Do they answer to ANYONE?

Okay, so I got one of those infamous Chick tracts in the office a while ago. This one, called The Crazy Guy, tells the story of a virginal girl who gets a date with a stud who proceeds to inflict her with gonorrheah AND the AIDS virus the first time she has sex, while using a condom.

Now then, the tract goes on to have the doctor make a couple of statements that fly in the face of conventional wisdom, which is even more offensive than his flat “You’re dying and there’s no cure.” revelation:

(a) “Susan, there’s a horrible lie being pushed today. Experts are claiming that you can have “safe sex” if you use a condom. But the truth is, the AIDS virus is so small, it can pass right through a doctor’s surgical gloves.” *

(b) “Researchers have found holes in surgical gloves big enough to allow 10 AIDS viruses to pass through them side by side.”

© “And most condoms are made of the same latex rubber!”

(d) “At a recent meeting of 800sexologists, not a single one said they would trust a condom… to protect them if they had sex with a known HIV infected person” *

(e) When Susan claims it’s horrible since at school they are passing condoms out like candy, the doctor somberly concludes, “Yes, Susan, and I believe millions of young people like you will die because of this!”

So… Millions of young people will die BECAUSE of condoms?!?

The passages above marked with an asterisk (*) are actually cited in the strip - from the Focus On The Family Newsletter, 2/13/92, Pg. 2. Needless to say, I also doubt this as a serious reference for impartial scientific knowledge.

Anyway, the questions I have from this are as follows:

(1) This shit can’t be true. Okay, that isn’t a question, and if this were Jeopardy I would have been scolded by Alex Trebec. So, let me rephrase - SOMEONE please tell me this shit isn’t true?

(2) Does Chick Publications have any obligation to print the truth, especially when it goes against scientific principals and could endanger lives? I realize that the message here is “don’t have sex,” but it could easily be interpreted as “don’t need condoms.”

(3) Can Chick Publications (or any similar company printing lies as facts) be held accountable for this should their disinformation harm someone?

For the record, the story has a nice happy ending - the doctor converts her to Jesus Christ so she won’t go to “that dark, horrible, unspeakable place.” What a caring physician!

NOTE: I think this belongs under GQ because I ask three General Questions here. The fact it is about religion is only an example - all the questions can easily be applied to less “hot button” topics.


Yer pal,
Satan

You expect Jack Chick to stick to the truth? He’s dealing the TRUTH, so the mere truth is never a concern.

Anyone can publish whatever lies they want. If they’re libelous, the publisher can be sued. If someone gets hurt by the information, they can also sue the publisher/author.

Satan:

I can’t answer 1 and I can’t answer 3 for sure (and I’m really battin 1000 here ain’t I?) but, as to number 2, I would think it would fall under “freedom of speech”.

Now, should printing these lies harm anyone, I would THINK, based on successful lawsuits against tabloids in the recent future, yes, they could be held accountable.

And that concludes my idiotic input for the day. I’ll go away now.
Missy…experiencing a Monday, the Sequel…

I suppose you have a question of civil liability. I’ve read some Chick comics and I am still in utter amazement on how much more idiotic they can become.

It would be in the same way that the beef industry sued Oprah for her remarks. They didn’t get their judgement against Oprah. I always thought poetic justice would be Oprah getting stampeded to death by a thousand head of longhorn.

I guess the Trojan company could take Chick and his pinheads to court on a civil suit and bring out scientific evidence of condom use being an important factor in bringing down the STD rate. Realistically, the pharmacutical companies probably wouldn’t even dignify a response to this maniac. That would be my response since I believe there are more educated people in this country than there are pinheads that actually believe in that trash that Chick prints out.


“…send lawyers, guns, and money…”

 Warren Zevon

Oh Good GOD! Recent FUTURE???

Recent Past.

I need a drink…

If AIDS can pass through the doctors gloves…wouldnt it stand to reason the doctors would be aware of this, then by extension of that awareness refuse to treat the infected?

Doctors in emergency medicine routinely come in contact with the blood of the infected…and I havent seen any news reports about them going to the dark unspeakable place!

Gees…and people think porn is the worst thing the kids can find on the bet…

Missy…that’s what comes of watching “Early Edition.” :wink:

I think this comes under the same reason why Britain’s royal family never sues: it would simply draw attention to the original source.

Only the incredibly stupid and/or complete religious fanatics take Chick seriously, everyone else laughs their heads off or shudders in horror. But I think I’d be safe in saying that 99% of the world’s population has never even heard of Chick. So if Trojan sued them, they’d just be handing over a huge lot of free publicity–I think that’s why no one bothers suing them.

  1. It’s not true as far I know. The HIV virus is kind of big and can not fit through the latex molecules of condoms (at least 99.something percent of the time). They are certainly spreading misinformation which brings us to

  2. They, like most religious groups, have absolutly NO obligation to teach the truth. Just look at Kansas and their blatant dismissal of the scientific FACT of evolution.

  3. If someone could prove that their specific misinformation harmed someone I think they would be held liable. You’re right that their message could be interpreted as “Hey kids, don’t accept those crazy free condoms (one of the few GREAT social programs high schools & colleges engage in - saved me a ton of money.) and have hours of crazy, experimental latex-free sex. Just say NO. . .to condoms!” But I don’t know, If a guy’s parents tried to sue them because junior got the HIV virus from having hot gay sex with the star of the chess team, I really don’t think a judge would hold Chick Publications responsible.

  1. It’s not true as far I know. The HIV virus is kind of big and can not fit through the latex molecules of condoms (at least 99.something percent of the time). They are certainly spreading misinformation which brings us to

  2. They, like most religious groups, have absolutly NO obligation to teach the truth. Just look at Kansas and their blatant dismissal of the scientific FACT of evolution.

  3. If someone could prove that their specific misinformation harmed someone I think they would be held liable. You’re right that their message could be interpreted as “Hey kids, don’t accept those crazy free condoms (one of the few GREAT social programs high schools & colleges engage in - saved me a ton of money.) and have hours of crazy, experimental latex-free sex. Just say NO. . .to condoms!” But I don’t know, If a guy’s parents tried to sue them because junior got the HIV virus from having hot gay sex with the star of the chess team, I really don’t think a judge would hold Chick Publications responsible.

With all of the controversy over exactly how the AIDS virus spreads and who is at risk, it’s easy to get away with misinformation. We know one thing for sure, the virus is one of our biggest killers. It is a direct threat to our species and we need to start being very serious about desroying it. We also need to attack those who would put us at greater risk, like Chick.

Bill Gates made me do that.

Ahhh… Jack Chick.

Ever have someone you couldn’t get to quit claiming he was a member of your club?

Jack is famous for believing everything. He’s a great example of a pet peeve of mine, Christians who would rather believe something that they think might support their larger point, regardless of its veracity. “Frozen mammoths show a world-wide flood and freeze.” “The AIDS virus is not stopped by latex.” And shame on Dr. Dobson for propagating that one.

FYI, in case anyone has not heard the rebuttal to that one, yes, the virus is very small, like all viruses, but it’s more or less trapped in the fluids, which can’t fit in the pores of the latex. So it pretty much doesn’t migrate.

I’m against promiscuity, and I don’t have to stoop to bad science to do it. Argghhh… bad science.

It seems to me that IIRC, libel involves proving that the person publicized untrue things, knowing they were false. Hence, many flatly untrue things, like a whole bunch of what Jack says, and what MS says about competitors, etc, never get prosecuted, because they say things that are true in themselves, but fail to really prove the point they were implying that they were making, or it’s very hard to prove they were doing out of malice.

It was noted in the late 80s/early 90s that lambskin condoms do in fact have microscopic openings that could potentially allow passage of the HIV virus.

But that’s not latex, and who really wants to knock boots with a dead sheep on your nob, anyway?

Actually, Sofa King, I use lambskins exclusively. Simply put, I feel like I am fucking a balloon with even the thinnest, most lubed latex jobs and - to put it simply - climax is impossible.

There are also folks allergic to latex who have to rely on membranes as well.

I am tested and not really the promiscuous type, so since my main concern is pregnancy, I’m okay with it. But I know and understand the ramifications of my choice, and not from reading a Chick tract.

Ramifications? :smiley:

A, B, and C are essentially true, but misleading.
Studies have shown that some latex gloves and condoms have holes large enough for the virus to pass, but that doesn’t mean all condoms and gloves, and it doesn’t mean that the risk is significantly increased for any one user. And other studies have refuted those initial findings anyway.
I wrote about this issue quite a bit when I specialized in AIDS reporting in the late '80s, and I remember that these studies did exist and that people immediately used them to their advantage. It’s a classic case of citing the bare facts (i.e. a study said this) and implying much more meaning than is reasonable. That’s a very useful tool for an outfit like Chick.
As for D and E, I don’t know. D sounds plausible, and E is just some comic book character spouting off an opinion.
Thanks to our constitution, you’re allowed to say anything like this you want, no matter how inflammatory. And on the flip side, plenty of organizations are free to insist that you can safely fuck your brains out with anybody on the planet as long as you use a condom. They’re wrong, too.
– Greg, Atlanta

CONDOMS KILL VIRGINS! :smiley: I think any lawsuits would fail because Chick would just say this was to state the message that you shouldn’t have sex until marriage.Sortof an exagerration to prove a point. I had sex with my former husband 8 times while he had AIDS.I am healthy.no,no condoms,we were trying for pregnancy. Obviously,it worked.(see my homepage). Wouldn’t Stan’s child be cute? Theres already a movie about it Satan’s Child!


“Do I Look like an idiot?”-Ronald Reagan.

Orangecakes:
Your home page link didn’t work.
Surely you don’t mean that you knowingly had unprotected sex with someone who has AIDS to try to get pregnant. You just didn’t know he had HIV at the time, right?
I’m very happy for you if everything worked out fine, but let’s not leave the impression that it would be fine to do that intentionally. One happy outcome doesn’t change the statistical likelihood of a tragedy.
– Greg, Atlanta

Greg, orangecakes’ homepage has one typo in it…it’s actually at http://www.homestead.com/abbie4ever/index1.html – she didn’t really have a html page showing her “insex.” I don’t think!

Rewind - WHERE WAS THE MEETING OF THE 800 SEXOLOGISTS? And is that an annual thing???


Sucks to your assmar.