Remember how ludicrous it was when John Ashcroft draped cloths over the bare breasts of the statue of justice?
Well, Gordon Lee, a Georgia comics retailer, isn’t laughing. Because Gordon is being prosecuted under Georgia law that stems from the same “human body is evil” thinking. A law so sweeping that the following titles can get retailers arrested and charged with fines and jail time: “Watchmen.” “Contract With God.” “Sandman.”
Interested yet? Sit back, I’ll explain:
Every year, Gordon routinely distributes thousands of free comics on Halloween. This year he blew through over two thousand comics. One of the comics distributed was “Alternative Comics #2,” (provided by the publisher during Free Comics Day) in which there was a story called “The Salon.” The subject depicts the meeting of artists Georges Braque and Pablo Picasso.
It is an historically accurate depiction, right down to the fact that Picasso’s studio was brutally hot during that summer and Picasso would paint in the nude.
There is nothing sexual in the depiction. Picasso, shown fully nude, doesn’t have an erection or engage in sodomy with Braque. It is what was: A startled Braque meeting a blissfully immodest Picasso.
For the distribution of the comic (not even the sale, mind you) Gordon was busted on two charges. The first is “distributing obscene material to a minor,” even though the material doesn’t even begin to fit the Miller test for obscenity. And the second, even more insane, is “distributing material depicting nudity.”
Yes, that’s right. Any comic book in Georgia depicting nudity of any kind can get you busted. Remember Doctor Manhattan? He’ll get you one to three years in Georgia.
If these laws are able to withstand constitutional challenge, do you REALLY think there aren’t states who would love to adopt them?
Consider: If a comic book publisher produces a comic biography of the artist Michelangelo, and accurately depicts his statue of David or the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, any retailer in Georgia who sells it can be arrested. To say nothing of the publisher using the US mails to send out review copies. Distributing obscene material through the mails has some pretty stiff penalties.
Speaking of Michelangelo, here’s an interesting factoid: There was a chief censor in Rome who considered the master’s fresco atop the Chapel to be obscenity. After Michelangelo died, the censor converted others to his beliefs and hired one of Michelangelo’s students to paint cloths and drapes over the naughty bits of Adam et al.
Now…how many people, off the top of their head, remember the name of the censor? How many remember the name of the artist who aided the censor?
How many remember the name Michelangelo?
And yes, I know some smartguys will immediately claim Michelangelo is only remembered because of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Well, guess what: Except for sashes and masks, the Turtles are naked, so…
The CBLDF will naturally be undertaking this case. And the point of the foregoing is that censors may sometimes win their short term goals, but in the long term it is the art and the artists who survive and revered while the censors are relegated to laughing stocks and the dustbin of forgotten history. Aid the CBLDF in tossing these particular censors into the dustbin they so richly deserve.
PAD
• 
The Janet thing is even more ridiculous because the whole incident lasted what? 2 – 3 seconds? The fact that people chose to complain to the FCC about this seems more neurotic to me than any potential ‘damage’ to their little ones.
Interestingly enough, outgoing FCC Chairman Michael Powell has acknowledged that, although the number of complaints to the FCC regarding “inappropriate” material has increased over the past year or so, that the complaints themselves are predominantly form letters provided by a select handful of groups, all with the same particular agenda of “cleaning up” airwaves.
In other words, the kneejerk reactions we’ve been seeing to broadcasters, particularly since the Janet Jackson incident, are being instigated by a (relatively speaking) small group of individuals. It’d be sad if it weren’t so scary.
I appreciate Nytwyng’s comments, which echo something I said at the beginning. Nytwyng is right that I do see the legal reasons to fight this case. My original point, though, is that the harsh comments about the parents are at least premature since we don’t know all of the facts in this case. There are TWO issues that are raised by this case. The first is the issue of the parent’s reaction and actions. The second is the criminal case. I fully defend the parents in this matter (even though I would most likely have handled it differently). I do not defend the prosecutors or the fact that this is particular incident is criminal (i.e., potentially a 3 year sentence). It puzzles me that some of you cannot separate these two issues.
Thanks for the kind words, Jim.
But, I’d have to agree with those who feel that the parents’ decision to call the police, rather than taking their complaint directly to the source (i.e. the store) was, indeed, disproportionate. Is saying so being “harsh?” I don’t think so.
Just as (as has been mentioned in other posts here) there appears to be an abandonment of responsibility among many parents for actually parenting their own children, so too has much of American society appeared to have decided to want the courts to step in and “parent” them, rather than dealing directly with the (relatively) minor things that happen to them in their daily lives. Such as happened in this case.
In the time that it took the parents to contact the police and get this ball rolling, they could have contacted the store and – most likely – received an explanation and/or apology from Gordon. Instead, they chose to overreact, and the result of that overreaction could have far more serious and far-reaching consequences than their child seeing a two-dimensional black-and-white drawing of a man sitting in his birthday suit.
But, hey…what do I know. I mean, I also assume that coffee’s hot without seeing a warning label that says so, and don’t put it between my knees right before accellerating my car.
I’m just kinda nutty that way. 🙂
1) I’m kind of sorry that the story wasn’t true, that the legend was untrue and that the truth is rather mundane. I’ll deal.
2) I wish the Attorney General of the United States DID have the time and opportunity to micro-manage in those ways. A true smaller-government man like myself really does wish that the super-powerful money-munching politicians and administrators in our central Federal Government had more time on their hands and less opportunity to decide the directions of the country.
I also wish that stuff in and around D.C. cost less, but we all have our dreams.
Scavenger says:
Can we set up a tracking system for Iwoa Jim’s kids? They’re gonna be so repressed growing up, I don’t want to be anywhere near them when they go off.
Followed by:
He’s a die hard Republican, for smaller governemnt and all of that, but he thinks that the first thing to be done isn’t to confront the issue, but to report someone to the Goverment. It’s not what a rational being does, it’s not what a true Christian does, and it’s not what a man does.
Yeah, like a real man makes snide comments about another man’s kids. Low, man, very very low.
Normally I’d advise against ad hominem attacks but for you it would be a step up.
Peter,
You may not agree with Iowa Jim, but at least he had the courage to openly state his opinion. At least he was thoughtful and polite in his responses. Unlike a lot of blogs, at least it didn’t devolve into name-calling.
I really enjoyed this topic; it really made you think about how lucky we are to have free speech and how we must fight for it — even if it is the opinion of someone I totally disagree with.
Everyone! Support the CBLDF!
Thanks for your support folks! Support the CBLDF, as I am not the the only retailer that has had this done to him/her. Many others prefer to remain quiet while I really am glad that the CBLDF has come to my aid to protect my legal rights. The fight continues …
Scavenger is right, look for the next Columbine in Iowa… or maybe Georgia…
First post here so I’m going to say I’m a fan of your work but that whole John Ashcroft covered the nude statue story is a big myth. The people in charge of setting up press conferences like this wanted a better backdrop then a big grey building (which is what the statue is in front of) They also wanted all the backgrounds for press conferences to have a unified front. John Ashcroft didn’t order it and it had nothing to do with the statue.
Sorry missed Bill’s post where he posted my point oh well HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOO world! 😉
The assumption that comics always have been and always will be for children I would guess stems from the fact that things like Warner Bros cartoons, and the early Disney movies, were for kids.
Anyone who says that has apparently never actually watched many Warner Bros shorts, hasn’t actually perceived what they saw if they did, or knows little or nothing about how films in general and the WB shorts in particular used to be presented.
Hearst had the right to ban Citizen Kane from as many theaters as he could.
No — as a non-governmental entity, he had the power to do so. Rights would be another matter.
It’s about an Austrian comic depicting Jesus as a pot-smoking parry animal who crosses the Sea of Galilee on a surfboard.
Rather sounds like “Foolbert Sturgeon”‘s “New Advemtures of Jesus”. from back ikn the ’70s or so.
Hmmmm, don’t know about this case, but Ashcroft (from a story I read a long time back and nope, I can’t source it) got tired of the MSM having fun with those bøøbìëš behind his head. I mean, come on, you are doing a serious job and the press only wants those pictures to have sport with you?
Funny how 1) covering the statue was one of his first acts as AG and 2) All of the previous AGs, including Ed Meese, famous for his anti-pornagraphy “study” had no problem being taken seriously while talking to the press in front of the statue.
So apparently this is an Urban Legend. If it were true, one would think that it probably had something to do with how ludicrous the AGs in question perceived/did not perceive their own positions to be. If you know deep down that the majority of thinking people are going to think you’re a dangerous loon, you need to take every possible measure you can to avoid giving extra ammunition.
**PAD
“And yes, I know some smartguys will immediately claim Michelangelo is only remembered because of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Well, guess what: Except for sashes and masks, the Turtles are naked, so…”
Alan Wilkinson:
Except for their shells, maybe?**
Yes, the Turtles are covered by the ‘Wookie Rule’ which states “Any character covered by fur is not really naked”. Or by shells, or scales, for that matter. 🙂
Chris
Funny how 1) covering the statue was one of his first acts as AG and 2) All of the previous AGs, including Ed Meese, famous for his anti-pornagraphy “study” had no problem being taken seriously while talking to the press in front of the statue.
So apparently this is an Urban Legend. If it were true, one would think that it probably had something to do with how ludicrous the AGs in question perceived/did not perceive their own positions to be. If you know deep down that the majority of thinking people are going to think you’re a dangerous loon, you need to take every possible measure you can to avoid giving extra ammunition.
I haven’t seen anyone post any links proving or unproving what I originally heard. So your point is unfounded. And people that think Ashcroft and GWB’s cabinet are “dangerous loons” are in the minority or John F-cking Kerry would be the president, yes? Put that in your moonbat pipe and smoke it…
Nytwyng
But, hey…what do I know. I mean, I also assume that coffee’s hot without seeing a warning label that says so, and don’t put it between my knees right before accellerating my car.
…I assume you’re referring to the Stella Liebeck case? In that case, I’ll refer you to the very website that’s named a ridiculous lawsuit case after her:
http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html
Yes, she was partially to blame for her burns. But, I use the “harmless substance test” on a case. Replace the damaging agent with a harmless substance. We replace the coffee with orange juice. Then we ask, would the plaintiff be suing if they did the same thing with the harmless substance? The answer here would most likely be no. Then, we ask, was the substance given her by the defendent? Here, yes. Finally, we ask, would the defendent have bought the harmless OJ had the harmful coffee not been available? In this case, I think she would have. Thus, I’d conclude that McDonald’s added the danger element, and she probably should have sued them. It wasn’t the suit that was ridiculous, it was the verdict. Which was eventually trimmed down and then settled out of court anyway.
Let’s try this with another famed McDonald’s plaintiff, the suit about making someone fat. Here, we ask the same questions. Replace Big Macs with Veggie burgers. To question 1, would he be fat had he eaten veggie burgers rather than big macs? Answer, Unknown, leaning no. 2, were the big macs provided by McD’s? Yes. 3, would fat man have eaten there had veggie burgers been on the menu instead of big macs? Here, I’m inclined to say, definitely not. And thus this case fails that test, and should be thrown out (and was).
I find this silly, that He’s getting chargd with this law. If he wasnt going out to “offend” or harass anybody. Then whats the problem. Not to mention it was bought by an adult. Which either didnt have comen sense. Because if something is labeled “Mature” “Adults Only” ofcourse its going to have some objectional things it.
Not to mention. I dont see whats so offensive about the site of picasso panting naked? He’s not having sex, He’s not raping anybody, He’s not dry humping someone. He’s just panting. Nothing less, Nothing more.
I think they should remove that law they have. Because its rather idiotic.
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1676&dept_id=225412&newsid=8066957&PAG=461&rfi=9
Let me bring this down to the local level for you: Last weekend, I was having dinner with a reporter (at Margaret Kuo’s new place in Wayne, which you ought to try) and we were talking about terrorism and national security. This particular reporter – smart guy, very knowledgeable – opines that he doesn’t trust Attorney General John Ashcroft because Ashcroft is a pointy-headed Bible-thumper who is so puritanical that he had his minions cover the exposed breast of the Spirit of Justice statue. Surely you all know this story: Ashcroft, shrieking at the sight of the uncovered female form of Minnie Lou, as the statue is affectionately known, orders it draped. Maureen Dowd of the recently discredited New York Times opined that Ashcroft put Lady Justice “in a burqa.” The “burqa” line was immediately picked up by Al Gore, who did not disclose its dowdy origins.
The problem with this story is that it isn’t true. Nope. Never happened. The statue is still there, still looks like it has always looked. It is true that Ashcroft doesn’t use it as the background for his press conferences any longer, opting for the standard blue curtain. I’m positive the reporter I was dining with would have checked that story before it got into print, but his standards are manifestly higher than those in vogue at The New York Times.
Ashcroft is a Christian fundamentalist, and funny stories about Christian fundamentalists are “too good to check,” as the newsroom saying goes. You can read in the major press all kinds of libelous and farcical nonsense about Ashcroft – he’s covering statues, he’s deathly afraid of calico cats because he regards them as a sign of the devil, etc. All fiction, of course. Is the Times going to issue a correction and apology over this, or discipline Dowd? Of course not.
———
Welp, this was all I could find, everything else was liberal opinion or rants about it, no solid news or facts. And I am sorry, if a bunch of assclown reporters kept doing this on purpose, yeah, I would be steamed too. I mean, it would be the same as making sure if someone you didn’t like that worked at say, Ðìçk Smith’s Insurance always got a picture with the word “Ðìçk” (just that) behind their head. And I mean everytime. They might not have your juvie sense of humor, yes?
Along the lines of the Ashcroft legend, Bill Moyers, allegedly a journalist, managed to smear old James Watt in a recent speech, attributing a quote to him that seems to have been entirely made up. And there are still people who probably believe that George Bush the father once was amazed to see that supermarkets had scanners.
Luckily we have the internet which, while it may help desseminate such flasehoods, can also help to eliminate them as well.
1http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/a/ashcroft-breast.htm
Enjoy!
“Can’t wait for the right-wing fundamentalists to shriek that I’m “peddling pornography,” and reveal themselves to be the tasteless prigs that they are…”
Gosh, thanks for the broad brush. You know, a lot of us might thank you for the picture. As usual, the actions of a small band of people are being generalized to an entire group. Very broad minded of you.
Lis,
“In other words, you’re saying you know my experiences and comprehend their impact on my life better than I know myself? Do you have any idea how arrogant and condescending that sounds?”
While I use your name in this post, I didn’t in the last one, so I’m not saying anything about you or your life. However, yes, sometimes an objective eye can site things that the subject can’t. My dad insisted that smoking wasn’t harming him, but the cancer suggests otherwise, doesn’t it? While I believe objective harm exists, I didn’t say I was the judge of it (or perhaps you’re assuming I want to outlaw pørņ, which, while I would love it if it all disappeared, I have no interest in legislating such a thing, except for minors.)
Yes, she was partially to blame for her burns. But, I use the “harmless substance test” on a case. Replace the damaging agent with a harmless substance. We replace the coffee with orange juice. Then we ask, would the plaintiff be suing if they did the same thing with the harmless substance? The answer here would most likely be no. Then, we ask, was the substance given her by the defendent? Here, yes. Finally, we ask, would the defendent have bought the harmless OJ had the harmful coffee not been available? In this case, I think she would have. Thus, I’d conclude that McDonald’s added the danger element, and she probably should have sued them. It wasn’t the suit that was ridiculous, it was the verdict. Which was eventually trimmed down and then settled out of court anyway.
Sorry, but I can’t buy into this.
It’s coffee. It’s supposed to be hot. Had it not been, she’d have been complaining that she bought coffee, and it was cold. (Unless, of course, she chose to sue them over that, too.)
It reminds me of an old Wapner-era People’s Court I once saw, in which a plaintiff sued a fried chicken joint because he bit into the chicken and a small pocket of hot oil spurted out and burned his lip. In that case, however, Wapner sided for the defendant, because the plaintiff agreed that he knew the chicked was prepared by deep-frying it in hot oil, that he expected the chicken to be hot, and would have complained to the restaurant had it not been.
Nytwyng:
>It’s coffee. It’s supposed to be hot. Had it not been, she’d have been complaining that she bought coffee, and it was cold. (Unless, of course, she chose to sue them over that, too.)
>It reminds me of an old Wapner-era People’s Court I once saw, in which a plaintiff sued a fried chicken joint because he bit into the chicken and a small pocket of hot oil spurted out and burned his lip. In that case, however, Wapner sided for the defendant, because the plaintiff agreed that he knew the chicked was prepared by deep-frying it in hot oil, that he expected the chicken to be hot, and would have complained to the restaurant had it not been.
I thought the same thing way back when it first got the attention of the national media. After researching it a little, it is not the obnxious trivial lawsuit that McD’s or tort reformers would have you believe. Apparently the coffee was at a temperature significantly higher than standard coffee, just shy of boiling if I remember correctly. The woman received burns that required skin grafts and her final compensation didn’t do much more than cover her medical bills. (Side note: McDonalds lowered the temperature in which they keep their brewed coffee.)
Fred, who is suddenly having flashbacks to the days of his McDonalds employment. I love hot drinks, but had to let their coffee cool for a few minutes before attempting to drink it.
As applied here, the more frightening is the “unsolicited material” charge – which would apply to adults just as it would to children. The “unsolicited” law originally comes from folks sending such material in the mail to folks. The Georgia legislature recently added a section to to the law incorporating unsolicited e-mail.
The two laws that were charged here are not fungible and need to be analyzed separately. The “obscenity” law is basically the same as most obscenity laws throughout the United States, utilizing a local morals standard. The “unsolicited material” law could certainly be overreaching as applied in this case where an individual purportedly came in and requested a Halloween package of comics.- but again, the same analysis of the “unsolicited material” would be the same if the material was delivered to an adult or a child.
From the press release, it isn’t clear that Gordon Lee has been formally charged by the State of Georgia of anything yet.
Anyone who says that has apparently never actually watched many Warner Bros shorts, hasn’t actually perceived what they saw if they did, or knows little or nothing about how films in general and the WB shorts in particular used to be presented.
And your comment shows that you don’t know jack either.
But then, perception is what I am talking about, isn’t it? The perception that ALL comic books are for kids.
Why, you ask? Because, as I said, I think part of it is the perception that ALL cartoons are for kids as well.
If you can’t understand that by now, then I’m not going to repeat myself again, and you’ll have to make more baseless assumptions about me. Have fun.
Regarding the coffee lawsuit, I recommend anyone interested in the case check out the issue of TOO MUCH COFFEE MAN — I think it’s called The Lawsuit Issue — which covered this lawsuit. He lays out the facts of the case, from the damage (the woman did suffer third-degree burns in her crotch, which led to her getting skin grafts (so anyone who thinks this is a frivolous lawsuit should try to imagine the pain that caused) to the media’s wildly incorrect reporting of the verdict (amazing, in a day of fact-checking).
Nytwyng wrote:
Sorry, but I can’t buy into this.
It’s coffee. It’s supposed to be hot. Had it not been, she’d have been complaining that she bought coffee, and it was cold. (Unless, of course, she chose to sue them over that, too.)
Take a look at the actual facts of the case if you’re not convinced:
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
To quote one of my friends when he first read it:
I have looked, and saw nothing remotely ridiculous. That poor woman was completely in the right–by serving her coffee that was 50 degrees hotter than the ordinary household or restaurant temperature, McDonald’s presented her with a dangerous defective product, by their own word “unsafe for human consumption.” It would have been no different than if they had laced it with strychnine.
Whoops, that should’ve read as:
Nytwyng wrote:
Sorry, but I can’t buy into this.
It’s coffee. It’s supposed to be hot. Had it not been, she’d have been complaining that she bought coffee, and it was cold. (Unless, of course, she chose to sue them over that, too.)
Just wanted to make it clear which text was Nytwyng’s.
Well, this convo has certainly been derailed.
Regarding the McDonald’s coffee incident, from everything I’ve read, the woman was a _passenger_ in the car, not the driver. So she couldn’t have accelerated her car with a cup of hot coffee between her thighs as a previous poster suggests she did.
A quick Google search turned up some links about the case.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html
http://knoxlawyers.tripod.com/McDonalds.htm
As to the current CBLDF case, I agree that a statute outlawing the depiction of nudity of _any kind_ is ridiculous. And the charges against the retailer definitely fall under the category of overkill, in my opinon.
Now, if he had a history of providing obscene material to minors (stuff that _does_ meet the Miller test), that would be different. But if he did have that history, I’m sure the prosecution would be playing it up in the press. I haven’t read anything to suggest this retailer has engaged in such behaviors.
Rick
To all who posted regarding the temp of the coffee, yes…I’ve heard that particular point many times.
And, my POV remains: coffee is supposed to be hot, and likewise, is not intended to be held between the thighs, particularly in an accellerating vehicle.
(I did, however, forget that it was a family member behind the wheel. Of course, since the driver’s as much to blame as McDonalds and the “victim,” she named him in the suit as well, right?)
By applying the same logic that justifies the suit and places all responsibility on McDonald’s, if I were to ignite a lighter and place it – ignited – behind my ear, resulting in my hair catching fire and third degree burns to my head…well, that’s Bic’s fault, not mine.
Craig Ries,
‘It is something intimate and by making it common it cheapens it’
“You’re worrying about a comic book cheapening nudity? Ohman, now I know what’s wrong with our society.”
You figured it out? Wow! Good for you. Seriously, though, weren’t you one of the ones bìŧçhìņg about Greg Horn’s early “Emma Frost” covers, claiming that they have an “unhealthy” impact on young girls?
So showing nudity is fine, but showing Emma’s ample assets in all their glory helps destroys young girls’ self-esteem, leads to them being anorexic and bulimic, etc.
It is hardly conservatives who want to shut people up “for our children”. And it is almost always wrong.
I meant to say : “It is not ONLY conservatives” in the above post My bad
//When I was a kid, you didn’t need any of these things. There was a special button on the TV, radio, stereo, etc. It was called the “OFF” button, and all my parents had to do was tell me “turn that OFF.”//
Thank you, Bunch, I quite agree. My point was not that we should have to rely on these things, but that they do, indeed, exist, so timorous parents can and should employ them rather than trying to make it impossible for me to access materials to which they might object.
// And just because some people claim it wasn’t harmful to them, it may indeed be harmful, they just don’t consider it harm (you have to accept objective harm isn’t always subjective harm to agree, so YMMV).//
That, Robbnn, is a condescending load of crap. And so is your answer to Lis. (Sorry to have to use names here; an unfortunate necessity when addressing two posters.)
Basically, you are saying that something is harmful because YOU say it is, despite the fact I indulge in something you don’t approve of without become either a menace to, or burden on, society. And, given your stated disapproval, the idea that your view is ‘objective’ is ludicrous.
Whilst you write //I didn’t say I was the judge of it//, you also write //I would love it if it all disappeared//, which appears, objectively speaking, fairly contradictory. Of course, you may say that I am hardly being objective about this; while you would probably be right, I don’t accept your claims towards objectivity, either.
And please clarify the meaning of YMMV … while not exactly new to blogging, this is one I’ve never read before; since you are insisting that I have to accept you terms, I’d like to know what they are.
Scavenger is right, look for the next Columbine in Iowa… or maybe Georgia…
Actually, Bladestar, it is my wife’s persian cat that everyone should be worried about . . .
😉
Iowa Jim
Welp, Den, I looked at that link and also snopes.com on Urban Legends. There’s like 3 different versions, that Ashcroft ordered it, it was already in the process of being done to he knew nothing about-it was his staff’s orders. So, outside of I know I would be pìššëd if the press ran 1000s of photos to humilate me, I believe that there’s no clear proof that he ordered it out being a conservative prude…
[i]And, my POV remains: coffee is supposed to be hot, and likewise, is not intended to be held between the thighs, particularly in an accellerating vehicle.[/i]
Coffee spills happen all the time. It’s part of life. There’s probably not a single person out there who hasn’t spilled coffee on themselves at least once.
However, you’re still ignoring the salient point—that the McDonald’s coffee served to the unfortunate woman was a [i][b]whopping 50 degrees hotter than normal[/b][/i]. Do you not see how that would make the product “unsafe for human consumption”? Even if she hadn’t spilled it, can you imagine what would have occurred if she drank it?
Tell me, would [b]YOU[/B] accept coffee that was 50 degrees hotter than normal? Would you drink it?
[i]By applying the same logic that justifies the suit and places all responsibility on McDonald’s, if I were to ignite a lighter and place it – ignited – behind my ear, resulting in my hair catching fire and third degree burns to my head…well, that’s Bic’s fault, not mine.[/i]
There’s no logic to that comparison at all. Different product, intended for different use, made by a different company, and placed in contact with a different part of the body. You’re making what’s called a straw-man argument, and it’s not helping you one bit.
Nytwyng:
>And, my POV remains: coffee is supposed to be hot, and likewise, is not intended to be held between the thighs, particularly in an accellerating vehicle.
I don’t recall ever seeing a warning that coffee is not intended to be held between the thighs. I actually place my cup between my legs every morning on my way to work. It is more secure than the holders in most cars.
>(I did, however, forget that it was a family member behind the wheel. Of course, since the driver’s as much to blame as McDonalds and the “victim,” she named him in the suit as well, right?)
Nope. The driver didn’t heat the coffee up to a ridiculously high temperature. Aslo, as long as the driver was not driving in a reckless manner, there is no fault there.
>By applying the same logic that justifies the suit and places all responsibility on McDonald’s, if I were to ignite a lighter and place it – ignited – behind my ear, resulting in my hair catching fire and third degree burns to my head…well, that’s Bic’s fault, not mine.
Your analogy would work if the lighter was intended to be used as a body warmer of some sort. Lighters are utilized to ignite objects. Coffee is utilized as a beverage. It is common sense to expect that spills occur. Heck, I spill my coffee while walking to my car at least once a month. The coffee in question was too hot even for safe consumption, muchless for contact on skin. The incident could just as easily have centered around a person who spilled it while attempting to drink it.
Fred
YMMV Your Mileage May Vary
Basically, you are saying that something is harmful because YOU say it is, despite the fact I indulge in something you don’t approve of without become either a menace to, or burden on, society.
Since I’m pretty sure someone, somewhere, is going to have issues due to something (nudity, 2nd hand smoke, not wearing a seat belt, being forced to say the pledge of alliegnece, etc) and that person ends up being a menace to or a burden on society would it be wrong then? and who should pay for the society burden?
sorry I must have messed up a quote mark
YMMV Your Mileage May Vary
quote start
Basically, you are saying that something is harmful because YOU say it is, despite the fact I indulge in something you don’t approve of without become either a menace to, or burden on, society.
quote end
Since I’m pretty sure someone, somewhere, is going to have issues due to something (nudity, 2nd hand smoke, not wearing a seat belt, being forced to say the pledge of alliegnece, etc) and that person ends up being a menace to or a burden on society would it be wrong then? and who should pay for the society burden?
Cat has an attitude, eh?
I’ve noticed that in Purebred cats…
Just to follow up about the coffee incident, according to that first link I posted, the car was _not_ in motion when the coffee spilled.
For whatever that’s worth.
Rick
So, outside of I know I would be pìššëd if the press ran 1000s of photos to humilate me, I believe that there’s no clear proof that he ordered it out being a conservative prude…
Does that really make a difference? Whether he did it to cover naughty parts or because of the juvenile antics of some photographers, it comes across as petty and childish. Either way, I think he made himself look foolish.
So again, I stand by the point that if even Ed Meese has the maturity not be worried about being photographed next to a pair of bronze knockers, Asscroft needs to just grow up.
Mal,
“Whilst you write //I didn’t say I was the judge of it//, you also write //I would love it if it all disappeared//, which appears, objectively speaking, fairly contradictory. Of course, you may say that I am hardly being objective about this; while you would probably be right, I don’t accept your claims towards objectivity, either.
And please clarify the meaning of YMMV … while not exactly new to blogging, this is one I’ve never read before; since you are insisting that I have to accept you terms, I’d like to know what they are.”
Okay, I’m clearly messing up my anticedants. In order:
* I won’t be the judge of the harm someone may experience (it’s not my call to make direct, uninvited judgments on individuals; I think it’s okay to make general comments, though, not aimed at any one individual)
* I, PERSONALLY, would love it if all pørņ (which I do think is bad – and therefore don’t indulge… but I’d LIKE to, in somewhat the same manner an alcoholic would like a beer) dried up and blew away. If you want to indulge, knock yourself out.
I don’t believe the comment is condescending, though. People make harmful choices all the time. Denial is something we all practice. We don’t have to agree on what constitutes harm, I suppose, but we could both look into each other’s lives and come up with things that we think might be harming the other. Self-destruction is a common problem.
YMMV, as noted above, means Your Mileage May Vary, in other words you don’t have to agree. I meant “you would have to accept that objective harm exists to agree with me, but if you don’t, you don’t have to agree. It’s a free country.”
* “Objective” means something along the lines of “true for everyone” “reality”. I didn’t say I was objective, or that if I thought something is harm then it ipso facto is harm. I’ll leave that to God. I stated my bias up front: I’m a conservative and a Christian.
My basic tenant is, live by your convictions and test them often. Living up to MY standards (or down as the case may be) if you don’t believe in them would suck for you. I believe there is objective truth, and I also believe that no one lives up to it, but it will catch up to all of us. We’re all the great unwashed, and we are responsible for our own choices and actions. I fall horribly short and look to God to make up the gap. He offers that to everyone. Again: YMMV.
Seriously, though, weren’t you one of the ones bìŧçhìņg about Greg Horn’s early “Emma Frost” covers, claiming that they have an “unhealthy” impact on young girls?
There’s a difference:
The series was targetted for young girls (apparently), but the covers suggested something else entirely – something horny young guys should be reading.
While I don’t think this comic store owner should get in any trouble for what happened, the comic that was handed out clearly wasn’t targetted specifically to get into that kid’s hands, either.
If a parent got the comic and felt it was ok for the kid to read, fine.
Robnn:
>* I, PERSONALLY, would love it if all pørņ (which I do think is bad – and therefore don’t indulge… but I’d LIKE to, in somewhat the same manner an alcoholic would like a beer) dried up and blew away. If you want to indulge, knock yourself out.
Now that’s an image that I really didn’t need put into my mind. Knocking oneself out may be overindulging…. overlyenthusiastic at the very least.
Thank you, Bryan and Robbnn, for clarifying the YMMV thing for me. Way cool new one to use on my Livejournal entries.
Robbnn, I still disagree with you and see a level of condescension that you either do not see or had not intended. I appreciate you noting your own bias. I’m happy to say that it is not one with which I am cursed.
The McDonalds coffee case again?
Here’s an investigation I wrote up about it
McDonalds served their coffee at temperatures that were too hot to be drinkable — hot enough to cause full thickness burns in 2 to 7 seconds. Before Ms. Liebeck’s injury, McDonalds already knew of over 700 people who had been burned by their coffee, and had ignored previous requests to store its coffee at normal restaurant temperatures.
Despite all this, McDonalds chose profits over customer safety, which is why the jury awarded punitive damages worth two days coffee sales before the judge later lowered it.
When you read the actual factual details, the only thing that seems unreasonable is McDonalds’ actions.
Heh. For a minute there, I was wondering if I needed to apologize for whatever got me shrouded; now I know that Iowa Jim’s either ignoring me or has no constructive response to me, but B. Zedan referenced me on the seventh so I’m not in THAT much trouble — thank you kindly, B. Zedan! And then Scavenger quoted me, so that’s two who know I exist. Keen. I feel better.
Meanwhile, Scavenger, I refer you to the Book of James, Chapter 3, verses thirteen through eighteen:
In other words, if you would define the actions of a “true Christian”, you should disagree with others respectively and constructively, not by insult and braggadocio. All you’ve accomplished here is that Iowa Jim isn’t going to be reacting usefully to your example any more than he is to mine — at least I am reading all of his posts, and trying to understand his own meaning rather than assuming that he’s the opposite of me. Reacting humorously, perhaps — that bit going back and forth between him and Bladestar about Jim’s wife’s cat was great!
And, after all, what we’re upset about today is how some folks in Georgia are setting examples for others.
—–Warning! Thread hijacking imminent! —–
In unrelated matters: Does anyone else find that the Post a Comment box, right after one signs in in order to post, already has the content of a “1” in it? Or is it just my own computer acting weird again? Thanks!
So again, I stand by the point that if even Ed Meese has the maturity not be worried about being photographed next to a pair of bronze knockers, Asscroft needs to just grow up.
——–
Hmmmmm, so many replies but I will settle for this one. One that uses a such a “highly mature” play on a person’s name while claiming that person needs to grow up, sheesh, how much plainer could it be that someone else needs to grow up much worse? I mean, c’mon Den, Asscroft, wow, I bet you thought that up all by yourself, right?
Thanks for the laugh anyway…
Here’s cartoonist Nick Bertozzi’s response: http://www.comicsreporter.com/index.php/nick_bertozzi_on_situation_in_rome_ga/
/// The McDonalds coffee case again?
Here’s an investigation I wrote up about it
McDonalds served their coffee at temperatures that were too hot to be drinkable — hot enough to cause full thickness burns in 2 to 7 seconds. Before Ms. Liebeck’s injury, McDonalds already knew of over 700 people who had been burned by their coffee, and had ignored previous requests to store its coffee at normal restaurant temperatures.
Despite all this, McDonalds chose profits over customer safety, which is why the jury awarded punitive damages worth two days coffee sales before the judge later lowered it.
When you read the actual factual details, the only thing that seems unreasonable is McDonalds’ actions. //
When you read the factual details maybe, I’ve read all this and I’ve read it all before, (everytime this debate comes up actually), and I’m still of the “it’s hot” opinion. This is not based on flipancy, I know of several people personally who have been burned by coffee, (3rd degree burns in one case) and not one of them ever went “hey lets sue”. I know of members of my own family who take coffee from the Mr Coffee and put it in the microwave for a minute or two because, they say, “Coffee is best served as hot as phsyically possible”. I also know of at least one person who would go out of they way in the morning to get coffee at McDonalds but it was known to have the “hottest coffee around”. (And were annoyed as hëll when they had to turn down the heat on the coffee). So yeah, I think coffee’s supposed to be hot, super hot, buring molten liquid hot, because that is what people who drink coffee, (I don’t BTW, in fact I’ve never understood the idea of drinking “hot” liquid but to each thier own), tell me it’s supposed to be. And I also think if you spill something on yourself that is hot, super hot, buring molten liquid hot, it will burn you really, really bad, and to try to blame that on someone else, no matter how badly burned you are, is stupid. If you don’t want to get burned by coffee don’t drink coffee.