I follow Donald Trump on Twitter. I don’t know why I do it. I don’t like Donald Trump. I didn’t vote for Donald Trump. I think most of what he has done since becoming President has been wrong. I guess I follow Donald Trump on Twitter to see all the stupid and unnecessary things he tweets about.
Donald Trump tweeted something yesterday that provoked a response from me:
Here is the tweet I made in response:
Upon leaving the above tweet, I received the following message on Twitter:
We’ve temporarily limited some of your account features.
What’s going on?
Creating a safer environment for people to freely express themselves is critical to the Twitter community, so if behavior that may violate the Twitter Rules is detected, certain account features become limited. We’ve detected some potentially abusive behavior from your account, so only your followers can see your activity on Twitter for the amount of time shown below. Your account will be restored to full functionality in: 12 hours and 0 minutes.
The countdown will begin once you continue to Twitter.
Twitter thinks making fun of Donald Trump is abuse
I called Donald Trump a tiny-handed, thin-skinned douche-nozzle and I’m labeled as potentially abusive. I’m supposed to believe that what I said made Donald Trump’s experience on Twitter feel unsafe? Sorry if I robbed the sensitive orange snowflake of his safe space.
The whole thing is absurd. What I said is factually correct. Donald Trump does have tiny hands. Donald Trump is thin-skinned. Donald Trump is a douche-nozzle. Who knew telling it like it is about an elected official, one who received fewer votes than his opponent, could get you labeled as abusive? Talking shit about your elected officials is as American as no-fault divorce and type 2 diabetes. Twitter is being un-American.
In the end, the joke’s on Twitter. I don’t think anyone other than the people who follow me ever sees my Tweets. The 12-hour limitation is a limitation without distinction.
There’s an area in the U.S. Capitol building, the Cannon tunnel, where members of the House can display artwork created by their constituents. Democratic Representative William Lacy Clay displayed a painting by high school student David Pulphus. The painting depicts the civil unrest experienced in Furgason, Missouri after a white police officer shot and killed a black suspect, gentle giant Michael Brown.
The painting shows people in the street protesting. It shows two police officers depicted as wild boars. It shows a werewolf rocking some red sneaks. There’s also a black man nailed to a cross that looks like the scales of justice weighing the yin-yang symbols. There’s a lot of other things going on in the painting including one woman holding a sign promoting mutants or more accurately, the X-Men.
Although I think the artistic technique is somewhat crude, I like the painting very much. It’s interesting and provokes thought. That’s the greatest compliment that you can bestow on an artist, that their art provoked thought.
Ever since the art has been hung in the Cannon tunnel, it’s been taken down and put back up repeatedly. At least some Republican members of Congress have taken exception to police officers depicted as “pigs.” I don’t think of wild boars as pigs. Not really.
What if wild boars and pigs were the same things? So what?
Even if you depict two police officers as pigs, it doesn’t mean you’re saying that all police officers are pigs. One of the cops is pointing his weapon at the werewolf. Maybe that cop is only trying to protect the protesters from the werewolf. Sadly, unless he loaded his gun with silver bullets, his gun won’t do shit against a werewolf. The other cop might not even be a wild boar. He or she looks like a donkey.
Unfortunately, it looks like this painting is coming down for good. The Architect of the Capitol has determined that the artwork is breaking House rules. Whatever. It’s art censorship.
Censoring art is one of the worst things you can do. If you support art censorship, you might as well put on a dirty robe, grow a beard, and go live in a cave in Afghanistan.
This morning I found yet another email from comic book artist Brian Bolland concerning the whole issue surrounding my blog post over two months ago about a sketch he did at the 2007 New York City Comic Con. The email basically contradicts everything he has said about this matter up until now. He is now saying that the before mentioned Chicago real estate lawyer is his lawyer – even though he said prior that he was not.
This is what he originally told me about the lawyer:
The guy you refer to is A lawyer (apparently a Chicago lawyer) but he is not MY lawyer. I’m not employing anyone. He’s a friend and a comic fan.
3 May 2007
That seemed pretty clear to me. The Chicago real estate lawyer who represented himself as Mr. Bolland’s lawyer not only to me but to my hosting provider was in fact not his lawyer. Mr. Bolland even made the word “my” in uppercase letters. I took that to mean he was super serious about it.
In his most recent email to me, he now sings a very different tune. He says this:
Mr. Caira was duly authorized to represent me in this matter. Although he is not my regular attorney, in this case and for this specific circumstance, he was acting as my representative.
4 May 2007
That just reeks of lawyer speak. As though a Chicago real estate lawyer wrote those words and told Bolland to send them. He also went on to state IN CAPITAL LETTERS that he wanted the entire letter posted anywhere on my blog where I wrote about this whole mess. That’s something I’m just not willing to do. Much of the letter contains facts that I know to be false and untrue.
I don’t put stuff on my blog that I know isn’t true.
My patience has run out.
The truth is I wrote a negative comment about a piece of art that Brian Bolland was paid $150 to do. The man is a professional artist. He ought to be willing to accept just a little bit of negative criticism every once in a while. He certainly seems more than willing to receive praise and admiration. If an artist is willing to be praised, he ought to be willing to be criticized as well. Especially if he deserves it. Otherwise, said artist comes off looking like a thin skinned primadonna. He himself said that the art “was a pretty meagre drawing for the money.”
He also admitted that he “shafted” the guy who commissioned the art. I’m then supposed to believe that I went too far when I wrote that he “ripped off” that same buyer? Not hardly.
I’m tired of getting lied to. Chicago real estate lawyer first told me that he was just a friend of Bolland’s and that Bollard didn’t ask him to do anything. He stated that he was not acting on Bolland’s direction. When I refused to post links to eight (8) images of better looking sketches Bolland did at the same 2007 New York City Comicon, he changed his story and claimed to be Bolland’s lawyer. He then sent me the secret confidential Cease & Desist letter that I supposedly cannot show anyone. He also sent an email to my hosting provider and demanded that my site be taken down.
Chicago real estate lawyer emailed my hosting provider and said:
It is critical that this site and the offending content be removedbefore my client is damaged and my privacy rights are violated any further.
The “privacy rights” he speaks of refers to things like his name, law office telephone number, and his law office fax machine number he out on the Cease & Desist letter. Chicago real estate lawyer also went on to say:
Being that this is content in violation of the law I am notifying you of this situation before it moves to formal litigation in order to give you an opportunity to shut the site down before further damage is done to the name and reputation of Mr. Bolland by these scurrilous accusations.
Scurrilous accusations? They like to contend that by stating that Mr. Bolland “ripped off” the fan by drawing the “meagre” looking (his own description) sketch, people would immediately jump to the conclusion that Brian Bolland is some kind of wanted criminal. Give me a break. They were merely looking for any kind of excuse to silence negative criticism.
He threatened to sue my hosting provider unless my website was shutdown. Chicago real estate lawyer claims to have never said this. I think he was under the impression that my hosting provider wasn’t going to share the email with me. If that’s the case, he was wrong.
So what does this all mean? Well, it means that if Chicago real estate lawyer was indeed representing Bolland in these matters, Bolland cannot make the claim that he did not try to get my website shut down. I was more then willing to give him the benefit of the doubt when he told me that Chicago real estate lawyer was not his lawyer and that he didn’t ask him to do any of this.
Why would Bolland change his position on this? Most likely to protect Chicago real estate lawyer. Evidently, Chicago real estate lawyer shows up at any comic book con in the United States that Bolland makes an appearance. He helps him by running the lines and managing the sketch list. He fetches food for him to eat and beverages for him to drink.
You know, actual lawyer-type stuff.
Yesterday a couple of people in the comment section of my blog brought up the idea that Chicago real estate lawyer could be in trouble with the Illinois State Bar for claiming to represent a client when in fact he doesn’t.
I’m fairly certain Chicago real estate lawyer read those comments.
Not that I planned on perusing any type of complaint against Chicago real estate lawyer with the Illinois State Bar. I’m not a snitch.
This morning I found an email in my inbox from Christopher M. Caira, an attorney claiming to represent comic book artist Brian Bolland. The return email address along with his signature shows that he is from the Chicago law firm Klafter & Burke. Their website shows that they specialize in real estate and taxes.
Evidently, they are expanding their legal scope into the lucrative world of comic book convention commissioned sketch law.
Yesterday this same person attempted to post two comments to my blog. He didn’t identify himself yesterday as a lawyer representing Brian Bolland. In fact, he claimed the complete opposite. He claimed not to speak for Brian Bolland.
His comments were automatically held for moderation because WordPress misidentified them as spam. He attempted to post numerous links within his comments. I have WordPress configured to identify any comment with two or more links to be spam.
It all started about two months ago
This all stems from a post I made on my blog almost two months ago concerning a commissioned sketch Brian Bolland did for a fan at the 2007 New York Comicon. I found the sketch while looking for photos from the convention. The fan (also named Brian) wrote that he paid $150 for it.
The sketch measured approximately 3 by 4 inches.
I believed Brian Bolland overcharged the fan for the sketch. In fact, I wrote that he “ripped off” the fan.
Evidently, Brain Bolland Googled himself last week and found my post. He twice responded to what I wrote. His comments seemed good natured and not the least bit snarky. It seemed that he was admitting that he overcharged the fan for the commission. He wrote, “I feel particularly upset that I’ve shafted a fellow Brian.”
How can he admit that he “shafted” the fan, but then have his lawyer send a threatening email to me demanding that I remove my post? Isn’t shafting someone worse than ripping them off? I’m no wordsmith, but it certainly seems so to me. Maybe it’s just me, but the expression shafted seems to have a pseudo-sexual connotation to it that the phrase “ripped off” just doesn’t have.
If Brian Bolland wanted me to remove my post, why didn’t he just ask me himself? Why engage the services of a lawyer? The truth is that if he had simply asked me nicely to remove the post when he first discovered it, I probably would have done so. I had no malice or ill will towards him.
I do not like to be threatened
All that changed though when he decided to threaten me with legal action. I don’t like to be threatened. I now don’t particularly feel like removing the post.
Christopher M. Caira, working as Brian Bolland’s legal representative asked my hosting provider to shut down my blog.
My hosting provider refused. Caria then asked my hosting provider to remove the post where I said Brian Bolland ripped off a fan. My hosting provider refused.
Caira then asked my hosting provider to remove the Cease and Desist (C&D) letter. Caira claimed that the letter disclosed private information including his personal contact information. Oddly enough, it’s the very same “personal contact information” published on the Klafter & Burke website. I thought it was important to include the C&D letter to show what steps Brian Bolland and his lawyer were taking to silence critical speech. My hosting provider capitulated to this request. They contacted me and asked me to remove the C&D letter. Because I didn’t want to have my blog shut down, I removed the C&D letter. I also began looking for a new hosting provider.