The Tamora Pierce-Tim Liebe Disinformation Campaign

Tamora Pierce, the YA fantasy author initiated the boycott against Dark Horse Comics on July 15, 2007 for republishing John Norman's Chronicles of Gor series in omnibus editions, which torch was then picked up & carried forward by J.E. Remy in a three-part series on his Die Wachen blog in which he relentlessly slandered John Norman, characterized the novels as "hate speech," contacted the college where Norman teaches about the novels (which Norman wrote in his private capacity, under a pseudonym), attempting to compromise John Norman's academic freedom. This relentless attack was then featured & praised in the 16th Annual Carnival of Feminist Science Fiction and Fantasy Fans (hosted, embarrassingly enough by a fellow librarian) on August 16, 2007.

I posted several times to Tamora Pierce's blog explaining that this boycott was a form of "private censorship" constituting a "public attack" on the Gor series, but she was evidently incapable of grasping the concept. In my posts to James Nicoll's blog on October 4, 2007, I indicated that I had better things to do with my time than to try to explain these concepts to those with hermetically sealed minds & turned my attention to more fruitful endeavors for a bit, until I noticed that - evidently thinking I was paying them no attention whatsoever anymore -- Tammy & her "spousal creature" Tim Liebe had descended into unrestrained slander against me & launched a disinformation campaign.

I replied to Tim Liebe today, as follows:

Hi, Tim, you wrote:

Yeah, that was kind of what I was wondering - sort of like this psycho librarian (no link, b/c I don't want her thinking her point has any legitimacy) who's threatening Tammy w/the ALA "censorship blacklist" for her opinion on the Gor books.

Ahem. Calling someone a “psycho librarian” meets your definition of good manners? I’m sure that will go over well with any other librarians looking through these threads!

I’d never said anything about a “blacklist” -- I’d said that Tammy’s actions constituted a “public attack” of the Gor series under the A.L.A.’s definition (not mine, which you keep ignoring), which made it a reportable event under the A.L.A.’s criteria. That is simply fact, not opinion. I even provided links to the A.L.A. webpages where Tammy could verify the accuracy of what I’d said, but clearly you & she prefer to distort & misrepresent my words, so this time I’ll provide everyone with pictures: screenshots of the relevant portions of the A.L.A. Challenge Database submission form, beginning with the header:



This next shot is of Section 4, in which the nature of the attacker is identified -- please note the last category, “Pressure Group”:



In Section 7 one is required to identify:



That section provided so many options it was too long to include as a whole, but you can see that at the bottom of the list there's a box to be checked for “Publisher.”



See, Tim? That’s straight from the A.L.A.’s form itself. You wrote:

Which isn't the case at all, as I found out the hard way in college the first time I called a boycott "censorship". A boycott, which you might be able to claim Tammy informally called for, is a way for a group of people to hit an organization doing something they don't approve of in the pocketbook.

MediaBistro certainly seemed to think it was a boycott.

You wrote:

You may not LIKE it that people are boycotting something, any more than I liked it that the Khrister Right boycotted Disney for ::gasp!:: being the last major film studio to provide "spousal benefits" for same-sex life partners - but disliking something and refusing to give it your sanction, even if you dislike it EXTREMELY, is not now nor has ever been "censorship".

The A.L.A. completely disagrees.

You might want to read this 1956 article from Time Magazine, too, Sex & Censors:

Is sex necessary on newsstands? Most U.S. citizens are content to leave the problem to the courts. But many an outraged parent is not inclined to wait for the slow-grinding mills of the law to protect his children from cheap and easy smut. The result may be a well-intentioned pressure group that tries to boycott and bully all available reading matter down to a soap-opera level. Writing in the current issue of Harper's, Editor John Fischer thinks he has found just that in what he calls "a little band of Catholics . . . conducting a shocking attack on the rights of their fellow citizens. They are engaged in an un-American activity . . . harming their country, their Church, and the cause of freedom."

You wrote:

It's a classic right-wing talk radio tactic - equate personal dislike with "censorship" when it's your enemy, but Defend to the Death YOUR right to call for the government or an organization with the power to hurt your enemy to censor anything you don't like

First, I’m not “right wing” politically, & second you’re describing yourself & Tammy, above, not me, & the supposed "right wing talk radio tactic" you're bemoaning is what the A.C.L.U. urges people to do when people like you try to get a publisher not to publish a book you disapprove of:

WHAT IS CENSORSHIP?

Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.

In contrast, when private individuals or groups organize boycotts against stores that sell magazines of which they disapprove, their actions are protected by the First Amendment, although they can become dangerous in the extreme. Private pressure groups, not the government, promulgated and enforced the infamous Hollywood blacklists during the McCarthy period. But these private censorship campaigns are best countered by groups and individuals speaking out and organizing in defense of the threatened expression.”

You wrote:

(like the ALA blacklisting a writer, say), b/c it's "just expressing an opinion"!

Again, no one said anything about a “blacklist” except you. You’re sounding just a tad, um, defensive, too. You wrote:

Pardon me, self-righteous belligerent psycho person - but that IS censorship, and you ARE a hypocrite,

Politely informing someone of facts is not “belligerence,” nor am I “psycho" nor a "hypocrite." I've never called anyone here insulting names, either, not once, despite repeated name-calling on your part, on your wife's & on the part of so many regular posters here. Don't think lots of silent readers aren't taking note of all that.

Charlotte

There may be updates to this....

UPDATE: Oh, woe am I -- Tammy's "banned" me from posting to her "private blog." She said:

"Enough. You have made your multitude of points. If you have an issue with my call for a boycott of the Gor books and the A.L.A. takes such complaints, then stop issuing threats and file your complaint. Do it and get it over with."

That'd been done awhile ago. I was never making any "threats;" I'd just been trying to drive the concept home that her boycott was a "public attack" under the A.L.A.'s criteria, not some personal criteria of my own. How hard a concept was that to grasp? Apparently it required pictures!

"If you post on my blog again, I will ban you. That's my right as a private citizen on my private live journal. I invite others here to share their opinions, but I can decide at any time to ask someone to leave, and you are that first (I hope only) someone."

Nope, there have been others, before me & there will undoubtedly be others after me, lol.

"I am warning you here rather than simply doing it outright out of politeness. I won't be polite when I ban you. I'll just do it."

"Politeness"? That would be quite a new experience from the Y.A. author who self-proclaims herself to be "a crude, rude, nasty, bawdy, mean-minded intellectual snob. It's time you figured this out, if you haven't already."

Oh, we have, Tamora Pierce, we have. Lots of us are now taking careful note....