Politics and Comics

Originally published August 18, 1995, in Comics Buyer’s Guide #1135

Ah, the first stirring of a Presidential election, when fear is in the air and a young man’s fancy turns to pointless issues and repressions. Ah to be a liberal now that the stink is here.

There’s been discussion in the past over the notion that comic books might be made a major target of politicking and repression. Singled out for approbation in a manner evocative of the 1950s when politicians with presidential aspirations decided to use the government’s resources to entertain abridgement of the First Amendment. You know—kind of like now.

Part of the argument put forward was that comics were an easy target because we lack the shields, the power (wow, we sound like a battered starship) and the overall strength of resources or character to withstand a frontal assault by the protectors of the country’s morality and youth.

At the moment, there’s only two major players in the industry with serious financial muscle and influence who might be able to go toe-to-toe with Washington power brokers. One is Ron Perelman. But if you think Perelman would go to the mat for the right of Omaha or Cherry Poptart to be published, you’re seriously deluding yourself.

Chances are he wouldn’t even go out on a limb for Marvel Comics itself if it came under fire; if the current line ran afoul of censors, he could easily shut the whole thing down and just reprint books from thirty years ago. Get rid of the financial drain caused by editors, freelancers, royalty and/or incentive payments, health care, etc. All that would be needed would be one editor to oversee the reprints and that’s it.

Perelman defend comics? Get real. I’d be surprised if he even reads them. Jerry Calabrese doesn’t, according to an article in Direct magazine, and he’s the company president.

The only other power player who comes to mind is Steve Geppi. As has been long anticipated, Diamond has brought both Image and Dark Horse into line with exclusive agenting deals. This of course was Image and Dark Horse’s call to make, which they did—apparently unbothered by the notion that they’ve just handed the keys to the direct market over to one individual.

Not to give a vote of No Confidence to Capital City’s John Davis and Milton Griepp, but there’s no way on God’s green earth that Capital can continue to be any sort of major force in direct sales distribution. (As of this writing, they haven’t filed a suit against Image and Dark Horse. But they probably will. Heck, by the time this sees print in a week or so, it might even be settled.)

If (when) that happens and Capital pulls out entirely, then that means that if a comic isn’t worth Diamond’s time or if Steve has serious objections to the content (as has happened in the past), it doesn’t get distributed. Hopefully that won’t ever happen. Hopefully. Except that “ever” is a long, long time.

Also makes him a terrific target. If the censors realize that Steve holds so many cards, they may try to knock his deck loose. It’s simple efficiency. There’s dozens of publishers, hundreds of creators, thousands of stores.

And one major distributor.

Where would you concentrate your efforts?

So as we move away from Steve Geppi, potentially staring like Daffy Duck into a double-barreled shotgun and yelling “Milton Season!” to no avail, we consider the current mood of the country vis a vis free expression.

Not looking real good, is it?

The entire business of prayer in schools is a whole separate matter, treading as it does into the separation of church and state. Clinton put forward a position statement on the entire matter which seems to have quelled matters on that front temporarily, although I don’t pretend to be learned enough to know for sure whether Clinton was correct or whether he simply found a nice compromise to mollify the zealots.

As an aside—the separation of church and state always seems to me more in the category of an idealized situation rather than truthful application. Church and state commingle all the time. I mean, sure, there are the obvious things like government offices shutting down for religious observations. But there’s the subtle stuff, too. Like—I dunno—prostitution.

I was put in mind of this doing the whole Hugh Grant nonsense. While I was busy wondering if any TV news station thought to cover the “story” with a clip of a shocked Mary Tyler Moore saying, “Oh, Mr. Grant!” I was also thinking about what George Carlin observed in regards to the world’s oldest, and most illegal, profession: “Selling is legal. Sex is legal. How can selling sex be illegal?” (Actually, he put it a bit more graphically, but the point is still made.) And the reason it’s illegal, bottom line, is that it offends the sensibilities of God-fearing people everywhere.

What they should do is make prostitution legal. Tack it onto the responsibilities of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. I think the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Floozies is somewhat lilting. If høøkërš are licensed and their activities taxed, we could probably clear the national debt. At the very least there would be money for those things the government is now trying to eliminate. The notion of Barney the Dinosaur being saved through the diligence of call girls has a certain loopy symmetry to it.

Not to mention that if the Bureau had sent several dozen really attractive høøkërš into that Waco business, instead of the Feds, why, that might have had a whole different outcome.

You know, I may have had more bizarre digressions in this column, but none immediately spring to mind. Geez, where was I? Oh yes, the First Amendment.

The two current challenges on the floor are the flag-burning amendment, and the V-chip.

Flag burning was a hot topic of discussion up until the Supreme Court ruled a few years back that it was covered under the right of free expression. You remember free expression. Free expression is that right exercised by some in their endeavors to deprive others of theirs.

Once the Court stated that flag burning was acceptable (albeit tacky), that took some of the fun out of it. Certainly it ceased making it newsworthy, and since one of the points of protest is to attract attention, flag burning was robbed of its cachet.

But as we roll towards the 1996 elections, in which a minority of the country’s population will decide how the whole place will be run, flag burning showed up again. It’s a glorious non-issue in that it’s immediately polarizing. Anyone who supports the right to burn the flag can immediately be labeled as unpatriotic. And since we deal in politics of smears rather than issues (since the former works and the latter makes boring sound bites) any disparaging label is a good one.

It doesn’t matter that this country hinges on the right of free expression. Fighting for that right means battling to support things one finds personally repellant. As we become continually self-absorbed and self-directed, this becomes more problematic. If we don’t like it, we want it to stop and go away. The fact is that supporting any abridgement of free expression is, in fact, the unpatriotic act.

Think of the repressed countries wherein such an action would be grounds for arrest, jail time, and other penalties. Take pride in a burning flag, because it symbolizes a country where freedom is so paramount that we guarantee ourselves the right to criticize the government openly. At least, for the moment.

Then there’s the V-chip. This is the new chip that would be installed in new televisions which would enable parents to control television viewing by eliminating the ability of certain programs to be seen in their house.

I had no problem with this at first. No more so than with hotels where you can call down to the front desk and tell them that you don’t want certain movies or channels available for viewing in the room. Plus, it took out of the censors’ hands one of their most popular complaints. Apparently unaware that TV sets have on/off switches or channel changers, the censors complain that these tools plus their own disciplinary powers are insufficient to prevent their kids from viewing material they, the parents, find unacceptable. Nor does the notion that they could—y’know—not own a TV ever get brought up.

So, fine. So the parents can insulate their kids to their heart’s content through the miracle of modern technology. Why not, if that’s what they want to do?

But now I understand that the V-chip requires some sort of ratings system. I am, frankly, at a loss to understand why.

Every television program these days come with code-numbers for easy setting of VCRs. So why can’t a V-chip, or a small freestanding device, be created that ties in with that? Because it costs more? Because it would be more effort? Well, tough. Where is it written that regulation of thought should be cheap and easy?

Instead the television industry finds itself facing with a ratings system, centered around violence. This is a catastrophically bad idea because it’s all relative. What’s violence? Shooting? Punching? Stabbing? Is a TV detective punching one guy five times the same level of violence as the same detective shooting five guys one time? Is the cartoon violence of The Mask lumped into the same category as Die Hard II? Is a Road Runner cartoon as violent as an episode of Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers? What about the evening news?

To say nothing of sex (which will factor in, never fear). Does a “very special” episode of Blossom the same rating as a torrid episode of NYPD Blue? For that matter, does NYPD Blue get a different rating for an episode that has less violence and no sex, in comparison to another episode that has more? And what about soap operas?

Creators of TV programs would have to tailor their programs to match certain codes and labels (as if dealing with Standards and Practices now isn’t hassle enough). And hey, just imagine: If TV shows with more “intense” labels get higher ratings (just as films rated PG-13 or R are the two most popular with movie-goers), sex and/or violence might be added for the purpose of getting a more adult label. Just as sex and profanity are included in films to get the more audience-attractive PG-13 and R ratings.

It’s always interesting when attempts to wipe something out result in more of what the censors were trying to eliminate.

The point of all the foregoing is as follows: As of this writing, the freedom-abridging anti-flag-burning amendment is cruising through the House and Senate. And the TV industry, rather than rejecting the concept of ratings out of hand, appears to be considering the matter and ways such a thing could be implemented. (If there’s a major protest being mounted, I haven’t heard about it.) Clinton, who suffered PR burns from his close ties with show business folks, has supported the V-chip.

With all that on the table, if they come after the comics industry, demanding that ratings be instituted, that certain titles no longer be distributed, will we fight? Or will we fold like a busted card table? If the censors can steam roll over the First Amendment in the name of politics and patriotism, and make the TV industry knuckle under, don’t think for a moment that the comics industry might not make a tidy little snack in the devouring of free expression.

It’s ironic. Once we dreamt of a world embracing Democratic ideals. Now, instead, we seek out repression, following the example of countries where constriction of opinion and government intervention is the norm.

Funny how that works out.

Anyone laughing yet? And if you are—stop that laughing immediately. Or I’ll—I’ll make you.

(Peter David, writer of stuff, can be written to at Second Age, Inc., PO Box 239, Bayport, NY 11705.)