That definitely changes things. Out of curiosity, I looked up what other movies he directed and produced.

He produced and starred in American Sniper, which was incidentally also kind of a political disaster. The nose prosthetic reminds me of the American Sniper fake baby hilarity. Bradley put the blame on the director, but the director makes it sound like it was a monetary and not an artistic choice. That would put the responsibility on the shoulders of the producer.

Yikes! They gave Bradley Cooper an even bigger nose than Leonard Bernstein. Is this some kind of antisemitic attack on Jake Gyllenhaal for not taking a pay cut to play the part?

If feel like this is more a studio scandal than a Cooper scandal. They did the casting and approved the prosthetic. I’m disappointed the actor gets the heat and the institution isn’t mentioned.

If you want to get angry at Bradley, his relationship with 21 year old Suki Waterhouse was super gross. The studio holds no blame for that mess.

I’m disappointed by your condescending tone. I can see we’re talking past each other, and I’m happy to end this conversation here.

Why do you assume because I listed the most prominent example of GOSH’s censorship, that it was the only one? GOSH also litigated against Canadian author J. E. Somma. In both cases, GOSH settled out of court, and in both cases GOSH enforced a lack of transparency over the settlement as part of the terms. The point of these examples is to demonstrate that GOSH went beyond the bounds of mere royalty collector when they saw the chance, not to demonstrate chilling effect.

Chilling effect is not about the books that survived the gauntlet of publication to make it to the litigation stage; it’s about all the ideas that never had a chance to blossom because the threat of copyright enforcement nipped them in the bud. Part of what makes this kind of corporate theft so insidious is that it is impossible to count the works it prevented from existing, or judge the social good they would have done.

Are you saying that ALL royalties for derivative works/use of IP are an abridgement of free speech in your view?

I do believe copyright, its continued extensions in favor of rights-holders, and associated attacks on the fair use doctrine are abridgements of free speech. I also believe each addition of complexity to copyright law is a gift to copyright law firms and the consolidated publishing corporations who can easily afford to employ them, as well as an attack on small publishers and authors to whom employing solicitors and barristers is an onerous burden. But that’s not what I’m arguing here.

I’m saying that granting eternal royalties from Peter Pan to GOSH creates a monetary disincentive for anyone but GOSH to publish derivative Peter Pan works. This creates a chilling effect on the republication of Barrie works and re-use of Peter Pan characters, and is worthy of outrage. This is similar in effect to the intractable libel laws that financially disincentivize publishing negative news about powerful figures and institutions in Britain, which is even more outrageous. I’m also saying that the special copyright status of Peter Pan and larger problems like the libel law situation are evidence of the same underlying issue: Britain’s relative disinterest in protecting free speech.

A lot of these people are small operators; most don’t have storefronts, some sell online, and a few through farmers’ markets.

This is part of a movement astroturfed by Gab and Truth Social to create a market for goods and services that caters to trumpist producers and consumers. None of these businesses are capable of growing past their trumpist market. When they make enough capital to get noticed by journalists, their growth is going to crater like MyPillow due to the political backlash.

Here’s an example vendor. She’s going to be making overpriced unhygienic peanut butter in her kitchen for less than minimum wage and taking advantage of her children’s free labor until they all burn out. If by some miracle she got the capital to buy the machines needed to make peanut butter to USDA standards and at scale, a proper boycott of her distributors would bring it all down.

They’re rubes, offering their depressed labor to their cult leaders in order to take a small chip out of a corporation’s bottom line. The Budweiser boycott is a great example of this - when a culture war exercise got out of hand, Republican thought leaders shut it down to avoid hurting one of their major donors. They make them think they’re going to build a thriving business, but the masters will throw them aside if the corporations pay the appropriate bribes.

Thank you continuing this dialogue; I saw your bio, and though we disagree on this particular issue, I think we have a lot in common, and I appreciate your participation here.

Neither GOSH nor the government control who can create derivative works.

Unfortunately, that is not the case. They used their position to selectively control publication of works they didn’t approve. That’s clearly censorship.

But even if they only collected royalties, it would still be a free speech issue. Selectively assigning monetary costs to certain speech is an abridgement of free speech, for the same reason SLAPP lawsuits are a free speech issue.

Maybe a better framing would be “Rich would rather censor children’s story than pay for children’s hospital” - its understandable to not feel outrage over this based on all the worse things that are going on in the world, but that doesn’t mean it’s not deserving of outrage. I don’t think this is a case of perfect being the enemy of good, but rather the shock doctrine aspect of disaster capitalism; it’s difficult to gather sympathy for the principle of free speech when children are literally dying.

It’s important to look at this from a principled perspective; though isolated the Peter Pan, the case enshrines in law that what can be published can be restricted if there’s a sufficiently sympathetic non-sequitur issue. This isn’t even the “yelling fire in a crowded theatre” justification that was used to imprison anarchists for telling the truth about WWI, where the justification is related to the effect of the speech. Peter Pan stories have no natural connection to children’s health, but allowing sentimental framing to trump principled proceedure perpetuates a lack of care in British society for the principle of free speech. It’s a slippery slope that has been borne out in the ways censorship of journalism harm modern British society much more than ~1.5M yearly funding for a children’s hospital can justify.

It’s more than “Children deserve hospitals and stories too” - British children deserve hospitals and better government, stronger journalism, and protection from BBC and religious pedophiles too.

Good summary!

This makes it very different indeed.

Is it though? I’d frame it as “government robs children of new Peter Pan stories in order to pay for childrens’ hospital” – it’s like those ‘feel-good’ stories in the news about children laboring at lemonade stands to raise funds for their mother’s cancer treatment. It’s easy to forget that these are scenarios with only bleak options because of the unstated premise that the rich will never pay their share.

Is that what it seems to you? I don’t see that statement in any of my replies to you. And yet I keep correcting your false readings of my statements with further explanation. Are you trolling me?

If you can’t convince people to vote in mass, how are you going to convince them to protest or strike?

I agree. If you convince people that voting is the path to political change, you play into the elite’s hands; but if people are politically engaged enough to protest and strike, voting is an afterthought.

I’m not advocating some violent minority storm congress. I’m saying if enough people agree on change and organize, they can make the edicts of politicians irrelevant. I wasn’t referring to the Jan 6 coup attempt; I was talking about the historical revolutions against autocrats that replaced them with republican systems. The more democratic a system, the less violence it needs to use to rule; and less violence is likely to come back on it during a revolution towards a more progressive system.

I’m not saying marches alone, obviously; I mean mass mobilization, and all the tactics that makes possible. It’s always nice to have politicians that concede earlier; but it’s not a “need” type of thing. In the past, when people couldn’t move politicians, they raised guillotines. The people always come first, and the minute the leaders of a movement sell out the rank and file for access and clout, they’re playing the wrong game. If you think your political responsibility ends at the ballot box, you’re part of the problem.

As an anarchist, I’d like to repurpose a comment I made a while back to connect with people who are genuinely surprised and disappointed by this development.

Martin Luther King Jr., a very successful reformer who said “freedom is never given voluntarily by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed,” did not seek government position, and gave nothing to politicians who did not concede his movement’s demands. It wasn’t sympathetic civil rights politicians that wrote the legislation that King is famous for inspiring, but the ambivalent and enemies who were forced to concede due to the civil rights movements’ economic and social power. It’s a common trope that revolutionary groups’ sacrifice and achievements are re-appropriated by opportunist politicians whose role should be described as ‘more pliable obstacles.’ For example, Lyndon Johnson in America is celebrated as the civil rights president, when it was King that pulled him kicking and screaming out of the American apartheid. This re-writing of history creates the false narrative that what we need most is more progressive politicians, and that all this rioting and chaos is just the result of fools who don’t know how to work the system.

Politicians like Peter Hain, Bernie Sanders, and AOC should be viewed as window dressing advertising the power of the political movements that put them in place. Because the structure of the capitalist political system, placing and keeping politicians requires much greater sacrifice on the part of the left than it does on the right. Their existence within the political system helps to falsely legitimize it as a diverse forum, while blunting the progressive politicians’ potential as social leaders and draining progressive movements of resources that they could be using on tactics better suited to their natural methods of power.

The most effective method of creating change will always be in the street.

This isn’t some random twitter user; it was posted by the National Guard of Ukraine, and officially identified as an Azov soldier. It’s a pretty fucking fascist thing to do, but if you think this is the first and only indication that Azov is fascist, you haven’t been paying attention. I bring it up because it’s one of the many ways Azov is undermining resistance against Putin’s fascists: creating propaganda that alienates Ukraine’s Muslim allies.

The fascists are literally dipping bullets in pig’s blood. Why isn’t Ukraine concerned about losing Turkey as a strategic ally by making heroes out of crusaders, but a situation where there would be less soldiers to check Erdogan’s southern ambitions is going to make him throw away all that Bayraktar money.

If they’re such a minor element of Ukrainian society, why can’t they disband the battalions? You can’t have it both ways. You’re right, it’s not Afghanistan; Ukraine aspiring to EU status makes the threat worse.

Also worth reading to expand the limited perspective of the film: The Hispano men all died of berylliosis. These were US citizens, folks. Their land taken, animals killed, farms bulldozed, forced to work for the people who took everything from them, and killed by those people.

Imagine this was the invasion of Afghanistan by Russia in the 1980s - knowing what you know now about 9-11 would you be just as cavalier about accountability with who the United States were training and supplying?

Putin is an autocrat and Wagner are fascists, but the journalists featured here don’t have any influence in the east. They are doing the right thing by demanding Ukraine be held accountable. Both the journalists have clearly stated whose ‘side’ they’re on, and repudiated Putin’s claims. This is no place for Soviet whataboutism.

Mark my words: The next wave of mass shooters and white supremacist terrorists are being trained with American taxpayer money. If they’re so hard up for support, why don’t they permit anarchist battalions? There are veterans with years of military experience in Kobanî who were eager to fight the invasion, and the Ukrainian MOD delayed and stymied their participation. Yet they’re bending over backwards for people who want to cleanse their society of gay people and minority ethnic groups. Anarchists and communists have already given their lives in the defense of Ukraine. Volodymyr Zelenskyy is not a fascist, but wouldn’t it be a great propaganda coup against Putin’s narrative for Ukraine to fight alongside a modern Abraham Lincoln brigade?

Their agenda seems to be more of a “whatever sticks” clickbait.

So the Joe Rogan agenda.