- Posted by Johanna on September 6, 2007 at 10:08 pm
- Category: Comic News
My question about one of the requirements in the Ellison/Fantagraphics lawsuit settlement has been answered, sort of.
The settlement said that Gary Groth (or someone representing him) will get to post an essay on Ellison’s message board within five business days of the agreement. So does anyone have a link? Google didn’t turn one up. I can’t imagine that no one would be talking about it if it was posted… so does that mean one of the provisions of the settlement wasn’t met?
contains the 500 word Statement by Gary Groth that Harlan Ellison agreed to run on his website — unedited and unaltered — according to the settlement agreement signed by both parties… This Statement was sent to Ellison’s lawyer on August 20, 2007; despite the fact that the Settlement Agreement stipulated that it be posted on his web site for 30 days, it has not yet been posted — two weeks later.
The 500 words are contained in Exhibit C of the PDF link above. They begin
Unlike those who threaten, intimidate, bully, extort by lawsuit, and carry out physical assaults, I believe the corrective to forms of speech one doesn’t like is more speech — i.e., the truth.
They go on to address, from Groth’s perspective, three labeled BIG LIEs [sic] of Ellison’s, covering his accusing Groth of embezzlement, Ellison asserting that Fantagraphics’ legal bills were covered by insurance, and about an example of Ellison “engaging in ad hominem rhetoric that he himself denounces.”
The statement concludes:
On the one hand, Ellison objects to being referred to as a “dilettante” and on the other likens me to a child molester. It is an example of someone being able to dish it out but unable to take it (without filing a lawsuit). It is an example of someone believing in free speech — for himself but not for his opponents.
I’m not terribly surprised that Ellison has resisted posting such a direct statement of his apparent hypocrisy in this entire matter. But as I read it, by not doing so within the legally stated period of time required, Ellison is now in violation of the settlement, correct?
Update: Ellison’s lawyer has claimed that the rebuttal statement isn’t in keeping with the agreement, and so Ellison doesn’t have to do what he said he would in publishing it.
In the comments, a reader adds links to a discussion thread which also makes the interesting point that “Ellison’s website” harlanellison.com is not owned or managed by Ellison, and the actual owner is not a party to the suit or the settlement.
I’m now fully in agreement with the gentleman who said that, regardless of the actual agreement, Ellison’s reputation as a free speech advocate is the thing ruined by all of this.