It's censorship. It matters.

Response to the Censored Essentials post really caught me by surprise, and I've been following it with much interest. Thanks again to Groovy Age's own Andy Decker for supplying the scans, and to Bill Cunningham of DISC/ontent for starting the snowball rolling. One interesting exchange takes place in the comments of Heidi MacDonald's The Beat. While I don't think she's quite guilty of what Dirk goes off about, I'm glad he addresses an issue that inevitably comes up whenever anyone expresses an interest in nudity or sex in comics or animation. Here's one forum that also picked up the ToD Essentials topic, and here's another. There are a lot of other sites that linked to the post (click "links to this post" to see them, or scroll down if you're viewing the post on its own page), and I'd recommend checking them out for other perspectives on the matter.

Speaking of other perspectives, a number of people said things I disagree with pretty strongly; conveniently, most of those things were also said by a single commenter here, to whom I will address my responses.

Groovy Agers, meet Conservative Comic Book Pundit, a.k.a. Conservative English Major, a.k.a. John Phelan, which is also an alias, because, as he explains, "I am afraid that if this blog is discovered by my professors, AND they figure out it is me, my grades will drop and my position in the program may suffer." Just read the English Major blog, and you'll understand how scary it is to be conservative in American higher education right now. In his graduate program, they make him look at gay porn, listen to feminists, and worst of all, call black people "African Americans" (a real pet peeve of his, it seems).

So, "John," you've expressed some doubts about whether I'm interested in "serious discussion," and that's understandable I suppose, since you don't seem to have had much luck finding it anywhere else:

The funny thing is, I went into that conversation hoping to have an engaging conversation.

But I have learned there's nothing most liberals fear like actual debate.

What followed was never a discussion of the issue at hand, but something more resembling primal scream therapy mixed with group therapy.

English faculty and their obedient followers (i.e. - grad students) seem to lack the ability to actually engage in real, honest, sustained debate with conservatives.

I considered responding, but I though better of it, since the texts we were "discussing" that day were all about how awful/evil mainstream society is and that our job as teachers is to liberate our students from the racist/sexist/classist views society has given them.

I gave up at that point. The liberals in the academy have decided that conservatives are dumb by definition, because they see conservatism as the default position of stupid people (anyone following the recent problems at Duke will be aware of this).

Silly me, I thought it was about clear and honest discussion of all sides of an issue.

A friend of mine in sociology mentioned she had a similar experience with a Communications class. In her words, class time resembled a group therapy session where angry liberals complained all social injustices and railed against conservatives - there was no real discussion of, y'know, communications.

Classroom discussion is unneeded at this point, because the well has been poisoned - this book does not allow students to think for themselves or come to their own conclusions. . . . I could go on, but I won't.

It's nice to live in those cocoons, surrounded by evidence that only supports your individual world view, I guess.

Well, this time you've come to the right place. I have a whole industrial drum of "serious discussion" right here with your name on it. Let's pop the lid off, shall we?

I'll begin with the parenthetical conclusion to your second comment:

(I should say that I hope Marvel reprints them in "uncensored" versions in some other format - but either way the stories were still good and I didn't miss the nudity).

Yes, you're not the only one who's shrugged and said it's no big deal. For example:

Also, I have the volume, and this does nothing to change the quality of the stories whatsoever. Unless you knew to look for these changes, you'd never even notice.

In fact, on my first reading, I didn't know to look for the changes, and no, I didn't notice, and yes, I did enjoy the volume immensely, and no, I wouldn't rather it had not been released at all. But what does any of that prove? Now that I'm looking at the two versions side-by-side, the differences are striking, and all to the worse. They might not affect the story per se, but if they had no effect on the reading experience, they'd never have been made. There's a natural synergy between sex, violence, and supernatural horror--that's why they're combined so often--and these edits unquestionably diminish that effect.

As to this big, deluxe, expensive, uncensored "Masterworks" volume everyone keeps chattering about, when can I expect it to be available? Oh, you're all just speaking hypothetically.

All right, so let's get to the meat of the matter:

It's not censorship, since the people holding the rights to the material are doing it out of their own free will, and not because of government coercion.

Essentials are sold as an All Ages mass market product. They had to cover the nudity to maintain that promise to their audience and distributors. If they ever print Masterworks versions of the comics, the nudity will likely be on full display.

This discussion sounds like saying that anytime anyone decides to make a change to something they own the rights to, it's censorship. That means whenever an author rewrites a novel - it's censorship. When a Director recuts his film for a DVD release and it takes out some scenes: must be censorship. . . .

My main problem is with the overuse of the term censorship. We can say Marvel's move is gutless, stupid, or "not what we would do". But to call it censorship is to dilute the term too far. Unless the government threatened them, or some big corporation threatened to ruin them financially, it really can't be censorship. Instead, it was Marvel making a decision to keep the identity of a particular brand.

Granting that Marvel does own the rights and therefore has the legal right to do with this material as it pleases, this case is nothing like an author revising a novel or a director recutting a film. Gene Colan, not Marvel, was the artist, and he had nothing whatsoever to do with the alterations. The way you slide from rights holder to artist or director, conflating the two, is so clearly spurious in this instance that it's hard for me to believe you're not aware of it. You do, after all, give logic lessons on your blog (then again, you get them wrong).

These changes weren't made by the creator to improve the work aesthetically or bring it more into line with an artistic vision. Nor were they made in the interests of the audience. You mention the "promise to the audience"--I bought this book on the assumption that it would reprint the material with fidelity to the original. I daresay it was a reasonable assumption, since nothing on the cover or anywhere else in the volume indicates otherwise.

It's almost impossible for me to imagine anyone in the real audience for this book--the people who are actually buying it or considering buying it or even remotely likely to consider buying it--preferring the changes if given the option of the uncensored original. As I've mentioned, a few cooler-than-thou people have yawned and said they aren't too concerned about the edits, but show me anyone who likes them better.

The fact is, these changes were made for people who will never buy this book or read it for pleasure, who will probably never even hear about it, but who are so neurotically uncomfortable with the very existence of such material, so vocal about how much it offends them, so determined to eradicate it, and so politically influential these days, that I can almost (nah, not really) sympathize with Marvel's decision to play it safe. I mean, of course, the Religious Right, which still believes in literally burning books, and the Bush administration, which panders to them.

Now I know you think--because you complain about it on your blog--that liberals just make sweeping denunciations and dismissals without ever exposing themselves to the ideas of those they criticize:

This professor is one that constantly complains about the Conservative Media Bias in the news media. She is convinced the New York Times is really a shill for Bush, and that big powerful corporations are controlling the news media to help keep us down.

When in her office, I noticed she nearly two dozen books that argue for either a conservative media bias, or else argue that Bush and his "cronies" censor everything unfavorable to them. I asked her if she had read any book on "liberal" media bias. She said she didn't need to - she had read Goldberg's Bias and found it lacking.

I replied I found it lacking as well, but that there were better books out there, such as Coloring the News and Weapons of Mass Distortion. She said she didn't need to read those books because all claims of liberal media bias "all the same, and all false."

and

A professor made the comment that those who watch the Fox News Channel are hopelessly myopic and are unable to see the truth about anything. I then asked him if he had ever actually watched Fox news ever, even if just for five minutes. He responded - "No, I don't need to."

Well, let's have none of that. No unfounded conspiracy theories here. Let's go straight to the horse's mouth and see what these folks I've identified have to say for themselves.

Among the most defining and powerful evangelical organizations are Focus on the Family and its lobbying offshoot, the Family Research Council, and they absolutely have censorship on their agendas. They actively engage all branches of government, filing Amicus briefs in obscenity court cases, demanding more vigorous enforcement, and promoting stricter legislation. Both organizations make detailed guides available on their websites for how to prevent other adults in your community from enjoying adult entertainment--how to get magazines removed from racks, books removed from libraries, channels removed from cable packages, filters imposed on library computers, local and federal law enforcement pressured into giving obscenity higher priority, stricter zoning laws against adult businesses, etc. They strongly promote grassroots censorship with an "Adopt-a-Community" strategy, and boast of its success. For example:

Convinced that area hotels were distributing obscenity through in-room pay-per-view movies, a community group encouraged local police and prosecutors to investigate. These actions led seven hotels to discontinue offering the movies rather than go to trial for obscenity violations.

I mean, WTF?!? By the way, how are these local groups instructed to identify obscene material? From the Family Research Council's guide, linked above:

Please do not purchase the material to examine its contents. In fact, you should never purchase or view pornography. An educated guess from the covers of such material will tell you whether or not it is pornography.

As if all of that weren't alarming enough, in the immediate aftermath of the 2004 election, James Dobson, the big daddy of both organizations, stood (or at least was widely perceived to be standing) at the height of his political influence. He was frustrated by Ashcroft's failure to pursue obscenity as vigorously as he would have liked, and not content with symbolic sops like Protection from Pornography Week. When Alberto Gonzales was nominated as the new Attorney General, Focus on the Family issued this press release:

"We know the great personal regard President Bush has for Mr. Gonzalez, and we wish him well in his challenging new assignment.

"It will now be Mr. Gonzalez's duty to defend the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act against the federal court challenges that have blocked its implementation -- a duty handled admirably by Attorney General Ashcroft. American families will also look to Mr. Gonzalez to aggressively prosecute obscenity cases against pornographers who continue to flout federal law.

"We expect these issues and other policy priorities of the president will be carried out by Mr. Gonzalez with excellence."

In short, increasingly and for quite some time, the Religious Right has been seeking to shift the social climate in a much more restrictive direction, and has been pressuring the government to support and enforce its agenda, and the government has responded. The Department of Justice now has a special Obscenity Prosecution Task Force (see also), it has a link on its website to obscenitycrimes.org (set up and maintained by the faith-based Morality in Media, for which Congress approved $150,000 in funding), FCC fines are up, and the FBI rolled out its own anti-obscenity squad. (For a good overview of the many shots fired in the current "War on Porn"--including, I was startled to see, a raid on a Movie Gallery that resulted in arrests!--check out YNOT's Industry News: Law & Politics.) Some of these changes may have been effected more recently than Marvel's decision to make the Essential Tomb of Dracula alterations, but the pressures that brought them about were certainly felt to be at work, and shaped the context in which that decision was made. In such a climate, to say that Marvel made that decision "out of their own free will" is as laughable as Morality in Media claiming,

Enforcement of the Federal or State obscenity laws is NOT censorship because, first of all, the government is exercising no prior restraint on the pornographers. The porn purveyors are free to publish whatever they want, but if what they distribute or exhibit is obscene, they are, after the fact, subject to prosecution under the obscenity laws.

Is that true in even the most quibblingly, legalese, technical sense? Well, let's not get hung up on semantics. What we have is a group of people doing everything they can to suppress and eradicate material they find offensive--call that what you will--and Marvel felt the chill in the climate they created.

It's laughable, too, that you seem to think none of this applies if only Marvel's decision can be characterized as one of strictly "business" or "brand identity," as if such decisions are made in a vacuum with no regard for the prevailing social climate. Notions of what's unacceptable for "mass market distribution" and lower "price points," distributor and retailer concerns, brand/marketing worries, etc. don't just come from nowhere, they aren't simply given, and far from being immutable, they're highly sensitive to restrictive governmental and private pressures. The Family Research Council and Focus on the Family know this well; they engage in and encourage not only the legal persecution of adult entertainment, but also attacking businesses as businesses.

I'd rest my case there, but allow me to anticipate a rejoinder. I've yet to debate a conservative who didn't try to draw some specious and irrelevant comparison between whatever I'm criticizing and something I supposedly favor. I'm not surprised to see you use this tactic yourself:

But then I asked him what the moral difference was between zoning bars and strip joints, and requiring any business that wanted to bid for a government contract to have a certain percentage of minorities on its staff.

My guess is that you'll reach for "political correctness." You sort of do already in the quote above. Lord knows you whine about it enough on your blogs. Of course, if you take the trouble to familiarize yourself with my blog as I've taken to familiarize myself with yours, I daresay you'll find me entirely innocent of "political correctness," which would make such a challenge even more beside-the-point than it already would be even if I did support it.

Still, here's one difference that might not impress you much, but it matters to me: a contributor to this blog has actually gone to jail for "obscenity" (not, I'd hasten to add, in any connection with Groovy Age). Earl Kemp, the contributor in question, and other writers have various articles about it throughout his e-zine; this issue and this one cover a lot of the key points of the trial and Mr. Kemp's experience in prison. If the proceedings don't seem recent enough to you, know that jail time for "offenders" absolutely remains an explicit goal of the Family Research Council and these other obscenity watchdog groups. From the FRC's guide:

If your community has a pornography shop or video store selling hardcore material, your job will be more difficult. That is because owners of such businesses have likely calculated the risks that their business may incur. They may consider fines and even jail time to be the cost of doing business.

If the FRC had its way, "jail time" would always be the cost of producing, providing, or enjoying adult entertainment.

Let's contrast that with your sob stories about the hardships imposed by political correctness:

Anyway - a job opening was offered to the Graduate students here: a small administrative job that doesn't pay well but looks great on a resume. So I went to the secretary to get the application and was told "well, this isn't official, but they won't hire any White Males. I heard the committee talking, and they effectively said they have banned all white males from this position."

Anyone know of the Irish-American folk tune "No Irish Need Apply"? At one time in the USA that was a truism. Stores would have signs that said "No Irish Need Apply."

Instead of correcting that problem, it seems the USA is now becoming more inclusive. Now its "No Irish/Germans/British/French/Anyone White Need Apply."

What is weird (well, not really) is I am literally the only one in the department who sees something wrong with this.

and

I've decided I'm going to stop checking the "white/Caucasian" label. I'm checking the "mixed racial background" box, if there is one.

I've been filling out a lot of forms lately for one reason or another. I have a friend who was born and raised in South Africa, but he happens to be white. He left South Africa because of his disgust over his family's involvement with the repression of Black South Africans, but he still checks "African-American" on any forms he gets (Unless it says "black/African-American").

I have some American Indian/Native American blood in my veins. It's thin and not enough (as far as I have been able to ascertain) to get me any scholarships or jobs - but it's there. I'm mostly German and Irish, with some English and Scottish thrown in - but I have some Indian ancestry.

So, to protest the ridiculous attempts to define someone by their racial category merely because it fits some affirmative action policy I am checking the "mixed racial background" box - because it is true.

Which brings us to another difference. I've noted a number of government entities devoted to combatting obscenity. How many enforce political correctness? Maybe the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities?--for all the power they wield. The Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division, the agency that would seem most directly tasked with substantive legal enforcement of minority rights (not exactly political correctness, but close enough in your mind, I'd wager), turns out these days to be squarely in your corner:

At the same time, the kinds of cases the Civil Rights Division is bringing have undergone a shift. The division is bringing fewer voting rights and employment cases involving systematic discrimination against African-Americans, and more alleging reverse discrimination against whites and religious discrimination against Christians.

Oh, and why is this administration so interested in search engine data? Here's a hint: not to fight political incorrectness.

So those are some differences I see. Maybe not the "moral difference" you stipulate in the quote above, but as I've said, "political correctness" isn't one of my commitments.

One more thing. It might seem like I'm coming back at you rather harshly, especially considering that you apologized for the tone of your first comment, and I accepted. I assure you my acceptance was genuine. I'm not going off on you like this because you were a "jerk." I'm doing it because you came here with half-assed arguments excusing and enabling something I abhor. Anyone who's read this blog for any length of time could have told you that's just cruising for a bruising.

But you conservatives are a tough lot--STRONG ON TERROR and all that shit--and indeed, you say you used to wrestle, so I trust you'll take it like a man and not try to play the martyr, sniveling like a little bitch about how mean liberals are.

Now, let's see what you're made of. I welcome your response. And anyone else's, who wants a piece of this.