Planet Comics and the Effects of Censorship

Originally published March 15, 1996, in Comics Buyer’s Guide #1165

Planet Comics closed.

Well, the censors certainly showed them, didn’t they? They can add another notch to their belt. At a time in our industry when stores are closing because they can’t afford to keep their doors open due to “normal” sales drop-off, we now lose a store of long standing because well-organized monitors of what other people should be exposed to decided to target a store.

The dozens, hundreds of titles that Planet Comics may have carried that were suitable for all ages were irrelevant. The store had one comic book that garnered one complaint from one person, and that was all it took. All it took.

And the harassment has not ended, because the CBLDF’s press release goes on to say that Kennedy and Hunter still have to face the eight charges. It’s not enough that their livelihood has been destroyed. The punishment for carrying one comic book that upset one person must continue.

Yet, amazingly, there are still people writing into CBG who seem to be under the impression that there’s no real problem here. Who say that I’m paranoid or naive. Who sit complacently and don’t realize that we are living in an era of government-endorsed and -supported censorship.

On the one hand, people cry out that they want less government, and on the other, they shout for legislation to protect them from that to which they don’t want to be exposed. It ranges from attempted regulation of the Internet (one of the purest forms of the free flow of ideas; obviously, it must be patrolled) to the V-chip. (Violence being what, precisely? The beheadings in Highlander? The bar fight in “The Trouble With Tribbles”? Bugs Bunny getting his head slammed in a harp? But why should parents have to show responsibility and make that determination when they can let either producers or government review boards do it for them?)

And yet there are still comics fans out there who just don’t seem to get it. “Peter David believes that there is a conspiracy to persecute comics! How absurd! How ridiculous! How naive!” After all, a government-sponsored and -endorsed assault on comic books is unprecedented in the history of this nation.

Putting aside the sarcasm, the answer to that is, noooo, I didn’t say or imply that it was quite that organized. What I did say was that there are more and more reported incidents, some of them setting new legal precedents (applying stiff-sentenced child pornography laws to Devil’s Angel, for instance, when such laws have traditionally been applied only to photographs and are designed to protect children from abuse—hence the tough penalties). This is not absurd. This is a fact.

I have said that comics are vulnerable. That comics have no powerful lobby, no massively deep pockets such as the movie or TV industries might use as a resource. The reasoning by some skeptics out there is that, if a comic book is obscene, then the seller, publishers, and creators deserve what happens to them. Even if it means that their business lives must be destroyed before they’ve been convicted or even tried. This is not ridiculous. This is a fact.

I have said that censorship organizations such as Oklahoma City’s gloating Christian group are determined to steamroll over the First Amendment when they encounter anything that offends their sensibilities and are good at getting local government to back them up. This is not naive. If you think it is, swing by Oklahoma City and try to purchase a comic book from Planet Comics.

What is naive is the belief that branding something obscene immediately relates to the content of the work. Obscenity is often a convenient tag hung on works that put noses out of joint for any reason at all. Another popular label is “independent”—wonderfully all-purpose.

Let’s take it out of the realm of comics for a moment. The following works have been banned or censored for a variety of reasons (information courtesy of Courtenay Morris, media-relations department at the ACLU). Some of them are almost giggle-inducing; others should have the snickers dying in your throats:

• Welcome to the Monkey House. Criticized as promoting free sex and the killing of the elderly. An Alabama teacher was dismissed for assigning it to an 11^th grade English class in 1970.

• A 1989 Doonesbury comic strip depicting a recreation of Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel had Donald Trump declaring, “Give those nymphs some hooters.” The Fayetteville Observer Times changed “hooters” to “pizzazz.”

• Just this year in Olathe County, MO, a book called Annie on My Mind was banned from libraries because it portrayed a young budding lesbian girl.

• Favorite recurring targets: The Grapes of Wrath, Catcher in the Rye, and Playboy.

• Webster’s 9^th New Collegiate Dictionary was banned in Carlsbad, NM, for providing definitions of obscene words.

• The Empire Schools in California decided in 1990 that Little Red Riding Hood had to go, because her bringing a bottle of wine to Granny promoted alcoholism.

• This one’s my personal favorite: Tarzan of the Apes was removed from the Los Angeles Public Library because Tarzan and Jane lived together without benefit of marriage. You have to understand the insanity of this one in particular. Tarzan and Jane didn’t live together in the first Edgar Rice Burroughs novel. They shacked up (hutted up… whatever) in the movies. In the book, they don’t wind up together. That didn’t happen until The Return of Tarzan, at which point they were legally married. The book was banned because of an inaccurate movie depiction.

Now, these bans were challenged in court. And many, if not all, were overturned. For some arrogant fans, that’s more than enough reason to say, “See! There’s nothing to worry about. Censors cannot win because, when challenged, they lose.” As if the loss is inevitable. As if the challenge will always be forthcoming.

These are people who have—you should pardon the expression—read too many comic books. Who are under the impression that right always triumphs, and that there are bigger-than-life heroes who spring into action and save the day for a grateful citizenry, while the aforementioned citizenry gets to kick back and let the heroes fight on their behalf.

One complaint from one person over one comic book resulted in the loss of a comic book store. That is all it takes for censors to gather their forces and obliterate that which they don’t like. Fans of a given work or genre must be equally aggressive at all times to protect the dissemination of information.

There are some who think that they’ve caught me out in a massive contradiction. Am I not being as censorious as that woman who is complaining about Spawn?

Uhh, no. Because I have no problem with her expressing her dislike for the title. That’s what free expression is all about. But she and her ilk don’t settle for voicing dislike. They will settle for nothing less than the obliteration of that which they find offensive. They can’t simply turn away. (Turning the other cheek is, apparently, an unknown concept to such organizations.)

Nor is simply refusing to patronize a store an option. Not buying a comic book isn’t the way to go. They have to make sure that you don’t buy the comic book either, because it’s gonna mess you up real bad. Make you the type of person whom they simply don’t want in their neighborhood. The truly obscene words in America these days appear to be such epithets as “moderation” and “tolerance.”

And the most colossal nerve of all: the CBG reader who turned up his nose at the challenged issues of Spawn. Pointing out that Spawn #30 didn’t measure up to Raisin in the Sun, he concluded, “Are heavy dollops of violence, hangings, and rough language… the best we have to offer to kids?”

For some reason the words “Who the hëll do you think you are?” come to mind. But, sadly, I know the answer already. Just another self-satisfied individual who believes the only work worthy of First Amendment protection is that which he, himself, believes worthy. Lorraine Hansbury handles a storyline about prejudice in one way; Todd McFarlane handles it in another. The McFarlane work remains a message that is anti-racism; whether the message is conveyed in a manner inferior to Raisin in the Sun is irrelevant.

One wonders if it’s the violence, rough language, and barbaric actions such as tarring and feathering that have gotten such trash as Huckleberry Finn in dutch through the years.

Perhaps I have been naive, though. To me, the concept that people should be allowed to buy and read whatever they want, and that they should be willing to fight for this right whenever and wherever possible, is so self-evident that I can’t believe any comics fan would dispute it. Then again, why let the readership determine with its buying habits what should and should not survive in the marketplace when morally pure watchdogs can do the job in far less time?

Tell you what. In addition to naive, let’s add spouter-of-clichés as well: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.

Next time out: letters that the CBLDF has received in support of its activities.

(Peter David, writer of stuff, can be written to at Second Age, Inc., PO Box 239, Bayport, NY 11705. He can also be written to on the Internet—but watch what you say.)