Full Text of Project Censored Amicus Letter

Here is the complete Amicus Letter filed with the California Supreme Court, opposing the LA Times’ attempt to destroy my career because I criticized the LAPD, which owned the stock of their parent company.

9 thoughts on “Full Text of Project Censored Amicus Letter

  1. You know what comes to mind? Charlie Hebdo.
    When Charlie Hebdo’s offices were attacked, people were so outraged that donations poured in. IMMEDIATELY. End result? A publication that had relatively minor status (and probably constantly hovered on the edge of insolvency) was thrust into the limelight AND made financially secure in perpetuity. (I picture the debriefing. “Okay. So that didn’t work. In fact, we gave them free advertising. Let’s go to the powerpoint slides …”)
    If these organizations that are now turning out letters at this late date had simply jumped up at the very first instance and defended Ted immediately, it would not only have probably given Ted a day in court a lot sooner, it would have had the secondary effect of teaching everyone that, wow, golly, look at how bullying tactics fail when the “victims” stand up as one and shove back.
    And maybe the powerful would knock off this horseshit.

    I’m glad that Ted is getting some support from “those who matter.” But I still fear that they’re doing it now so that they can have both sides of the cake: Oh, we care about censorship, but not enough to every really, really cause a fuss until it’s well too late to do anything.”

    • Obviously I would have appreciated more institutional support (and from fellow cartoonists) earlier. In fairness, however, the court system made it prohibitive for all the most deep-pocketed organizations to help out. At the trial and appellate court levels, only Amicus Briefs are accepted. Those can cost $10,000 each to prepare, or more. Very few First Amendment groups have that much money available. The California Supreme Court makes it much easier by only accepting Amicus Letters, which are written in normal language. Also, the California Supreme Court is more interested in the political and societal implications of cases. In my case, the trial and Appellate courts pretty much decided they were going to rule against me before I came before them, because it was the LAPD and LA Times and their power and influence in LA are huge.

      • … and LA Times and their power and influence in LA are huge.

        Interesting, that.

        Jefferson got his wish, “were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter”

        But somehow I don’t think that a police state was what he had in mind…

      • Probably not.

        I still can’t get over the fact that a newspaper’s stock can be purchased by a police department, that a newspaper publisher would cozy up to the cops, or that the LA Times would believe anything the LAPD—the biggest lying sacks of shit ever—had to say.

      • Indeed. For those interested, a brief discussion of the role of amici curiae is available here….

        Henri

      • > The Court needs context …

        That is of course true, Ted – but somewhere there is a fine line which I believe to have been crossed.

        It’s not a huge deal, on the whole I definitely approve of Project Censored and applaud their decision to support your cause.

  2. Thanks, Ted ; my neck feels better ! I very much hope the court heeds the Project’s words, but when I read

    It’s outrageous that the law would be used in this way. It harkens back to how powerful government and corporate forces interpreted anti-laws to undermine labour unions and striking workers over a century ago.

    I can’t but think that to the court and those who sponsor it, the above is a success story, rather than a warning example….

    Henri

Leave a Reply