Wednesday, June 24, 2015

CBLDF Writes About "Cartoonists Under Fire" while ignoring This Cartoonist who was Literally Under Fire

UPDATE: I discussed this on Red Eye. Watch here at the 28:41 mark.

Update: I just had an exchange on Facebook with the Executive Director of CBLDF on a friend's page. Click to enlarge and read: 

The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, which I've been a supporter of until now, just released the second issue of "Defender" which focuses on "Cartoonists UnderFire", and they completely ignore the Mohammad cartoon contest & Garland jihadist attack where this cartoonist was Literally Under Fire. I'm pissed off. Bad enough I work in an industry that's dominated by gutless leftists, but even the one place that supposedly defends Free Speech doesn't give a shit about Defending Free Speech if it disagrees with it. This Completely undercuts the idea of what kind of speech Should be protected. To Hell with them.

Update: I checked to see if they wrote about Charlie Hebdo, and of course they did, writing about the "Defiant Charlie Hebdo" in a sympathetic piece. Charlie Hebdo are "Islamophobes", but they're leftist "Islamophobes" dammit, so the CBLDF is okay with them.

Update 2: A few more thoughts. Here was the April announcement from the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund on their quarterly news magazine, "Defender":

"Comic Book Legal Defense Fund is proud to announce that CBLDF Defender, a new free quarterly news magazine coming to you from the front lines of the fight for free speech, is now available!"

"the front lines of the fight for free speech" they say, and I just got another death threat this morning. Disgraceful hypocrites.

Oh, and one more thing, in their two articles on Garland (with No mention of me, even though all the major papers did mention me) the CBLDF didn't show the symbol of the event, my winning Mohammad cartoon. Of course they didn't, and it just hit me. And though I've come to expect this from institutions that Don't fancy themselves on the "front lines of the fight for free speech", I expect more from those that claim to. 


Alan W. Wright said...

I've always had mixed feelings about the CBLDF. I applaud some of their efforts, but they tend to cherry-pick their battles.

Peter Cresswell said...

Bosch, you'll be able to appreciate the irony of this: artistic couple invited to edit 'New Statesman' magazine with issue title and theme 'Saying the Unsayable.' And guess what, their cover artist drew the undrawable. You won't be surprised what he drew. Here's their story.

Unknown said...

I was a founding board member of the CBDLF, but I speak only for myself here. Let me start off by saying that I liked your cartoon. It expresses the political cartoonist's credo perfectly. But it is impossible to separate it from the context of it's creation. Pamela Geller, the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) sponsored the contest. She has openly advocated that every mosque in the US should be subjected to regular government inspections, in violation of the first and fourth amendment rights of muslim citizens.

It's reasonable to assume that you were aware of Ms. Geller's position when you entered the contest, and even a cursory view of your work might lead one to conclude that you agree with her. If you don't, now would be a good time to make it clear that you believe the Bill of Rights applies to all American citizens, even the followers of Islam. If you agree with her, then don't expect to be heralded as a first amendment hero.

With that said, if you should face an act of official censorship, I would be the first person to advocate that your right to speak be defended. That's how the first amendment is supposed to work.

Bosch Fawstin said...

I didn’t know about Pamela Geller’s exact position on mosques, and I would like to find out more about that from her, but I agree that not all mosques should automatically be investigated and that it would be a violation of the First Amendment to do so. One study by found that 80% of the mosques in America are “radicalized,” for what it’s worth, but I agree that you would still need at least some particularized evidence about a mosque to take legal action. (However, in my private life, I choose to exercise my freedom of association—really freedom of disassociation—given what I know about the religion, both from my own Muslim upbringing and from studying Islam. I have a few Muslim family members whom I still associate with at times, but that’s about it.) That being said, I think that any mosque with a record of turning out violent jihadists—like the ones in Arizona and Boston—should absolutely be investigated.

I hope that clarifies my position, and I’m glad to hear that you would advocate my right to speak be defended. But I am nonetheless disappointed that you have not shown me, a fellow American cartoonist and member of CBLDF, the moral support that you have given Charlie Hebdo. Would I have to be murdered to get that kind of support? I guess two jihadists trying to take me and the rest out in Garland wasn’t enough.

BigFurHat said...

Why is it "impossible" to separate Bosch's cartoon from Pamela Geller?

That position must have sounded good in your head, but on paper it looks ridiculous.
Of course Bosch's expression stands alone.
It matters little who it was judged by and what award it has won.
That statement is beyond specious.

Now, let's get to your other ridiculous charge.
Regular inspections of mosques to monitor what they are preaching is not a violation of either the 1st or 4th amendment.
Mosques are open to the public. anyone can listen to what they are proselytizing.
If they are advocating violence, insurrection, jihad or terror, the mosque should be shut down.

Bosch Fawstin said...

Good points, BFH, and about mosques being open to the public, I suppose that's true, but I do also know that some will close people off to it, or hold back on saying what they really believe, unless they're unaware of the purpose of the visitor, thinking he's Muslim.

BigFurHat said...

I understand, but Mr. Berger must be implying that AFDI is advocating illegal wiretapping, bugging, or camera surveillance that falls outside of the purview of the Patriot Act.
In this single leap Mr. Burger falsely impugns AFDI and then uses guilt by association to dismiss your contributions. That was quite a leap.
I find it argumentative at best and not based on solid enough footing to minimize your contributions, which renders his position cowardly.

Bosch Fawstin said...

Agree, and I regret responding to him the way I did, far too respectful than what he deserves. And think about the fact that I've been a long-time member of CBLDF despite being at odds with the position of most, if not all, of those in charge of it. According to Berger's logic, you can hold Me reaponsible for not having me in their piece on "Cartoonists Under Fire"

I.M Fletcher said...

Any mention of Molly Norris? She was a cartoonist based in Seattle who decided to organize a Draw Mohammed Day in 2010. She subsequently had a fatwa put on her by Anwar al-Awlaki and was forced to go into hiding on the advice of the FBI. No one knows where she is to this day.

Bosch Fawstin said...

Yes, they mentioned her in passing in their reluctant online piece on Garland, where I wasn't mentioned.

DMartyr said...

These "free speech defenders" are not all that they claim to be. I used to be a supporter of Electronic Frontier Foundation ( They claimed to defend the rights of blogger and help protect their privacy against litigation. But as soon as a leftist hack exposed the identity of an "Islamophobic" blogger, the EFF actually applauded the fact the bloggers name was made public.

The fact is, some of these groups that claim to defend freedom of speech are only willing to defend speech with which they agree.

PS: The case I mentioned was that of Aussie Dave. EFF director Jillian York supported and defended the leftwing blogger who discovered Aussie Dave's real name and address and publicized both. You can Google for more info, or visit:


Bosch Fawstin said...

Thanks, all these hypocrites need to be exposed as the sheer anti-freedom leftist hacks they are

Crimson said...

Well this is sad. The CBLDF has been my charity of choice for decades, but perhaps I've been wrong. If personal politics has them playing favorites, they are worthless.

I'm not actually all that impressed with this spate of screwing with Islam for the sake of screwing with Islam any more than I'm a big fan of sicko doper porn, but because of the principle of equal protection I expect the CBLDF to back you all.

That said, you're not yet facing censure by US law, so they've not really been tested. Yet.

As for Mr. Berger's argument regarding Pamela Geller: that too should be irrelevant to the organization's mission statement. Not only is it assumed guilt by association, someone speaking against free speech remains protected speech, until they actually get the Amendment repealed. It's exactly the kind of "abhorrent" material that tests whether we are truly committed to this ideal. The hypocrisy would remain with Geller, should she ever seek aid from the CBLDF (not that she's ever likely to).

Bosch Fawstin said...

"screwing with Islam to screw with Islam"?! You can't be that dumb, can you? I never set out to draw Mohammad until Mohammad cartoonists were threatened with death for doing so, or in your lamguage, until it "screwed" with our freedom of expression. I left Islam behind until it "screwed" with us on 9/11. Are you starting to get it, or are you too "screwed" to?