Tweet at Donald Trump and your account may be flagged as ‘potentially abusive’

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:

Tweet at Donald Trump and your account may be flagged as 'potentially abusive' - Bent Corner

Here is the tweet I made in response:

Tweet at Donald Trump and your account may be flagged as 'potentially abusive' - Bent Corner

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.

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 see my Tweets. Their 12-hour limitation is a limitation without distinction.

House Republicans censor art displayed in Capitol building

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.

House Republicans censor art displayed in Capitol building - Bent Corner
No X-Men, no peace!

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?

To quote the great Devon Tracey: “Not All.”

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.

The self-appointed art censors have struck again

Lionhead Studios, the studio responsible for the popular Fable game series, came under fire for an image they posted to Twitter. It’s art taken from the Fable video game franchise and shows an ample-breasted woman holding a tray of what looks to be mugs of oatmeal. The words “The Foaming Jugs” appear at the top of the artwork. Evidently this is a tavern in the game.

The image was posted in honor of #NationalCleavageDay, which according to Wikipedia, is a real thing.

This is what they posted to Twitter:


They later removed it from Twitter and then issued a Twitter apology.

The obnoxious, self-appointed art censors from their ivory towers on Twitter and Tumblr, have struck again. They’ve once again successfully gotten a piece of art removed because they did not like it.

They were successful in getting a variant cover for an upcoming issue of Batgirl canceled because they didn’t like it and didn’t want anyone to be able to buy it, and now they’ve got a company to remove art and apologize for that art simply because they did not like it.

When I come across art I don’t like, which coincidentally enough, very much includes the above image, it doesn’t even occur to me to try to get it removed. Mostly because I’m not rude or obnoxious and I very much realize not everything is created for me or my specific artistic tastes.

People should be free to create and share art they enjoy without censorship from the self-appointed art police.

DC Comics caves, will not publish 'Batgirl' #41 variant cover

A variant cover for Batgirl #41 has some Twitter-people up in arms over the depiction of the Joker with Batgirl. The Joker has his arm around her with a rather large gun in his hand and he’s painting a joker smile on her face. Barbara Gordon, the woman behind the Batgirl mask, looks understandably scared.

It’s a powerful image. It’s an homage to Batman: The Killing Joke, written by Alan Moore and illustrated by enemy of free speech, Brian Bolland.

This cover was commissioned from Brazilian artist Rafael Albuquerque.

To say this cover triggered some Twitter and Tumblr outrage is perhaps an understatement. People outraged by the art even created their own hashtag, #changethecover.

DC Comics has canceled the cover, supposedly at the artist’s request in response to the outrage.

Non-variant cover artwork for “Batgirl” #41.

I can’t imagine demanding that something I don’t like be canceled or changed. If I don’t like the cover to a book or what’s inside the book, I simply don’t buy the book. It wouldn’t even occur to me to demand that it not be published so that other people can’t have it.

That seems like censorship.

Now that DC Comics has bowed to the whim of an angry hashtag, you can expect this type of crap to happen more often. People who want to censor art, thanks to DC Comics, now have the false-perception of power.

If I were in charge at DC Comics, I would have made the Joker artwork the regular, non-variant cover. I would have made the regular cover the variant cover.

That’s how you respond to people who want to censor art: you politely listen to their demands, then do the complete opposite.

Trying to get a comic book writer fired is one of the worst kinds of censorship

Evidently there has been a quasi-organized campaign to get Marvel Comics to fire writer Rick Remender. There’s even a special Twitter hashtag connected with the crusade, #FireRickRemender. The reason some folks want him fired is because they don’t like some of the things he’s written in the current monthly Captain America comic.


This is what Jackie, the person who supposedly created the hashtag mentioned above, had to say about it on her Tumblr blog, Weiner Soldier:


I don’t understand the mindset of trying to get someone fired because you don’t like them or because you don’t like what they wrote. I can’t think of a single scenario where I would want to get another human fired, especially because of their writing. That seems to be one of the worst forms of censorship. If I don’t like something that someone writes, I just don’t read it. It looks pretty straightforward, but it works for me.

Also, if you don’t like something someone wrote, don’t blame the writer, blame the editor. You don’t know what story the editor told the writer to tell, this is especially true when it comes to characters owned by Marvel Comics and their parent company, Disney. If the editors of Captain America didn’t like what Rick Remender wrote, they would have kicked it back and told him to do it again.  I guess they didn’t do that.

When people call for someone to be fired over something they said or wrote, I often wonder how exactly they will be ultimately satisfied. Will a single firing do the trick or do they want a permanent ban on all future employment? For example, say Marvel Comics fired Rick Remender over this, and then DC Comics signed him to an exclusive contract, would people then demand that DC Comics fire him too? What if he left the world of funny books entirely and got a job serving endless salad and breadsticks at Olive Garden? Would he need to be fired from that job too?

When will the get-someone-fired madness end?

Brian Bolland and his Chicago real estate lawyer

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.

Brian Bolland
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.

Evidently not.

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.

Brian Bolland
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 then 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 that 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 and 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 removed before 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. 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, real 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.