Good point. I’m pretty sure you’re right.
And the Band Played On by the late Randy Shilts chronicles the widespread foot dragging in the face of a public health emergency during the early 1980s. There’s mud on everyone’s feet: Reagan was a bit player.
Speaking personally, when I began to wrap my mind around Gay Plague (the term used by the Village Voice, before AIDS was coined), I feared the worst. Sure, there would be lots of money poured into research (and there was). But attitudes towards gays were pretty vicious. A Village Voice columnist noted in passing that homosexuality was the last socially acceptable form of bigotry-- this referred to his generally liberal New York circles. When I mentioned this to a friend he was affronted and stammered out the usual parallels to bestiality. Good people weren’t bigots after all, but very few defended gays.
I figured we would have a probable national quarantine, the opinion of public health officials be damned. William Buckley recommended that all Aids patients be outfitted with a tattoo, so as to warn potential partners.[sup]1[/sup] This was before the tattoo craze struck: tattoos were the province of WWII sailors and former German death camp residents. Dehumanization of gays was par for the course. Newsweek pondered whether and when AIDS would hit mainstream America: it went without saying that gays of course weren’t members of the mainstream.
So why didn’t the US sponsor a Big Round Up? Well there was a balanced yet muscular editorial by the New York Times linking the word “Bigotry” to anti-gay sentiments. That swayed a few elites. And in the White House we had a conservative leader of Evangelicals who… sat on his hands. Reagan could have won plaudits from his base for taking a hard line on the queers. I thought that he would. But by some historical accident the leader of the Christian Right spent decades in Hollywood and happened to have nothing against gays. So while public sentiment was poisonous (albeit embarrassed), no effective agitators stepped forward to channel that energy into an electoral winner.
I think it could have been much much worse. I’m talking Der Trihs worse.
[sup]1[/sup] Cite: Buckley’s 1000 word 1986 op-ed piece in the New York Times. The word “Research” appears nowhere in that article.
IANAL of course, but surely this would fall under fair use, wouldn’t it? These photos are a matter of legitimate public interest, I would think, for certain head-smacking values of “legitimate.”
Well, perhaps in southern states, or if the current federal court system has been sufficiently infiltrated by W. appointees, but otherwise, obviously not, since there are obviously very few fair uses that involve stealing a work in its entirety.
There’s a fair use exception for images that are deemed “newsworthy”.
But political advertising isn’t news. It’s advertising.
Not only that, but Title 17 doesn’t say that you can use anything you want for news reporting and call it fair use. Using a work for news reporting still requires taking into account the four factors relevant to fair use:
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
How was Reagan “responsible” for the AIDS epidemic? AS we know now, the AIDS virus is transmitted by:
-unprotected sexual intercourse by an infected person
-sharing of needles by drug users
- blood transfusions with blood from an infected person
Reagan may have been a bad president, and he may have been a good president. But I don’t see how he could be responsible for the spread of AIDS. These “activists” don’t seem to realize that irresponsible behaviour accounted for most of the infections-that would be saying that “personal responsibility” exists-nah, we can’t have that-nobody is responsible for anything…AIDS just “happens”.
Use of this image in an ad, besides being highly unlikely, seems like it’d match some but not all of these criteria:
- If a PAC uses it, wouldn’t they claim it’s for educational purposes, just educating people about issues? Certainly it’s not commercial usage. (I add this to my list of reasons to hate PACs, of course)
- The nature of the copyrighted work is an informal picture that was not taken in an effort to make money. Not sure what else is relevant about its nature.
- The whole picture would probably be used–would it make a difference if the highly unlikely ad cropped the picture?
- There’s no market for the copyrighted work, so its use wouldn’t affect the market.
That said, the Streisand Effect would almost certainly apply to any lawsuit against this ad that will almost certainly not be made.
Funny that as it turns out, that the person penetrating has a far lower chance of contracting…
Not that there’s a poll on this but for the record I’m voting
- this is a tiny blip that won’t affect anyone’s vote on anything anywhere, and
- they were definitely being douchebags.
Reagan was POTUS when the epidemic was first identified. If you’ve paid any attention to US politics as an adult, you’d know the POTUS is held responsible by the public for everything that happens during his term. And in some cases before his term.
But in this case it gets worse. Reagan and his top people were briefed about this new and deadly epidemic and they decided to take no action. It only killed gay people, so to the Reaganistas it didn’t matter. Time and again HHS Secretary Margaret Heckler brought up the seriousness of the AIDS epidemic during cabinet meetings, and the need for rapid action to save lives, only to be ignored. For her efforts to actually protect the citizens she, and the rest of the cabinet were oath-sworn to protect, she was kicked out. “Promoted” to Ambassador to Ireland, but none the less out if the cabinet.
Surgeon-General C. Everett Koop was the only other Reagan official to speak out on the epidemic. He endured endless attacks from the homophobe right to shut up and resign. But he stayed, kept telling the truth, and helped the people he promised to protect. Unlike the rest of the right-wingers of that era, Dr. Koop had a firm commitment to truth. He was brought in as an anti-abortion idealogue. Yet he refused to publicize studies claiming abortions caused breast cancer because the studies didn’t hold up. When the AIDS epidemic broke out he spoke against it, when the rest of the administration fiddled while Rome burned. The reason Dr. Koop is still one of the most respected MDs in the country is that honesty. He, and Secretary Heckler, were one of the very few lights in the Reagan Administration,
I don’t blame the protestors for flipping off Reagan’s portrait. Compared to the swath of death Reagan consciously decided to let loose, an obscene gesture is nothing.
It was a Katrina type situation. Outside of a few conspiracy nuts, nobody is saying Reagan caused AIDS. But as President, it’s his job to address significant problems that occur during his term of office. There was a major new disease spreading and the Reagan administration effectively ignored it.
As it turns out you gave a whole three pages of fuck. That was very generous of you.
You know who else I haven’t heard from about HIV? Obama.
The pictures show a couple of idiots. I have NOT seen them pop up on Facebook from my extreme RW friends (who I can usually count on to post ANYTHING anti-Obama). So I don’t know how much traction this is getting so far.
At most, I see this getting a couple more people to vote in November if it can be used to get their attention. Some sort of a “Replace Obama, respect Saint RonBo!” type get-out-the-vote message. It could make a little difference in a few locations.
It occurs to me that siding with Obama or the White House would be anathema to the sorts who hate gays, because they hate Obama and the White House too. Siding with the gays against Obama/Reagan/White House would make their little shaved heads esplode.
The late Randy Shilts (author of “And The Band Played On”) described the reaction of the gay community to the Aids epidemic. They ignored it as well..so six of one half dozen of another. Shilts described in great detail how the people who encouraged risky behavior (owners of gay bath houses) would not even discuss the disease-this I find hard to understand.
Hm. I don’t think there was much of an established gay community in the very early 80’s. As far as AIDs goes, there was the small NY paper theNew York Native and you can’t blame its readers for being confused and misinformed.
I’d think Reagan was getting better info.
We also know getting people to change their sex habits, even under threat of death, doesn’t always work.
It’s not an either/or situation. Sprinkle a little confusion and ignorance over this and the right wing can spin it that Obama invited Reagan-hating homosexuals into the White House.
Oh yeah, you’re right. I forgot about the Limbaugh Spin.