Click here to view this post on the website.

Click here to view this post on the website.

When I’m not writing, I draw, paint, cartoon, photograph, and build and customize model kits. I draw inspiration from Eastern and Western animation, Neo-Futurist concept and industrial art, comics, manga, with a bent towards classic animation and traditional media. You can check out my art and my photos here on the site.

• Genres: Speculative fiction, spy thriller, erotica, humor
• Artistic Media: Digital photography, pencils, inks, acrylic gouache, digital paint
• Social Media: Bluesky, Mastodon, and Tumblr
• Contact:

Under construction.

Click here to view this post on the website.

Click here to view this post on the website.

Click here to view this post on the website.

Since the writing of this post, FurAffinity rewrote their Upload Policy and reversed course. I waffled on keeping this blog post up, but I’m making it available as a historical curiosity only. Please do not take any action based purely on this post.

Babyfur artists are getting banned en masse from FurAffinity, the largest furry art website on the internet. Nobody seems to know why or who’s responsible. I think this is concerning.

What a babyfur is

For the uninitiated, babyfur is a genre of furry art that either depicts characters as babies or young children, or depicts adults who are adult baby diaper lovers (ABDLs).

There is nothing inherently sexual or inappropriate about babyfur art. There are two different camps in the community: SFW artists whose characters are minors, and NSFW and borderline-NSFW artists whose characters are adults who engage in ageplay or costume play. As long as the two don’t overlap, there’s not anything morally objectionable about it. It’s even allowed under FurAffinity’s rules! FurAffinity’s Upload Policy 2.7 reads:

2.7 Content Involving Minors

Content featuring minors is not allowed when the minor is in the presence of sexual activity, sexual objects, or nudity, though exceptions may be made for non-sexual depictions of birth and breastfeeding. Presence is defined as being in the same scene, such as sharing a comic panel, contiguous image, reference sheet, or specific section of a story where characters are engaging each other. Minors may not have detailed bulges or outlines of normal or hyper genitalia, clothed or otherwise. Minors may not be fetishized. Minors may not be depicted as pregnant. Minors are defined as real or fictional humanoids with a childlike body or younger than 18 years old, and any adolescent animals or fantasy creatures. Upload Policy — Fur Affinity [dot] net

Why you should care

SFW artists and artists who work depicts adults only are getting caught up in the wake of these bans. They aren’t breaking the rules, so why the bans?

I agree that FurAffinity shouldn’t allow NSFW art featuring children.

By FurAffinity’s own rules, art of children that’s safe and age-appropriate shouldn’t be banned.

By FurAffinity’s own rules, art of consenting adults engaged in adult activity shouldn’t be banned.

Strange things are being done to FurAffinity’s users, and we have no idea why. We don’t know when or if the content restrictions will stop. Will other genres of art be banned later? And we certainly don’t know if FurAffinity will restore the accounts of artists wrongfully banned, or how and if they plan to rebuild trust.

The current site lead, Sciggles, is recovering from personal health issues—so, meanwhile, who’s in charge? Is anyone? How do we even find out?

You saved FurAffinity. You raised over $200,000 to do it. I wrote previously about my misgivings with the lack of transparency or accountability FurAffinity was showing. Things haven’t gotten clearer or more responsive in the last month. You deserve answers. Ash Coyote put it well: “The platform owes it to the people who helped save it to be open about its direction.” Then you can decide for yourself whether you want to continue to put your money, time, and effort into it.

What they want is to discourage us. We are a community. We found each other and encouraged each other to explore and be our true selves, in a lot of ways that make bigots uncomfortable and scared. Stand fast. Nobody online can hurt us in a way that matters.

Don’t lose hope or back down. We’re not a website—we’re not going anywhere. We are goddamn proud of who we are and what we do, and we are right to be. People who hate furries usually hate us because we’re not straight, white, cisgender, allosexual, allistic, or because we have the gall to want more than hustle culture and capital. They consider these things unacceptable in polite society. We will continue to do our thing—and we will do it LOUDER.

I am a furry, among other things. The alt-right considers me a degenerate and a deviant. In accepting myself as I am and in finding my community, I am happy and proud. I will be happy and proud out of spite, at the very least.

Now, what we can do personally: Make sure your art is posted somewhere you control. Use social media, but keep copies somewhere safe. Consider a personal website. Use 2FA and secure passwords. Talk to your friends, check in with friends who are being quiet, help each other, and continue to create and do what brings you joy. Illegitimi non carborundum.

“Promoting, normalizing, providing instructional advice about, coordinating, or otherwise glorifying disordered eating, feederism, or related topics is prohibited on Patreon.”

“Promoting,” “normalizing,” and “glorifying” are broad enough terms that they could mean anything. “Normalizing” in particular—does any positive depiction of a person who has disordered eating or is involved in feederism violate the Community Guidelines? Is publishing a work intended to reach out to people involved in feederism and reassure them that they’re not morally compromised people “normalizing,” “promoting,” or “glorifying” feederism?

Today, Patreon Trust and Safety sent me this response. Four times. They sent me the exact form letter to each of my queries.

Hi there,

This is [NAME REDACTED–Buddy] from Patreon’s Trust & Safety Team. Thanks so much for reaching out with input about our recent Community Guidelines refresh.

I’ve passed along your thoughts on how we present the subject of feederism within the Community Guidelines to Patreon’s Policy Team, who oversee the guidelines, and appreciate hearing from creators and members like you.

Our goal is to always provide clear and informed guidance on what is and is not allowed on Patreon; however, sometimes we need to continue clarifying specific nuances within a policy. We’ll reflect on what you shared as we continue to improve our policies. If you’re interested in hearing more about ongoing updates to Patreon’s content policies, stay tuned for the next update from the Creator Policy Engagement Program.

If you have any further questions, please don’t hesitate to reach out.

Warm regards,

Patreon Trust & Safety

It’s the kind of message I would have written when I was in a public-facing position: “Wheels are turning, but I have no idea what direction they’re going, no control, and I haven’t been authorized to say anything further.” It’s noncommittal and only acts as an acknowledgement that they received my messages.

I’ll keep on this, and provide updates as I get them. Have the new Community Guidelines affected you or creators you support? Write me a comment and let me know!

Click here to view this post on the website.

Click here to view this post on the website.

If you don’t follow voice actors, Kevin Conroy played Batman and Bruce Wayne in Batman: The Animated Series, The New Batman Adventures, The Batman-Superman Movie: World’s Finest, Batman Beyond, Justice League, Justice League Unlimited, Justice League Action, The Killing Joke, the Arkham series of video games, and some other movies I know I missed.

You know his voice. He was vengeance. He was the night. He was, for many, including me, Batman.

* * *

Batman’s always been a part of my life. He—and I’m not talking about an actor here but the Real Batman—is still one of my heroes, and the Real Batman’s sense of justice and equity still informs mine. I doubt I’ll ever fire a gun. I’ll always try to extend an open hand instead of a closed fist. I’ll always think capes are a necessary fashion accessory.

My parents maintain that I recognized a cardboard standee of Michael Keaton’s Batman by name in 1989. I was two, maybe. Not much of a talker at that point. Batman ‘89 is the first movie I ever recall seeing on VHS. I got myself in trouble repeating some of the words I learned in that movie at a dinner party once. I still have a Polaroid of myself, my twin brother, and my sister as two Batmans and a Catwoman standing with the ‘89 Batmobile at an auto show that we went to specifically for that.

Then there was the 1949 Batman and Robin movie serial starring Robert Lowery and Johnny Duncan. We had two VHS tapes of that, and there must have been a third out there, because I first saw the ending when it was rereleased on DVD in 2005. Worth the wait? Not exactly, but for completion’s sake, it needed doing.

Let’s not forget Batman ‘66. Dad was almost definitely the one who got us watching those. He can still tell you the date of the premiere, and what date he saw the real Batman and Robin with the Batmobile at Walt Whitman Mall on Long Island. I watched that show with a religious zeal—I never saw the strings until watching it on Blu-ray. Whether that’s due to taping the show off a TV re-run or because I was a True Believer, I’ll never know.

A copy of the children’s novelization of Knightfall wound up in my hands as part of a birthday party goody bag.

The comics, of course; I recall nearly my first comic ever being an early issue of the Contagion crossover, and it scaring the pants off me. Chuck Dixon, Larry Hama, Ed Brubaker, Grant Morrison, not to mention the countless artists like Neal Adams, Scott McDaniel, Alex Toth…

***

But Batman: The Animated Series debuted on Fox Kids on September 5, 1992, airing the first part of “The Cat and the Claw,” a two-part episode featuring Adrienne Barbeau as Catwoman, Kate Mulgrew as Red Claw, and, of course, Kevin Conroy as Batman. This was, and is, my Batman.

Kevin always played his Batman as trying to save everyone, especially his villains. Mercy was as much a hallmark of his character as gadgets, martial arts, and Batarangs.

Kevin seemed to be that way in real life as well—I only got to know about him indirectly, through interviews and secondhand stories. He served food to NYC first responders after 9/11 and rekindled their spirits by playing Batman for them. He seemed genuinely gracious to be known as Batman and gave everyone their moment with the Man himself.

One of the most powerful things he ever did was to come out as gay. He even wrote a comic about how being in the closet informed his performance as Batman and Bruce Wayne—about fear, duality, loneliness, rage—and being able to do something positive with it. More than any other actor, Kevin Conroy embodied Batman. He was dealt a tough hand, pushed through it, and used his position to help others.

“Finding Batman” was written by Kevin Conroy, drawn and colored by J. Bone, lettered by Aditya Bidikar, and edited by Arianna Turturro and Jessica Chen. It was published by DC Comics in DC Pride 2022, available in print and digitally. It’s worth your time.

Kevin, I’ll miss you. Thanks for everything.

I didn’t have strong social skills in high school or college, and when I joined Twitter, I still had some things to learn. I’ve been on Twitter for almost ten years learning how to socialize. It’s been a real education in what I can talk about, with whom, for how long, and still retain a relationship with someone.

It turns out someone will listen to me talk about Animorphs, but I have to do it right. It has to be the proper setting, I have to introduce the topic and offer it as a subject, lay proper foundation so we can discuss on a common level, listen, and read the signals for the proper time to let the conversation go.

Not too bad. It took some practice to figure out what “proper” meant. Many thanks to my friends for their help in that. It wasn’t easy, and isn’t always, but now I get to talk about Animorphs and keep my relationship with my conversational partner. (Jake’s my favorite, then Tobias, then Ax. Ask me about it sometime.)

I’ve also brought that practice into my offline life. At this point, sans anxiety, I can talk to anyone about anything and walk away having had a decent conversation. Reading people and situations comes quite a bit easier now. Say hello if you see me in person—I’m always happy to meet you.

But part of me is wondering, if I lose Twitter, will I backslide? Will I lose the social skills I worked hard for and the confidence that came with it? Will I lose the version of me who can be social and charming and unafraid?

Intellectually, I know it’s an irrational worry, but that’s the thing about anxiety. It amplifies irrational worries till they can’t be ignored. It built up. I feel better now that I’ve identified and addressed it.

Anyway, if I’ve been beating the drum on social media the last few weeks, that’s why. Thanks for sticking with me and believing even when I don’t. I’ll continue to see you around, and keep saying hi. I always appreciate it. And if you let me talk about Animorphs, I promise not to talk your ear off.

Twitter actually succeeded at centralizing online communities in one common forum. You have to have a Twitter if you want to be online and be found. That’s been a good thing in a lot of ways.

Twitter’s been a huge boon to communities looking for each other. Personally, I found furries, comics fans and X-Perts, writers and comedians, queer and fat activists, legal professionals, all of whom added value to my life. I needed to find them, and I did.

Twitter’s been great for creators, too. Some good friends of mine have developed fan communities in the tens of thousands, who help pay their bills every month. Where else can a shitposter do that?

But as I write this, Elon Musk’s purchase of the website has gone through, and some of his policies are going into effect. You’ll have to buy verification to avoid your tweets being suppressed, if things actually go through. This signals a new age for Twitter.

Personally, I think it signals the end of centralization, at least for now. Twitter as it has existed is not likely to continue indefinitely. People are already starting to spread out their online presence to other forums, just in case, and I think that’ll continue for the foreseeable future.

The splintering of online communities will have an apocalyptic effect on creators trying to make a living. Instead of having one central space to market their wares and build audiences, they’ll have to divide their time among multiple different forums, just to keep up.

There is one positive angle, though: people won’t have to flatten their personalities to one dimension to maximize their appearance in an algorithm. In a single centralized forum, people can’t code-switch or explore multiple sides of their identities if they want to be found.

Me, I write worksafe and non-worksafe material. I draw general-audiences cartoons and explore more sexual and adult themes as well. I build model kits, I play music, I get political, I get up in arms about social injustices… I do a lot of stuff. I can’t do it all in one place. I certainly can’t explore NSFW subjects in every forum, nor should I.

If there’s one positive thing about diversifying my online presence, and moving away from solely relying on Twitter, it’ll be that I get to show my whole self online.

And that goes for you too—this is an opportunity to showcase more of yourself than a single forum’s algorithm would have allowed. Try something new.

The problem with writing more than a microblog is that it takes more than one session of concentration to get thoughts clear and concise. It’s not easy with inattentive ADHD. My brain works like a puppy, i.e., it runs around chasing what’s interesting in the moment, instead of planning long-term like the smart ape it is.

I’ve tried blogging before. I did longish-form blogging on legal subjects and some artistic subjects about five years ago; I lasted about a year before I tuckered out, and that includes a few months of flagging attention and posting. I had a few good articles, I thought. I’ll probably post some here.

The new relationship energy with this blog is still strong, so I’m getting a kick out of writing again. At some point, I’ll have to figure out how to keep going and maintain discipline when the dopamine rush isn’t there anymore.

Yes, I have a planner, I bullet journal, I break tasks down into digestible chunks and try to get a reasonable number done a day. Those of you with ADHD are nodding your heads right now, I hope!

So, I kick the question to you, friends—what do you do to keep interest in a long-term project?

Click here to view this post on the website.

Click here to view this post on the website.

Click here to view this post on the website.

Click here to view this post on the website.

Click here to view this post on the website.

I’m not afraid of Biden per se. By all accounts he is honorable man who genuinely wants to do his best for his country. I also think he takes other opinions and, thank God, facts into account when making decisions. He’s imperfect but not irrational.

I’m afraid that people will forget what Trump and his followers and creators did. They saw the worst side of America and used it as a weapon to get their own agenda through. The sheer list of atrocities the soon-to-be-previous administration committed, from caging and starving scared children and deporting their parents, to removing crucial environmental regulations as global warming reaches a crisis point, to punishing people of color for daring to ask not to be murdered by police, to making record profits during an economic recession created by their own mishandling of a pandemic… I’m missing quite a lot of them from the first half of the administration because the horrors kept coming. It is too much to remember all at once, much less respond to.

Don’t forget. If you have to, narrow your focus, but fix your heart and fix your community so this can never happen again. They got their way by exploiting hatreds and fears that were already there—remove their leverage by fixing your heart. Zero tolerance for hatred in your home, your social circles, at work, and in your hometowns. Pay attention to legislation and demand your elected officials listen to you. Put stronger structures in place so fascists, racists, and bandits can never control the entire government again. Seek official punishment and justice for the criminals leaving power today.

Never forget—this was a harsh reminder of how fragile our society is, and how easy it is to lose. Never let this happen again, and never stop demanding a better world.

The events of yesterday’s insurrection were planned openly online, and despite law enforcement having the same access as anyone of these plans, the attack on the Capitol carried out successfully.

The point was to cause disruption, scare moderate and liberal voters and politicians, and embolden Trumpists for more terrorist action.

Extremists of various stripes, including but not limited to Nazis, white supremacists, white nationalist, race war accelerationists, and plain everyday fascists, learned that they can disrupt the democratic process and that the President will still say he loves them.

This pattern is totally foreseeable when you take into account that a neo-Nazi murdered Heather Heyer in Charlottesville back in 2017, and the president said there were “very fine people on both sides.“

In the presidential debates, when directly asked to condemn white nationalism and white supremacy, Donald Trump endorsed the Proud Boys and asked them to stand by. Trump urged his supporters to watch the polls to intimidate voters. Trump condoned the murders of innocents committed by Kyle Rittenhouse. Trump encourages this kind of violent escalation, and at this point, whether he intends to do so doesn’t matter—the result is a pattern of excusing violence that encourages escalation.

We have not heard the last of violence aimed at destroying equality, progress, and democracy. We no longer have any excuse not to see Trumpism for what it is. And when we see it, unless we want more and worse attacks on our lives, freedoms, and society we must stamp out Trumpism.

A number of my friends make part or all of their living creating art, some or all NSFW—we’ll call it porn for simplicity’s sake but trust me, some of it really is art. This post is for you, so you know what legislation is being put forward.

SISEA

SISEA, or the Stop Internet Sexual Exploitation Act, is a US Senate bill currently in committee. Purportedly, it will defend against pornographic material posted without the affirmative consent of those depicted, but the methods it takes to do are poorly thought out. The potential for damage will be far out of proportion to the good it accomplishes.

SISEA will place significant burdens on users and any online platform that hosts and makes available to the general public “pornographic images" (hereinafter “covered platforms”).

“Pornographic image” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of “sexually explicit” conduct, i.e., actual or simulated—

(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; (ii) bestiality; (iii) masturbation; (iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or (v) lascivious exhibition of the anus, genitals, or pubic area of any person.

–18 USC 2256.

If you make, upload, or host any of the above, pay attention, because this applies to you.

What’s SISEA about?

The stated goals of SISEA are to give people the ability to have pornographic images uploaded without their consent removed, and this certainly does that. Sex workers will actually be able to control distribution of their work across platforms, and people who don’t consent to distribution will have leverage to have images scrubbed from the internet.

Every platform is required to verify the age and identity of each user, and obtain a consent form for each individual depicted. The consent can limit the geographic area where the image can be distributed. The platform is also required to prohibit any image from being downloaded from the platform.

Platforms will also have to display a prominent banner with instructions to have an contested image removed, operate a 24-hour telephone hotline to receive removal requests, remove a contested image within two hours of a request, and block re-upload of any image removed under this act. Further, platforms will have to check each image uploaded against the Federal Trade Commission database created under this Act to host a list of individuals who do not consent to any upload of any pornographic image to any platform.

That’s good, right?

In theory, yeah. The thinking behind the bill is that it allows individuals depicted to control where their image can be displayed, and theoretically prevents viral spread of any nonconsensual images. That’s great.

I’m sensing a “but.”

A big but. A mondo booty.

Prohibiting downloads is an issue to professionals who rely on downloads to fuel sales will lose an entire distribution method.

Platforms will have to track and limit geographic access for any limited consents provided, stretching already thinly-spread moderation staff even further.

The burden of operating a telephone hotline and responding within two hours to a removal request is unreasonable for smaller platforms, who would likely pull out of the pornography market rather than face FTC investigation for unfair or deceptive trade practices, which this Act will require.

The consents, though—did I read that right? They need consents for all images uploaded even before the Act?

Yeah, you read that right. Consents for any image, uploaded at any time before or after the Act is enacted, are required or the image has to be pulled down.

When asked for comment, the proprietor of prominent giant art site Macrophile.com had this to say:

I will just have to turn off Macrophile.com and dump a couple of decades of art… there’s no way I can research past art at all. Hell… I have explicit art there from people who have died, who I have kept running. So it will be an online death for those folks.

Is that all?

Nope. Most disturbingly, users and individuals will have to give the platform their personally identifiable information with their consents. Platforms will have to contain the above information and keep it secure, but accessible in case of FTC audit. The likelihood of that identifiable information being released or hacked should give any individual or platform pause—Pandora does not go back in that box once you let her out.

The database is the biggest deal, though.

And what’s this about a database?

Glad you asked. The Act establishes an FTC database where individuals can opt in to protection from any uploads of pornographic material whatsoever, anywhere on the internet. The protection is significant, because platforms will be fined up to $1,000 per day that an offending image is uploaded.

It’s all or nothing, though—anyone with a professional or amateur porn image on the internet will have to remove it to get this level of protection.

A single mistake on the part of a small platform can prove incredibly costly. Platforms, again, especially smaller platforms, would probably rather pull out of pornography altogether than face this level of exposure.

So this really doesn’t do what it says it set out to?

Nope. Call and write your senators, because this can’t make it out of committee. Hopefully Georgia flips the Senate and this bill dies ignominiously, and legislators take a smarter approach to porn regulation.

Sit, stay, speak. Good dog.

Click here to view this post on the website.

Click here to view this post on the website.

Click here to view this post on the website.

Who are you to be lecturing us?

I’m a practicing attorney, which means that in law school and since, I’ve been critiqued to shreds and reconstructed to not embarrass my professors, partners, and clients¹ which ought to qualify me by itself. However, I’ve also been an art teacher and a proposal writer for a staffing agency, so I have extensive experience giving and receiving critiques on a professional level. I have received unhelpful and helpful critiques both, and I know what works for me.²

Okay, okay. Why are you telling us how to give critique? I can already tell when something is bad.

Picture this: you ask someone to read a manuscript you wrote, or look at a painting you spent hours on, and you’ve put a lot of time, thought, and energy in. They tell you it sucks. …First, ouch. Second, what about it sucks? Is there anything that can be improved for next time?

You as the critic owe the creator and the work a duty to give thoughtful, useful critique. It doesn’t always have to be “rip me to shreds” criticism, but you owe them the chance to improve based on your insight.

Heavy-handed. Okay, how do I make sure my critique is useful?

Glad you asked. There are five questions to consider when critiquing a piece:

• Who is this for?
• What are the audience’s expectations?
• What is the creator going for?
• What doesn’t work and why?
• What works and why?

Why?

Well, the first three questions give you context you need before your critique can be meaningful. Once you know the audience, their expectations, and whether the creator intends to subvert, comment upon, confound, or simply fulfill the intended audience’s expectations, then you have your metrics for whether or not the work is successful.

A concrete example: I didn’t like Mad Max: Fury Road, but I thought it was a successful work.³ It was a technically gorgeous movie that effectively invoked and defied its genre expectations to tell a story about gender roles. I wasn’t the target audience, though, so the fact that it didn’t grab me doesn’t mean it wasn’t good. A critique saying it failed as a movie because it didn’t appeal to me specifically when it wasn’t meant to isn’t a helpful critique.

A different example: If you’re submitting a contract proposal to a government agency, you’d better damn well keep audience expectations in mind—a choice not to meet them isn’t an artistic choice, it’s simply a failure, because you will lose the contract bid, possibly your security clearance, and probably your job. A critique pointing this out is useful.

What doesn’t work and why?

I see your eyes light up, you hyenas. This is what you thought of first when you were asked to critique someone’s work.

The key here is to keep your critique helpful. Absent a professional reason otherwise, how in-depth you go should be defined by the creator, and if they didn’t tell you, ask. If you’re nitpicking and they needed to know about the big picture, you’re not helping.

Professionals obviously need more in-depth critiques, because incomes and livelihoods depend on a work being good. This is where things can get heated, but it should never get savage or personal. If a critique is or can be mistaken for an attack on the creator instead of a comment on the work, it’s not helpful—not only does it not help improve the work, it damages the relationship with the creator. For professionals, this can be deadly; for hobbyists, this can lose friends.

The best thing to do is keep the critique about the work. This is why I phrased this section as “What doesn’t work and why?” It keeps my commentary solely to the work, and includes the presumption that the problem can be fixed. Just focus on the work and what choices are confusing or counterproductive to the creator’s intent.

What works and why? Wait, I thought I just had to tell them what sucked!

You owe the creator and the work an honest critique, and that means recognizing when things work, too. This not only makes swallowing critique easier for the creator—and therefore easier for you!—it gives the creator the objective outside perspective they can’t have. Creators tend to be harsh self-critics, and often have been working with a piece for so long they take what works for granted, minimize it, or miss it entirely. Your honest critique could give them a new focus and direction as they re-center a piece around what works.

If you keep these in mind and structure your critiques accordingly, you’ll be a useful and constructive resource for your fellow creators. They’ll probably ask you for more critiques! And return the favor, of course. This is how artists improve—you scratch their back, they’ll scratch yours.

For example, I got a good critique on this post by Sparf, who coincidentally has a podcast on this very subject, for you cats interested in further on the topic. Sparf is an author, editor, and podcaster at Independent Claws, in addition to being vice president of Fur the More. Check out his podcast on critique at Independent Claws.

Speaking of back scratching, I have a flea bath with my name on it, so until next time, sit. Stay. Speak. Good dog.

SO. WHAT’S UP?

We have two cases, federal and state, which the strip club Flashers and its cohorts brought against the City of Sandy Springs, claiming that its ordinance against sale of alcohol at adult establishments was an unconstitutional restriction of the First Amendment right of free speech.

NO.

Yeah, seriously. This is Part Two of Two, so you should know this already. Go read Part One and come back.

…ready? Okay. Let’s take a look at these two cases.

The state court case is Maxim Cabaret, Inc. d/b/a Maxim Cabaret et al. v. City of Sandy Springs, Georgia, No. S18A0496 (Ga. June 18, 2018). The federal case is FLANIGAN’S ENTERPRISES, INC. OF GEORGIA, d.b.a. Mardi Gras, FANTASTIC VISUALS, LLC, d.b.a. Inserection, 6420 ROSWELL RD., INC., d.b.a. Flashers, and MARSHALL G. HENRY, et al. v. CITY OF SANDY SPRINGS, GEORGIA, No. 16-14428 (11th Cir. August 14, 2017).

The Fulton County Superior Court granted summary judgment to the City of Sandy Springs, ruling that Flashers (herein referred to by its parent company’s name, Maxim Cabaret) lacked standing to challenge Sandy Springs’ alcohol licensing regulations on a constitutional basis. Simply, the court thought Flashers had no valid legal argument to make, and Sandy Springs won. The same thing happened in federal court.

OKAY, WHAT LAWS APPLY HERE?

There are two laws at play: (1) Sandy Springs Adult Licensing Code section 26-21(25), restricting the “commercial combination of live nudity and alcohol,” and (2) the good ol’ First Amendment.

The Adult Licensing Code section reads:

The city council further finds that public nudity (either partial or total) under certain circumstances, particularly circumstances related to the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages in establishments offering live nude entertainment or “adult entertainment,” whether such alcoholic beverages are sold on the premises or not, begets criminal behavior and tends to create undesirable community conditions. In the same manner, establishments offering cinematographic or videographic adult entertainment have the same deleterious effects on the community. Among the acts of criminal behavior found to be associated with the commercial combination of live nudity and alcohol consumption or sale, live commercial nudity in general, and cinematographic or videographic adult entertainment are disorderly conduct, prostitution, public solicitation, public indecency, fighting, battery, assaults, drug use and drug trafficking. [Citations omitted.]

In its entirety, the First Amendment to the Constitution reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

We’re focusing on the “free speech” element of the First Amendment. That’s right, nude dancing is considered free speech as a form of expressive conduct under the First Amendment.¹

THE GOV’MINT CAN’T RESTRICT FREE SPEECH!

Bad news, folks, they can—where, when, and how you exercise your free speech can have reasonable limitations placed on them.²

REASONABLE IS A WEASEL WORD.

Yes, but SCOTUS has your back with definitions here. When the government restricts rights guaranteed by the Constitution, what’s “reasonable” falls into three categories, based on the right being restricted.³ They are, in order of increasing severity:

• Rational basis review—A heck of a lot is reasonable. If a law is rationally related to a legitimate government interest, it’s constitutional.
• Intermediate scrutiny—If a law furthers an important government interest, by means which are substantially related to that interest, it’s constitutional.
• Strict scrutiny—If a law is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest, and uses the least restrictive means to do so, it’s constitutional. Not a lot of laws survive strict scrutiny.

WHICH STANDARD APPLIES HERE?

I bet I’ll tell you. Flashers said that strict scrutiny applied, but they would, wouldn’t they? Too bad for them this is settled case law. If the law is content-neutral, i.e., it doesn’t seek to limit freedom of expression based on the content of the speech, then only intermediate scrutiny applies.⁴ That law survives intermediate scrutiny if it furthers important government interest unrelated to the suppression of speech, and the incidental restriction of protected speech is no greater than necessary to further that interest.⁵

What that means is that the government can’t ban speech entirely, just in certain forms, in certain locations, and/or at certain times. This is the rationale behind such limiting legislation as requiring parade permits or not allowing flag burning near schools. The speech isn’t the target of the legislation in these cases, the secondary effects are—like traffic congestion or damage to school grounds and/or children.

To bring it back around to our case, the government can pass legislation limiting free speech as, ahem, embodied by adult entertainment, but only as much as necessary to target the negative secondary effects of such businesses. You know, like prostitution, drug sales, drunk driving, people leaving their underwear around.⁶

Sure, preventing the sale of alcohol means that business will dry up with the booze, but the ordinance targets alcohol, not nude dancing—the dancers are still “free to express themselves as they wish through dance or otherwise.”⁷ The ordinance is therefore content-neutral, so intermediate scrutiny applies. Since the dancers are still able to dance, the restriction on freedom of expression is minimal at most, and the government’s important interest in not finding abandoned underwear in the parking lot is served, therefore the ordinance passes intermediate scrutiny and is constitutional.

I’M IMPRESSED YOU DIDN’T SAY “PASSES THE INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY SNIFF TEST” THERE.

Me too. I’m a model of restraint.

SO THAT’S IT? NO MORE STRIP CLUBS?

None with booze, anyway. Hope you have an unlimited data plan as you walk to the package store.

Till next time, readers, there’s no law that says I can’t express myself freely in the comfort of my own home with the curtains drawn. You can draw your own conclusions.

Sit. Stay. Speak.

Click here to view this post on the website.

We’re just covering United States federal law here, for simplicity’s sake.¹ This is purely for informational purposes and shouldn’t be construed as legal advice, and it’s an introduction at the most. They have entire grad schools just for explaining this stuff in enough depth to do anything with it.

In the United States, law comes from four primary sources: the Constitution, statutes, administrative law, and case law/common law. I’ll explain each briefly and where each party making these laws gets the right to do so, and I’ll link places you can find these laws to read for yourself.

1. The Constitution

First is the Constitution. It lays out the fundamental explicit powers of each branch of federal government and leaves the groundwork for implicit powers, as interpreted by the Supreme Court (see the section on case law below). Broadly speaking, if a government actor wants to take an action, e.g., pass a law, they have to derive the authority to do so from the Constitution, either explicitly or implicitly. In practice, this means that broadly speaking, if the Constitution or SCOTUS don’t say the federal government can do something, they can’t do it. There’s quite a lot of argument over the last two centuries over SCOTUS’ takes on implicit powers, so federal power has varied wildly over the course of its existence. The trend since the Civil War and the Great Depression has been to interpret the Constitution to allow the federal government more authority.

2. Statutes

The second body of law are statutes, as enacted by Congress. Established in Article I of the Constitution, Congress has its explicit powers did noted in article 1, section 8. I mentioned federal authority has greatly expanded as SCOTUS’s interpretation of the Constitution evolves—the understanding of what falls under the heading of “interstate commerce” and “tax” especially have expanded.²

Federal legislation, once passed by Congress and signed or veto–overridden, is sent to the Office of the Federal Register, numbered, and published as slip law.³ Slips are compiled at the end of each Congressional session and published as session law in the Statutes at Large. Slip and session laws are numbered and arranged chronologically in order of enactment.

Every six years, the House of Representatives’ Office of the Law Revision Counsel compiles general and permanent session law, organizes it by subject, and amends or revises the relevant Title of the United States Code. The USC is currently divided into 54 Titles by subject (with Title 53 reserved). Supplements are released annually between new additions. Not all slip and session laws are codified; private laws (as opposed to public laws) and time-limited legislation like annual budgets are not included in the USC. The United States Code is available online at uscode.house.gov or at www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text.

3. Administrative Law

Third is administrative law and regulation, as promulgated by the executive branch under the president.⁴

Administrative law is the body of rules and regulations set up by an administrative body, plus any executive orders or proclamations of the president. This all comes from the executive branch, which, if you remember your Constitution, doesn’t explicitly have the ability to pass law, so they get the authority to do so either by exercising a Constitutional power granted to the president and executive branch, or through a statutory grant of the authority by Congress in what’s called an “enabling act.”⁵

Once an administrative body like the EPA gets the authority to pass regulations, it does so according to the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, a statute found at 5 USC § 551–559. Part of the requirements include a notice period where proposed regulations are presented to the public to allow commentary and discussion by the people to be affected by the proposed regulation.⁶

Proposed and final regulations are published for public viewing in the Federal Register, a daily publication of governmental rules, regulations, and rulings.⁷

Regulations are compiled annually from the Federal Register into the Code of Federal Regulations, or CFR.⁸ The CFR basically stands as the equivalent to the United States Code, but for admin law instead of statute.

Executive orders, proclamations, and Executive Office of the President regulations are also published in the Federal Register and CFR.⁹

More information on a specific administrative body, including internal structure, points of contact, how to make freedom of information act request, and other information can be found through the United States Government Manual.¹⁰ Think of it like your car’s owner’s manual—if you see certain lights or alarms going off, it should tell you who to contact to get it taken care of.

4. Case Law

The fourth source of law is case law.

Case law and common law set precedent for enforcement and interpretation of statute and administrative law through the principle of stare decisis, or standing “by that which is already decided.”¹¹¹²

All Supreme Court precedent is mandatory for inferior courts; Court of Appeals precedent is mandatory in its own circuit and merely persuasive in another circuits. District Courts are the federal-level trial court—the entry point into the court system—and set precedent only within their own jurisdiction. All other jurisdictions may find a persuasive but not mandatory.

There are federal and state level courts, and courts of varying jurisdiction on every level, so this is extremely cursory. Case law is constantly being updated because criminal and civil courts are always full, and there are a metric truckload of courts. I’ll revisit the topic of courts, because they’re a rich topic that I can’t cover in a quarter of a post.

There are a number of paid and free sources for keeping up with case law, and holy wars have broken out among lawyers over which of the paid services is the One True Source of Case Law.¹³ For everyone else, Google Scholar keeps a relatively up-to-date, free to search and view legal database. I wouldn’t trust my life to it being totally up-to-date, but for preliminary research, it’s helpful.

I threw a lot of information at you today, and there’s a lot of reading you can do after this. My goal here was not to exhaustively explain every aspect of government, but to point you in a direction where you could find out from more on your own.¹⁴ A responsible citizen is an informed citizen.

Until next time, sit. Stay. Speak. Good dog.

Click here to view this post on the website.

I was asked on Twitter whether a copyright holder can keep you from selling copies of works that you bought. Basically, if you don’t own the copyright on a textbook, can the holder stop you from selling your copy?

Before we get started, my usual disclaimer applies: this is not legal advice; it’s basic information provided for an educational purpose, so I better not hear anyone relying on this post and solely this post when making any big decisions. Pay a lawyer, get specific and tailored legal advice.

That said, the Copyright Act limits a copyright holder’s exclusive rights to six specific points, enumerated in section 106. Copyright holders have the exclusive right:

• to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
• to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
• to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
• in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
• in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
• in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission. 17 U.S.C. § 106.

That’s why YouTube demonetizes videos with music and why Twitch will mute streams with music playing. If you want to broadcast a song you don’t own, you need a license. Since YouTube and Twitch don’t want to be sued for hosting your unlicensed work, they’ll shut you down proactively. Same requirement of a license applies if you want to perform a script publicly; likewise, fanfiction is out without the copyright holder’s consent.

How this plays out practically can vary wildly. Copyrights are only enforced insofar as the holder brings action to enforce them. This can range from the copyright holder sending a cease-and-desist to hiring the copyright infringer to work on the original IP.

“But Buddy, that doesn’t answer my question! I sold my old video games and textbooks—can the copyright holder stop me?”

Good thought—always question power until you find its limits. 106(3) above says that selling copies of a copyrighted work is an exclusive right of the copyright holder, right?

Actually, no. Copyright holders can’t restrict a secondary market based on copyright¹.

Assuming you acquired your copy of a copyrighted work legally—you did, didn’t you?—you are allowed to sell or dispose of that copy. This is called the first-sale doctrine, codified in Section 109 of the Copyright Act; after the copyright holder transfers a copy of a work to you, they don’t have the right to prevent you from selling, donating, destroying, or otherwise desecrating that copy². So sell your old games and textbooks, there’s nothing to stop you if you got them legally. You aren’t selling anything more than the copy you legally own.³.

Incidentally, I used to work in a university bookstore, and I was one of the people working textbook returns. The company stocking the bookstore makes decisions based on advance sales for next year, new edition publication schedules, and a complex batch of local and regional sales data to determine what they’ll take back and what they won’t. The person at the desk has literally no control and no more information than you, and no ability to appeal for you. So chill. Rent ‘em if you don’t want the risk of keeping them.

If you have any questions about the law or just want to say hi, feel free to reach out on Twitter or email. Until then, sit. Stay. Speak. Good dog.

Click here to view this post on the website.

Don’t fill this out:

Name

Email

Service

Word count

Timeline

Message