I stumbled across a book recently titled “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder.” The author – many of you will know him – is Vincent Bugliosi, who rose to fame as the man who successfully prosecuted Charles Manson. Bugliosi has also written his fair share of well-received books, including the classic “Helter Skelter” which covers the Manson murders in fascinating detail. As a prosecutor, Bugliosi lost only 1 of the 106 felony cases that he tried. Of the 21 murder cases that he tried, he had a flawless 21 for 21 record.So we’re not talking about a partisan hack here. We’re talking about an accomplished champion of logic who was known and respected both in the legal and the publishing worlds. We’re also talking about an author with a built-in audience.

But Bugliosi points out in the Acknowledgements section to his book that despite the positive commercial prospects of the book, and despite the fact that the big publishing companies all claimed they agreed with the content of the book, none of them would touch it. They claimed that the material was too provocative to be associated with their company brands. Eventually Bugliosi found a smaller publisher in Roger Cooper and Vanguard Press.

“Out of this miasma of fear emerged a man, Roger Cooper, the publisher of this book,” writes Bugliosi. “Who loved America enough and had enough courage to step up to the plate and say, in effect, ‘No matter what, if America is ever to become the nation it once was, this story has to be told.’”

And it’s this “miasma of fear” that I’d like to address today. Reading Bugliosi’s book got me thinking not just about whether or not George W. Bush should be prosecuted for murder, but also about the role of fear as it relates to one’s likelihood to speak openly and freely in a public forum. And while our own quaint industry bears no such significance as the grave matters discussed in Bugliosi’s work, that “miasma of fear” is equally present in our own industry culture. It doesn’t just start and stop with matters that deal with George W. Bush.

The problem boils down to this: the more a person has to lose, the less likely that person will be willing to risk losing it just for the sake of speaking the truth.

Recently I was involved in a discussion on a message board, the topic is irrelevant. The author of the topic asked a question, and I gave an honest response. This led to subsequent discussion, just as it should. There was a disagreement of opinions, but the discussion at first was cordial and, in fact, interesting to myself and I’m sure to others.

But in our industry it seems that the “winning” side of any board debate goes not to the person with the best supported position, but to the person who has the most “friends” who are willing to chime in with support for their pal. This tendency to measure value based only on the largest number really is something close to a disease in this business, but it’s undeniably the way most of this industry operates. It isn’t likely to change soon.

So after the initial exchange of opinions occurred, I could almost hear the ICQ messages being delivered, as factions from various sides no doubt sent the thread to like-minded friends and colleagues in hopes of coming out best by virtue of having the most “support” replies. And this is where the discussion got less interesting.

What started as a discussion of conflicting positions quickly turned into a sea of “I agree with X,” or “Right on, Y!” Whether or not these people really agree with X or Y isn’t the point – what they really intend to do is simply show some support for someone whom they feel is an important professional contact. I show support for you, and then later when I need it, you show support for me. That’s how it’s supposed to work, at least.

So we’re talking spin. You may or may not know this, but when you read any long drawn-out “drama” thread on an adult industry message board, there is an awful lot of lobbying that goes on behind the scenes in support of those threads. The person who appears to have the most support doesn’t necessarily have the position that most people agree with – he or she simply has more contacts who are willing to post in support.

Back to my thread. In the course of the discussion, I felt that one such reply was simply one of these “showing support for my friends” replies, and I wasn’t convinced the author meant what he said. So with tongue in cheek, I called the poster on this – but apparently sarcasm doesn’t translate well online. The result? My response was interpreted incorrectly by one of the poster’s “friends,” who was quick to spout all kinds of profanities in my direction while declaring that his company would never do business with YNOT.

Not that they had ever done business with YNOT in the first place, but no matter.

The point was simple. If I said something online that this person didn’t like, in this case a remark he misinterpreted as a slight against his friend’s business, his response was to try and punish YNOT financially – along with everybody else who works here – by suggesting publicly that YNOT was not worthy of his business. I can only assume the public delivery of this proclamation was intended with the hope that others would follow suit.

Now this incident in particular isn’t a big deal. It’s not in my nature to keep my opinions under wraps out of fear that someone might not do business with me. I do try to present my opinions in a professional manner, and to back them up with some substance – and if I can’t, I’ll probably just keep my opinion in “contemplation mode” until I do have something substantial to say in support of it. If I had let politics dictate my actions with regard to the currently dormant .XXX debate, I never would have been in position to do the right thing and fight aggressively against that proposal right from the start. Generally I feel that you can’t go wrong with a well thought-out and honest opinion, as long as you’re willing to back it up with substance and deliver it with as much professionalism as possible.

But it got me thinking that with an experience like the one I just described, I’m sure many dramaphobic individuals and/or companies would just assume avoid it all the way around. When you consider how easily the individual I described was enraged by my post, it becomes apparent pretty quickly that the only way to avoid these situations entirely is to have no public opinion at all. At least not about anything that has any degree of inherent controversy. If you can’t handle the possibility that someone may choose to punish you and your business for holding an opinion that doesn’t match their own then your only solution is to mimic the behavior of those companies who turned down Bugliosi and refrain from publishing. In other words, don’t post anything with substance.

Maybe this explains a little bit why so many industry threads are full not so much with valuable information or interesting discussions, but are instead packed with three word replies, attempts to be funny unrelated to the topic of the thread, or even just silence. Silence is safe, but opinions are not.

Now I’ve pointed out the problem, so the honest thing to do would be to point to a possible solution. I have a partial one. That answer probably lies somewhere in the realm of moderation of industry message boards. As it stands now, most message boards are not moderated. The result has been that the most aggressive personalities in our industry have dominated the discussions in many cases, often frightening off less aggressive but possibly more interesting posters.

When you enter into any public establishment, there are basic rules of behavior. These rules help assure that the frequenters of that establishment can enjoy a positive experience. For example, you can’t walk into a McDonalds and get in the face of every person there because you don’t like the style of their clothes. Try it, and you’ll be kicked out of the building in short order. I think it would be absolutely inappropriate for the owners of message boards to do anything other than encourage a diversity of opinions, no matter how much those opinions are at odds with the majority of posters. But it’s also appropriate for the owner of a message board to insist that posters treat each other with respect even when they vehemently disagree with the opinions expressed by others. I know that goes against the culture of the Internet, but it doesn’t have to be the culture of the industry.

That might be a good start, and it might bring out some of the posters who at this time aren’t interested in a public flogging just because the guy with the biggest ego and most friends doesn’t like their opinions on the impact of tube sites, or whatever. But what it won’t do is address the “miasma of fear” that keeps some of the brighter minds from posting anything that might cause the kinds of threats against their business that I endured recently. If someone has a solution to that problem, I’d love to hear it.