Okay, so now I *am* going to United Fan Con. Apparently their money situation has sorted itself out (the fact that Aaron Douglas dropped out probably freed up some funds, I’d think) and I was reinvited.
Honestly, I toyed with the idea of saying forget it, but that didn’t seem fair to all the fans who’d written me expressing dismay over my not being there, especially since they’d purchased nonrefundable tickets.
So I’ll be there.
PAD
• 
Then, Joe, you can never leave again. Ever. Not even for a minute.
Or else…
~8?)
Why doesn’t our troll go visit john byrne’s site, since he likes democracy on a blog site so much.
Joe V.
Oh Ho, this is rich. This is just rich. I love it when you guys squirm. You all are now doing the puffing out the chest and saying “Well, I knew there was somthing about Dan Taylor all along!!!!”
Did I do myself in? Yeah Petey, I did, but I have to tell ya…the mask was gettin’ really, really itchy…..
And for the record, Pete & all, I am not THAT Dan Taylor…I picked the first name out of thin air, the last name I felt was appropriate, as it was the name of the character Charlton Heston played in PLANET OF THE APES–considering where I was posting, the name fit SOOOO Well.
I was net surfing, I saw this David Peters Troll’s posts and just had to join in.
But I couldn’t come in as another Troll…no way. So, I did my best cross between Sean Hannity and Pat Boone impression walked into the lion’s den.
You guys were sooooo holier than thou in the beginning…wanting to share your wisdom with the new kid…must be how Ðìçk Grayson was treated on the ride home from the circus. God, I go back and re-read this stuff and I laugh my ášš off!
P*NK*D? Yes, yes indeed…soooo Punked…
But, like all good villains, I gave too much away, got too caught up in my own megalomania…god, now I truly know why Joker, Penguin, Riddler and co. do it, and keep on doing it!!! IT IS SOOOO WORTH going to jail for…to take an otherwise sane guy and punk him till he he get so pìššëd he wants to slam his fist into your JAW?
Don’t you see? That was the whole point of the crime!!! To make this otherwise holier than thou ‘Superhero’ LOSE IT!!!
It is so, worth it….so worth it…
Okay guys..gotta run…but y’all take care now, ‘hear? God, I Feel SOOOOO GREAT!!!!!!!
Like the feeling you get when you play a practical joke on someone, only multiplied 1,000,000,000 times!!!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…….
Oh Ho, this is rich. This is just rich. I love it when you guys squirm. You all are now doing the puffing out the chest and saying “Well, I knew there was somthing about Dan Taylor all along!!!!”
Uhhm…okay. Whatever. For what it’s worth, in my first post to you, I said:
Frankly, I’m still unclear as to what it was you were trying to say or trying to prove.
My confusion on that score hasn’t changed. Your status, however, has.
Shrouded.
PAD
Um…really? Why? The best you can say is that you wasted a little bit of our time.
Since you wasted at least as much of your own, keeping you from even greater acts of base villainy–say, calling people on the phone and hanging up or making faces behind their backs–I consider it time well spent.
Please tell me you are still in middle school!
So, what happens now, I’m banned from the Klingon Homeworld?
On a nicer note, Ian’s first Halloween is going to be as a dragon. I wanted to do him up as a vampire. There were… negotiations… with Jenn that resulted in the possibility of a vampire bat, but that went out the window when she and grandma decided that the dragon outfit was absolutely darling. Better luck next year I suppose.
So, what’s everybody else doing?
Talk about Scoobi-Doo ending. Dan Taylor, the sensitive newbie nudist, is none other than old mister Trolly, the crusty cowardly old mental patient, who in a diabolical plan assumed the identity of Dan Taylor in order to accomplish… what? It’s not clear. Mike was his pawn all along in his dastardly scheme to be a jerk by pretending to be, well, a different jerk. What a a reveal. I assume that ‘Dan Taylor,’ the man of a thousand ridiculous pseudonyms, was the same troll who was disemvoweled in the beginning of this thread, who coincedently appeared just after the disemvoweling in order to continue being a troll under a different guise. Trolls are strange — going to all this effort just to be a jerk. What for?
You know what, now that I think about it, I wouldn’t be surprised if Dan Taylor was his real name.
I don’t have kids of my own, so I enjoy handing out candy to the trick-or-treaters. The kids in our neighborhood are really cool. Most of the younger ones are well-behaved and it’s fun watching them have a good time. The teenagers are usually very creative with their costumes — last year there was a pair of girls, one dressed as a teenager, the other as a corpse (a delightfully warped combo and they knew it) — so I don’t mind doling out candy for them as well.
Unfortunately, I’m not in my home in Upstate New York. I’m writing this from a hotel in Manhattan. I’ll be here through Thursday for business meetings. Jeannie will be in school tomorrow night.
Hope the dámņ townhouse doesn’t get egged.
Yet again, all that’s left for me to say is thank you for
The one time here someone, Jerry, went so far as to demonstrate what I said was wrong — I simply rephrased. I make adjustments like this all the time, which demonstrates I have no reservation against changing my mind where evidence I am wrong is given. What are y’all afraid I’m gonna do if you admit the posts Peter insists he made repeatedly don’t exist, thank you and move on? What has the big f.n. deal been?
You all sound like babies to me.
Get a life, people. He’s just a comic book writer. He’s not God
BOY has this thread brought out the crazies!
Bill Myers (not one of the aforementioned crazies) says:
I find it… fascinating… that this thread has turned so contentious (and granted, I’ve helped move it in that direction). PAD’s decision to attend UFC despite their jerking him around ought to be pretty non-controversial. You know, as in, “Hey, you’re taking the high road, that’s cool of you.” And his decision to silence a trll who merely harrassed everyone here and abused PAD’s hospitality ought to be equally non-controversial.
You’d think, wouldn’t you? But one of the many unpleasant traits of awful people is that they get very upset when other people demonstrate any degree of class and decency–aspects of their own lives they lack and have neither the ability nor desire to attain. A display of character such as what PAD displayed here is a threat to them and has to be sullied, even if it’s in the incredibly insignificant act of internet trolling.
Now to the normal sane person they have fallen far far short of their goal–nobody thinks any less of PAD while the trolls have lost any pretense of good character…but that’s what makes them what they are, there’s no point in expecting more reason from them than they are capable of giving.
Jerry (possibly crazy and armed to boot) says:
Oh, and being stuck at home while waiting for Jenn and her mom to deal with some family business, I’ve had the Sci-Fi channel on in the background all day. This has reaffirmed my belief in three things.
1) House of the Dead is the worst zombie movie ever made.
Not while ZOMBIE LAKE and OASIS OF THE ZOMBIES walk this earth.
In fairness to both, they cost less than the change I have in my pocket.
2) Uwe Boll’s skills as a director make Ed wood seem like Francis Ford Coppola in comparison.
Yet he keeps getting money to make movies…is this some kind of THE PRODUCERS scam? A money laundering game that even he may not be aware of?
3) The Sci-Fi channel really has fallen so far short of the channel it could have potentially been and in so many ways from what a lot of us hoped that it would be when we first heard about it. It’s not bad, but it could have been so much better.
And they’ve run out of animals to turn into giant CGI terrors. Now they have to resort to hybrids–MANSQUITO! Half man! Half mosquito! Half bear-pig!
Still, it hasn’t plumbed the depths of the once great MTV. Anyone else remember when they showed videos?
Speaking of zombies…
Last Saturday they had the first of what I hope will be many Zombie Walks in Raleigh (Zombie Lurch is more accurate). I went with some guys from the Haunted House I do makeup at, hoping we wouldn’t be the only people there in costume (very embarrassing when that happens). No fears there, something like 300 plus showed up!
pics here (that’s me in the green scrubs)
http://flickr.com/photos/47348316@N00/1785353289/in/pool-565424@N23/
http://flickr.com/photos/47348316@N00/1785402257/in/pool-565424@N23/
Such fun. We did the great zombie chant:
leader—-WHAT DO WE WANT?
zombies—BRAIIIIIIIIIINS!
leader—-WHEN DO WE WANT THEM?
(pause)
zombies—BRAIIIIIIIIIINS!
THIS is what America is all about.
For the Zombie lovers…
if you haven’t heard this song your missing out…
RE: Your Brains by John Coulton
http://www.jonathancoulton.com/songdetails/Re%20Your%20Brains
Jeffrey, sorry if my post got a little less clear than a block of cement. What I was trying(and obviously failing rather miserably) to say, is that you can in fact say whatever you want to, but there may be consequences. Choose your(not specifically you, BTW) words carefully, because they may end up locking their incisors around your posterior. Again, I apologize, I was tired and trying to plan my day which, between work and class, only ended about two hours ago from 7:30 this morning.
You know, Jerry, you could have simply googled this site for “cogent paradigms” and learned no one has posted the phrase you Wrongly™ attributed to me. But why let Wrongness™ stop you now?
Why do you even challenge anything I say? Who are you to me? Who am I to you?
Gee Mike, in all of the pseudo psycho babble that you’ve spewed on about with seeking paradigms for the motives of the people here, cogent models for this and that and whatever else you’ve looked up in a given week pertaining to some psychological mumbo jumbo, it’s amazing that you never directly linked those two words. I’m sorry, I misremembered the actual usage of your verbal diarrhea.
Still, I’m not 100% sure that you haven’t linked the two words up here. I googled this site for “cogent paradigms” and this thread didn’t come up in the search, so it’s not 100% in it’s reliability. But I’ll take you word for it. It’s not worth sifting threw the drivel at this point since Ben The Idiot has been outed and you’re not worth the effort anymore.
Peter David: Honestly, Bill, I didn’t know what the hëll they were being. Micha seemed to feel my thoughts needed fine tuning as if they didn’t pass muster, and Luigi was being aggressively obtuse.
Luigi Novi: Micha seemed to feel that the expression or wording of an idea you expressed needed fine tuning. Not your thoughts. Perceptions vary, I suppose, but given Micha’s history on this site, why would the latter interpretation be the one that seems most apparent to you rather than the former, when giving the benefit of the doubt would’ve suggested the former?
As for me, well, I don’t know how someone can be aggressive in failing to understand something, since aggressiveness would seem to be something that can only characterize a deliberate act rather than a failure on one’s part, but the record does show that I freely admitted that I was having trouble understanding your use of a given phrase.
Peter David: My position has been staggeringly simple:
1) I believe that “Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech” means absolutely that: that Congress shouldn’t make laws abridging freedom of speech.
2) I consider “abridgment” in the same sense as, say, the Readers Digest abridges material: They cut things out before it sees print. Abridgment is preventative. Abridgment is prior restraint. Abridgment, as is the case with proposed laws preventing flag burning, says, “You may not express your opinion in this manner.”
Luigi Novi: Not even close.
First, we’re not talking about your use of the word “abridgement”. We’re talking about your use of the word absolute.
Second, “abridgment” doesn’t say anything about prevention or prior restraint, because it’s not a legal term. The word, according to dictionary.com and The American Heritage Dictionary, simply means to shorten, reduce or condense something. It has no inherent legal or moral value to it. Where you’re getting this bizarre connotation of the word, I have no idea.
Lastly, I don’t know if this is the eureka moment, but I’m wondering if you’ve finally said something that reveals your position to me. Are you saying that the First Amendment refers only to the expression of an opinion? If so, then I think I might understand why you label yourself an absolutist. But where in the First Amendment does it say that free speech or protected speech or whatever is only for opinions? Speech, and more broadly, expression in general, can be anything. A photograph is not an opinion. But it is a form of expression, and unless it’s kiddie pørņ, it’s protected expression. And because “expression” is so broad, and morally neutral, it encompasses everything from Robert Maplethorpe’s photos to kiddie pørņ, and it is because of this that laws must be made to say “The former is protected, the latter is not.” Those things that are not are exceptions to the First Amendment, and free speech, which is why they are not absolute.
The First Amendment is not only about opinions.
Peter David: 3) I do not consider libel and slander laws to be abridgment of the First Amendment. They are, at most, laws designed to keep speakers honest when they are reporting purported truths. The penalties apply after the fact, do not involve prior restraint, and must satisfy a rigorous series of legal tests which in themselves are designed to protect the First Amendment. Furthermore, since they are steeped in common law which predates the First Amendment, I considered them to be “grandfathered” in, so to speak. There have to be some penalties for abuse of free speech, just as there are penalties for unlicensed ownership of guns even though the second Amendment says that gun ownership should not be curtailed.
Luigi Novi: And I’m asking you, what does after the fact, prior restraint, rigorous tests, or predating the First Amendment have to do with the definition of the word “absolute”? How do any of these considerations mean that you don’t recognize valid exceptions to free speech, which render the use of the word “absolute” arbitrary? Yes, these are thoughtful considerations, but I’m approaching your use of the word “absolute” from a more direct angle, and you’re repeatedly refusing to address it. Why is this? Why can’t you just answer those two questions at the end my 1:18am post on Monday? Can’t you understand that they represent a permutation of the word “absolute” that is not addressed by things like “prior restraint”? I tend to expect this sort of evasion from the paralogists and trolls and flamers, but I’ve never seen you avoid a point like this, Peter.
Peter David: 4) My definition of “First Amendment absolutist” may not match up with someone else’s, just as the definition of “feminist” doesn’t match up with all feminists.
Luigi Novi: But the problem with this analogy is that the word “feminist” does not connote a quantitative value. The word “absolute”, however, most certainly does, and a very extreme one. You can’t have a 10% absolutist, a 53% absolutist, a 99% absolutist and a 100% absolutist. An absolutist is someone who only believes in a certain idea 100%, without exceptions. Since you and I both believe that there are things that are not covered by free speech…yadda, yadda, yadda…
Peter David: 5) Free speech and the First Amendment are two different things. The First Amendment should be absolute, but free speech is not absolute since it answers to libel, slander and other necessary restraints that protect the commonweal. That’s it. That’s all I’ve been saying.
Luigi Novi: Whoa, whoa, no, uh-uh, that’s not what you’ve “been” saying. I quoted you above, and you indicated that you were a free speech absolutist. Not merely a First Amendment one.
Peter David: Now if you’ll excuse me, in this world of no absolutes…
Luigi Novi: I’ll assume that this is a joke, given that I debunked your accusation above that I don’t believe that there aren’t any, right? 😉
Jerry,
I guess what I should have asked when first addressing your reaction to what I’ve said here is: what rule or rules do you live by that you feel obliged to take every opportunity to hunt me down like I’m a dog for the rules I live by? I’m mean, is there something wrong with the rules I live by, can you cite my deviation from my own account of my observance of my rules, or what?
I live by rules that oblige me to post in reaction to the one hypocrisy Peter seems to reserve for himself. Peter runs out of steam in responding to my reaction — you don’t. You live by rules that oblige you to declare war on me — simply for observing behavior in you you will go so far as to demonstrate to deter my making the observation in the first place. What is your fidelity to that there is no hypocrisy so severe you will not indulge in, if not simple, basic, tribal domination?
hunt me down like I’m a dog
That’s a phrase that’s always struck me as quite odd. Are there actually any cultures in which dog hunting is that prominent? I know dogs are quite often used as aids in hunting, but can’t recall hearing any cases in which they were the prey. Anyone have any idea where this phrase originated and entered into our common vernacular?
It sounds like a mixed metaphor that requires almost no thinking to comprehend its meaning.
Lastly, I don’t know if this is the eureka moment, but I’m wondering if you’ve finally said something that reveals your position to me.
FINALLY?
Mother of God.
Luigi…I have made my position ABUNDANTLY clear. Repeatedly. I have answered your questions, and answered them, and answered them, and answered them, and answered them.
And you have ignored it. Or twisted it. Or misunderstood it. Or reworded it. Right down to the fact that I have repeatedly said I’m a First Amendment absolutist, meaning “Congress shall make no law,” and you’re saying that no, I said I’m a free speech absolutist, as if to say that I’m insinuating there should be no limits on speech, which I not only did not say, BUT YOU QUOTED ME AS SAYING THE CONTRARY. Or if at some point I did say I’m a “free speech absolutist,” then I misspoke, which should be abundantly clear considering the several dozen times I’ve clarified my position…all, it seems, to no avail.
I have repeatedly said that as far as I’m concerned, saying that I’m a First Amendment absolutist means, simply and wholly, that when the First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law,” it means “Congress shall make no law.” The fact that after my endless reiteration of this simple idea, you’re STILL contending that I haven’t defined my terms, displays an intransigence that is–there is no other way to say it–bordering on Mike-sized proportions. Right down to the fact that when I said I’m done discussing this with you, YOU WON’T STOP DISCUSSING IT.
Luigi…God as my witness…enough. E. Freaking. Nough. I mean it. Not only has this thread–a gøddámņ thread that was simply supposed to announce that I was going to United Fan Con–beein hijacked by trollish behavior and obtuseness, but I think any reasonable person would come to the conclusion by now that it’s hit the point of diminishing returns. And the thundering irony of all this is that I’m attending UFC in order to be there for the fans, and at this point, I’m left wondering Why Am I Doing That Again?
PAD
Happy Halloween Everyone. Take your kids Trick or Treating today and be safe.
Wow, It took a while but i read thru this whole thread and i must say, WOW.
I’m surprised Bladestar hasn’t shown up and added his rants to this conversation. That would make this thread complete. (Although the way Dan acted, he could be Bladestar) I miss you Blades 🙁
Joe V.
We had plans to take the kids out…Vicki and I were going to be pirates, Xavier was going to be a bucanneer…complete with the “arrgh” and trick or treat down, although he’s got the right of it and just says “treat or treat.”
But Neva’s been admitted to the hospital because her immune system decided it didn’t like platelets, so I’m not sure what we’re going to be doing.
Luigi Novi has it right. If one chooses to call oneself an absolutist, one is declaring that the subject at hand is a superlative. PAD acknowledges that he does recognize exceptions(Check the post quoted below – he really does.) – which I think is a very reasonable thing. He then lights into Luigi Novi for – I’m not sure, perhaps not posting what he would have preferred that he post, or not recognizing that PAD is by definition right about all things at all times.
“I think PAD’s perception of free speech policy is correct, but that it cannot be characterized as “absolute”: It recognizes exceptions.” (Me)
“I never said that it didn’t.” (PAD)
MOST respectfully, PAD, when you said you were an absolutist on free speech, you were proclaiming that your appreciation of free speech was so total that it could tolerate no exception. This is nothing but a matter of linguistics: You may, perhaps correctly, say that you mean what you mean and use words as you choose, and that’s just the way it is, so there! Very much more important is that among the exceptions you recognize is material which is untrue. If it were possible to be certain in every case what is true and what is not, that might not create much of a public policy conundrum, but it would still be a huge gap in free speech protection – For example, the largest part of your published output involves fictional (untrue) characters interacting in an imaginary world: fiction! Because the Hulk (for example) not only never walked away from a Gamma Bomb test but never even existed in the physical world, by your reasoning, nothing you or any other writer ever wrote about the character would be exempt from prior restraint from the Government or some other entity: No fiction could be protected. The problem is actually broader than that: If the test is truthfulness, then someone must have the authority to say “Yes, that is truthful, and protected; This other thing – no, No, NO! This is not correct! It is not protected: Remove it.” That may sound like hyperbole, but just as a practical matter, if free speech protection is disengaged by the determination that the offensive speech is untrue, there must be someone who retains the authority to make that determination. That person has the authority to make free speech an inconsequential fiction.
If that last post was too long, here’s an abridgement.
PAD says he is a free speech absolutist. He acknowledges that he recognizes exceptions, limitations and penalties for free speech, but insists that he is, indeed, an absolutist. We should, he insists, accept that he is an absolutist, because he says so. I say that he is not an absolutist, and should know that he is not. I then declare that he allows an exception to free speech (truthfulness) which removes all fiction from First Amendment protection and also, with minimal squirming, permits some authority to declare any nonfiction to be untruthful and unprotected.
PAD says he is a free speech absolutist.
Nooo…I said I’m a First Amendment absolutist. I have defined what I mean by that more times than I care to think about. Why in God’s name people are insisting on substituting their own interpretation of what I said for what I actually said is beyond me. But it’s wearing *very* thin.
PAD
“the largest part of your published output involves fictional (untrue) characters interacting in an imaginary world: fiction! Because the Hulk (for example) not only never walked away from a Gamma Bomb test but never even existed in the physical world, by your reasoning, nothing you or any other writer ever wrote about the character would be exempt from prior restraint from the Government or some other entity: No fiction could be protected. The problem is actually broader than that: If the test is truthfulness, then someone must have the authority to say “Yes, that is truthful, and protected; This other thing – no, No, NO! This is not correct! It is not protected: Remove it.” That may sound like hyperbole, but just as a practical matter, if free speech protection is disengaged by the determination that the offensive speech is untrue, there must be someone who retains the authority to make that determination. That person has the authority to make free speech an inconsequential fiction.”
If I may interject an example–The Marvel Graphic Novel “Revenge of the Living Monolith”–the cover clearly shows the Living Monolith–a villain in ancient Egyptian Garb, knocking over the twin towers of the WTC…this of course happned long before 9/11…how do you handle that? Just leave it alone?
And the thundering irony of all this is that I’m attending UFC in order to be there for the fans, and at this point, I’m left wondering Why Am I Doing That Again?
Because these aren’t the fans you’ll be seeing there? 🙂
Happy Hallo’een, PAD.
Not only has this thread–a gøddámņ thread that was simply supposed to announce that I was going to United Fan Con–beein hijacked by trollish behavior and obtuseness, but I think any reasonable person would come to the conclusion by now that it’s hit the point of diminishing returns. And the thundering irony of all this is that I’m attending UFC in order to be there for the fans, and at this point, I’m left wondering Why Am I Doing That Again?
PAD, simmer down. Luigi can be relentless but he’s a good guy. Mike and The Multiple Dan are wack-jobs of no concern.
The vast majority of the folks here get it.
One of the detriments of doing this kind of thing is that you will get abuse from the kooks and the occasional aggravation from even folks who genuinely admire you. I hope you also get other, maybe less obvious benefits as well.
I’m sorry – what does “shrouded” mean?
Sorry sorry sorry –
I get what shrouded must mean.
sorry again.
Are you making jail the qualifier of what is forbidden and isn’t forbidden? Other than the fact that Imus didn’t go to jail, I don’t see why you simply don’t reply to Luigi that no one gets sent to jail for libel.
Otherwise, if libel laws don’t forbid libel, what then are you referring to by forbidding speech?
It’s you and Dan who have your whole doesn’t-play-by-rules approach in common.
Well, at least we agree that Dan is someone who one would not wish to be associated with.
I’ll leave it to the other posters here to decide which of us has the most in common with lonesome Dan.
A Late Halloween Story
~8?)
A man was walking home alone late one night when he hears a…….
BUMP…
BUMP…
BUMP…
behind him.
Walking faster he looks back, and makes out the image of an upright coffin banging its way down the middle of the street towards him…
BUMP…
BUMP…
BUMP…
Terrified, the man begins to run towards his home, the coffin bouncing quickly behind him…
faster…
faster…
BUMP…
BUMP….
BUMP…
He runs up to his door, fumbles with his keys, opens the door, rushes in, slams and locks the door behind him. . .
However, the coffin crashes through his door, with the lid of the coffin clapping ..
clappity-BUMP…
clappity-BUMP…
clappity-BUMP…
clappity-BUMP…
on the heels of the terrified man….
Rushing upstairs to the bathroom, the man locks himself in. His heart is pounding; his head is Reeling; his breath is coming in sobbing gasps…
With a loud CRASH the coffin starts breaking down the door.
Bumping and clapping towards him.
The man screams and reaches for Something heavy, anything .. his hand comes to rest on a large bottle of Robitussin.
Desperate, he throws the Robitussin as hard as he can at the apparition.
the coffin stops.
The End.
Can’t blame a guy for trying to lighten the mood a bit.
My God. They were telling that one back in 3rd grade (though it was Vicks Cough drops back then).
Exhausted. Had a great time doing makeup at my friend’s Haunt but I can really use some rest. Oh, and judging from the behavior of about 5% of the people who went through, “douchebag” was a popular costume choice this year.
All right, I stand corrected. PAD says he is a First Amendment absolutist. It stands to reason, then, if he is a First Amendment absolutist that he must think that
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
He has already stipulated that speech which is untrue should not be protected, so perhaps what he means is
“Congress…shall not interfere with freedom of speech which it has certified as truthful. Henceforth, whatever it determines to be adverse to the public interest shall be called UnTruth/NonSpeech, and will not be construed as speech.”
I know PAD does not really want speech to be so abridged, but his codification of what he would permit and not permit does lead to this extreme.
Thank you for not disagreeing you don’t abide by rules. I don’t mind anything I might have in common with Dan — other than the chickenshit you share.
Jeffrey, don’t act as though the Constitutional term “freedom of speech” has some clear-cut, easy to understand meaning. It doesn’t, and over 200 years of Ameircan jurisprudence support that. Free speech, and what the Constitution protects, is something that continues to be debated today. The mistake most people make is assuming that free speech means what it says…that all speech is protected. It’s not, and the courts have established guides and judicial rules that try to define what speech is protected, and which is not. Speech which is untrue might not be protected, if certain other things can be said about such untrue speech…namely, that the speaker knows it to be false, and is speaking it with the intent of causing harm to the reputation of another. On the other hand, someone could write fiction…containing a large amount of untrue statements…yet be protected by the First Amendment.
As for no one going to jail for libel…such may be true, but don’t think that you can’t do time for speech. Making verbal threats under a simplistic ideal of free speech can still land you in jail. And telling the wrong people state secrets can get you executed.
The biggest mistake I see people making with PAD’s position is that, where PAD has made it painfully and agravatingly clear that he’s a First Amendment absolutist, that doesn’t mean he believes in the absolute right of free speech. The two are very different, and at times diametrically opposed, concepts.
I don’t see how that doesn’t support Luigi’s observation the courts tolerate exceptions to “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…” There are federal laws against threats made across state boundaries, whether by post, phone, or email, yes?
Wow! I had this horrible nightmare last night that Jerry Chandler posted an anecdote on this thread that ended with an awful pun.
Thank God it was just a dream and it never actually happened.
Whew!
I mean, after all, what did the collective readers of this blog do to deserve that?
Still, as they say, misery loves company, so I’ll pass on that anecdote to a friend, giving Jerry full credit (blame) for it.
Rick
bobb alfred: I take your post to mean you understand that free speech is not an entirely clear-cut thing, and I will not disagree. I am not pretending that free speech is a clearly defined absolute good standing on a pedestal by itself: I am not a First Amendment absolutist, but a believer in the maximum amount of free speech consistent with some other values. We could argue forever about the proper balance of free speech and such things as freedom from defamation, protection of national security and copyright protection, because free speech cannot be effectively addressed except in relative terms. As far as I can determine, PAD’s standards on the subject are well-considered and very agreeable to me – EXCEPT that he insists that he is a First Amendment absolutist. Most of us seem to understand that the First Amendment is not a simple, unitary stricture with only one possible interpretation, so I think it is bizarre to claim to be an absolutist about something one cannot pin down beyone “Congress shall not…(except sometimes, uhhh…when it seems like a good idea, you know, because we know that we could NEVER have really meant that we would allow THAT…I think…) abridge free speech.”
I’ve read a lot about how PAD is not a free speech absolutist, but rather a First Amendment absolutist: What has he pinned down in the First Amendment to be absolutist about? It’s not free speech, because he accepts various restrictions; It’s not the intent of the First Amendment, because he doesn’t know exactly what that is: Could it be the actual wording of the Amendment? I think he means something more, but if that’s all it is, fine: First Amendment absolutism may be nothing more than an insistence that the First Amendment is written and punctuated exactly as one can find it in a good printing of the Constitution. Big deal.
Really, if one is to be a First Amendment absolutist, just what is that supposed to mean?
“Really, if one is to be a First Amendment absolutist, just what is that supposed to mean?”
I’m sorry, but I draw my limit at explaining it twenty seven times. The twenty eighth, you’re going to have to figure it out for yourself. Bobb did. Maybe, perhaps, who knows someday could be, you will as well.
PAD
PAD – You ask why you are going to the convention, after all, when some of the fans here are ungrateful enough to criticize you or write about things you would prefer they didn’t. I think I have a fairly good idea:
You go to conventions because you are in the business of writing for public consumption. Artistic merit is not determined by sales, but royalties and future assignments are. I would bet large money that you prefer having publishers who want to hire you and give you money. Going to conventions increases public awareness of you and might be expected to cause some people to pick up titles you are writing which they have not previously been following. It’s good business. That may not be the only reason one would attend a convention: Perhaps you think you might have some fun – some feel that way. Perhaps there are some other people going there whom you think it might be nice to see, or perhaps you have some sort of desire to meet with some of your fans – to thank them, or let them compliment you, or to learn something about the tastes of the readers. All of these possibilities offer the chance of some advantage to you. If they don’t appeal to you, then don’t go.
Bill Mulligan: “My God. They were telling that one back in 3rd grade (though it was Vicks Cough drops back then).”
Ok, so it’s a really late Halloween story. Besides, it was the only “all ages” one I could think of just then. All the others were x-rated.
Rick Keating: “Wow! I had this horrible nightmare last night that Jerry Chandler posted an anecdote on this thread that ended with an awful pun.”
Hey, I’m a punny type of guy. My favorite parts of Spider Robinson’s Callahan stories were always the pun competitions. And I don’t see them as awful, I love ’em. But then, the quality of a pun has always been in the oy of the beholder.
PAD – I have just read your retort that bobb alfred has explained the situation. Well, dense me, all I can see is that he says “Free Speech absolutist” is not the same thing as “First Amendment absolutist.” That’s great. It’s probably true. It doesn’t say anything about what a First Amendment absolutist is, or how you are one.
What are you absolutist about? You can say “The First Amendment!!! Get it? I’m not going to repeat myself, you!!” all you want, without clearing anything up. What have you found in the First Amendment that is so clear and unchanging that you are sure you are absolutist about? Is it “Free speech is neat. I really like it! It would be nice if it were absolutely free, but we all know that sometimes it can’t be, and I’m pretty sure I know where to draw the line most of the time, so I think the way I see things is pretty good”? That’s a little bit too indeterminate to be all that absolutist about.
The whole problem is the word “absolutist.” If you said “Free speech is truly important, and the First Amendment is crucial to preserving that right. I am determined that the First Amendment be preserved and honored, and that free speech rights not be savaged by evil jáçkáššëš or sanctimonious twits” there would be nothing with which I could disagree.
About what are you absolutely sure you are an absolutist?
God, this is starting to remind me of some of the more interesting theological debates I’ve watched that slowly drifted to asinine hair splitting. And it’s actually a lot like the debate of whether or not man has absolute free will or not.
Does man have absolute free will? One side says yes, but goes on to state that with that absolute free will comes the the demands of personal responsibility and the realization that poor choices will lead to unwelcome consequences. One side says that there can be no absolute free will because the threat of punishment for acting in a manner contrary to God’s laws negates the concept of absolute free will. Yet another side gums up the works altogether by arguing that everything was completely planned out by God from day one until the end of time and absolute free will is merely an illusion.
I think these debates are fascinating to listen to and great fun to be in, but eventually you get someone who comes along brick walls the thing by being unnecessarily or overly pedantic and begins to lock out the bigger picture in order to drag down the entire debate into endless quibbling about one tiny detail no matter how many times everybody else covers it.
Big picture here? Peter’s documented actions and writings over the last couple of decades should clearly define what his position on free speech is. Peter’s comments here were in response to query, it wasn’t a story point, the crux of an argument, the main thrust of the overall point that he was making, we’re not lawyers and it’s not even a legal argument being debated here. It’s merely a term he uses to describe himself.
Smaller Picture here? Peter holds the theologically comparable view of the term and believes that you have the right to say whatever you want, but you have to realize that the right comes with responsibilities and consequences. Others here hold the position that any threat of punishment for misuse (libel, slander, etc.) negates the “absolute” nature of free speech as equally as if you were forbidden from even speaking such things at all.
He’s explained his side and you’ve explained yours. Isn’t it time to do that “agree to disagree” thing that we were discussing before and moving on? Or, at the very least, since it is an interesting discussion, can we move the discussion to the idea itself and not risk getting the thread shut down by badgering the guy whose explained his position on the subject a dozen times now for yet another explanation/debate go round and is making it real clear to anyone but the biggest two fools here that the only thing getting thinner faster then his waistline around here is getting yet another question about “clarifying” his position?
Jeffrey, PAD didn’t say I explained it…he said I got it. PAD’s posted in this thread alone at least twice, if not three times, what his stance is. I’m not going to try and re-create it, because I doubt I could put it any plainer than PAD chose to. But the questions you ask do highlight the problem…everyone has a preconcieved notion of what free speech means, and of what the First Amendment means. Some are more open than others to debate.
Me, I think both are maleable ideals. I support the idea that the Constitution is a living document that’s designed to change as society changes. If it weren’t designed that way, it would have reauthorization built into it. But my belief has nothing to do with PAD’s.
I find it rather pointless to discuss what the label someone attributes to themselves means, after they’ve already explained it in more definite terms. PoTAYto, poTAHto…they both taste good when fried and served with ‘chup.
I have a good idea of PAD’s opinions on free speech and the First Amendment, and I find them very convincing. I do not have a good idea of why he thinks he is an absolutist, when he has explained so well why absolutism does not work on such a complicated matter as defending the First Amendment. If one is to be an absolutist, one must have a clear idea of what one is supporting so absolutely. Rather than an uncomplicated absolutist cleaving to one simple thing, PAD’s position is much more nuanced and persuasive – but slapped with a deceptive label of absolutism. I do not believe PAD’s adherence to free speech (or the First Amendment, as he prefers) is a matter of dogmatic faith – an absolutist, non-intellectual, religious matter – but rather a philosophical conclusion made after weighing competing factors. Absolute free speech would allow me to publish “Hulk: Future Imperfect” as my own, if I wished to say it was; copyright and intellectual property laws would prevent that: PAD would, understandably, think that was the right way for things to turn out, because freedom of speech would be outweighed by truth and justice. It may be suggested that what PAD is truly absolutist about is “prior restraint,” but even that is not so. Antiespionage laws and security classifications very effectively, legally, and probably ethically, do impose prior restraint.
Can PAD’s absolutism be nothing more than “I do, truly, feel very strongly about what I believe to be so”? That is a very accurate statement that many people could make, but it is a very small absolutism.
Mike, if I understand you correctly (and it is certainly a possibility that I do not) you feel that punishment after the fact for exercising one’s free speech does not constitute abridgement of free speech. In that case, would it not be perfectly constitutional and appropriate (in terms of the First Amendment – I recognize that there are other relevant laws) for the Government to maintain death squads to punish anyone who spoke or wrote in criticism of the Government? I am quite sure (nearly to the point of absolutism) that was not the intent of the framers of the Constitution.