Oh, the Hypocrisy!!!!!

I’m periodically looking in at the blogs & sites of those who organized the boycott against Dark Horse Comics for proposing to republish John Norman’s Chronicles of Gor in omnibus editions, including Greg Morrow’s All New! All Different! Howling Curmudgeons Two-Fisted Comics Commentary and Criticism board, where, in late September, I’d posted a three-part explanation of why the attacks on the Gor series & John Norman were misguided & wrong, only to have them sneeringly dismissed by Morrow on James Nicoll’s blog, although not addressed substantively in the least.

Of course, when someone has just demonstrated -- however politely -- that you don’t know how to read sophisticated literature, that you couldn’t tell a metaphor from a cabbage, & that you've consequently just blatantly & self-righteously defamed an innocent man, I suppose the only thing left to do is to then insult the person who had the temerity to point out the irredeemable shortcomings of your analysis. The inescapable consequence of doing that, though, is that it only makes abundantly clear the sheer depth of your ethical shortcomings when you're unwilling to rectify, much less acknowledge, the wrongs you’ve committed.

I don’t take this personally, however, especially after reading the “farewell message” Jason Fliegel, one of the remaining Curmudgeons, posted on the site yesterday on behalf of Mike Chary, now one of the “Curmudgeons Emeritus.” Apparently, about three months ago, Chary tried logging into the site only to discover that, as Morrow explained in an email afterwards, he “had been kicked off because [he] argued too much.”

Isn’t that what curmudgeons are supposed to do?

Apparently not, if the curmudgeon you argue with too forcefully & successfully is Greg Morrow.

According to Chary’s farewell, his forced departure occurred just as the Phillies were gaining traction, so I looked into the archives & found the July 2, 2007 announcement of his "departure" by Greg Morrow:

It is with regret that I announce that Mike Chary has become a Curmudgeons emeritus.

The other Curmudgeons wish Mike the best of success in his future pursuits.

One of the commentators asked whether Chary had left “to spend more time with his family” or whether he was “also unwilling to continue in the face of recent events involving sock puppetry and hypocrisy.”

It really is a shame to think that anyone would treat a long-time friend as badly as it now appears that Greg Morrow has, but it certainly makes it much easier to understand how Morrow could therefore have treated me -- a stranger, although one only by a single degree of separation from him -- so shabbily, too. I’d sincerely hoped, especially after reading Mike Chary’s July responses to Morrow on the What Would Tarl Cabot Do thread, in which Chary had demonstrated a fair degree of open-mindedness concerning the Gor novels, coupled with an insightful wariness of Morrow’s self-righteous censoriousness, that Chary would respond to my September posts & that a fruitful discussion might ensue. A look at Chary’s homepage & his blog also reveal a degree of thoughtfulness that I would have greatly welcomed in such a discussion, especially given how very little of it I’ve found manifested by the regular posters to the blogs where the anti-Gor boycott was mounted, much less their proprietors.

Ah, well: I should never have gotten my hopes up.

If you want to see class in action, though, read Chary's farewell message, as well as his replies to the posters criticizing Morrow.

Meanwhile, back on Tamora Pierce’s blog, I found a post she made on January 16th concerning censorship & banned books that has to be the ne plus ultra of unwitting self-parody:

I was going to ask "why do people assume my dislike or disapproval of something means I want it censored," until I realized that in this day and age, and particularly here in my homeland of the United States, that question is naive at best and stupid at worst. Even if you're not one of those people who immediately demands that anything you disapprove of should be yanked out of public circulation, you know damned well that the first move everywhere in these United States, particularly when it comes to kids, porn, erotica, and comics, is to get it banned....

I've stated it elsewhere in this lj in a number of threads, but I want it here and in the clear, so everyone knows in no uncertain terms.

There is a lot in this world I dislike…

…I reserve the right to say I don't like something, and to say why. I reserve the right to protest it, and argue against it, and debate it intelligently with other intelligent people. I hope people will consider my arguments.

BUT.

However much I dislike something or disapprove of it, so long as I am in my right mind, I will never, EVER advocate that it be censored, destroyed, banned from schools, libraries, the media, bookstores, theaters, or anywhere else. I will never tell anyone else not to read, see, or listen to it. NEVER. (I may recommend it, but I will also tell them that in the end, the choice is theirs alone). I will never speak or write letters recommending such action....To do this would be a betrayal of the America I was raised to believe in, which I still hold within myself. It would be a betrayal of myself.

….But pornography involving consenting adults? That's up to the people who make it and the people who buy it. It's none of my business, and it shouldn't be the business of anyone who isn't interested in it for what it's there for.

If you ask me, we would all be a lot better off if people would stop assuming they have the right to dictate what other people they don't even know should be reading, watching, and hearing. We hillbillies don't like folks all the time stickin their noses in our business. Time was, if I didn't invite you into my yard, I reserved the right to shoot you. And we knew we got the same if we started tellin other folks how to live.

So please stop assuming that because I don't like it, I want it censored or banned outright. And if I start saying I do, please shoot me.

You heard the lady! Save her from her own terminal hypocrisy!!!!

File under: just too funny!

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....

Censorship of the Gor Novels

I posted the following comments earlier today to J.E. Remy concerning his "Speak Out" post on his Die Wachen blog, apparently justifying his attempted censorship of the republication of John Norman's Chronicles of Gor series:

There’s an enormous, absolutely critical distinction from a Free Speech perspective between merely “voicing concerns, protesting, rebutting, ridiculing, debating and scrutinizing” the content or aims one finds objectionable on the one hand, & attempting on the other to prevent others from having the same opportunity to evaluate the work of art for themselves, which is what censorship is.

You wrote: “The right to free speech allows the artist to present ideas in a public forum.”

But preventing the publication or re-publication of a work because one deems it to be objectionable in some manner entirely precludes the right of the artist to present his ideas in the public forum.

You also wrote: “Sometimes the audience uses a collective voice in an attempt to instigate change. This is not encouraging censorship or monitoring thought—quite the opposite.”

If using “a collective voice in an attempt to instigate change” involves precluding the right of the artist to be heard by others, that unquestionably constitutes “censorship” & “monitoring thought,” which is precisely what you’ve attempted to do in your Sexist, Degrading Bullshit II: Comic Book Edition post, wrapping yourself in the First Amendment’s legal protections, while at once perverting it aims.

As the American Library Association notes in its Intellectual Freedom and Censorship Q&A:

"What Is Censorship?

Censorship is the suppression of ideas and information that certain persons—individuals, groups or government officials—find objectionable or dangerous. It is no more complicated than someone saying, “Don’t let anyone read this book, or buy that magazine, or view that film, because I object to it! ” Censors try to use the power of the state to impose their view of what is truthful and appropriate, or offensive and objectionable, on everyone else. Censors pressure public institutions, like libraries, to suppress and remove from public access information they judge inappropriate or dangerous, so that no one else has the chance to read or view the material and make up their own minds about it. The censor wants to prejudge materials for everyone.

How Does Censorship Happen?

Censorship occurs when expressive materials, like books, magazines, films and videos, or works of art, are removed or kept from public access. Individuals and pressure groups identify materials to which they object. Sometimes they succeed in pressuring schools not to use them, libraries not to shelve them, book and video stores not to carry them, publishers not to publish them, or art galleries not to display them. Censorship also occurs when materials are restricted to particular audiences, based on their age or other characteristics.

Who Attempts Censorship?

In most instances, a censor is a sincerely concerned individual who believes that censorship can improve society, protect children, and restore what the censor sees as lost moral values. But under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, each of us has the right to read, view, listen to, and disseminate constitutionally protected ideas, even if a censor finds those ideas offensive.”
(emphasis mine)

What you & your supporters are attempting to do with respect to the Dark Horse edition of the Gor novels of John Norman is exactly the same thing that was done to Michael Moore in 2001, concerning his second book, Stupid White Men:

“Like a cyberspace Paul Revere, Sparanese sent word to various email lists including SRRT (Social Responsibilities Round Table) and Library Juice, explaining Moore's situation. She conveyed this battle wasn't just one man's struggle with a publishing house, but was a battle to preserve free speech and to stop censorship.

Two days later Harper Collins phoned Moore. "What did you tell the librarians?" they asked. "We're getting hundreds of letters a day from angry librarians. Do you know how much business we do with these people?"

Harper Collins eventually gave Stupid White Men the green light but not before informing Mr. Moore "you are out of touch with the American people." They handed him the list of cities for the book tour. There were only three listed: Ridgewood, NJ Arlington, VA and Denver, CO. The message was clear to him, Harper Collins wanted no association with his book: Moore was on his own.

On the first day of its release, all 50,000 copies were sold. The next day it was the number one seller on amazon.com. By the fifth day, the book was in its ninth printing. As of today, it is in its twenty-second printing and is selling faster than the latest works from Grisham and Clancy combined.”

I was one of those librarians who sent off an angry letter to Harper-Collins, & I’m not even a fan of Michael Moore's. I did it purely as a matter of principle, which is what I what I expect many, many others will now be doing in this case, too.

“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”— John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

“He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition: for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. ”— Thomas Paine, Dissertation On First Principles Of Government

Debate, even fierce disagreement, is central to the democratic marketplace of ideas, but censorship is the tool of totalitarian politics, a disease equally of the far left & the far right.

Given that you “screen”all comments to your blog, and given how deeply this issue concerns me, I’ve just set up a blog of my own and will be posting these comments there, with a link to this entry of yours, just in case you should decide to censor my comments, too.

Webbadge courtesy of the A.L.A.:

Banned Books Week -- September 29–October 6, 2007
Free People Read Freely