Comments on: Let’s You and Him Fight! CBLDF vs Fantagraphics

By: Andre

Andre — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 10:56:48 +0000

Maybe they are just poor and can’t fight every fight so they are picking battles?
Still a slap on the wrist for the CBLDF would not be out of line imo.

By: Ellison Fantagraphics Suit Resolved » Comics Worth Reading

Ellison Fantagraphics Suit Resolved » Comics Worth Reading — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:11:59 +0000

[...] CBLDF Refuses to Get Involved [...]

By: Glenn Hauman

Glenn Hauman — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 00:21:52 +0000

For the record, Ellison himself has often done benefits and given time and money on behalf of the CBLDF, as has Fantagraphics. I suspect that in this case, the CBLDF would be unable or unwilling to make a determination in the face of the counterclaims between the two parties.

By: Terram

Terram — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 03:42:13 +0000

Massive entitlement from the CBLDF to defend a non-comic book over a non-censorship, non-First Amendment issue.

By: Blog@Newsarama » Your Ellison/Fantagraphics update of the day

Blog@Newsarama » Your Ellison/Fantagraphics update of the day — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 02:38:04 +0000

[...] Johanna has some thoughts on recent events, as well as the usual tasty links. Some good comments too. [...]

By: Paul O'Brien

Paul O'Brien — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 00:51:42 +0000

(Footnote: You could of course argue that all defamation cases indirectly affect comic book professionals. Obviously that’s true to some extent. But if you wanted to support freedom of speech on such a vague and general level, presumably you’d have given your money to the ACLU, not the CBLDF.)

By: Paul O'Brien

Paul O'Brien — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 00:48:17 +0000

“Nat, the CBLDF’s mission statement says “The CBLDF exists to fight censorship and defend the first amendment rights of comic book professionals throughout the United States.” Not comics, comic professionals.”

Er, no. The way you’re interpreting that mission statement, it would be enough for anyone to come along and say “I am a comic book professional and I have a completely unrelated first amendment issue. Give me my handout.” Run into trouble with your blog? Written a vaguely controversial novel? Why, if you once wrote an issue of GREEN LANTERN, the CBLDF is there to bail you out.

No. Clearly not.

What the CBLDF’s mission statement means is that they deal with first amendment issues that affect comic book professionals IN THAT CAPACITY. That need not necessarily involve an actual comic, but it certainly has to involve something to do with the comic book industry.

Gary Groth is unquestionably a comic book professional, but this is a defamation action about something he’s written in a non-fiction book that merely happens to be about comics. This case has nothing to do with the creation of comics. It raises no issue of wider concern to the comics industry. It doesn’t even seem to involve a precedent in the law of defamation. It’s just the latest squabble in a long-running personal feud.

That is not what the CBLDF is for. The Board is right.

By: Nat Gertler

Nat Gertler — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 00:11:25 +0000

Which part do you think doesn’t apply? Because the items cited (not the dillitante bit, which isn’t Comics As Art, but the others) seem to be clearly statements of fact. “The judge approved the arrangement and Ellison lost the motion but refused to reimburse Fleisher’s out of pocket expenses as agreed.” “[...] we learned that the judge was about to order U.S. Marshals to arrest Ellison for failing to obey a court order.” “He was always coming up with schemes to wheedle out of paying his bills.”

I can’t speak to whether these claims are false or not.

By: Johanna

Johanna — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 23:11:20 +0000

I find it ironic (at best) that decades later, Ellison’s on the other side of the defamation claim. This whole thing started when he and Groth were sued for defaming Fleischer, and now he’s behaving as irrationally (in my opinion, of course). In other words, I don’t think either of those cases should have been filed. Having read the statements he’s objecting to, I don’t think “false statements of fact” applies.

By: Joshua Macy

Joshua Macy — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 22:07:28 +0000

It’s mentioned, but I don’t see where it says he wants to edit it to remove opinions that he disagrees with, unless you’re simply characterizing defamation as “people’s opinions he disagrees with.” That’s not what defamation means in the law, and you don’t have a First Amendment right to make false statements of fact that damage someone–in fact you have an exception to your general First Amendment rights if what you’re doing is defaming someone (though the First Amendment imposes some limits on what counts as defamation depending on whether the plaintiff is a public figure and the intent of the person publishing the falsehood in order to balance it against the ability to publish news and generally discuss public figures–particularly officials).

I don’t see how the CBLDF has an obligation to aid absolutely anyone associated with comics who’s accused of publishing malicious falsehoods, any more than the ACLU is obliged to leap to the defense of anybody who’s shouted “fire” in a crowded theater, or incited a crowd to riot, or issued death threats against someone. It’s not just a matter of husbanding scarce resources, it’s that vigorous defense of a right doesn’t imply that you have to fight to expand that right to cover various exceptions that have always existed to prevent its abuse.

By: Monk

Monk — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 21:56:29 +0000

After reading about how much of a prick Ellison is (here, Penny Arcade, etc), I really don’t feel the need to read any more of his stuff.

By: Johanna

Johanna — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 20:03:59 +0000

Comics as Art is mentioned as paragraph 3 on page 2 of Ellison’s filing. It’s elaborated on later in the same document.

By: Joshua Macy

Joshua Macy — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 19:54:25 +0000

Unless an amended complaint has been filed, I don’t see anything about that. I do see, though, that the defamation charge rests on a lot more than just the blurbing of him as a famous comics dilettante, and if the facts alleged are true his case is a lot stronger than I thought.

By: Johanna

Johanna — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 19:14:30 +0000

Joshua, that’s only one of the case’s issues, though. Ellison is also trying to edit the Comics as Art book prior to publication to remove people’s opinions he disagrees with. I find that idea chilling.

By: Joshua Macy

Joshua Macy — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 18:55:14 +0000

Seriously, I think it’s a right of publicity case. As far as I can tell it’s a pretty weak one, though I seem to recall the California has one of the stronger right of publicity laws. What’s at issue here (at least as far as I understand it) isn’t whether Groth can reprint the interview, but to what extent he can both trade on Ellison’s name and poke at Ellison with his description of famous comic dilettante (or whatever the phrase was) in selling the book. I’d be really worried about the CBLDF’s priorities if they spent money on something like this.

By: Johanna

Johanna — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:45:50 +0000

Aha! No one wins either way!

Seriously, Joshua, you don’t think someone saying “you can’t use my name on the cover of your book reprinting an interview with me” is a free speech case?

By: Joshua Macy

Joshua Macy — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:37:29 +0000

This is so clearly not a censorship or First Amendment case, but part of the never-ending feud between Ellison and Groth, that if the CBLDF had chosen to financially support Groth I’d have to reconsider my own contributions to them.

By: Simon Jones

Simon Jones — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 15:48:24 +0000

Perhaps what Fantagraphics should do is invite some artists to rework the offending portions of the book into sequentials…

By: Nat Gertler

Nat Gertler — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:10:05 +0000

Well, Johanna, if you want fine distinctions, I will note that the page you link to is not identified a their “mission statement” and that the bulk of that page is discussing their work as relating to comics. I will agree that the sentence you cite should be rewritten; they’ve shown at least an interest in being involved in cases of amateur creators, which is as it should be. But that web page isn’t what has driven me to support the CBLDF in various ways in the past, their defense of comics and the rights to create and distribute them has.

By: Journalista - the news weblog of The Comics Journal » Blog Archive » Feb. 16, 2007: Shorter Journalista 6

Fri, 16 Feb 2007 08:37:30 +0000

[...] Fund has refused Fantagraphics’ request for financial aid in dealing with the Ellison suit. Johanna Draper Carlson isn’t impressed with Brownstein’s response, while Simon Jones is a bit more charitable [...]