<If the internet had been widespread in the early 80s>, comics as we know them would not exist today. They would have been crushed into pulp and washed down the cyberdrain by the whining and sniveling and cowardly attacks from talentless know-nothings such as beset the industry today. Think of all the stories that came out around this time, ranging from (arbitrarily) Dark Phoenix, thru the Death and Resurrection of Elektra, thru the loss of Reed and Sue's second child, thru the Michael Saga, "The Kid who Collects Spider-Man", Tony Stark's alcoholism, NorthStar's homosexuality -- and CRISIS, of course. None of these would have happened. The insane second-guessing that plagues the industry, courtesy of the internet and spoiler rags like WIZARD, would have wrecked them all.

Now think about the future. . .

-----
JB paints a pretty bleak picture. Do others agree that the pendulum has swung that far? I'm not sure I do, but I will admit that in the past year, I have noticed that government censorship does seem a lot more prevalent than at any other time in my adult life.

For instance, John Ashcroft has the government spend $8k to cover "objectionable" portions of a 100-year-old statue's anatomy.

The government multiplies the fines for "indecency" (such a slippery term) tenfold after Janet Jackson shows a breast on tv. The lead story for days after this is still Janet Jackson's breast. The government threatens criminal actions against the network and MTV and holds hearings about it within a WEEK of the event!) No talks yet of hearings regarding VP Cheney flying a supreme court justice out for a fishing trip shortly before that justice is to rule on a matter relating to HALLIBURTON, a company Cheney is intimately linked to. No hearings yet regarding ENRON or WORLDCOM wrongdoing. But at least we've got a hearing to analyze Janet Jackson's breast.

In reaction, ABC Television quickly re-edits an episode of NYPD BLUE, removing a brief flash of butt (they've shown six other people's butts over the past decade already, for God's sake!), apparently in response to the growing threats of fines.

I'm aware of a small but marked increase in censorship and PC-ness creeping into my life. I don't know if it's largely a result of Bush being in office (certainly part of it is that), somewhat related to 9/11 and the removal of certain civil rights from the poorly named "PATRIOT ACT," but it does seem to me that in certain ways things are getting more restrictive. That's the first time in a long time I've felt that way. Comments?

Rick Senger
Byrne-ing Up In LA

What civil rights have been lost by anyone due to the Patriot Act? I'm serious. Name them.

Kevin:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/26/patriot.act.ap/

SL

Alright, I'll bite.

1) Covering up an antique statue is frankly ridiculous. How far we've come, eh, to be so scared of our anatomy? It's one thing to restrict porn or sexual stuff, but bits on a statue? Let's hope the guy doesn't get a gig in Rome, he'll need a lot more than $8k .

2) Objectionable is so subjective. Going back to a few hot topics over the past few months - Avengers#71, Outsiders#8 and Janet Jackson - and there was certainly a loud outcry from the more conservative members of our community about things they found objectionable. That's ok, but there are a range of things that I find objectionable, but because they're not "dirty" I don't have a voice. I find doorknocking religious missionaries objectionable. I find the dithering over gay marriages objectionable. However, the churchies will be against me on this, so what I think doesn't matter.

As for the internet itself, I largely agree. As much as it's a place where we can all come and get frothed up over the latest shiny new thing, or exciting news or rediscovered classics, there's a lot of negativity, anal continuity-police and trollage going on (to steal a Buffyism).

Frankly the only truly useful thing I've ever found the internet good for is surfing for porn....








...joking!

____________________________________________
You are a god among insects. Never let anyone tell you different.

I read it, and I still don't see any "civil right" that has been taken away by the Patriot Act. Where does the Constitution say we have the right to aid and abet foreign organizations in any way, shape, or form?I don't consider giving any kind of advice to groups that have used terrorist-style tactics to be a "right." Terrorism is not a law-enforcement problem; it's a military problem. As far as I'm concerned, giving advice to any group that has been classified as a terrorist organization, no matter how noble your goal, is foolish, and could cost lives, including American ones.

Again, I ask, what civil right has any American lost because of the Patriot Act? What part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights do you think no longer applies to you?

I don't think what JB said had ANYTHING to do whatsoever with censorship.

What civil rights have been lost by anyone due to the Patriot Act? I'm serious. Name them.

-----
Dozens of things, but here are two particularly troubling to me:

1) if you are an individual suspected of ties to terrorists, you and your house and property can be searched and even siezed. You can be wiretapped. WITHOUT a search warrant. This is fine because you're not a terrorist and you have no terrorist associations, right? Um, no. The weakest association to a terrorist is enough, like you were seen in line behind a suspected terrorist in a grocery store. Worse, because no probable cause is really required and nothing is ever put before a judge, all it really takes is one person on an FBI task force who happens not to like you or the cut of your jib and you can see your civil right to privacy go down the drain. The judicial system is the main line of defense to prevent gung-ho vigilantism (or outright corruption and retaliation) from holding sway over the way a police force operates. The possibilities of abuse in a rule like this, where there is almost no oversight or probable cause threshold to the decision making or accusational process, are limitless.

2) if you are an individual suspected of ties to terrorists / terrorism, you can be IMPRISONED WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. INDEFINITELY. There are currently hundreds of individuals in this state of limbo / incarceration. They aren't even charged with a crime. They have never been in a court of law and no evidence has been presented to a judge or jury. But they have been held (in many cases, for over a year), are being held and will continue to be held. Now, I don't doubt that most of these individuals are probably there for good reason and the world is probably a safer place for their imprisonment. I like to hope my government isn't using this power lightly and without reasonable intentions. However, anytime the government has the right to make a judgement about you without the checks and balances of the judicial system and without the right of appeal, I get scared. Very scared. The possibilities for abuse and mistakes with no recourse are far too real.

Rick Senger
Byrne-ing Up In LA

Kevin

How about the right to due process? Hmm? You can be detained as an enemy combatant, held without trial, beaten by the feds, and so on.

The FBI can search your medical records, public records, etc. and you have no recourse. They don't need a warrant or anything like that.

Need I go on, or are those rights enough to prove that the Patriot Act is an insanely unconstitutional abridgement of your rights?



Sean

"I saw a werewolf drinking a Pina Colada at Trader Vic's. His hair was perfect."

Guys, have a care---you've just put on the One Ring and put the Eye of Sauron squarely on us!

Ummm....good thing I LOVE THE PATRIOT ACT! And..er..my name isn't REALLY Steve Merritt.

I'd like to say that due to living in the UK I'm safe but I'm not!

Tone signed a whole raft of agreements that will allow U.S. Courts to extradite British citizens without proving proof to a judge .

This agreement does not work the other way.

Guys, I have read the Patriot Act. I have a good friend in the district attorney's office who is fairly moderate in his politics and helped interpret parts of it with me. Your interpretation of it just doesn't hold water, IMO. Your claims sound more like obsessive paranoia than anything else. There are things in it that need work, but primarily it streamlines the processes by which these agencies can do their work.

Now that's not to say that the government is not an intrusive monstrosity; it is. There are dozens of things that the government does which I find horrendous. Eminent domain abuse is one. The fact that if you are carrying ten thousand dollars or more in cash on your person, the government can seize that money for no reason until you "prove it's yours and it's legal" is another. However, I consider these things far more offensive than the Patriot Act.

"The FBI can search your medical records, public records, etc. and you have no recourse. They don't need a warrant or anything like that."

This is flatly untrue. The Patriot Act standardized the criteria needed for federal law enforcement officials to obtain warrants. In many cases this makes it MORE difficult for federal officers to obtain warrants. The Patriot Act has done NOTHING to allow federal officers to carry out actions without warrants. It's just not so.

I agree entirely with what JB said there.

Far too many people seem to listen to internet trolls/goons.

Often I swear more than half those that complain dont even read the titles.

"The FBI can search your medical records, public records, etc. and you have no recourse. They don't need a warrant or anything like that."

This is flatly untrue. The Patriot Act standardized the criteria needed for federal law enforcement officials to obtain warrants. In many cases this makes it MORE difficult for federal officers to obtain warrants. The Patriot Act has done NOTHING to allow federal officers to carry out actions without warrants. It's just not so.

*****************

Correct. A warrant is required to search anyone's medical records, though it's not unheard of for this to be sidestepped by local authorities. Have you seen the Rush Limbaugh news about his medical records being seized without a warrant? It Wasn't the FBI though. The ACLU has weighed in on Rush's side on this one (sweet irony), but it was a violation of his civil rights. Public records were mentioned above as well, which makes no sense, because anyone can obtain public records. That's why they're called "public" records.

People have some pretty wacky notions, in This Land of Ours, about what their Rights are, and which of those Rights are "protected".

As has been pointed out on more than one occasion, the "right of privacy" is a complete fantasy, mentioned nowhere in the Constitution. We have set up certain laws to shield us all from unduly prying eyes -- and sometimes even these have turned out to be detremental in their own ways -- but these laws are manufactured, not based on anything self-evident.

How about this one, care of the UK. I do tax returns (it's a dirty job, but somebody's gotta do it). From 1 March, under secondary legislation (ie. introduced as Regulations by civil servants, and not subject to the scrutiny of the legislature), if I have a reasonable suspicion - note that word "suspicion" - that someone may be committing tax evasion (with no de minimis limit - this could be as insignificant as someone making a private phone call on their business phone line), I am committing a criminal offence if I don't report them to the authorities. This means that I could go to prison for not reporting something which turns out not to have been an offence, provided that it would have been reasonable for me to have suspected that it was an offence at the time I didn't report it! Lewis Carroll couldn't have invented anything more nonsensical. Anybody else here required, under pain of imprisonment, to report their fellow citizens for using the business copier to copy the odd private document?

freedom from unreasonable search and siezure seems to equate to a right of privacy for me...

There are many things about the Patriot Act I find it impossible to support. By the way, I support our President's actions in general; I am just against throwing the baby out with the bath water.

What the?

freedom from unreasonable search and siezure seems to equate to a right of privacy for me...


*****


Then I suggest you be very, very careful. . .

"freedom from unreasonable search and siezure seems to equate to a right of privacy for me... "

When the SCOTUS gave the ruling which gave us the "right to privacy" they said that it could be found in "emanations in the penumbra of the Bill of Rights." In other words, they made it up. Protection against unreasonable searches and seizure is just that. It's not this blanket "right" that is applied to everything, and if followed to a logical conclusion allows one do do pretty much anything they want without fear of retribution. The "right to privacy" is a myth, made up by an activist court that, unfortunately, we are stuck with.

We've had activist Supreme Court justices since... oh... around the time of John Jay. I doubt that will change. It just depends on who is president when a change in the court's makeup and how the court views the Constitution will occur.

What I meant to say was, we are stuck with the myth of a "right to privacy" that was invented by an activist Supreme Court. I say we are stuck with it because I have a hard time envisioning any Supreme Court overturning the "right to privacy."

I did not mean to imply that we are stuck with an activist Supreme Court.

I would be surprised if The Patriot Act survives a challenge if it makes it to the Supreme Court, but --

-- I doubt any such challenge will ever make it to the Supreme Court.

Why? Be cause a court challenge would need to demonstrate that law enforcement or intelligence agencies really DID abuse the law and rights of citizens under the aegis of The Patriot Act. It won't matter legally whether the Patriot Act gives anyone power to abuse human rights and the Constitution until someone uses that power in that abusive way (unless of course someone finds a way to commit civil disobedience in order to push the issue).

Where are the CASES of wiretaps that would previously have been illegal? Are there CASES of American citizens illegally detained without warrant or representation?

Those are not rhetorical questions. I am very concerned that the Patriot Act will allow abuses, and I would appreciate the education. So far, I am unaware of the abuses.

Meanwhile, what does any of this have to do with John's original post?

Meanwhile, what does any of this have to do with John's original post?

******


Not a lot -- which I why I prefer Thread Drift to new posts, most of the time. So much more fun!

JB-)

Meanwhile, what does any of this have to do with John's original post?

******

Yeah, I didn't start this thread to argue the merits of the Patriot Act (though I find it interesting that so many people apparently aren't concerned about it.) I'm interested in opinions relating to JB's quote, which suggests the internet has created this PC climate where anything controversial (or remotely proximally offensive...to anyone) is likely to be so second-guessed and whined about that it is far less likely to ever be put out there? Also, do people feel that in recent times, your own personal civil rights and freedom of expression have changed (diminished or increased)?

Rick Senger
Byrne-ing Up In LA

You brought up the Patriot Act and supposed government censorship and stripping of civil liberties. Those things were nowhere to be found in JB's original post. His post was talking about the "tyrrany of fandom" that plagues the comics industry.

The idea that we are living in some draconian age of monolithic government robbing people of their rights is absolutely farcical.

The problem of politcal correctness is far more concerning than that of government. This problem exists on both the Left and the Right. Although, contrary to popular opinion, the problem is more from the Left than the Right. The answer to any of it is: you combat speech you don't like with more speech. You don't try to put your thumb on the person whose speech you don't like.

Where's the line between political correctness and plain good taste, though?

Current Marvel is about as far from PC as you can get. Does that make them brave or groundbreaking? No, it just shows they'll be tacky to generate hype and sales. They're the Janet Jackson tit flashers of comics.

When it comes to superhero comics, anything I see that's supposedly objectionable or controversial falls into the category of silliness intended to shock--nothing truly groundbreaking or interesting.

I oppose censorship, but I encourage good taste in an industry that should be marketing its products to kids.