WW PHILLY ’08: CONTROVERSIAL COMICS IN CONSERVATIVE AMERICA PANEL

[MichaelDoran]

Report by Gordon Holmes

Since Janet Jackson’s unscheduled unveiling at Super Bowl XXXVIII, the topic of obscenity in the media has been a heated one. The scrutiny the graphic novel industry has found itself under was the focus of the Controversial Comics in Conservative America panel Saturday at WizardWorld: Philadelphia.

Charles Brownstein, director of the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, opened up the panel explaining how the role of the CBLDF has changed over the years, touching upon the cases of Boiled Angel author Mike Diana (found guilty on three obscenity charges) and comic shop owner Gordon Lee (arrested for the distribution of Alternative Comics #2, which features a nude depiction of Pablo Picasso in a non-sexual context, to a minor).

When describing Diana’s plight, Brownstein said, “As far as his sentence, he was unable to draw in his own home, he was unable to go where children congregate. They treated these lines on paper as if Michael was a menace to society.”

The author of Deep Fried, Jason Yungbluth discussed his frustrations in post 9/11 United States, “A newspaper that claimed to be cutting-edge material with a hip readership didn’t know how to deal with homosexuals, anything that touches on race, conversations about the war. This ultimately got me fired.”

Doug Paskiewicz (Arsenic Lullabye) offered an alternate viewpoint saying, “I think it’s a little disingenuous to put out something cutting-edge and be surprised or shocked when people are shocked by it.

“Put out a story that you think is good, that’s your job. If you’re making it controversial just to sell you’re going the wrong way. My comics are controversial because that’s what I think is funny.”

The creator of Freedom Unleashed, Craig Blake, made the argument that the ones with the problems with content in comics aren’t the comic readers, “Comic book readers are some of the most liberal people out there, it’s the people who don’t read comic books who are opening one up and freaking out.”

Paskiewicz touched upon the best defense for questionable contact by saying, “The best defense is to have something to say. Say something good and you’ll have like-minded people standing up for you.”

The controversy over the depiction of the Islamic prophet Muhammad in cartoons and comics was discussed by Jason Yungbluth. He described his personal show of solidarity, “I did a cartoon showing a soldier who had no arms, no legs, and no head right next to caricature of Mohammad drawn to look like a cow who was pouring bacon down his throat.”

To close up the panel, Craig Blake answered a question about people assuming comics are for kids by saying, “Nowadays, I think most comics aren’t for kids.”

[Xhumation]

Comic books suffer from the same syndrome as videogames

Yes. at some point they were designed for a younger market but that time has passed. if most parents would take a small glance at the ratings system of at the content of whatever form of media they expose their kids of themselves to. we wouldnt have this problem.

Controversy is as big as the mind of an individual (or a community) is small

[ThatNickGuy]

I can't say I can argue with Blake's point about comics not being for kids. You look at a lot of the iconic character books, from Batman to Spider-Man and they just don't work.

Heck, look at something like Infinite Crisis. The deaths in that weren't just mature, they were GORY. I'm looking at Psycho Pirate's death, particuarly. Really, anything that either Superboy-Prime or Black Adam did in that series are good examples.

The more I think about it, the more I wonder...should comics have not a Comic Authority, but a Ratings Board, like movies?

[batmansgirl]

Originally Posted by ThatNickGuy

The more I think about it, the more I wonder...should comics have not a Comic Authority, but a Ratings Board, like movies?

I'm really confused by your question. Marvel has its own ratings system, but DC does not. (I wish they would.)

[avery]

The more I think about it, the more I wonder...should comics have not a Comic Authority, but a Ratings Board, like movies?[/quote]


Do novels? Poetry? Short Stories? Any type of fiction? No.

Neither should comics.

[CoreyB]

Originally Posted by MichaelDoran

Report by Gordon Holmes

The creator of Freedom Unleashed, Craig Blake, made the argument that the ones with the problems with content in comics aren’t the comic readers, “Comic book readers are some of the most liberal people out there[...]"

I used to think that too but these days I see a lot of super-hero comic readers, which inarguably make up the majority of comic readers, who seem to have a lot of pretty conservative leanings. A lot of them only read super-hero comics, have no interest in anything else, and are longtime Republicans. Maybe I'm just chatting with a vocal minority, though.

[Unit99]

Originally Posted by CoreyB

I used to think that too but these days I see a lot of super-hero comic readers, which inarguably make up the majority of comic readers, who seem to have a lot of pretty conservative leanings. A lot of them only read super-hero comics, have no interest in anything else, and are longtime Republicans. Maybe I'm just chatting with a vocal minority, though.

I can understand your point. But speaking from my own experence I have three good friends who are in the "conservative Republican" arena and they not only read DC/MARVEL superhero comics but also enjoy non superhero's (comics) such as "Buffy" "Dark Horse: Star Wars Line" "Punisher MAX" "100 Bullets" "Crossing Midnight" "Scalped" and one of them believe it or not is a huge fan of Wood's DMZ! (Yeah I didn't believe him at first, but then he went into this long conversation telling me how he enjoyed it.)
On the the graphic novel front some of there favorties are "Talent" "Blanket's" Lost Girls" "V for Vendetta" and "Queen & Country" As for myself I am NOT a Republican, but a registered Independent who catches slack from both my Republican & Democrat comic friends for not buying enough Superhero comics. For instance the other day they laughed at me for buying a copy of Mark Murphy's "House of Java."

[Unit99]

Originally Posted by Xhumation

Comic books suffer from the same syndrome as videogames

Yes. at some point they were designed for a younger market but that time has passed. if most parents would take a small glance at the ratings system of at the content of whatever form of media they expose their kids of themselves to. we wouldnt have this problem.

Controversy is as big as the mind of an individual (or a community) is small

I totally agree with what you said above. Over the years Ive come to believe the main reason videogames & comics have this problem with "certian adults" is beacuse the characters are animated. Ive had several arguments with people in my family who say for instance "They shouldn't put shows like The Simpsons on beacuse it is bad for childern." Then I say "Just beacuse something is animated dosen't mean its aimed at childern."

[Alexjh]

I don't buy any DC comics except bits and bobs out the bargain bin but Martian Manhunter (along with the Question) are two characters that I'd be willing to change that policy for if it was well written enough in an ongoing.

I think that he has the same problem that a large number of DC characters have from my perspective - they don't have any specific purpose in the world. Batman is by a thousand miles the strongest DC character concept wise just because its very clear what he does - he fights a one man war against crime.

To me, the Jonn, Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Flash (and even to an extent Superman who avoids the full trap just due to being that iconic) and a lot of DC characters rely on their origin and powers too heavily when there isn't that much about them to tell. They all really need a strong plausible supporting cast and a direction that extends beyond 'and this week hero x fights an evil version of himself'. It's all very well having a story but if that story doesn't ever achieve anything then the characters will never reach their potential.

[AJ Ryan]

I disagree with the notion that comic readers are any more or less "liberal" than anyone else.

Liking comics does not have anything to do with political affiliation or social views.The problem at hand is ignorance and fear, not conservatism. Those aren't the same thing and they shouldn't be treated as such.

Just because you have a certain kind of socio-political stance does not mean you can't like things that you don't agree with it. For instance I doubt Alan Moore and I would share many views on how a society should be run, but that has absolutely no baring on how much I enjoy and appreciate his work.
As an example, I thought V for Vendetta (the comic) was brilliant and I was offended at the movie version because I felt like liberal American democrats had censored and perverted what would have likely been a much more controversial story than the one they created.

The basis for trying to restrict what people can put in comics or any other kind of print is not liberal or conservative, it is just fear mongering in order to get people to agree with you.

In the case of Boiled Angel, if the man in any way made the comic available to minors while he was employed by a school, then I don't really have much sympathy for him because that is and should be illegal. However, unless he purposely presented obscene material to minors, there is no call for the sentence he was given or the fairly absurd punishment of not allowing him to draw.

[Mundungus]

They're right on the nail about it. The people who freak out over supposedly obscene content are those with no history or relationship in the industry and just come across it, usually by accident, and decide to raise a fuss about it.

It's kind of low brow and tasteless, but that's humanity these days.

[BamaRainbow]

Originally Posted by AJ Ryan

I disagree with the notion that comic readers are any more or less "liberal" than anyone else.

Liking comics does not have anything to do with political affiliation or social views.The problem at hand is ignorance and fear, not conservatism. Those aren't the same thing and they shouldn't be treated as such.

Just because you have a certain kind of socio-political stance does not mean you can't like things that you don't agree with it. For instance I doubt Alan Moore and I would share many views on how a society should be run, but that has absolutely no baring on how much I enjoy and appreciate his work.
As an example, I thought V for Vendetta (the comic) was brilliant and I was offended at the movie version because I felt like liberal American democrats had censored and perverted what would have likely been a much more controversial story than the one they created.

The basis for trying to restrict what people can put in comics or any other kind of print is not liberal or conservative, it is just fear mongering in order to get people to agree with you.

In the case of Boiled Angel, if the man in any way made the comic available to minors while he was employed by a school, then I don't really have much sympathy for him because that is and should be illegal. However, unless he purposely presented obscene material to minors, there is no call for the sentence he was given or the fairly absurd punishment of not allowing him to draw.

First, V for Vendetta was not "censored and perverted" by "liberal American democrats". The film's biggest problem was a LARGE film audience which has little to no understanding of the Guy Fawkes imagery (outside the UK, the only people likely to understand the connection would be history buffs, and the UK makes up only a small percentage of the worldwide movie audience) and so a great deal of reworking (to put it mildly) was needed to give the film a bit more of a universal appeal. Also, the idea that any "liberal" would feel the film needed to be "censored and perverted" proves that you completely miss the film (and the GN's) point--that FASCISM (a rightwing totalitarian idea) is BAD. Moore wrote the original story as a reaction to the Thatcher government in the UK and how he saw the Conservatives' turning their backs on the social system that had been intended to protect all Britons and the Conservatives' apparent demonizing racial minorities. Moore wanted to warn people how easy it was for freedoms and liberties to be stolen away in the name of "security" and "law and order" (lessons which Moore believed had been forgotten less than a generation after WWII--Mussolini and Hitler both came to power through slowly eroding civil rights and liberties in the name of security and order). The world of V was one in which a Thatcherite-style government managed to gain power and then keep it permanently. When the filmmakers began work, they wanted to minimize the GN's original anti-Thatcherism (and, by and large, they succeeded on that point by making the Party much more anonymous--conservatives could view the Party as being a Stalinist-style system, liberals could view the Party as more Hitlerian).
Second, regarding Mike Diana and Boiled Angel, do a bit of research. He was ALLEGED to have left some copies of his work at the school in which he worked as a janitor (he'd been using the school's photocopier) but there's no EVIDENCE that any of his work ever came into the hands of any minors. However, what initially led to his being charged was the fact that, in 1991, a police officer, investigating a murder, came across a copy of Boiled Angel and contacted Diana, informed him of being a suspect and requesting a blood sample. The real killer was later caught and Diana was not subjected to further action. The police officer, however, got more copies of Boiled Angel and sent them to the Florida State's Attorney's office where they sat FOR TWO YEARS. That's when the Asst State's Attorney found the books and sent a letter to Diana informing him that he was being charge with three counts of obscenity (one count for publishing, one for distributing, one for advertising). As part of Diana's sentencing, he was prohibited from having ANY contact with ANY children SOLELY for DRAWING.

[MrToady12]

To close up the panel, Craig Blake answered a question about people assuming comics are for kids by saying, “Nowadays, I think most comics aren’t for kids.”

In the 70's we had moments like the Yellowjacket/ Wasp slap, Tony Stark's alcoholism and sex addiction (guy in a hot tub full of women - sure, no orgies here), and books like Howard the Duck, Man-Thing, Omega the Unknown etc. They were sophisticated stories for that audience of kids then and we handled it, it didn't push us away as an audience.

Comics today, with Ant Man sex scenes, Sue Dibny rape, Civil Wars, transgender Machine Man's, and the like are no more controversial/ inaccessible to today's kids. They're raised on HBO, Reality TV, Grand Theft Auto, and Bloodrayne 2 DVDs etc. They are more than mature enough to handle anything we comic book geeks think can be thrown at them (which is a pity, but no child has ever been raised in an "innocent" world). It's not that comics aren't for kids, it's that kids aren't interested in comics with everything else out there.

But let's put it into perspective - there is a lot more good in comics for kids today than bad. Off the top of my head (and only highlighting comics I read) - Superman in Action Comics taught us tolerance recently with his adventures with the LSH, Fantastic Four still teaches us that family prevails under any conditions, Captain America still stands for freedom no matter who wears the mask, Batman teaches us that even the most dysfunctional parent still loves their children, and the Lone Ranger still doesn't kill, no matter what.

Cheers

[Cray_ws]

Originally Posted by AJ Ryan

I disagree with the notion that comic readers are any more or less "liberal" than anyone else.

Liking comics does not have anything to do with political affiliation or social views.The problem at hand is ignorance and fear, not conservatism. Those aren't the same thing and they shouldn't be treated as such.

Just because you have a certain kind of socio-political stance does not mean you can't like things that you don't agree with it..........The basis for trying to restrict what people can put in comics or any other kind of print is not liberal or conservative, it is just fear mongering in order to get people to agree with you.

I agree wholeheartedly with your statements.

Originally Posted by Xhumation

Comic books suffer from the same syndrome as videogames

Yes. at some point they were designed for a younger market but that time has passed. if most parents would take a small glance at the ratings system of at the content of whatever form of media they expose their kids of themselves to. we wouldnt have this problem.

Controversy is as big as the mind of an individual (or a community) is small

I agree the syndrome is similiar, but the difference is that video games doesn't suffer from diversity. It's not beholden to one type of genre of games aimed at kids like Super Mario Bros, Sonic the Hedgehog, or Crash Bandicoot. If the video game market wasted 40 years of its creativity in a kiddie-aimed genre, it would be in the same dire situation as comic books, maybe even worse considering the price of games.

Originally Posted by Unit99

Over the years Ive come to believe the main reason videogames & comics have this problem with "certian adults" is beacuse the characters are animated. Ive had several arguments with people in my family who say for instance "They shouldn't put shows like The Simpsons on beacuse it is bad for childern." Then I say "Just beacuse something is animated dosen't mean its aimed at childern."

Simpsons is doing a far greater service to the comic book community than say Spider-man, Iron man, Hulk movies because Simpson series is openning peoples eyes about the art and story. Its showing American audience that you can have a comedy that appeals to adults and have the child-like innocent animation. That's entirely deliberate on Matt Groening's to contrast the animation style with the quality of the comedy. Quite frankly we need more animated shows that appeal to adults, they don't nescessarily have to be comedies or be presented in a child-like animation. I would love to see Brubaker's Criminal be picked up as animated series.

[Coming Curse]

Originally Posted by avery

Do novels? Poetry? Short Stories? Any type of fiction? No.

Movies and television shows which tell stories are "fiction." So yes.

[Bullet_Train]

Originally Posted by Coming Curse

Movies and television shows which tell stories are "fiction." So yes.

Ok, but that's two forms. Whereas novels can be bought by anyone. Novels involving sexually explicit acts or extreme descriptions of violence. Why are there no ratings on novels? Im not pushing for ratings; because I think its a PARENTS job to regulate what their children access, not a company's. But parents are lazy and then like to blame others for short comings. We live in a scapegoating society and its terrible. Maybe one day we'll see an age where people dont see things that are drawn as inherently for children, until then its our duty to join organizations that fight the small-minded hordes that attempt to belittle freedom of speech simply because they find something offensive. If everything that everyone found offensive was banned, no one would ever write anything. Hell, no one would talk.

[SmileOnADog]

Originally Posted by CoreyB

I used to think that too but these days I see a lot of super-hero comic readers, which inarguably make up the majority of comic readers, who seem to have a lot of pretty conservative leanings. A lot of them only read super-hero comics, have no interest in anything else, and are longtime Republicans. Maybe I'm just chatting with a vocal minority, though.

I'm as liberal as they come, what Judd Winick refered to on Real World 3 as a "bed wetting liberal" and I always thought of the super-hero ( and I don't count the Punisher as a hero) as pretty liberal characters. The X-Men have alwatys been a gay metaphor and in the 80's Captain America was left if not slightly left of center.

[Nas-Vell]

Originally Posted by Bullet_Train

Ok, but that's two forms. Whereas novels can be bought by anyone. Novels involving sexually explicit acts or extreme descriptions of violence. Why are there no ratings on novels? Im not pushing for ratings; because I think its a PARENTS job to regulate what their children access, not a company's. But parents are lazy and then like to blame others for short comings. We live in a scapegoating society and its terrible. Maybe one day we'll see an age where people dont see things that are drawn as inherently for children, until then its our duty to join organizations that fight the small-minded hordes that attempt to belittle freedom of speech simply because they find something offensive. If everything that everyone found offensive was banned, no one would ever write anything. Hell, no one would talk.

Most everyone has said the things I wanted to say here, so I'm just going to say that I pretty much agree with what Bullet_Train said, above. I work in a comic store and I see cases of parents who don't want their children to see even a drop of blood, and parents who don't mind if their kids see full frontal nudity. Both are entitled to their methods of raising their kids, of course, but I was raised with pretty much open exposure to all kinds of visuals (except actual pornography). I read a lot as a kid, and I don't remember ever being regulated by my parents. Ironically, I think that that's because my parents assumed (and probably still assume) that comics (though I read books as well) were a medium for children and were completely innocent.

I recall the first time I saw an early issue of Spawn as a kid. It wasn't shocking that it was gory (I'd seen violence on television), but it was sort of exhilarating, in that this medium which had been filled with colorful costumes and whatnot could also express violence and obscenity, just like movies. Years later I would learn of more sophisticated works than the likes of McFarlane's Spawn (such as Watchmen), and thankfully so.

Comics are literature, folks, and literature allows us to express our views, and the views of others, both subversively and candidly without cause for too much concern. Wow. Apparently I did still have something to say.

[Daniel98115]

I have a strong suspicion that a lot of what went on in this panel was left out of the summary Newsarama posted.

It is very easy to take the only two examples that I'm aware of and that CBLDF has provided and build a panel around it, decrying the threat so-called conservative America poses to the comics world.

How about the censorship practiced every day by the Liberal publishers and editors and the Liberal comic book store owners? Is anyone interested in that topic? I doubt it.

Examples:

1. IDW just recently published a work produced by Charlie Foxtrot Entertainment, titled "Finding Peace". When I went to the IDW website, the only reference I could find to it was buried in the website. The title isn't even listed in IDW's "Titles" section. Newsarama was good enough to post a 50-some-odd page preview of the work, which proves it to be an outstanding book. Buy why the lack of promotion at IDW's website? Could it be that the book doesn't meet someone's preconceived notions of the American military in the Middle East?

2. Another Charlie Foxtrot Entertainment book, titled "Children of the Grave" is being re-published in color by IDW. Again, no promotion. Why?

3. I've only found one comic shop that actually stocked "Children of the Grave". And I'm not seeing Finding Peace on any shelves at all. Is it censorship of a shop refuses to stock a book because of its content?

4. Go back to the Free Comic Book day a few years back when Chuck Dixon wrote a book titled "American Power" showing a flag clad hero knocking Osama bin Laden on his ass. Site unseen, the comics world went berserk, attacking the work without ever seeing a single panel. CrossGen went under and the book never got distributed.

5. In a world where, day after day, Islamic radicals strap bombs to themselves and kill innocents, never has the comics world dealt with this threat. However, DC did find time and resources to publish a two issue Superman arc depicting a violent Christian sect. Interesting world-view, that one.

I will recognize that comics publishers are marketing what those who buy their books want to read. No problem with that, and I know what to expect when I see a so-called controversial book. More than likely, it will denigrate America government and American business, make America's military personnel out to be the enemy of peace and freedom, mock faithful Christians, and generally attack everything that smacks of traditional American values. The reason being, as was noted earlier, the comic buying public is overwhelmingly Left of center, politically speaking. What I would like to see is more diversity of thought, among the publishers, editors, artists, writers, store owners, and readers.

Doug Paskiewicz hit the nail on the head when he said, “I think it’s a little disingenuous to put out something cutting-edge and be surprised or shocked when people are shocked by it." Was "Piss Christ" created so as not to get a reaction? What about the feces and vagina festooned image of the Virgin Mary? Was that created so as not to be controversial?

Here's to hoping that a panel similar in nature to this one happens at the San Diego Comic Con. I'd love to be there when a room full of people who all think the same thing about culture & politics go on and on about the scary evil conservatives trying to shut down comics. All the while, publishers, despite recent economic events, are positive about the future of comics.

Things that make you go ... HMMMMM......

[Daniel98115]

"Whereas novels can be bought by anyone. Novels involving sexually explicit acts or extreme descriptions of violence. Why are there no ratings on novels?"

You're kidding, right? How many children do you ever see browsing the Literature section at Borders or Barnes & Noble. How many 10 year olds do you see taking down and flipping through "Sons & Lovers" or Nicholson Baker's "Vox"? In case you haven't noticed, the ads in comics aren't really targeting adults (except maybe those Old Spice ads - yowza).

The ratings aren't meant to keep kids away. They are meant to help parents make informed decisions on what their kids are picking up while browsing a comic shop's or bookstore's magazine shelves.

[Nat Gertler]

You do realize that publishing something means you're not censoring it, right? And that not publicizing doesn't mean censoring it either (and may well mean that you're working as a publisher for hire - the book was a co-publication of Charlie Foxtrot, so publicity may well not have been part of the deal)? And that people stating their dislike for something is not censorship; quite the opposite, it's the exercise of free speech. And that retailers choosing what to order isn't censorship; for most shops, carrying everything would be a quick trip to bankruptcy.

[Death__Ray]

Originally Posted by Daniel98115

I have a strong suspicion that a lot of what went on in this panel was left out of the summary Newsarama posted.

It is very easy to take the only two examples that I'm aware of and that CBLDF has provided and build a panel around it, decrying the threat so-called conservative America poses to the comics world.

How about the censorship practiced every day by the Liberal publishers and editors and the Liberal comic book store owners? Is anyone interested in that topic? I doubt it.
.

I was on this panel (I'm Jason Yungbluth), and the perils of PC were definitely addressed. I was fired from a local Gannet-owned weekly paper because of a strip I drew about George Bush that riled some local X-tians, but that incident (and others I had with the editor) would more appropriately be chalked up to political correctness than to the local school marm getting a bee in her bonnet.

One thing I tried to emphasize on the panel, but probably did not get across well enough, was my response to Doug's opinion that " it’s a little disingenuous to put out something cutting-edge and be surprised or shocked when people are shocked by it." Although the strip that got me fired (and others that caused controversy at the paper) was intended to be provocative (as all good editorial strips aspire to be), it was not pointlessly shocking. The problem in this country is not with a parochial-minded audience, but with the gate keepsrs of information (TV stations, newspaper editors, etc) who allege to want to bring fresh voices and perspectives into the world but who cut the nuts off a new idea behind the scenes as often as they can lest someone be afraid to buy a jar of pickles from their sponsor.

Obviously if you take the king's schilling you must do the king's bidding, but creators are very often hamstrung by hypocrites who are doing anything but giving the full story to their audience. When a cable news network makes a massive and focused effort to make White House propaganda a part of America's daily news diet over a period of years, it is essential that equally forceful voices of opposition be allowed to push back. Sadly, the newspaper I worked for only pretended to want an editorial cartoonist. What they wanted was The Family Circus with donkeys and elephants.

[Nat Gertler]

Originally Posted by Daniel98115

It is very easy to take the only two examples that I'm aware of and that CBLDF has provided and build a panel around it, decrying the threat so-called conservative America poses to the comics world.

By the way, if those are the only two examples that you're aware of, you may want to study up on the topic a bit more. The conviction and imprisonment of Jesus Castillo in Texas, the sentencing of the owners of Planet Comics in Oklahoma, and so on are cases where the forces of law have been brought in.