AN OPEN LETTER TO THE AR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

[MattBrady]

In response to the Arkansas Act 858 of Arkansas House Bill 1525, retailer Michael Tierney, who owns The Comic Book Store in Little Rock and Collectors Edition Comics in North Little Rock has written the following open letter to the Arkansas House of Representatives.

To review the Arkansas law, and the possible dangers it poses to the comics industry, click <b>here</b> (http://www.newsarama.com/pages/ARCOMICS.htm).

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE ARKANSAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

Ask a group of people to declare what they consider as harmful, and you'll get as many different answers as there are people in the discussion.

One thing that everyone will agree with is that we should always protect children from harm. I'll agree with that statement. Wouldn't you? The problem is in deciding what they should be protected from.

Yesterday I opened a copy of the Comics Buyer's Guide and saw an article about Arkansas, with the headline of "DANGEROUS GROUND: PROPOSING LEGISLATION." At first, I though that this article concerned the recently passed Act 858 of Arkansas House Bill 1525, which declares that is unlawful to display any publication that might be deemed "HARMFUL TO MINORS."

Instead, the article in the CBG was about the attempts of Arkansas Representative Ezekial Candler "Took" Gaithings' attempts to create a law to protect the younger generation from; "Many radio and television programs, as well as certain scurrilous books and comics," way back in 1951. Apparently, the House of Representatives in the Fifties had a different 'down the road' vision than those of today, because "Took" never convinced his contemporaries to create a high tribunal that would be empowered to decide how and which books would be made available to the public.

In July of 2003, Arkansas legislators are about to enact 1,730 new laws. Act 858 skips right past the discussion group that "Took" proposed, and goes straight to the enactment of a new 'jump-ball' law intended to regulate the shelves of bookstores.

When Brandis Griffith of KARK TV Channel 4 News interviewed myself (as a bookstore operator) and Representatives Stephen Bright and Jay Martin (of the Arkansas State Legislature) on this matter, they answered my concerns over who would decide the definition of the word "Harmful" in this new law by declaring that it was the Bill's co-sponsors' intention to leave the wording vague, and allow each and every city to decide
that definition for themselves.

Representatives Bright and Martin don't seem to understand why there have been objections and lawsuits against this new low (oops... sorry, I meant Law; Freudian typo). They consider it a good idea to allow different sets of rules to be applied to free speech in different places throughout the state.

Couple this plan along with the old adage of "Ignorance of the law is no defense," and this quickly becomes an impossible problem for every bookstore manager in the grand old state of Arkansas.

Can you imagine if we applied that same flexibility in the rules to speed limit laws? What if every city could establish limits for what they considered fast driving, and then didn't post them? Speed traps would snare unsuspecting drivers one after another. The coffers of city governments would fill with collections from the fines--and it would become impossible to navigate the state.

Act 858 is a trap for booksellers that would be nearly as impossible to navigate. Some standards might be acceptable one day, then as soon as a single person files a complaint--you'd be violating the law the next day.

In Sweden, Disney comics are illegal because it's considered obscene that Donald Duck and his nephews don't wear trousers. Sure... I know that it's hard to conceive of by American standards - but it's true. While I have always refused to carry Adults Only comics, now with Act 858, an immigrant from Sweden could complain, and suddenly Disney comics could be considered harmful to minors in my Little Rock store. At the same time, it would be acceptable to continue selling them to all ages at my North Little Rock store.

This is an impossible situation. Laws aren't intended to be constantly shifting across the landscape.

What would the legislature think if we applied this new rule to election law? Establish different election standards in every city, and how long would the Democratic and Republican parties stand for the concept?

Not for a second.

The Arkansas Representatives think that protecting kids can't be a bad thing. Or can it? The problem is that they didn't look very far down the road when they chose the wording and left the intent vague.

Usually, not even every single person in one single room, let alone an entire city, will agree with WHICH books should be considered harmful to minors, or not. Act 858 has created not just a legal quagmire, but also an opportunity for anyone with an agenda to use the backs of booksellers as a soapbox, upon which to stand up and shout.

Here in central Arkansas, the two largest buildings built over the last couple of decades are churches. One of my customers refers to them as the Towers of Babel. What happens if one church starts to consider that another church's teachings is harmful to minors? Don't laugh it off. They each already think that the other is going to Hell, because they can't each agree on the interpretation of the same book!

Conceivably, bible bookstores could come under fire. The law doesn't say that the bottom two-thirds of a book illustration should be covered - it says that the bottom two-thirds of a book considered harmful to minors should be covered. Here come the Mormons to argue with the Catholics and the Protestants and...

Tower of Babel indeed.

The legislature has already declared that this new law is not INTENDED to be applied to any book considered to have literary value. They don't say WHO would make the determination of what literary value is. And remember, Arkansas recently sent a President to Washington who argued over the definition of a single word; "What is 'IS'?"

Enforce this new law, and it could become lawful for a town with a heavy denomination from one church to declare it illegal to display the books of other religions.

I have an ongoing argument with a youth pastor that I've played Church League softball with for several years. I personally think that the Bible is a book of knowledge that needs new chapters to encompass modern life and all the religions of today. He thinks that all the knowledge we need to live by has already been written - centuries ago.

With Act 858, he wins a point in his argument of leaving well enough alone.

In all likelihood, what I've described probably wouldn't happen. But history is a record book filled with unexpected and unconsidered ramifications caused by well-intended actions.

When you start to consider different types of worst case scenarios, it becomes obvious that Act 858 of House Bill 1525 doesn't just need to be rewritten - it needs to be filed and forgotten in the circular file. The intentions were good - but the world we live in isn't that simple. A complex society becomes Anarchy when vague rules are applied to mixed and changing interpretations.

Now, I would ask if YOU, as an individual, consider that a bookstore ever corrupted YOUR youth? Or... were you once harmed by the sight of a book cover at the grocery store checkout counter? Even though I still read them as an adult, I personally don't think that all those Disney comics I read as a kid harmed me in any way.

1,730 new laws had to involve a lot of writing on matters that will cover a lot of legal ground. This Act 858 is a powder-keg of random censorship. Back in 1951, the same legal body of the Arkansas House of Representatives refused several times to even discuss the consideration of such a measure. Today, the discussion is taking place AFTER a law has already been passed.

I believe that most people would agree that Act 858 has not been thought all the way through.

[Julle]

Originally posted by MattBrady

In Sweden, Disney comics are illegal because it's considered obscene that Donald Duck and his nephews don't wear trousers. Sure... I know that it's hard to conceive of by American standards - but it's true.

No, it is not true. In Sweden, Donald Duck sells about 130k a week and is the country's best selling comic. :rolleyes:

[Ali Weir]

Yep, it's an urban legend: http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/finland.htm

[Julle]

Ah, and he confused Finland with Sweden as well... here is hoping that Arkansas House of Representatives doesn't do a quick fact check and and realises he doesn't know what he is talking about.

[tralfaz]

Originally posted by Julle
No, it is not true. In Sweden, Donald Duck sells about 130k a week and is the country's best selling comic. :rolleyes:

dont you hate pants!?!?!?!

[Brian Garside]

Originally posted by Julle
No, it is not true. In Sweden, Donald Duck sells about 130k a week and is the country's best selling comic. :rolleyes:

Now why would you have to ruin a perfectly enjoyable rant with something as silly as "facts"? My god man, don't you pay attention to American media? They're not interested in the "facts", just what will get their point across!

Any day now I'm sure that O.J. will find Nicole's killers...who will be harbouring all of Saddam's nuclear and biological weapons.

[MattBrady]

The Donald Duck issue aside for a moment, the point he makes is a valid one - if someone - anyone - found Donald Duck to be offensive, because the character wears a shirt but no pants, they <i>could</i> file a complaint that such an image/comic is harmful to minors, and begin a criminal action against the comic retailer.

Let's not lose the forest for the trees here.

MattB

[D Eric Carpenter]

Ouch...

Long, rambling, unclear point, incorrect facts, misunderstanding of laws and makes half the arguments for the legislature.

This is going to hurt MUCH more than it will help.

D. Eric Carpenter

[DarthRandall]

Just because it isn't happening in your state yet, don't bet it won't. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, every time there is a conservative shift in this country, all the nutjobs come out of the woodwork, trying to impose their wills on other people they don't know, don't want to know, and will never know. It's the moral minority that comes out, preaching they know what's best for us - "Every fetus is a life," "Alcohol is a sin," "Sex is bad" (apparently, unless it's with children, but I digress). It's these career politicians that cater to this close-minded mentality that create these ridiculous, restrictive censorship laws in this country.

And their constant use of the word "children" convinces the minless automatauns in this country that, "Ya know what, Cletus.. Dey do know what's best for us." Free thought is a commodity in this country, and the right to speak your mind is quickly going the way of prohibition. It's the people who speak the loudest who always have their voices heard, and many comic readers, myself included, have become too complacent with the belief our comics will always be here, in the form we want them to be.

Well, guess what, folks? It ain't gonna be that way for long, particularly in Arkansas, and, if the Jesus suit Texas doesn't get overturned, in that state as well. Eventually, you'll not only have to sneak into your local comic shop so no one you know will mock you for reading "kid's books," but you'll also have to read them under the covers with a flashlight so Big Brother doesn't see you because, you know, a little flash of titty or a bucketload of bloodshed does a whole lot to corrupt you.

There are ways to not let these misguided people win. The most obvious is to support the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund (http://www.cbldf.com/). Another way, and the one that will get you the most attention, is to begin protesting these places. They usually set up "headquarters" in some Soccer Mom's living room or a church somewhere. Shouting through a bullhorn and carrying homemade signs with them is how they get most of their message across. Why not turn the tables on them? I'd love to see "Batman doesn't rape little boys," and "Sandman is Literature" signs marching up and down the Main streets of America.

[TVerBeek]

Originally posted by Julle
Ah, and he confused Finland with Sweden as well... here is hoping that Arkansas House of Representatives doesn't do a quick fact check and and realises he doesn't know what he is talking about.
His example is incorrect, but his point is not. You wouldn't have to look very long to find people who'd declare a comic "harmful to minors" because the hero is shown smoking, or it contains racial stereotypes, or it shows children engaged in dangerous stunts, or any of the accusations Fred Wertham tossed around in the 1950's. And that's just citing examples found in the "Golden Age collectibles" section of the store. You'll find people lining up to declare materials from contemporary comics "harmful to minors". That's why they paid their State Representatives to vote for this legislation.

[D Eric Carpenter]

Since I’ve already gotten shelled for this, I’ll give a longer explanation of my feelings on this letter.

Before anything else: I am opposed to this law. The First Amendment is my primary political concern at any level. I do not like this law.

That being said, why do I consider this letter problematic?

First of all, the research I was able to turn up in a few minutes online search: this is not a new law. It’s a law created in 1947 and amended, the last time, in 1969. This Act is amending the law in two ways: 1) It defines what is required to cover ‘offensive material’ (previously, they used the term ‘Blinder Racks’ instead of defining the bottom 2/3 had to be covered), and that the material has to be segregated from ‘non offensive’ material. The law, on the whole, has been on the books for half a century. This isn’t new. So the letter is reacting, overall, to half century old legislation as if it was brand new.

>>>Instead, the article in the CBG was about the attempts of Arkansas Representative Ezekial Candler "Took" Gaithings' attempts to create a law to protect the younger generation from; "Many radio and television programs, as well as certain scurrilous books and comics," way back in 1951. Apparently, the House of Representatives in the Fifties had a different 'down the road' vision than those of today, because "Took" never convinced his contemporaries to create a high tribunal that would be empowered to decide how and which books would be made available to the public.<<<

Very true. Neither did the original law. Neither does this law. The text of the Act and Law say nothing about tribunals or determination of what is harmful.

>>>In July of 2003, Arkansas legislators are about to enact 1,730 new laws. Act 858 skips right past the discussion group that "Took" proposed, and goes straight to the enactment of a new 'jump-ball' law intended to regulate the shelves of bookstores.<<<

Again, not a new law. Slight modification of existing law.

>>>When Brandis Griffith of KARK TV Channel 4 News interviewed myself (as a bookstore operator) and Representatives Stephen Bright and Jay Martin (of the Arkansas State Legislature) on this matter, they answered my concerns over who would decide the definition of the word "Harmful" in this new law by declaring that it was the Bill's co-sponsors' intention to leave the wording vague, and allow each and every city to decide that definition for themselves.<<<

This is fairly standard. It’s the same as permitting local jurisdictions to determine taxation and other laws. The states tend to set guidelines and permit the local jurisdictions to work out the details. That way, local jurisdictions don’t feel they’re directly controlled by a state legislature 200 miles away.

>>>Representatives Bright and Martin don't seem to understand why there have been objections and lawsuits against this new low (oops... sorry, I meant Law; Freudian typo). They consider it a good idea to allow different sets of rules to be applied to free speech in different places throughout the state.<<<

Ah…a formal letter to the legislature, and he resorts to chat-room wordplay. This is an incredibly easy manner to have your point completely ignored, by resorting to juvenile humor. More to the point of the paragraph, the legislators are viewing this as continuing the trend of ‘pornography’ laws where localities are permitted to determine what is considered locally pornographic. I don’t disagree with this point, but the courts have currently tended to rule the other way on this issue—that, indeed, local jurisdictions CAN determine what is considered obscene locally. Note that that’s not directly the point here, and where the legal arguments may fall. However, the Supreme Court does permit localities to make these sort of decisions for obscenity.

>>>Couple this plan along with the old adage of "Ignorance of the law is no defense," and this quickly becomes an impossible problem for every bookstore manager in the grand old state of Arkansas.

>>>Can you imagine if we applied that same flexibility in the rules to speed limit laws? What if every city could establish limits for what they considered fast driving, and then didn't post them? Speed traps would snare unsuspecting drivers one after another. The coffers of city governments would fill with collections from the fines--and it would become impossible to navigate the state.<<<

Act 858 is a trap for booksellers that would be nearly as impossible to navigate. Some standards might be acceptable one day, then as soon as a single person files a complaint--you'd be violating the law the next day.<<<

This overstates the issue. A single person could file the complaint and cause an investigation, but the single person cannot determine for the community what is harmful under the law. In obscenity cases, it’s the courts that determine that. It’s not an individual walking down the street. Under this law, everyone does not become their own police force.

>>>In Sweden, Disney comics are illegal because it's considered obscene that Donald Duck and his nephews don't wear trousers. Sure... I know that it's hard to conceive of by American standards - but it's true. While I have always refused to carry Adults Only comics, now with Act 858, an immigrant from Sweden could complain, and suddenly Disney comics could be considered harmful to minors in my Little Rock store. At the same time, it would be acceptable to continue selling them to all ages at my North Little Rock store.<<<

Same overstatement as before as well as an urban legend. This isn’t a matter of a single person declaring something unfit. It may start that way, but it’s up to the judicial system to then make the ruling.

>>>This is an impossible situation. Laws aren't intended to be constantly shifting across the landscape.<<<

Some are intended precisely in that manner. From the Constitution on down.

>>>What would the legislature think if we applied this new rule to election law? Establish different election standards in every city, and how long would the Democratic and Republican parties stand for the concept?

Not for a second.<<<

This actually is the case to an extent. The states don’t determine how city governments run. Each city does that. The Federal government doesn’t determine how state governments run, the states do that.

>>>The Arkansas Representatives think that protecting kids can't be a bad thing. Or can it? The problem is that they didn't look very far down the road when they chose the wording and left the intent vague.<<<

..and THAT is the primary issue. This law is very vague and would probably fail the constitutional test for vagueness. I fully agree with this, and this should have been the primary point of the letter.

>>>Usually, not even every single person in one single room, let alone an entire city, will agree with WHICH books should be considered harmful to minors, or not. Act 858 has created not just a legal quagmire, but also an opportunity for anyone with an agenda to use the backs of booksellers as a soapbox, upon which to stand up and shout.<<<

Again, overstating the basic case. Not every single person has to agree. The government, elected by the people, has to make that determination. Is this good? I still say, no. But continuing to use this gross misunderstanding of the law is extremely harmful to the point being made.

>>>Here in central Arkansas, the two largest buildings built over the last couple of decades are churches. One of my customers refers to them as the Towers of Babel. What happens if one church starts to consider that another church's teachings is harmful to minors? Don't laugh it off. They each already think that the other is going to Hell, because they can't each agree on the interpretation of the same book!

Conceivably, bible bookstores could come under fire. The law doesn't say that the bottom two-thirds of a book illustration should be covered - it says that the bottom two-thirds of a book considered harmful to minors should be covered. Here come the Mormons to argue with the Catholics and the Protestants and…

>>>Tower of Babel indeed.<<<

Except there are truckloads of Freedom of Religion cases. The situation brought up wouldn’t even need appealed. On top of that, once again, it’s not up to the individual to determine what’s harmful.

>>>The legislature has already declared that this new law is not INTENDED to be applied to any book considered to have literary value. They don't say WHO would make the determination of what literary value is. And remember, Arkansas recently sent a President to Washington who argued over the definition of a single word; "What is 'IS'?"<<<

Standard civics: the judicial system interprets the law. That’s WHO makes the determination. Again, I agree the vagueness is a bad thing. It means that individuals can be brought before the courts needlessly and in a harassing manner. Again…I do think this law is a BAD THING.

>>>Enforce this new law, and it could become lawful for a town with a heavy denomination from one church to declare it illegal to display the books of other religions.<<<

>>>I have an ongoing argument with a youth pastor that I've played Church League softball with for several years. I personally think that the Bible is a book of knowledge that needs new chapters to encompass modern life and all the religions of today. He thinks that all the knowledge we need to live by has already been written - centuries ago.<<<

>>>With Act 858, he wins a point in his argument of leaving well enough alone.<<<

This entire segment makes no sense in the terms of arguments against the law. Way off topic and incredibly unfocuses.

>>>In all likelihood, what I've described probably wouldn't happen. But history is a record book filled with unexpected and unconsidered ramifications caused by well-intended actions.

When you start to consider different types of worst case scenarios, it becomes obvious that Act 858 of House Bill 1525 doesn't just need to be rewritten - it needs to be filed and forgotten in the circular file. The intentions were good - but the world we live in isn't that simple. A complex society becomes Anarchy when vague rules are applied to mixed and changing interpretations.<<<

More common vernacular. Nothing will get a letter like this thrown out faster than not showing the respect legislators believe themselves to be entitled to.

>>>Now, I would ask if YOU, as an individual, consider that a bookstore ever corrupted YOUR youth? Or... were you once harmed by the sight of a book cover at the grocery store checkout counter? Even though I still read them as an adult, I personally don't think that all those Disney comics I read as a kid harmed me in any way.<<<

…bad example. Anyone that wants to support this law will remember exactly those situations: when they saw Playboy in a 7-11 when they were a kid, or when the latest Cosmo used ‘bad’ words on the cover that they had to explain to their kids.

>>>1,730 new laws had to involve a lot of writing on matters that will cover a lot of legal ground. This Act 858 is a powder-keg of random censorship. Back in 1951, the same legal body of the Arkansas House of Representatives refused several times to even discuss the consideration of such a measure. Today, the discussion is taking place AFTER a law has already been passed.<<<

>>>I believe that most people would agree that Act 858 has not been thought all the way through.<<<
>>>

Historically incorrect again…the previous law existed and is being modified.

Again, I am tremendously opposed to this sort of law. I stand firmly against such things. But this sort of letter will do more damage to the cause by demonstrating ignorance of the situation. I applaud the effort taken to try to set the legislature right…but this should have been done in a much more proper and researched manner.

[D Eric Carpenter]

For further clarification, that pretty much nullifies the 'churches outlawing churches argument,' here's the section of the statute that provides the definition of what is harmful:

(2) "Harmful to minors" means that quality of any description, exhibition, presentation, or representation, in whatever form, of nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sadomasochistic abuse, when the material or performance, taken as a whole, has the following characteristics:

(A) The average person eighteen (18) years of age or older applying contemporary community standards would find that the material or performance has a predominant tendency to appeal to a prurient interest in sex to minors;

(B) The average person eighteen (18) years of age or older applying contemporary community standards would find that the material or performance depicts or describes nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sadomasochistic abuse in a manner that is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable for minors; and

(C) The material or performance lacks serious literary, scientific, medical, artistic, or political value for minors;

[Franklin Harris]

Originally posted by tralfaz
dont you hate pants!?!?!?!

Brainiac says he wants a decent pair of pants.

Oh, and Solomon Grundy wants pants, too.

[MichaelCoughlin]

MAJOR kudos to D Eric Carpenter for his lengthy post. That was extremely well written, moreso than the original letter was.

Sadly, this letter will get alot of attention, but it isn't all that good. Yes, things like screwing up the Donald Duck thing are minor, but they ARE in the letter. When he tries to cite how other countries have unreasonable standards, but fails to clearly give an example of such a case, it weakens his argument. If a person can't get a simple fact like that correct, why should anyone listen to his other facts? It's like seeing Albert Einstein write down 2+2=5, and then proving E=MC2. Yea, he might be right in the second case, but the fact that he screwed up something so simple initially is takes his credibility down a notch.

[FIG]

Originally posted by Brian Garside
Now why would you have to ruin a perfectly enjoyable rant with something as silly as "facts"? My god man, don't you pay attention to American media? They're not interested in the "facts", just what will get their point across! Any day now I'm sure that O.J. will find Nicole's killers...who will be harbouring all of Saddam's nuclear and biological weapons.

HahahahahahaHA!-I'm sure O.J. will find Osama Bin Laden in there with Saddam as well. I think that its ridiculous that comics could become illegal in Arkansas and this type of ignorance surprises me. People really are that stupid that they could try and fault comics over 'corrupting youth'. This reminds me of Joe Lieberman trying to censor videogameswhich is ridiculous. Such a bill in California would most likely die quickly with good reason. Art in all its forms should never have to be edited, that is unless it is spreading messages of hate such as racism.

[MichaelCoughlin]

Originally posted by FIG
Art in all its forms should never have to be edited, that is unless it is spreading messages of hate such as racism.

but who's to say what is "hate"? I remember a few years back, someone had a jar of piss with a cruicifix in it and called that "art", but to a great number of people, that was nothing more than hatred and an attack on Christianity (I think Catholicism more specifically).

I agree that racism is stupid, but should it be censored? Playing devils advocate, and I hearby officially state that in no way, shape, or form to I think what I'm about to say is true, but what if in 20 years it turns out that genetically black people are inferior and that the only thing keeping the world from utopia was the externimation of all black people? I mean, then all the censorship would have been wrong in the end because killing all black people would have turned out to be the correct course of action. Again, I don't think this is true at all, mearly using an extreme case to make a point.

And what would the definition of racism be anyways? I don't support affirmative action at all, and as a result, I've been called a racist at times? Am I? Or do I just have a different opinion on a political matter? Would my views be subject towards censorship because some people would construe them as racist?

[cult of Pat]

He should have stuck to the point about the individual cities themselves deciding what is and is "harmful" to minors. That in itself opens up a floodgate when it comes to issues of free speech. It allows censorship by the name of that most sacred cow of Conservatisim: "protecting the children"

While I doubt there are comic book opponenets chomping at the bit to shut down every store in the state, this is a law waiting to be abused. Free speech is too important an issue to be put into the hands of small minded, local politicans trying to look good for the next election.

[D Eric Carpenter]

Originally posted by FIG
Art in all its forms should never have to be edited, that is unless it is spreading messages of hate such as racism.

Like I said earlier...the First Amendment is my main political issue. I can't agree here. Art should never be edited, period. Speech shouldn't be limited.

Even if I disagree or find the message reprehensible.

D. Eric Carpenter

[dj_me]

Dear Mr. Carpenter:

There is nothing wrong with you relentlessly stating your opinions towards this open letter, even if I only cared to read half of what you said. Your reply is even longer and a lot less potent than the actual letter is. So, if you really wanted to get your point across, you should have used all of the research you did and actually wrote a letter of your own to the the State of Arkansas.

That's the problem now-a-days is that we argue with the wrong people. If you are both on the same side, then you should stand with each other. If one person doesn't state exactly what you want or what you think should be stated, then you add to his statemant. This is how you win against the government; you stand together, as a group, and tell them what they are doing is wrong. If they still go ahead and enact a law that you feel is wrong, you remember. Then, when election time comes around, you stand up against them.

We, as citizens of the United States of America need to start acting like we care. No, scratch that, we need to actually start caring about what is going on. There is so much we take for granted. We forget that WE are the ones who decide what direction we are to go in as a country. Us citizens need to become more involved in the government, or we will continue to slide into obscurity. We need to start unpluging and actually live as a community again. We need to go to the meetings that take place in which choses are made about how we live. We need to organize movements, assemblies and protests. We need to know what is really going on.

This is not an all out blitz on you, Mr. Carpenter. You have actually made your start in a direction that needs to be taken. You just took a wrong turn, or you didn't aim high enough. Then again, I don't have a whole lot of room to speak; for, I am one of those citizens who need to START doing aforementioned things.

I do ask you, Mr. Carpenter, take all the information you gathered and use it properly. Write your own letter to the State of Arkansas. It doesn't matter if you are located in a different state. What happens in one state is more likely to happen in another.

peace.
dj_me

[slug N lettuce]

This is an extremly scary situation. The letter was well written (except for the misuse of the word Anarchy), and it bothers me that this has not been taken on major forum. Television media should be all over this, but I have not seen a thing. It is so wonderfull what politicians will do when we are at war. At times like this the major media would only cover about a 45 second bit on the subject if any at all. I urge those of you who are well read on this matter to send an article to indymedia.org so that more people will know of this subject. I live in the bible belt and I can definately see this happening here. When I worked at a comic book store a few years ago, I had a boss who bowed to any parents will, even though they were not the voice of the core group of customers. Our core group was adults and at that time manga/anime fans of all ages. We had decided to get magazines in the store and a mom complained about Cosmo being on the rack where her kids could see them. This woman came in about once every two months and bought her kids one or two Cartoon Cartoon comics(Scooby Doo, Cow and Chicken etc..) Her complaint should have made no difference in my opinion in the way we did buisness, instead the owner kept all magazines in the back as if they were porn magazines. It was pathetic in my opinion. Another such example was when a mother came in with her daughter and asked me what the Lenore doll was, I told her what the tag said, Lenore (by Roman Dirge) was the lovable little dead girl. She did not care and didnt bat an eye, but everyone who worked there started to flip out over what I had said. Regardless of the fact that the woman was LOOKING at the tag that said the very same thing. Of course who was the clerk who pushed the plush toy into a buyers loving arms, ME. Because they where afraid of being adults to adults. They ended up going out of buisness, because of this practice. Not too many adults want to buy there goods at a store that makes you feel ashamed of the things you buy because you are an adult that reads adult material. Plus NOBODY got what they ordered, ever. If this kind of mentality exists here then I could easily see this going through the local governments hands and passed. If they so much as breath a word of it I will have every comic book reader, writer, artist, everyone from the punks to those smelly hippies on the front steps of the capitol untill this issue is thrown back into Hitlers grave where it belongs. I dont think we have a Black Bloc chapter here but there is in Atlanta so I am sure they would be more than happy to run seminars on protest techniques and the such. There is no way I would let this happen here without a fight (sorry for the cliche' but I DO read comics you know). Remeber someone on the frontlines in Arkansas should write to www.indymedia.org, this needs to be common public knowledge!!

[D Eric Carpenter]

Although I take issue with 'relentlessly stating your opinions towards this open letter,' as I posted a quick note and then an analysis of why it was a problem, I actually do agree that people need to take action.

My point was that people need to take action when properly informed of the situation. When they don't, ANY action taken will be disregarded as misinformed.

I do take action in such cases. If there's one thing I do state frequently, it's that the First Amendment is my primary political concern. In my career, I have made and maintained contacts with state legislators in various states, and I have never hesitated to give my opinions on various First Amendment issues regarding speech and religion. I have written such letters as you propose, and have supported the ACLU, ICLU and CBLDF in various cases.

I fully agree that people need to take action and not blow out their bluster on message boards and the like.

However, my point stands that writing misinformed, overly familiar, and rambling letters is more harmful than doing nothing.

D. Eric Carpenter

[slug N lettuce]

For the love of comics, if you do submit an article to indymedia.com PLEASE KEEP IT FACTUAL. We don't need to become everything that is wrong with the media. I know if you want something done you should do it yourself, DIY and all that. But I am not knowledgable enough on the subject, and ever since a skinhead beat the back of my head over and over at a Blanks 77 show I have noticed my essays are sub par, seriously. (it takes a real man to hold you face down on the concrete at beat the back of your head). I think this issue is important enough that it should reach further than the comic book community. Carpenter would be great for the task at hand if he/she were up to it.

[Elayne Riggs]

Originally posted by MattBrady
The Donald Duck issue aside for a moment, the point he makes is a valid one... Let's not lose the forest for the trees here.

Matt, you have to take the urban legend into account, because it affects the credibility of his arguments and undermines his points. Shooting oneself in the foot via an open letter that lacks fact-checking is certainly a "forest for the trees" issue.

- Elayne

[djshalope]

good letter. more people from the state need to speak up about this. look i posted in green.

[sgauthier]

Originally posted by DarthRandall
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, every time there is a conservative shift in this country, all the nutjobs come out of the woodwork, trying to impose their wills on other people they don't know, don't want to know, and will never know. It's the moral minority that comes out, preaching they know what's best for us - "Every fetus is a life," "Alcohol is a sin," "Sex is bad" (apparently, unless it's with children, but I digress). It's these career politicians that cater to this close-minded mentality that create these ridiculous, restrictive censorship laws in this country.



Say what? I don't know what conservatives you are familiar with but all the ones I know partake pretty heavily on the alcohol and sex. :cool:

Personally I lean more conservative but like most people I think I fall into the middle area of the spectrum. In my opinion it is the politicians in the extreme edges of the spectrum that take a simple law and really screw it up everytime.

Take this case of censorship. I think your average person would not have a problem with a law that states you have to cover up 2/3rds of any cover that has nudity or any book that contains nudity on the inside has to be at a certain height (out of the reach of little children). This way if people want to still buy it they can (its not like having to look at the top shelf is really that big of deal, is it?) and if people don't want to see it or have their children see it they won't. But soon as a simple motion like this is presented the extreme left will scream that its going to result in certain books of arts or classic literature being covered and that our amendment rights are being threatened. At the same time the extreme right will get their hands on it and push it to the moral extreme.

As a result most bills passed today are either too weak to have any kind of effect or too vague making it impossible to either enforce or follow.

Is it just me or does the answer to this problem seem kind of simple?

[Michael Tierney]

Thanks to everybody who took the time to read my letter.

And yes... I was wrong about the Donald Duck statement. Like many others, I was a victim of the hoax that was reported in my local newspaper - years ago. I've repeated this story many times, and wouldn't you know that no one I've talked to knew that it was a hoax - until now. I never saw a retraction of the published story.

If I'd known differently, I would have kept the point and adjusted my wording. It still makes an example of intolerance. The point that someone might find it offensive that an uncle and his nephews don't wear pants is still valid. The hoax factor makes the point even more valid in how fast the news presses reported an incorrect story.

To those who have critized other paragraphs - line by line; thanks for making my point of how intolerable it would be if I were forced to defend the books on my store shelves - one by one. Paragraph by paragraph.

I'm gratified that people were concerned enough to read more. To those who understood what I was getting at - thanks! To those who argued over detail - hey, it's a free country. You're entitled to disagree. That's what makes this country great. I'm neither right or wrong, and so are(n't) you!

That's why it's so important to we continue to protect our right to free speech - and the right of access to the speech of others, whether we agree with what they say or not.

[Howard Price]

For a bit of history, so that people don't think Michael is a "rant-once, then sit" kind of fellow, this is the same guy who took on Image in legal battle, and won. (http://the-trades.com/column.php?columnid=1305) Which is why you don't see any new issues of WildStar.

Michael runs THE comic book store in Little Rock (arguably, both of the stores if you want to count the suburb North Little Rock as part of the same area.) Across the street from his store is the most influential Baptist church in the state. And EMMA FROST #1 came out today... So you can understand if a common misconception (the existence of Snopes is, unfortunately, not all that well known to folks who don't *live* on the Internet) managed to get into what is certainly a rush situation for him.

Carry on...

[Michael Tierney]

For anybody in Arkansas who might read this, Round 3 (Round 1 was on Channel 4 last week, followed by the open letter) of my debate with the local legislature will be on Channel 11 News tonight (Friday, July 11), either at 5 or 6 PM.

[Michael Tierney]

I just got a call from the reporter. He actually got the legislator to say on tape that they might have made a mistake! The camera crews are on the way back to the store. The news at both 5 and 6 are going to open with a live report from the front of my store!
Sound like this might be a knockout in Round 3!

[D Eric Carpenter]

Congratulations! I may have problems with the letter, but not with the cause, nor with a TKO.

Great news!

D. Eric Carpenter

[Michael Tierney]

Sorry to have left such a provocative last post, with nothing more until now. I'm only near the internet when I'm in my store on historic Park Hill, from which you can walk two blocks and look down upon the state capital building - a replica of the nation's capital.

I've now had a chance to review the news stories by both KARK-TV and KTHV-TV, and the results are profound. Where last week there was a closing of ranks and full support of this bill by the Arkansas legislature, this week the tune changed to an admission of possible error - by one of the same guys! As I said - a profound difference in attitude.

As I do every year, tomorrow (Monday) I'll be talking at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock's summer youth laurette program for gifted and talented children. The University promotes the concept that comics are good reading for children. I am now no longer worried that when Act 858 goes into effect on the following day, that I might be charged by some zealot as giving harmful materials to those exact, same children. That's why I felt compelled to fight this very public battle now, when my opinions of right and wrong wouldn't be tainted by a possible criminal charge. Never wait until you're backed into a corner before you start fighting back!

I didn't WANT to get into this fight (local booksellers have been boycotted and closed for doing less), but I didn't have a choice. As a retailer with stores located on either side of the building where this law was passed, I was in a better position than most others to oppose Act 858.

The problem that confronts every opponent of this bill is that Act 858 has been given overwhelming support by the Arkansas legislature, with the House voting 77 to 8 and the Senate voting 33 to 2 in favor. Opponents are asking nearly 92% of the legislature to accept egg on their faces. That's why I repeatedly drew attention to my agreement with the basic concept of protecting kids from harm. Give the lawmakers a graceful way to bow out by having erred through good intentions.

One thing that I want to make clear: this is not a victory until the Attorney General rules. (To continue the symbolic references;) Right now he's looking at the bleeding cut over Act 858's eye. If this law is TKO'd like I now feel confident that it will be, this will not be a victory by Michael Tierney. I didn't even know about this problem until two weeks ago. I was just a guy in there swinging punches. This would be a victory for:

Matt Brady and Newsarama - who first reported it.

ICV2 and Tom Flynn - who first told me when researching his report.

The Arkansas Democrat*Gazette newspaper, for their ongoing work in reporting this story.

Maggie Thompson and The Comic's Buyers Guide provided extra ammunition. Thanks especially to Maggie for her time in discussing the problem.

Charles Brownstein and the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund pitched in their support to the ACLU and the Arkansas Library Association and several other groups and bookstores who filed lawsuits. Special thanks go to Charles for his time in discussing the matter. He requested copies of the tapes for use in the courtroom - I hope I gave him what he needs.

KARK-TV news was the first to visably report all this to the Arkansas masses. Thanks go to reporter Brandis Griffith and editor Ryan Gregory.

KTHV-TV news reported the break in attitude by the House. Thanks go to reporter T.J. Holmes and editor Brian Bland.

For their help and support, neither myself now comic book fans, or readers of any book around the state of Arkansas, can thank those named enough. The television stations really turned this thing around. Both Brandis and T.J. researched and reported the details with an even hand. Ryan and Brian did a great job of editing. Their reporting of the concerns were pure and completely to the point! No one could have asked for more.

At the risk of sounding like someone at an awards ceremony, I'd also like to thanks the many others not mentioned, who also opposed this excessive legislation. Thanks to everyone who read this thread, or posted. Your concerns and support were appreciated.

Hopefully that wraps up my part in this discussion. Now I need to gather comics to give away to three hundred kids. If there was an award won - they just won it!

Michael Tierney
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Coincidentally, my niece is studying to take the bar exam in Arkansas. In the email I recieved just before writing this, she sent a list of her top ten things not to say to a Bar applicant. I thought I'd share:

"'But didn't you learn all that stuff in law school?' Surprisingly, no; In fact, the Bar Exam tests a few areas of law no longer followed by any state in the Union!'

Add another one to the pile.

[slug N lettuce]

(cue curtain)

(cue Lights)

(carrie nation enters)

Carrie: You may have won this round Mr. T, but I Carrie Nation, will be back! Rest assurred we will not rest untill all kids READ nothing but "The Bible accoriding to Billy Graham & Carrie Nation!! If you are caught with a book from the "BEAT" generation writers you will get just that beaten, for -ods sake if you have Burroughs books entitled "Queer" or "Junkie" you shall be thrown into the fire itself and may the World Trade Organization have pity on your Soul!! All books ranging from "Clan of the Cave Bear" series to "Irish on the inside" by Hayden and all those in between and afterwards are thrown to the Devil. NOW COME RIGHTIES TO THE RIGHTY-MOBILE!!!!!!! Varooommm Varoooom (hasty exit) (Draw Curtain) Thus concludes this weeks version of "What will those rich bored bastards do next" theatre!!!

[slug N lettuce]

I know Carrie Nation was all about alchohol prohibition in the bad old days but I thought it would be funny to use her here, so please nobody get bent out of shape for my misuse of a (gulp) historical figure. And my apology to anyone related to her.

[JK Parkin]

Originally posted by tralfaz
dont you hate pants!?!?!?!

Maybe we should burn our pants!

[Prozac Man]

Originally posted by JK Phoenix
Maybe we should burn our pants!
Yea! Burn pants! Ladies first. :D :p ;)