their expert testimony; common sense tells you comic books are for children.” Now if people are comfortable with that, well, okay. But I’m not, nor is the CBLDF, and I’m not certain why any comics fan would be.
If this were really the case, then you might be right, but all the court documents indicate that this was not taken into any consideration. Only press releases from CBLDF have stated this, and it comes across more as a weak excuse than as actual fact.
By the court records’ accounts, the jury reached an adequate and just decision based on the facts that were presented.
If this were the only case of spin that CBLDF had done, I would agree that I am judging them too harshly, but they have a record of not telling complete truths. I can attest that almost everything that they put out about the OKC Planet Comics case were mainly lies. They correctly named the owners, the charge, and the date but everything else were either half-truths presented out of context or just plain lies.
I just can’t agree with the logic of some who seem to say in their battle against censorship, “nothing is obscene, and anything goes.” Call me ignorant, but I don’t think the Founding Fathers had “Demon Beast Invasion” in mind when the formulated the Bill of Rights.
See, whereas I think they had exactly that in mind. I think the Founding Fathers had the wit to know that which many people today seem unable to comprehend: That inoffensive speech needs no protection. That it is precisely that material which some *will* find offensive that needs protection from exactly the sort of government activity the CBLDF endeavors to head off.
I know that I’ve never said, “Nothing is obscene and anything goes.” What I’ve said is that nothing should be ruled as obscene because what one person finds offensive, another finds compelling. That trying to rule judicially on matters of taste and artistic merit are exactly what we should not be doing. And that ultimately I should not have the right to tell you that you are not allowed to buy or read “dirty books” simply because they bother me.
I mean, do you *want* to give me that degree of power and control over you? Do you really want me to be able to say, “Sorry, I think you should’t read this because I find it sickening. In fact, not only do I think you shouldn’t be allowed to read it, but I think others should be prosecuted and jailed for selling it to you.” Because if you do want to give me that power over you, then that’s the logic *I* can’t agree with.
PAD
If this were really the case, then you might be right, but all the court documents indicate that this was not taken into any consideration. Only press releases from CBLDF have stated this, and it comes across more as a weak excuse than as actual fact.
No, the court documents only indicate that the high court didn’t take it into consideration. The actual fact is that obviously the DA thought it a significant enough consideration to emphasize the entire “accessible to children/comics are aimed at kids” argument to the jury. In the face of widespead community acceptance of all other manner of “obscene” material, it is not remotely out of line to believe that the DA’s argument had an impact on the jury.
As for the rest of your arguments, well heck, I think they’re lies. See how easy that is? Particularly when your position seems to stem entirely from unreasonable enmity toward the Fund rather than anything rooted in common sense.
The CBLDF is a non-profit organization, overseen by an unpaid Board of Directors, that was formed not out of the clear blue, but in direct response to harassment of comic book stores by unreasoning and overzealous legal officials. We’d far prefer to live in a world where the services of such an organization were not required. But that’s not happening anytime in the foreseeable future. John Ashcroft, the man who felt the need to spend $6000 of taxpayer money to dress a statue of Lady Justice, has made a point of saying that his emphasis in the coming months is going to be on obscenity prosecution (since, y’know, the war on terrorism is going so well.)
But what’s obscene? “Overfiend?” According to one jury in one city. “Fallen Angel?” Retailers in Arkansas and Texas think it might be. Vertigo books? Maybe that’s next.
You seem to be clutching to this bizarre notion that the CBLDF is out to distort things, to paint the situation as less dire than it is. No. We’re really not. The situation, as more states develop constitutionally dubious display laws which would allow authorities to prosecute into oblivion a comic store if they happen to have Penthouse on display behind the counter, is exactly as dire as we’re reporting. Anyone who finds it more soothing to believe that everything’s fine and the mean old CBLDF is just being alarmist for its own nefarious ends (whatever those might be, no one chooses to speculate…possibly because there aren’t any) can naturally do so.
This is, after all, a free country…at least, for so long as there are people willing to fight to keep it that way.
PAD
PAD wrote: See, whereas I think they had exactly that in mind. I think the Founding Fathers had the wit to know that which many people today seem unable to comprehend: That inoffensive speech needs no protection.
No, from all I’ve read, the Founding Fathers were protecting the right to have political dissent, and to protect the rights of Americans to be critical of their government. After the Bill of Rights was passed, there was no wholesale movement — or even a tiny movement — to publish things like Demon Beast Invasion, which, if it had been published in, say, 1790, the creators would have arrested, committed, deported, or driven out of the state — perhaps even by the likes of Jefferson, Adams, Franklin or Washington. In my opinion, the freedom of speech issue has been perverted over two centuries into a freedom to shock issue, that has nothing to do with political and religious freedom. Today, for the most radical “free speech” advocates, there is no line to cross for obscenity. Obscenity, in their opinions, is just an irrational term people use to perpetuate censorship. In short, they believe nothing should be out of bounds.
I happen to disagree.
PAD added: mean, do you *want* to give me that degree of power and control over you? Do you really want me to be able to say, “Sorry, I think you should’t read this because I find it sickening. In fact, not only do I think you shouldn’t be allowed to read it, but I think others should be prosecuted and jailed for selling it to you.” Because if you do want to give me that power over you, then that’s the logic *I* can’t agree with.
Actually, our whole jury system of justice is already based exactly on that premise. If I do something that is contrary to existing laws, I am arrested and tried in court. And if, during the trial, 12 reasonable peers on the jury agree with the prosecutor’s arguments, then I am guilty. I can appeal the decision up to the Supreme Court, but if everyone along the way agrees with the jury, I’m still guilty. What you are apparently saying is that we should throw out this “unfair” system. After all, the people around me should have no say when I decide to ignore a law.
You may argue that the law is unjust, and that is your right. But if you look at the historical pattern of change regarding what supposedly constitutes “freedom of speech,” you are also advocating a position where there eventually will be no law restricting anything verbal or visual.
Believe me, I understand your point of view — I just don’t agree with a policy that jettisons all discriminators.
I don’t understand the whole “obscene” argument. Well, I understand it, but I mean that I can’t see how anyone can support the idea that someone else (i.e. a city council, the federal government, or even their Great Aunt Petunia) should be allowed to tell anyone (i.e. a private citizen, a comic shop, or a multi-national corporation) what they can and cannot read, sell, or create…regardless of content.
What difference does it make if I or someone else finds a particular piece of “art” obscene anyway? Why does that matter? Unless I am being forced to do something I don’t want to do, why should I care what anyone else enjoys? Personally, I find cigarette smoking to be obscene and offensive, but if someone wants to do it (as long as I don’t have to breathe it) I say “go ahead, smoke your lungs out.”
Is there a logical explanation for why “obscene” material should be illegal, past the “I don’t like it so you can’t do it” argument, that is?
William wrote: What difference does it make if I or someone else finds a particular piece of “art” obscene anyway? Why does that matter? Unless I am being forced to do something I don’t want to do, why should I care what anyone else enjoys?
Back in 1973, The National Lampoon published their “Encyclopedia of Humor.” Among the ad spoofs and other typical goofy and irreverent material, there was a spoof of a Volkswagen ad from the period that was titled, “If Ted Kennedy drove a Volkswagen, he’d be president today.” Well, apparently Kennedy immediately sued the Lampoon, and they had to pull all remaining issues from the store shelves. In addition, when the Lampoon later published a hardcover version (consisting of hardbound, unsold issues of the mag), some poor guy had to pull that page out of every issue before it was bound.
Believe it or not, the ad is actually currently available for viewing on the Web — at least in one location. I’m not going to put Peter on the spot by printing the URL, suffice to say, a simple Google search of the ad spoof title phrase should give you the link.
I suspect it won’t be there for long. After all, as Peter points out, there is a freedom of speech problem in this country.
Ted Kennedy didn’t sue National Lampoon.
Volkswagon sued over improper use of their trademark which has nothing to do with obsenity laws.
Question 28 on http://www.marksverylarge.com/answers.html
28. The best ad parody I ever saw in National Lampoon showed a floating Volkswagon Bug in the water with the caption “If Teddy Kennedy drove a Volkswagon, He’d be President Today.” Where did that appear?
That was in the National Lampoon Encyclopedia of Humor (1973). It’s listed in the contents page (under D) as “Doyle Dane Bernbach” and was written by Anne Beatts. If you buy a copy of this issue, you may find the ad is missing. As a result of a lawsuit by VW over the ad for unauthorized use of their trademark, NatLamp was forced to remove the page (with razor blades!) from any copies they still had in inventory (which, from what I gather, was about half the first printing of 250,000 copies) and all subsequent reprints. For what its worth, Ted Kennedy didn’t sue.
Scavenger wrote: **Ted Kennedy didn’t sue National Lampoon.
Volkswagon sued over improper use of their trademark which has nothing to do with obsenity laws.**
I stand corrected. It’s been 30 years, but that’s not a good excuse.
Ironically, the “Encyclopedia of Humor” wasn’t yanked off the stands because of it’s sexual-related themes (including Russ Heath’s infamous near-full nudity bondage comic “Cowgirls at War”), it was censored because of a political-related ad.
The “improper use of trademark” issue is kind of curious, because the Lampoon regularly made fun of trademarked items. Most satire mags did so at the time. As a matter of fact, in the same issue, three other trademarked characters (Speedy, the Pillsbury Doughboy, and Mr. Peanut) were in a strip called “Heading for Trouble.” This strip was not pulled from the later hardcover version of “Encyclopedia of Humor,” as was the Volkswagen ad.
I wonder if the ACLU jumped in to help the Lampoon with this very obvious freedom-of-speech situation? Then again, maybe The Lampoon staff never thought to ask.
I suppose it’s remotely possible that the Founders would have been outraged over material such as “Overfiend.” Then again, they might also have been outraged over the way women dress and–in the case of some Founders–that Blacks have equal rights. The intent of the Founders, after all, was that when it came to the census, Blacks should be counted as fractions of people rather than whole.
As for me, I prefer to think of the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said,
“I am mortified to be told that,
in the United States of America,
the sale of a book can become
a subject of inquiry,
and of criminal inquiry too.”
And frankly, for all those who diss the CBLDF or claim they have no trouble abiding by the judgment of others as to what they should be allowed to read or not read…personally, I think you’re full of it, and I’ll tell you why. Because if you were standing in a comic book store purchasing “Hellblazer,” filled with nudity and profanity, and the cops busted you, cuffed you, and charged you with buying obscenity (and then got a warrant to go through your collection and take every single book they believed might be obscene to build a case against you, plus all your videos and CDs as well), you wouldn’t be announcing with sang froid that, well, this was the law. You’d be howlng bloody murder.
And the CBLDF would be there to come to your defense.
PAD
As for the rest of your arguments, well heck, I think they’re lies. See how easy that is?
They are that easy to dismiss when I can’t provide any proof outside of eye-witness testimony as a customer of Planet Comics. I do admit that. But I bring it up because the CBLDF press release that was published in Wizard at the time was the first time that I read anything by CBLDF that I knew the truth about and could realize the lies that they put out.
I see the CBLDF as being an organization that is saying that no one should be held accountable for their actions. That anything is okay. That is the complete opposite of what comics taught me.
Because if you were standing in a comic book store purchasing “Hellblazer,” filled with nudity and profanity, and the cops busted you, cuffed you, and charged you with buying obscenity (and then got a warrant to go through your collection and take every single book they believed might be obscene to build a case against you, plus all your videos and CDs as well), you wouldn’t be announcing with sang froid that, well, this was the law. You’d be howlng bloody murder.
But the truth is that most of us that “diss”(to use your word) CBLDF are not going to be reading Hellblazer. And the truth is that as much as you and the CBLDF like to scream “The sky is falling!”, what you described has never happened and will likely never happen, but it sure makes good sound bite to win people over!
I think what it comes down to is that comics are a much easier target than internet pørņ, pørņ in general, drug dealers, and the dozens (per day) of drug “buy me” e-mails I’ve been getting that have begun to rival the pørņ “rent me” e-mails.
In terms of helping adults understand comics, but who don’t want to read –
Show them “Comic Book: The Movie”
(Even though Peter’s only in it for a few short moments — he’s got a really good, balanced “get your mind out of the gutter” moment among them)
Part of the story is a fairly accurate depiction of the San Diego Comic Con, and Mark Hamill’s character is showing the convention to an outsider in the story.
Plus because it is a fiction movie, there are even deep things like “themes” in it. And as a comedy, hopefully there will be stuff that not just comic book fans will find funny. Though I think I probably found the comic book industry related jokes more funny than the sex jokes.
Anyhow. I really enjoyed “Comic Book: The Movie” and you can do a bit of action and sci-fi celebrity spotting while you watch (yet another lure for the non-comics person).
PAD wrote: **As for me, I prefer to think of the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said,
“I am mortified to be told that,
in the United States of America,
the sale of a book can become
a subject of inquiry,
and of criminal inquiry too.”**
Great quote, but quite a bit out of context. Jefferson could not have possibly imagined our brave new world of “snuff films,” child pørņ, bëášŧìálìŧÿ videos, etc.
In my opinion, none of these items fall under the freedom of speech categories envisioned by the drafters of the Constitution.
And yes, you are absolutely right that many of the Founding Fathers had flawed views of humanity compared to what is the norm today. Yet, when it is convenient to do so, extreme “freedom of speech” advocates forget that the drafters of the Constitution knew they were imperfect. Because of this, they knew it had to be a working document — one that could evolve and be changed if flaws were found.
You obviously feel changes to the Constitution were justified for racial and gender equality, but for some reason, you think the First Amendment is sacrosanct. Would you still feel this way even if a majority of Americans were to agree there are problems with the way some people are distorting its original meaning? You can’t have it both ways. Either the Constitution is a living document, or it isn’t. And if it were legally changed to clarify the freedom of speech issue, just as it was legally changed to allow women to vote, why would this be a great calamity? After all, isn’t just such changes what the Founding Fathers were allowing for?
As for the CLDF, I still think the basic idea of the organization is great. I just don’t agree with some of its policies.
Russ Maheras
Great quote, but quite a bit out of context. Jefferson could not have possibly imagined our brave new world of “snuff films,” child pørņ, bëášŧìálìŧÿ videos, etc.
But not completely out of context.
“Child pørņ”, to a degree, is a recent invention imo, and Jefferson himself wasn’t exactly a saint.
But PAD’s points remain, regardless of whether it’s Hellblazer, or bëšŧìálìŧÿ, or whatever.
There are people out there that want to control everything you see, read, or watch.
And if we stand back and let it happen, it will happen.
Wait, so you’re telling me not only did I happen to be in Vegas the same time you were, but I went to the same Penn and Teller show?!? What are the odds?
If only my wife hadn’t fallen ill just after the show, I would have been able to meet three of my favorite people in one night!
I see the CBLDF as being an organization that is saying that no one should be held accountable for their actions. That anything is okay. That is the complete opposite of what comics taught me.
It also happens to be the complete opposite of the CBLDF’s position. But since you seem far more obsessed with accusing the CBLDF of lying than actually hearing anything I’m saying–indeed, since you seem so bound and determined to ignore the encroaching wave of censorship in this country–I’m not sure of what purpose there would be in explaining it to you.
Yet, when it is convenient to do so, extreme “freedom of speech” advocates forget that the drafters of the Constitution knew they were imperfect. Because of this, they knew it had to be a working document — one that could evolve and be changed if flaws were found.
Yes. Exactly. Thank you for proving my point, although you don’t seem to realize you’ve done so. You claim that the Founders didn’t envision “Overfiend” when they were drafting the First Amendment. Perhaps. But they created the Constitution to be a living breathing document specifically because they were wise enough to know *they couldn’t envision everything.*
But whereas my view is consistent, yours is inherently contradictory. I’m saying that *if* they could not foresee “Overfiend,” then the First Amendment should be elastic enough to be made to cover it. You, on the other hand, are saying that since they could not foresee “Overfiend,” the First Amendment should *not* be elastic enough to cover it. Yet you accuse me of considering the First Amendment immutable when, in fact, you’re the one who would freeze it in amber and say that it doesn’t apply to anything beyond the scope of the late eighteenth century…while at the same time admitting the Constitution was created to change with the times.
So at this point I don’t know *where* you’re coming from.
PAD
But whereas my view is consistent, yours is inherently contradictory. I’m saying that *if* they could not foresee “Overfiend,” then the First Amendment should be elastic enough to be made to cover it. You, on the other hand, are saying that since they could not foresee “Overfiend,” the First Amendment should *not* be elastic enough to cover it.
No, my stance is not contradictory at all. I advocate changing the Constitution if the majority of Americans think there is a problem with it. In my opinion, it is a wrong to currently classify “snuff films,” child pørņ, bëášŧìálìŧÿ videos, etc., as “freedom of speech.” And if the majority of Americans agree with my opinion, why shouldn’t the First Amendment be reviewed and possibly changed?
So in fact, your opinion is the intransigent one, not mine. I say change the Constitution if the majority believe there is something wrong with it. It was DESIGNED to be changed. As we discussed, it’s been changed many, many times to address problems. But what you are apparently saying is don’t change the First Amendment under any circumstances. And I say, “Why not?”
Russ Maheras
I say change the Constitution if the majority believe there is something wrong with it.
You know, this ties in nicely with the current gay amendment ban argument.
50 years ago, the majority of people were likely in favor of racial separation and such.
That still doesn’t make it right.
Russ…
Go take civics 101. The point of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is to protect the Minority from the Majority.
I say change the Constitution if the majority believe there is something wrong with it.
This is perhaps one of the most vile ideas ever stated.
The majority thinks that Jews should be killed on sight. Well, we’ll just change the Constitution to make it so.
The majority thinks that people named Russ should be exiled. See ya Russ.
You don’t read Hellblazer…Probably don’t read Sandman either…but how bout this…
Fallen Angel, Captain Marvel, and Star Trek New Frontier all have sex of one kind or another in it. Either graphic,implied,straight, homosexual, or inter-species. I charge you with reading obscene material, so time for you to get clapped in the irons. As you say, you broke the law.
Scavenger wrote: Go take civics 101. The point of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is to protect the Minority from the Majority.
Obviously you’re the one who doesn’t know the process of a making an amendment to the Constitution. It takes a 2/3 majority of both the Senate and House of Representatives, then 3/4 of the states have to agree to the amendment. Obviously, there has to be a concensus, or it won’t happen. The majority decides in this country, and it always has. If the majority wants gay marriages in this country, then guess what — Bush’s proposed amendment will fail and we’ll have gay marriages. I’m not afraid of our democratic process. It’s not perfect, but it’s the only one we’ve got.
I said: “I say change the Constitution if the majority believe there is something wrong with it.” Then Scavenger said: This is perhaps one of the most vile ideas ever stated. The majority thinks that Jews should be killed on sight. Well, we’ll just change the Constitution to make it so.
A democracy is vile? Changing the Constitution, which has been done dozens of times, is vile? Perhaps you believe an amendment to allow women to vote should have never been passed?
Your hyperbole is silly. This is not Nazi Germany, and things here don’t work that way. Are you advocating that we scrap our democratic political process just because you don’t agree with how it works? Isn’t that exactly what Hitler did?
Russ Maheras
Russ, I think scavenger’s point was that just because the majority wishes something to be, doesn’t mean it’s right or a good idea. Sure, allowing blacks and women to vote were good ideas, but prohibition obviously wasn’t. It was based less on common sense and individual rights and more on someone in charge didn’t like something. Granted, a lot of people in power had to dislike it (as you pointed out the approval process for an amendment), but a bunch of political figures doesn’t comprise the majority of the population. And don’t quote the statistics about who supports and who doesn’t, because statistics depend on who is polled and where. So unless every single person is polled, those numbers will never be accurate.
Monkeys.
Russ,
There is a big difference between 3/4 agreement and a simple majority — just ask anyone living out here in CA who’s seen the antics of our state trying to pass a budget. (The budget only requires 60% support, not 75.)
In political terms, a 75% approval is a vote of near-unanimous acclaim. In the history of elections, for example, the elections considered landslides (Reagan-Mondale, Nixon-McGovern, LBJ-Goldwater, etc.) were lucky to have the winner crack the 60% mark. (They were 59, 62, and 61 respectively.)
When you say “consensus” is needed, I completely agree with you. Initially, though, you said “a majority”, and implied that any majority wish should always trump any minority wish — and in that, frankly, I’m with Scavenger. “Tyranny of the majority” situations are pretty scary.
Was he being hyperbolic? Yes, a little — but justifiably so, IMO, since your position was rather extreme in and of itself (at least as stated).
TWL
Monkeys wrote: Russ, I think scavenger’s point was that just because the majority wishes something to be, doesn’t mean it’s right or a good idea. Sure, allowing blacks and women to vote were good ideas, but prohibition obviously wasn’t. It was based less on common sense and individual rights and more on someone in charge didn’t like something.
My whole point is that the Constitution is a living document. But it was constructed in such a way as to make change very difficult — as Tim points out, in political terms, a landslide consensus is required for anything to happen. But it allows for change nonetheless. I merely suggested that the original “freedom of speech” issue was never intended to protect some of the extreme material it currently protects. I think it was designed to protect the right of Americans to do what we are doing right now: Complain, argue, debate, or whatever you want to call it. From a historical perspective, it appears to me the ultimate goal was to protect political and religious freedom, but in recent years this purpose has been distorted almost beyond recognition. If I’m the only person to feel that way, than no harm, no foul. But if the majority of people agreed with me, couldn’t that be an indication that maybe there IS a problem that needs fixing?
Other wrongs were addressed by Constitutional amendments. And all I’m saying is that perhaps this is another wrong waiting to to be addressed as well. And if my arguments offend you, but “Demon Beast Invasion” doesn’t, then there clearly IS a problem with free speech in this country.
Russ Maheras
This is not Nazi Germany, and things here don’t work that way.
And yet, we had our own little “camps” for the Japanese during WWII.
Just because it doesn’t work that way now doesn’t mean it won’t in the future either.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that “Demon Beast” doesn’t offend them, Russ. I know I’m not saying that. Nor do I find your opinions offensive. Wrong headed and myopic, perhaps, but not offensive.
The point is that freedom of expression means freedom of expression. That “Demon Beast” and your opinions, as different in terms of purpose and style as they may be, should both be equally protected by the First Amendment. Currently, they’re not. I find that unfair. Furthermore, the notion that no seller or buyer knows whether a particular work is illegal or not until after they’ve sold or bought it…at which point they can then be prosecuted for it…is not only unfair, it’s insane. And that anyone could conceivably think that such a system is a good one is akin to pulling up a seat at the Mad Tea Party and watching in astonishment at the sheer ludicrousness of the proceedings.
But if what you’re saying is that you think the answer to all our problems is to produce a constitutional amendment that curtails the freedoms of the First Amendment, then you might want to consider getting them to make room for you at the tea party table. Then again, we’re all mad here.