Preorder it here. Image via http://www.psiphi.org.

It seems to me that letters pages in the big two publishers is going the way of the dodo. Not enough hours in the day, not enough personnel to get it done, whatever. I miss them. When I was a young reader, I loved reading the letters column. It prolonged enjoyment of the book, and added to the communal feeling of comics fandom. Plus you’d get hints about stuff that was coming up, and there was just a coolness factor of getting direct responses from the editors. Perhaps that’s taken for granted in this computer day and age of pros interacting with fans on the net, but hey, not *every* kid in America is on line.

I just think it’s unfortunate that the lettercol tradition is on life support. And, as I usually and stupidly do when I think something is unfortunate, I try to do something about it.

Beginning with issue #15, there will once again be a letters page in “Captain Marvel.” How do I know this? Because I volunteered to assemble and write it, and editor “Dandy” Andy Schmidt agreed to give me the page (and no, it’s not going to be taken out of the story page count. Losing one page to the summary was quite enough, thanks.)

Issue #15 seems to be a good time to launch it. It’s got the Neal Adams cover, it’s actually the 50th issue of Marv’s title, and it kicks off a four parter that features a most unexpected intervention to deal with Captain Marvel’s insanity.

Now, of course, we need letters. So consider this an open call for them.

In case you’re wondering, we’re not going to be doing the “Interrupt every other sentence with bold face responses” approach from earlier columns. We’re going to do it the old fashioned way: You talk. I listen. I respond at the end if it needs a response.

Here’s the prerequisites: Keep them under 200 words. Sign your name to it (if you can’t be bothered to stand behind your opinions, I’m not interested in printing them.) Provide an address: Snail mail preferred, e-mail if you must. Why? Because, again, in the old days, I liked seeing where there were other fans. There’s something cool about hearing from fans in different regions. E-mail homogenizes everything. I’m old fashioned, and want the Captain Marvel lettercol to evoke the old days. Addresses are not mandatory, but such letters will be given preference. Names are a must. I’m not running letters from “Flyingpig413” or some such.

If your letter is selected, and I have a mailing address for you, I’ll make sure you get a signed copy of the issue your letter appears in.

Right now I’m looking for letters that are either of a general nature, or about the most recent issue (issue #12). They should be posted right here, on this thread. Every month, when the new issue comes out, I’ll start a thread in my blog. Please do not respond to this thread unless it’s with something intended for publication in “Captain Marvel.”

If people want to send snail mail letters, they can send them to me at PO Box 239, Bayport, NY 11705. DO NOT SEND LETTERS INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION TO MY E-MAIL ADDRESS. My e-mail box is crowded enough.

So there it is. Viva the lettercol.

PAD

I’m not trying to single out one poster on the earlier censorship thread, but I just see the following so often that I’ve actually already written a column on it and I think it worthwhile to rectify it here. The poster stated:

BTW, the US Supreme Court has pretty clearly stated that things like shouting “fire!” in a public place or inciting violence are not protected speech.

No. The Supreme Court never said that. You can shout “fire” in a public place…providing there’s a fire. What Oliver Wendell Holmes stated was that the First Amendment would not protect someone who FALSELY shouted “Fire” in a crowded theater in order to start a panic.

What is often glossed over is that Holmes’ oft’ misquoted statement was part of a decision that supported a staggeringly grotesque abuse of free speech. Holmes’ statement came about because of “Schenck v United States” (1919). Charles Schenck, secretary of the Philadelphia socialist party, distributed a pamphlet to draftees stating that, in his opinion, the draft was a violation of the anti-slavery 13th amendment and that, if they agreed with him, they should seek redress of the law. That was all he did. He didn’t urge violent reform. He didn’t cause a panic. To the best of my knowledge, he didn’t even convince one person to avoid the draft. But for his “crime,” he was found guilty under the Espionage Act of 1917 and sentenced to FIFTEEN YEARS IN JAIL. Nor was that the maximum sentence: He could have gotten up to twenty years and a $10,000 fine.

Nor was he alone. Hundreds of people were arrested, tried and jailed under that Act, some for doing nothing more than making speeches protesting the US getting involved in the World War.

Schenck’s case was appealed to the Supreme Court and, horrifically, they supported the findings. Holmes, writing the majority opinion (in which the “fire” analogy was used) felt the government was within its rights–at time of war–to jail dissenters since they presented (and here was the first use of the phrase) “a clear and present danger.”

Oh, and the Espionage Act is still on the books. Nixon tried to use it to jail Daniel Ellsberg for leaking “The Pentagon Papers.”

So Americans may want to think twice about trotting out that Holmes quote when they consider that it had nothing to do with theaters, fire, or panic, and instead was used to buttress the depriving of Americans their freedom simply for speaking their mind.

PAD

1) BILL MUMY: Would change state song to “Fish Heads” and force all reports about latest crises to be preceded by the words “Danger! Danger! Warning! Warning!”

2) LINDA HAMILTON: Only person in the world who was actually able to beat Arnold definitively. Would demand resignations of useless staffers by saying “You’re terminated, F*cker.”

3) HARLAN ELLISON: He might not win, but my God, the campaign speeches and debates would be worth the price of admission.

4) ALEX TREBECK: Dude’s got all the answers.

5) STAN LEE: Anyone who came up with “With great power comes great responsibility” certainly has his priorities in order. Would solve fiscal problems by sponsoring $5000 a plate dinners featuring Pamela Anderson pole dancing.

6) GEORGE TAKEI: Has genuine political experience and, as experienced helmsman, can successfully steer state to safety and away from giant amoebas. Would definitely require Walter Koenig as lieutenant governor.

7) JENNIFER LOPEZ: Would keep her out of movies.

8) RON REAGAN, JUNIOR: Father/son connection could position him for eventual run at White House, making him the first president ever to dance around on “Saturday Night Life” wearing jockey shorts.

9) RICARDO MONTALBAN: C’mon. Seriously. How cool would that be?

10) GENE HACKMAN: Proposed the only truly workable plan for solving California’s problems: Sink the dámņëd state with a carefully placed 500 megaton bomb, make a killing in real estate, and start over. In the spirit of democracy, would hold special vote to determine whether Marina del Lex, Luthorville, or Otisburg would be new state capital.

PAD

Every time people discuss the Castillo case or any case with comics on trial, the everlasting gobstopper seems to be, “Well, it was obscene and therefore not protected by the First Amendment.”

Here’s a nutty thought:

That should not be the case.

I don’t care that it *is* the case. Once upon a time, the case was that it was okay to own people as property. Once upon a time, the case was that was okay for women not to be able to vote. Things change.

Obscenity is an expression of thoughts and ideas. As such, it can and should be as entitled to First Amendment protection as any other thoughts and ideas. That obscenity is thoughts and ideas that many people find repulsive is utterly beside the point. Was the idea of school integration any less repulsive to many people fifty years ago? You may say that people were being deprived of their God-given rights in that instance. Well so too are people being deprived of rights here: They are being deprived of their rights, as adults, to make adult choices as to the kind of entertainment they wish to peruse.

You may not *like* material some would deem obscene. Nor do I. But the First Amendment wasn’t created to protect popular material that everyone likes. It was created to protect material that people *don’t* like. And the fact that obscenity is so fluid a concept that what one person considers trash, another considers art, shows the incredibly slippery slope embarked upon when one attempts to regulate it. Why? Because it’s an endeavor by a court to regulate and quantify perceptions, ideas, and personal taste, and that never, ever works.

It is grossly unfair to elevate one person’s perceptions above the other in an attempt to disenfranchise one person or person’s artistic tastes. Why is it that if I want to look at something but my neighbors don’t, the courts can decide I’m not allowed to? Pursuit of entertainment should be regulated entirely by what the marketplace will bear, not the personal morality of people who may well not even constitute the majority opinion.

Of course, there’s the highly debatable notion that reading obscenity might cause people to go out and commit violently pornographic acts. And John Lennon’s murderer had a copy of “Catcher in the Rye” in his back pocket, so let’s round up J.D. Salinger. The moment you begin to argue that ideas and stories should be restricted or eliminated because of what people *might* do as a result of it, you open up a Pandora’s box of potential censorship which will sit just fine with those people who love deciding what you should be allowed to read, but is far less attractive to the rest of us. (And no, I’m not lumping in how-to manuals about bomb construction and the like. I’m focusing on entertainment, not material specifically designed to deprive others of life and/or property, okay?)

Obscene material should be entitled to First Amendment protection. There’s no reason for it not to be aside from puritanical intolerance.

PAD

My daughter Gwen, up in Boston, is going to need a new place come September. She’s looking for a two bedroom apartment in the $1000-$1200 range, preferably walkable to a stop along the Red line. Something reasonably commutable to University of Mass. in Boston.

Anyone who has a line on such a residence should write to me at padguy@aol.com.

Thanx.

PAD

Newsarama.com is covering the story that the US Supreme Court has decided not to hear the case of Jesus Castillo, a comic store manager who fell down the rabbit hole of Texas justice and found himself convicted of selling an adult comic book to–get this–an adult. The prosecutor managed to nullify unrefuted expert testimony as to the adult comic’s redeeming social value by winking at the jury, telling them that “Everyone knows comics are for kids,” and stating that the presence of such comics presented a hazard to local children. Granted, the comic store was across the street from a school. However, not only were the adult titles kept in a separate section away from younger readers, and not only are there adult bookstores within the same area, but the judge specifically told the jury the presence of a school could not enter into their deliberations. On the facts of law alone, there’s no way they could have found guilty. Yet they did, in no time flat.

The CBLDF knew that taking it to the USSC was a longshot at best, but sometimes you have to do everything you can.

A terrifyingly dangerous precedent has now been set. The Texas case essentially strips First Amendment protection from comics. There have been various instances in this country where titles as diverse as Spawn, Spider-Man and Elfquest have come under siege. None of those attacks ever went as far as this one. But with this law on the books, who knows how aggressive moralists can get in their pursuits to make sure that you won’t have the opportunity to buy whatever comics you want to buy.

PAD