The previous thread on this topic seems to have gone hopelessly off the rails, so let’s try it again.
This is the thread for discussing developments in the “Funky Winkerbean” strip that parallel real life cases of a comics store owner/manager getting arrested for selling adult comics to an adult.
What’s interesting is that, within the context of the strip, the woman who alerted the police apparently had an ulterior motive…namely she wanted to torpedo the restaurant above the comic shop because she didn’t like that her daughter was going to have the wedding reception there.
If this sounds preposterous, let’s remember some stuff:
A real life comic book retailer wound up being arrested for selling adult comic books to adults because one woman felt that the store was charging too much for Pokemon cards and vowed revenge.
A real life second hand dealer of used comics was arrested after a complaint was filed against him by his ex-father-in-law (over an issue of “Elfquest,” of all things) because the dealer had custody of his son from the marriage and his ex-in-law wanted to get back at him.
You’d be amazed how often personal enmity or self-interest enters into these cases. Unfortunately, they often get left by the wayside once prosecutors get going on the “save the children!” angle.
PAD
• 
TWL wrote: “Mr. Maheras is making a rather impressive looking straw man up there. I don’t think anyone has said “anything goes”, or that actions and behavior can never be questioned.”
You think so? Try and get a definition of what constitutes “offensive” from the CBLDF.
My “anything goes” statement might elicit a bristling reply, “We do NOT think anything goes,” but when pressed to officially define what should be censured either legally, or even socially, i’ll bet my Marvel Value Stamps that there won’t be any specifics. To officially state anything other than an all-or-nothing stance is a minefield free speech advocates avoid like the plague. Why? Because to take ANY stance other than “all or nothing” would force them to set standards that might arguably be just as arbitrary as everyone else’s.
In reality, I think everyone agrees privately there are lines of decency that should not be crossed. But if a free-speech advocate or organization avoids publicly stating what those lines should be, they are giving tacit approval to an “anything goes” policy.
Straw man nothing.
Wow, really? I didn’t know that, though I found that episode the most touching and heartbreaking one of the series as a kid and to this day.
A few years ago, there was a MASH retrospective on cable and Wayne Rogers said categorically that the producers considered Stevenson a troublemaker and wanted his departure done in a way to ensure he could never return.
Iowa Jim: [b]First, I was somewhat disappointed at the “Cool” comment by the kids as they saw the guy arrested. If he is guilty of a serious crime, then it is not cool. If he is innocent and the victim, then it still is not cool since he has court costs, possible loss of income while the comic store is closed during the trial and/or people avoid it because it supposedly sells “smut.” It is not a huge deal, but it seemed a little out of place, unless someone can explain a better reason for the comment.[/b]
I think the idea was that it was a natural kid’s reaction to seeing something live that they’ve only seen or read about in fiction before. The officers at the time gave no explanation for why the store owner was being arrested; cops came in with their shiny badges and guns and handcuffs and read the guy his Miranda rights.
At least, that’s my best guess.
First, I was somewhat disappointed at the “Cool” comment by the kids as they saw the guy arrested. If he is guilty of a serious crime, then it is not cool. If he is innocent and the victim, then it still is not cool since he has court costs, possible loss of income while the comic store is closed during the trial and/or people avoid it because it supposedly sells “smut.” It is not a huge deal, but it seemed a little out of place, unless someone can explain a better reason for the comment.
I think Batiuk was trying to convey that they were thinking, “Cool, I’ve never seen anyone arrested before.” Not exactly the best possible behavior, but a totally believable reaction from a teenage boy.
One bonus thought: I don’t understand the need for comics to be funny. If you don’t like a strip, then by all means, don’t read it. But to suggest that comic strips have to be funny and can’t just tell a story seems rather ironic when stated on the site of a writer of comic books.
Well, I agree with that. Certainly there is room for Rex Morgan and Flash Gordon next to Dilbert and Get Fuzzy.
If we want people to take the story value of a comic book seriously, why not a comic strip? There is room for both types of comic strips, and devaluing Funky because it is not funny should not be happening on this site.
Part of the problem is that Funky Winkerbean started out as very light-hearted humor strip, but around 1992, Batiuk shifted towards more serious series while still attempting to inject humor into stories. In my opinion, the mix has not been too successful. The jokes aren’t that funny and the drama often seems forced, reduced to afternoon special or Lifetime TV simplistic story telling. The villains (nasty mother-in-law, abusive boyfriend) never evolve beyond crude stereotypes. Batiuk appears to be created a “dramedy” comic strip and like most TV shows in that view, fails at both comedy and drama.
In reality, I think everyone agrees privately there are lines of decency that should not be crossed. But if a free-speech advocate or organization avoids publicly stating what those lines should be, they are giving tacit approval to an “anything goes” policy.
You’re right, everyone does have personal lines of decency. But, those lines are drawn differently for every person, which means that the government (police, courts, legislature), have no business dictating those lines to every.
I don’t expect every strip to be funny, certianly not Rex morgan of Flash Gordon. Most often I don’t even expect “Rhymes with Orange” to be funny. I’m just staying: with a name like Funky Winkerbean, how am I supposed to take this seriously?
“The Sam Goody over at Cherry Creek mall has a sizable anime movie selection.
Right next to it? The adult dvd film selection… only with those white plastic cards in front of each of them.”
This may be true, but these movie (at least at the SG in our mall) doesn’t have them by the Spongebob Squarepants Movie. In the same frame, on the next rack, there were your normal Superhero comics, most notably, “The Hulk”. My local retailer sells his Max line and even “Tarot: Black Witch of the Rose” out on the shelf. But each issue they sleeve them, and if the cover is racy in a mature-theme sense, then they throw a piece of board over the image that reads for “Mature Readers Only!”. Now if the title was “Sex Kittens from planet Nympho” or as it is in this strip, “XXX Manga”, these would not be on his shelves in the open for every person to see.
Sam Goody’s mature content is all in one location by the registers with a cover for the more racier titles. This is a more acceptible (to most I imagine) way of displaying these products. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against these type of comics or the retailers who have gotten in trouble. This is about a fictional situation where if the scene was “drawn” better, then the message would hold up better for me.
The charges against the comic store owner, which were described in today’s strip, are ridiculous. He sold adult material to adults, that’ fine. But you can’t ignore the fact that the store owner was irresponsible in his displaying of the merchandise next to more mainstream content, that’s targeted at a more variety of ages, minors included.
If I walked into Sam Goody and saw some kid looking at the Anime section and nobody stopping him, would I be upset? Hëll no, it’s not all blood, guts, and sex. But if right next to the Dragonball Z dvd is a La Blue Girl dvd, with no covering of the image on the front(which with La Blue Girl always involves tentacle rape) I would be a little miffed. I have nephews who like Dragonball Z, and I let them read my X-Men comics, in hopes that one day they’ll go into a comic shop, look at the shelves and pick one up on their own. I don’t want them to pick up “XXX Manga” instead. To avoid this, this should be back away from the more mainstream stuff.
Is this unfair to the creator of “XXX Manga”? Probably. I know I’d be pìššëd. But they have to expect that to some point for putting out a product with such a limited audience.
As for should a comic book shop be expected to act differently? Yes, they should. At the very heart of comic books, it’s soul survival depends on if today’s children will by the books they sell. If a fanatical parent see’s adult material next to the Hulk, guess what: that kid won’t be bying comics anytime soon. Sam Goody sells movies and music, with no target core audience. (Well, maybe teenagers since they have the most to spend, but you know what I mean) By saying a comic book shop shouldn’t act differently then Sam Goody, can I take the reason for that being they both sell products for all ages? Okay, here’s a hypothetical for you: If ToyRUs were to sell Grand Theft Auto III out on the floor next to Spyro the Dragon, you wouldn’t find that unapproriate? They have GTAIII behind the counter in a case for a reason. Kids are their bread and butter, and they don’t need parents pulling them out of there due bad product placement.
So I’ll say it again: The charges being brought against the store owner are crap, but that doesn’t mean he’s innocent. A decency law was still probably broken, but he’s being accused of the wrong one.
My “anything goes” statement might elicit a bristling reply, “We do NOT think anything goes,” but when pressed to officially define what should be censured either legally, or even socially, i’ll bet my Marvel Value Stamps that there won’t be any specifics.
I already GAVE specifics in the very post you’re responding to.
Claim, meet counterexample.
My issue is not what the CBLDF does or does not say (though I strongly suspect you’re wrong there as well). My issue was with your claim that “most people around here” think as you claim they do. You’re simply incorrect.
TWL
Sorry, the tag part of my brain is dead today. My above post should have the first two sentences bloded and italicized, sorry.
“The Sam Goody over at Cherry Creek mall has a sizable anime movie selection.
Right next to it? The adult dvd film selection… only with those white plastic cards in front of each of them.”
Tower Records in downtown Chicago used to have one Anime section. They have Sailor Moon on the same rack as Urustudoki. Or La Blue Girl and DBZ on the same racks. Sure, they had the “Adults Only” stickers covering the covers, but not on the backs. I’m sure that was just on irate (and maybe justifiably so) parent complaining to the manager away from getting into trouble.
I say “used to” because it’s been years since I worked in that area, so I don’t get to spend any more lunch time lurking there.
I don’t expect every strip to be funny, certianly not Rex morgan of Flash Gordon. Most often I don’t even expect “Rhymes with Orange” to be funny. I’m just staying: with a name like Funky Winkerbean, how am I supposed to take this seriously?
What’s really galling is that Funky himself has been relegate to the role of secondary character as Batiuk seems to devote more time to Les and his family or the new generation of high schoolers.
But you’re right, “Funky Winkerbean” is a name for a humor comic strip, which does make the fact that it’s jokes are often less funny than Cathy (the most consistantly unfunny comic strip in the universe), seem strange.
I think the fictional retailer should have shown better sense than to put “XXX” just to the right of “HULK” (see Sunday’s strip.)
As depicted, the Hulk book is in another rack. Also the adult books are labelled as such on the rack. Give the small space, where else should he put them?
At my local LCS, the adult books are right above the vertigo books which are right above the DC mainstream books and just to the right of the Marvel books. So the setup is not out of the question.
Also at your local Barnes & Noble, the Playboys and other skin rags are probably right next to the entertainment magazines.
I’m just saying: with a name like Funky Winkerbean, how am I supposed to take this seriously?
I dunno – people took Forrest Gump pretty seriously.
Jim, I don’t think that whether or not free speech is the primary target or not is the point.
But I seem to recall it *was* the point when PAD posted the story about the kid in GA. Obviously, the details are different than the Funky story. This one is a lot more like the Jesus case, and I was there in Dallas for that one. But the reaction to these stories tended to be that it is the “evil conservatives” who are trying to end free speech who are behind this. My point is that in some of these cases it is actually selfish people using whatever they can to hurt someone. The case in GA actually seemed more of an exception than the norm, based on what PAD listed above.
Obviously, it does hurt the cause of free speech when it is abused for other ends. In fact, it makes things worse for both sides. So I am all for defending free speech when appropriate.
Iowa Jim
Part of the problem is that Funky Winkerbean started out as very light-hearted humor strip, but around 1992, Batiuk shifted towards more serious series while still attempting to inject humor into stories. In my opinion, the mix has not been too successful. The jokes aren’t that funny and the drama often seems forced, reduced to afternoon special or Lifetime TV simplistic story telling.
I would agree with the evaluation. It is fine to be a critic of how good a particular strip (or book, etc.) is written. But some seemed to be saying that comic strips in general should just stay funny. I, for one, found Funky good at times, and quite boring at others. I didn’t miss it enough when I moved to find it on the internet to keep reading it since my local paper doesn’t carry it.
To each his own, just don’t say comic strips are “supposed” to be funny. (And a writer should be allowed to change his style. Of course, if no one likes it, the paper should be free to drop it!)
Iowa Jim
I think you can see it both ways: from a micro-viewpoint, it’s a case of one person attempting to hurt another person any way they can. Their target is one individual, and their intent is to cause that person some loss. From a macro-view, you have an action that would infringe upon the right of free speech is allowed to set a precedent. Curtailment of free speech isn’t a primary goal, just something that gets swept up in the process.
And during that process, you have voices from both sides losing the intent of the original action, which was mostly personal to begin with.
Gah, it’s not making any sense to me…I’m lost in the forest and the trees are out to get me….
Jess Willey:
ME: “Shìŧ, they even want to ban hate. “Erase the hate” they tell us. You can’t ban hate. Hate is as valid and necessary an emotion as love, contenment, fear… all of them.”
Jess Willey: “I’m with Tom Lehrer on this one: “I know there are people in this world who do not love their fellow human beings…. and I HATE people like that.”
Hi Jess,
Yeah, that’s a good one. Irony: It does a body good!
Seriously, though, I should have pointed out that I don’t value hate as Modus Operandi. I’m saying it’s ok for hate to exist within it’s emotional context, but it only becomes problematic when it overrides civility and good sense.
Tim Lynch: “As for the pile of people saying they’re proudly childless and therefore more objective about the “we must protect the children” meme — this particular parent would prefer you not tar all of us with the same brush. Quite a few of us don’t generally put ideas in the category of “things my child needs protection from.” Idiots who drive 90 mph in residential areas, yes; copies of “Lady Chatterley’s Lover,” no.”
Hi Tim,
Yes, I’m one of those people. I’ve been know to state, sarcastically mind you, that I won’t polute the planet with a child. But, even though they’re often covered in their own various fluids as someone indicated earlier, I don’t hate children. Without children America’s Funniest Home Videos wouldn’t be so funny.
Also, if you felt that I painted you with my brush then I’m sorry. It wasn’t my intention to imply that ALL parents are as I describe. I meant to take that jab at those who are.
R. Maheras:
“This “anything goes” mentality is nonsense, in my opinion. The only reason we live in a somewhat civilized society is because there is (or used to be) an emphasis on laws, standards, levels of “acceptable” behavior, etc. Without these societal limitations, no one would have any rights. There would be no checks and balances, and in such an anarchistic environment, the strongest or biggest people at all levels would take what they wanted whenever they wanted to, with absolutely no fear of retaliation or punishment.
And then later in response to Tim Lynch, who called R. Maheras on the “Anything Goes” interpretation:
“My “anything goes” statement might elicit a bristling reply, “We do NOT think anything goes,” but when pressed to officially define what should be censured either legally, or even socially, i’ll bet my Marvel Value Stamps that there won’t be any specifics. To officially state anything other than an all-or-nothing stance is a minefield free speech advocates avoid like the plague. Why? Because to take ANY stance other than “all or nothing” would force them to set standards that might arguably be just as arbitrary as everyone else’s.
In reality, I think everyone agrees privately there are lines of decency that should not be crossed. But if a free-speech advocate or organization avoids publicly stating what those lines should be, they are giving tacit approval to an “anything goes” policy.”
Hi R. Maheras,
I can only speak for myself, but I wasn’t suggesting that anything goes. I thought that was implicit in my comment that included the phrase “if there is no definableharm/immediate threat.” In fact I agree with much of what you wrote.
The fact is that some things are, without question, harmfull and wrong and some things are not. I believe, however, that when discussing the areas in between those absolutes, that we must judge each case individually on it’s own merrits. I hope that you find that reasonable.
I have witnessed and experienced what overprotective parents do. I have also been subjected to their all-too-willing blindness when it comes to their kids. That is what my prior statements are based upon.
So, Tim, let’s really test what your limits are on what Katherine’s exposed to…I’ll get, and hold for a future birthday, a Voyager box set just for her. 🙂
Well, there’s open-mindedness and then there’s outright abuse. 🙂
TWL
“They have Sailor Moon on the same rack as Urustudoki. Or La Blue Girl and DBZ on the same racks. Sure, they had the “Adults Only” stickers covering the covers, but not on the backs. I’m sure that was just on irate (and maybe justifiably so) parent complaining to the manager away from getting into trouble.”
I once told the owner of a video store, many years ago, that he really REALLY ought to consider putting the Urotsukedoji video somewhere other than the cartoon section. I really liked the store, because the owner had absolutely no sense whatsoever, and had ordered tons of obscure crap that none of the other stores had (this was when there actually were stores other than the big chains). I mean, I can just imagine what would happen if a parent picked up what looks like a monster movie and it turns out to be the most extreme japornimation title out there (brilliant, in its own twisted way, but not for kids or even most adults).
In a related vein, did anyone else see Hillary Clinton with Sam Brownback, Rick Santorum and Joe Lieberman, complaining about the internet’s effect on children? Great.
You know, some of you Democrats make it sound like it’s only Republicans behind this sort of thing. i submit that 4 years ago Lierberman was your choice to be a heartbeat away from the presidency and according tot he polls, Hillary is the number one choice among party members to run for the top spot in 3 years. Illinois, with a democrat gov and two democrat senators, is about to sign a clearly unconstitutional bill banning sale of some video games. (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-video-game-ban,0,2206888,print.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines)
This is a fight that cuts across partisan lines, but some are too blinded to see that.
,
Posted by Rich Drees at March 10, 2005 09:32 AM
Also, I haven’t been a regular reader of FW in almost 20 years, since the local paper dropped the strip. IS there a site with the series archived?
I think that you can go way back on the Seattle Post-Intelligencer site if you play with the dates in the URL in your browser’s “address” window. I haen’t checked how far back, but i’m pretty sure i looked at least a year back at one point…
This is a fight that cuts across partisan lines, but some are too blinded to see that.
You say that when the AG is a Democrat and he feels the need to make sure there are no statuesque breasts behind him.
Bill Mulligan:
“You know, some of you Democrats make it sound like it’s only Republicans behind this sort of thing. i submit that 4 years ago Lierberman was your choice to be a heartbeat away from the presidency and according tot he polls, Hillary is the number one choice among party members to run for the top spot in 3 years. Illinois, with a democrat gov and two democrat senators, is about to sign a clearly unconstitutional bill banning sale of some video games. (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-video-game-ban,0,2206888,print.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines)”
Hi Bill,
I’m not too suprised. It was Tipper Gore, after all, who was the head of the PMRC. I believe the only reason they got any attention was because she was a senators wife.
I read that news article you posted. I’m left with the impression that it boils down to a group of people who are desperate for the appearance of getting something accomplished that at least imitates progress.
“I don’t expect every strip to be funny, certianly not Rex morgan of Flash Gordon.”
You mean I’m not supposed to be laughing at Rex Morgan???
Boy, we are trying to digres really really hard on this thread too!
sssllllooowwwlllyyy, but surely…….
I live in Illinois. And as bad as our prior republican governor was (likely a literal crook who’s actions resulted in the deaths of 5 kids, not to mention the guy that cost me a real nice job), our current democratic governer is almost worse. It’s the proverbial choice of 2 evils dilemma. Do you support the corrupt crook that actually does good things for the state, or the non-corrupt guy who thinks he’s above the law?
In addition to trying to regulate video game sales by age, Blago (even if I did spell his name correctly, no one outside of Illinois would pronounce it correctly) has decided that, despite a federal pre-emption in the area of importing foreign prescription drugs, he’s going to use state money to import unregulated prescription drugs. And that state money? Being taken from funds earmarked specifically for environmental, social, and generally anything other than illegal prescription drugs. It’s gotten so bad that the treasurer has stopped processing the checks the governer writes.
Which of course is way off topic. SO to get us back on, kinda, it just goes to show that party lines aren’t the hard, impenetrable barriers we might like to think they are. Especially when it comes to free speech issues, members on both sides have tried various things to limit speech they didn’t agree with. As we’ve kinda been discussion, many times the initiating action’s primary goal isn’t really to limit any expression at all, but to advance some personal agenda that has nothing to do with free speech rights.
Oy, this steryotpyical mother-in-law is making no sense! before she was doing it becuase she was angry with her daughter/”sin”-in-law, and now it’s becuase she’s a right-winger who is against freedom of the press.
“So I am all for defending free speech when appropriate.
Iowa Jim”
Someone please enlighten me, when is defending free speech inappropriate?
JAC
Posted by darrik at March 11, 2005 01:19 PM
Oy, this steryotpyical mother-in-law is making no sense! before she was doing it becuase she was angry with her daughter/”sin”-in-law, and now it’s becuase she’s a right-winger who is against freedom of the press.
Actually, she wasn’t doing it because of her daughter and so on — that was Peter’s misinterpretation.
And she’s not against freedom of speech — just aske her.
She’s against inappropriate freedom of speech, as in:
Posted by Jeff Coney (www.hedgehoggames.com)) at March 11, 2005 05:33 PM
“So I am all for defending free speech when appropriate.
Iowa Jim”
Someone please enlighten me, when is defending free speech inappropriate?
I still await enlightenment
JAC
Someone please enlighten me, when is defending free speech inappropriate?”
Obviously, it’s when Jim from Iowa says so.
PAD
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050312/ap_on_hi_te/apple_secrets_15
“The journalist’s privilege is not absolute,” [Judge] Kleinberg wrote. “For example, journalists cannot refuse to disclose information when it relates to a crime.”
Is it possible that Jim meant that he was all for defending free speech when the speech itself was appropriate? That is, one can be a free speech advocate and not be in favor of a social studies teacher giving “equal time” to a holocaust denier.
I may be wrong but I suspect that even the most fervent advocate of free speech would be appalled to discover that a teacher was prostletizing religion or extremist politics in class (and before you say “sure, but only because they should be teaching during that time” let me assure you that a clever person could easily slip in politics in the course of actual teaching. A math teacher could say something to the effect of “Germany had 5 million members of the International Jewish Conspiracy. Noble Adolph Hitler relocated 87% of them to well constructed homelands in liberated Russian territory. How many remain to be discovered?” That sort of thing.
Would anyone trot out the old “I disagree with you but defend to the death your right to say it” canard?
Incidentally, the above is actually what some of these idiots claim–the 6 million supposedly killed in the holocaust are happily living in Russia, laughing themselves silly over the fraud they have perpetuated on the gentle German people. Jesus…
“The journalist’s privilege is not absolute,” [Judge] Kleinberg wrote. “For example, journalists cannot refuse to disclose information when it relates to a crime.”
Good. I expect to see Robert Novak telling us who gave him Valerie Plame’s name any day now.
Someone please enlighten me, when is defending free speech inappropriate?”
Obviously, it’s when Jim from Iowa says so.
PAD
I would argue that it depends on what’s being said, to whom and the amount of damage or trouble it may cause.
“Good. I expect to see Robert Novak telling us who gave him Valerie Plame’s name any day now.”
But the New York Times had an editorial saying that there may not have been a crime committed after all. Of course, they only came to that conclusion after their reporters got in trouble.
Of course, you’re assuming that Novak hasn’t already spilled the beans…which assumes that he was telling the truth about his sources in the first place…
When, oh when, will some people in this country realize? Freedom of speech is absolute. No two ways about it. If you encounter speech you don’t like, the way to attack it is with … SPEECH! Trying to decide ‘Well, is this speech harmful?’ is an impossible feat, because no two people will agree on what is harmful. Freedom of speech is not something we want to be tampering with.
“Freedom of speech is absolute. No two ways about it. If you encounter speech you don’t like, the way to attack it is with … SPEECH!’
All things considered, if I had to take an absolute position, that would be the one to take. But…what if a teacher was expounding a particular religious view in class? In fact, wouldn’t an absolutist view on free speech instantly throw out almost every seperation of church and state issue of the last few years? Prayer at school? Hey, it’s free speech. You can also pretty much throw out any sexual harrassment lawsuit that doesn’t involve touching.
I don’t know…like I said, if it HAS to be one or the other I’d go with no constraints whatsoever but does it have to be?
“Freedom of speech is absolute. No two ways about it. If you encounter speech you don’t like, the way to attack it is with … SPEECH!’
Let’s get something perfectly straight. Freedom of speech is not absolute.
Take for example the Michael Jackson trial. Jay Leno wanted to tell jokes, and other parties would like to talk to the press, but there’s a gag order. Presumably, it’s to give Michael Jackson a fair trial, so a judge somewhere has said that Michael Jackson’s right to a fair trial outweighs the rights of certain parties to speak freely about that case.
And let’s not ignore the fact that no radio station, tv station, newspaper, magazine or book publisher HAS to publish or broadcast your viewpoints. If free speech was absolute they would have to by law.
You don’t have the right to post signs on my property. My right to own and control my property trumps your right to free speech.
You don’t have the right to come into my place of business or home and spout off about any little thing your heart desires. i can and will have you promptly arrested for trespassing.
And as Bill points out , religious fanactics should be able to roam the halls of schools everywhere spouting religious philosophy, screw separation of church and state. They can’t.
Severl people have brought up the can a teacher say example on the free speech question I posed. I don’t feel it’s a valid example. They are on the clock, being paid to do a job. So should they expound polital ideas that many may not agree with while on the clock such as the above mentioned “math teacher, Holocaust didn’t happen theroy” I would say no, they are paid to teach amth during those 8 hours. Should they be stopped from saying it at all during the remaining 16 hours during the day. No. Another exapmle, at your job, if you chose to use your brake time to sand in the middle of the building and quietly mutter a non stop string of profanity to your self you could expect consequences, as I assume this is against your companys stated employee policy. After work, more power to you. My point being at work, your time is being traded for money, and you are at the whim of your employer. If you say things that are deemed inappropriate by society and are punished or fired, it is not a free speech issue as they are not trying to stop you from saying it altogether. They are fireing you because you were aomehow disrupting the work enviorment, and we live in a society where work is all about results. In fact, for most of you I would bet that if you have ever gotten in trouble like in the above examples, the manager who punished you doesn’t give a crap what you think, or talk about after you leave work. My long winded point is it’s really only a free speech issue if the speech is trying to be supressed altogether, not just 40 hours out of the week.
Thus I still await enlightnement, but thus far PAD’s answer has been the best.
JAC
You can also pretty much throw out any sexual harrassment lawsuit that doesn’t involve touching.
Oh, I disagree there (though the rest of your point is pretty validly thorny). Any harassment situation that involves someone extorting sexual favors (say, a boss demanding sex from a secretary, or a college professor insisting on sex in order to change a grade) can be prosecuted in ways that aren’t remotely dealing with the issue of free speech.
TWL
Bill: Your points are well taken. However, I didn’t mean to say that freedom of speech means freedom from consequences. A teacher is free to spout religious or holocaust-denial beliefs, but he could only get away with it once before he was fired for the reasons Jeff points out. When freedom of religion butts heads with freedom of speech, I think we have to come down on the side of freedom of religion. Prayer in school? By an individual student, who could have a problem with that? Led prayers, though, in public schools, that I would have a problem with. Tim neatly answered the sexual harassment bit. Truly, many sexual harassment suits are without merits (someone told a dirty joke, etc.) but actual coersion is wrong.
eclark: As before, freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences. The Michael Jackson bit you answered yourself on. I never said freedom of speech means freedom to publish. Yes, trespassing is wrong, how that got involved in this I don’t know.
My initial post was in response to someone who posted about only defending ‘appropriate’ speech and considering the ‘damage’ that the speech could do before defending it. Perhaps ‘absolute’ was too strong a word. I was responding to those who only wish to defend speech that they like. Well, I guarantee that someone out there doesn’t like the things that you read or watch or say. THAT’S the speech I’m referring to! We can’t just protect the speech we like, we have to defend what we vehemently dislike. Cause someone out there surely would strike it out if they could.
“Oh, I disagree there (though the rest of your point is pretty validly thorny). Any harassment situation that involves someone extorting sexual favors (say, a boss demanding sex from a secretary, or a college professor insisting on sex in order to change a grade) can be prosecuted in ways that aren’t remotely dealing with the issue of free speech.”
You’re absolutely correct. I was thinking of the cases that seem to get the lion’s share of the publicity–some slob getting sued for telling the plot of a Seinfeld episode or a fireman who has Miss November hanging on the wall by his bunk.
“Severl people have brought up the can a teacher say example on the free speech question I posed. I don’t feel it’s a valid example. They are on the clock, being paid to do a job. So should they expound polital ideas that many may not agree with while on the clock such as the above mentioned “math teacher, Holocaust didn’t happen theroy” I would say no, they are paid to teach amth during those 8 hours.”
Jeff,
But it would be easy for a teacher to do both. A social studies teacher IS paid to talk history. Which history they teach and the spin they put on it is in large part up to the teacher. Holocaust studies is a big thing here. How hard would it be for an anti-semite to bring up all manner of Holocaust denial propaganda?
Defending free speech might be inappropriate when free speech isn’t the issue. eClark’s example of trespassing, is a good case in point. The trespasser might claim eClark is abridging his right to free speech; so PAD might go off on a binge about how evil eClark is for trampling this guy’s right to free speech. That would be inappropriate – certainly within his rights, of course, but inappropriate, nonetheless. Jim wouldn’t waste his time. In fact, Jim might defend eClark, have a few shots taken at him, and still battle on. And come back for more. A good man, that Jim. There should be more like him.
eclark: As before, freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences. The Michael Jackson bit you answered yourself on. I never said freedom of speech means freedom to publish. Yes, trespassing is wrong, how that got involved in this I don’t know.
My point was that you said “freedom of speech is absolute”. It’s not.. The whole point of the First Amendment was to make speech, particularly political speech, free from consequences. Or I should say free from GOVERNMENTAL consequences. Yet, government does impose consequences on some speech, specifically that which may, or at least, has the potential, to do harm in some way. That includes slander, libel, and any speech that interferes with the rights of others.
Which is why I said, defending someone’s right to speak freely as being inappropriate would depend on; 1) what’s said, 2) to whom it is said, 3) and the potential for harm it may cause.
I also think that boycotts are appropriate and acceptable forms of speech. But PAD doesn’t seem to find that form of speech appropriate.
I see an incongruity here, but it’s possible I may have misunderstood a stated concept somewhere.
I just read the last 4-5 days of Funky Winkerbean. It looks like the author is heading into First Amendmant territory. The city councilwoman is also attempting to prevent a high school publication and even says that if it’s allowed then those responsible will be “darned to heck.”
In addition to the false obscenity charge it looks like she is also trying to blur the church/state line, as an elected official falling back on a religious reference euphamised in the quote above, and attempting to curtail freedom of the press by prevent the school publication, also mentioned above.
Fascinating.
And let’s not ignore the fact that no radio station, tv station, newspaper, magazine or book publisher HAS to publish or broadcast your viewpoints. If free speech was absolute they would have to by law.
Not really. Forcing them to publish or broadcast viewpoints that they don’t want to is a violation of their freedom of speech. If you own the mike or the printing press, your freedom of speech takes precedence over any third party’s.
But the New York Times had an editorial saying that there may not have been a crime committed after all. Of course, they only came to that conclusion after their reporters got in trouble.
Last time I checked, the NYT editorial board hadn’t been appointed to the federal bench. It’s for a judge to decide if a crime had been committed.
I don’t know if anybody saw, but the FCC ruled that the MNF skit with the woman jumping into TO’s arms was declared to NOT be indecent.
Something else to cheer: and a judge has said a ban on gay marriage in California is illegal.
Mitch Evans wrote:
“The city councilwoman is also attempting to prevent a high school publication and even says that if it’s allowed then those responsible will be “darned to heck.”
Actually, those scenes are flashbacks, done to establish that this woman has challenged others’ right to expression in the past.
You can tell it’s a flashback because Batik uses the device of photographs placed in an album.
I have no idea, however, if the school board scene refers to an actual storyline from past strips.
Rick