Fighting Censorship

Swoon Commission (2004)

Art by Dave Sim

JAMES GUARNOTTA:

(from Comic Art Fans, 2010)

Commisioned piece for CBLDF auction. The design was to be used for t-shirts but something went wrong. Doubtful it will ever be used at this point.

Aardvark Comment: Cherish The First Amendment

Cerebus: The First Half (1991)

Art by Dave Sim

TRAVIS LAZARCZYK:
(first published at Central Maine, 25 September 2017)
Kneeling during the national anthem is not a crime.

When I was a senior in college, I went to a reading held by writer Neil Gaiman and writer/artist Dave Sim. Twenty-two and a half years later, I don’t recall too many details of the event, other than meeting two men I admire was a thrill, but something each said stuck with me.

Gaiman is British, and Sim is Canadian. In the course of the evening both urged the audience -- comprised primarily of young Americans -- to cherish the First Amendment. Neither of their home countries, as free as they may be, has a First Amendment. Don’t take the First Amendment for granted, they implored. Embrace it.

I’ve thought about what Gaiman and Sim said quite a bit lately, as I’ve watched the controversy explode over NFL players kneeling during the playing of the national anthem prior to games.

Here’s the wonderful thing about the First Amendment. It protects all the speech you find deplorable. All of it. Nobody gets to decide your opinion is criminal. As much as some in the government would yearn for that power, they don’t have it.

In this case, it doesn’t matter if you’re offended by football players taking a knee during the national anthem. You can respectfully disagree with them, which is fine, and you can voice your displeasure in a number of ways. A counter-protest, for example, or simply refusing to watch or attend NFL games. Hitting anything in the wallet is usually an attention-grabber.

What you, or I, or most importantly, the government, cannot do is stop them. Hand-wringing over kneeling, standing -- or in the case of Buffalo Bills running back LeSean McCoy, stretching -- during the national anthem takes attention away from the fact that our country has a lot of real problems that deserve discussion. By grandstanding on the issue, President Donald Trump pulled a bait-and-switch on us, turning our attention away from real issues. He got us to squabble over the minutia while the underlying issues metastasize.

But somewhere along the way, we lost the ability to politely discuss anything. Take a minute and scroll through the social media platform of your choice. I’m willing to bet most of the posts about this topic involve intolerance of one viewpoint or another, finger-pointing, and a lot of name-calling. When it comes to talking about anything important, our society is an abject failure.

I stand for the national anthem, and will continue to do so. If somebody with different life experiences feels the need to kneel, or sit, or read a comic book, that’s fine, too. Whether or not kneeling during the national anthem is disrespectful is a matter of opinion. Even if you feel kneeling during the anthem is disrespectful, nowhere in the First Amendment will you find “respectful” as a qualifier to free speech. You will find “the right of the people to peaceably assemble,” which is exactly what players who take a knee are doing.

We should be able to talk about the issue like adults. We should be able to bring differing viewpoints to the discussion, but it’s obvious we can’t. Somewhere along the line we lost the ability to tolerate opposing viewpoints and we lost the ability to respect them. For example, the same fans who claim to hold the national anthem sacred booed and jeered kneeling New England Patriot players throughout the anthem’s playing prior to Sunday’s game against the Houston Texans. You could hear it on the television broadcast. How does booing somebody with whom you disagree treat the anthem with respect? It’s your right, of course, but if you’re trying to advance the idea that the playing of the anthem is a solemn occasion, booing is an ineffective way to show it.

It’s more disrespectful to boo somebody engaged in a peaceful protest during the anthem than it is to kneel. It’s more disrespectful to riot rather than let a view that differs from your own be heard, as we’ve seen on college campuses across the nation.

We need to celebrate the First Amendment, not fight over it. That’s one of the wonderful things about this country, nobody is standing over us and forcing us to agree -- or pretend to agree -- with each other. The miserable flip side of this is we’ve lost the ability to respectfully disagree. If we talked about the underlying problems that led to kneeling for the national anthem in the first place, we’d be moving in the direction of becoming a stronger country. Maybe we’d stop being such a fragmented one.

Support The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund!

Aardvark Comment: Advocating Violence?

TIM W.:

The intent behind A Moment Of Cerebus is to celebrate Cerebus and Dave and Gerhard's achievement, to counter-balance the negativity on display across the internet. It would be impossible to debunk every confused opinion that I come across on social media and after 4+ years of cobbling the site together it's not often that I'm shocked by the things people say about Dave Sim or Cerebus. Loathed as I am to give the oxygen of publicity to such views, last week I came across a posting on Twitter that took me aback.

On 17 June, Sabin Cauldron (@toppledidols) wrote across multiple Twitter posts:

"Disheartened both Comics Journal and Comics Reporter promoted Dave Sim this week - he advocated violence against gays during the AIDS crisis... amongst other* things. I get promoting his work. He was very talented. The timing is just frustrating."

When challenged on that statement Sabin replied:

"I have check my facts and wrote an academic paper citing it. Refer to "Note from the President" in Cerebus issue 103... Refer to my full citation in Cerebus the Barbarian Messiah published by McFarland. I've checked my facts, so have others."

Below is the original Note From The President written by Dave from Cerebus #103 (October 1987).

Do the facts support Sabin's conclusion? Please leave your thoughts in the comments section below.

The Work vs The Creator

Cerebus Vol 9: Reads (1995)

Art by Dave Sim & Gerhard

DAVE SIM:
(from the Kickstarter Q&A, May 2014)

...I've never been in the situation where I would Not Read someone else's work because of political or personal differences. At least part of that I think is because I've always known the work more than the person, whoever the person was. It would seem really weird to me to have someone's personal or political views get "in the way" of their work. It's either good work and worth looking at or it isn't. If it IS good work, how would you change your mind about it? I think you'd have to be disassociate by nature to be able to do that. To keep various Realities in different compartments in your head. "I liked this work in 1994 but then I had to stop liking it." How do you STOP liking something creative? Gives me the creeps to even think of thinking that way...

Damian vs. Seiler Sat 5 Mar

DAVE SIM:
I've always been an advocate of pluralism as a societal given -- and certainly have always found it more than a little weird when I find myself having to explain the concept of pluralism to a grown-up and even weirder when I see myself "drawing a blank" in doing so (most famously when visiting Jeff Smith  back in '93 -- see BONE COMMENTARIES now on Patreon).

I think Jeff S. went "over the edge" throwing  the "disabled card" in the discussion about Charles Krauthammer.  WAY stretching a point to make "armchair" into an insult.  But, then, I really dislike "identity politics" of any kind.  (i.e. I pray five times a day and fast in Ramadan and read the Koran aloud on a daily basis so before you criticize me, THINK WHAT THAT MAKES YOU) (stick to answering my points and I don't care what you think of my religious observance).

I think Tim W and Damian are pretty much on the same team which I would define as COMICS JOURNAL UBER ALLES.  It was as a reward for Tim -- the fact that he would create and maintain a site like this without compensation in a universally-hostile-to-Dave-Sim environment -- that I engaged with the TCJ website back in 2012.  I could see that Tim had a complete blind spot about THE COMICS JOURNAL's and FANTAGRAPHICS' underlying (and so far as I can see irredeemable) nature and he really wanted ALL of the comics he loved -- including CEREBUS -- to be included in that context.

It was a major fiasco from the git-go.  Which was not MY doing. I was cordial and as eloquent as I could be and the CJUA team -- here represented primarily by Damian -- has been attempting to "spin" the resulting fiasco as a win for TCJ ever since.  Look how open-minded they are!  Look how inclusive they are!  Look how supportive of Dave Sim they are!

Which is complete b.s.  I told Tim EXACTLY what would happen.  I would go over there and do a thread.  The thread would go ballistic and they would shut it down. Which is exactly what happened.
Because. That's. The. Kind. Of. People. They. Are.  And. That's. The. Kind. Of. People. They. Attract.

To me, shutting down threads is the antithesis of pluralism.  It's:  as long as my team is winning, we are all engaging in free speech and good for us.  As soon as my team is losing or even being made to look bad, it's time to end the discussion.

That's what the threat to shut down the comments section on Saturday looks like to me.  Again, no surprise TO ME, because CJUA has that as an entrenched viewpoint and Tim W (no offence meant, Tim: just identifying what I see as the core relevant point) is a "CJUA kind of guy".

Granted: Damian "winds" Jeff up.  It's also true that Jeff "winds" Damian up.  Genuine pluralism is ABOUT "winding" people up.  Or, more fruitfully, avoiding winding them up and just saying what you have to say FACTUALLY or AS AN OPINION.

I appreciate the fact that, TO ME, I now have a couple of defenders on this site: Sandeep and Jeff.  I appreciate them defending me -- while also appreciating that they're always being careful to SPECIFY that they don't speak FOR me.

I'm hoping that Jeff will not allow the CJUA forces to "head fake" him into abandoning me when he agrees with me so that AMOC goes back to being an environment where, as is the "received wisdom" everywhere else, Dave Sim is Crazy, Period.  End of discussion.

It seems to me that Damian's subtext is always "Dave Sim is Crazy" so I think it only reasonable to give space to the only two people who are willing, on an on-going basis, to assert the contrary.

I'm glad to see that cooler heads seem to have prevailed.

And, Jeff?  Please keep leaving phone messages when you think someone is being critical of my opinions.  I'm not sure this WORKS, but clearly just letting "Dave Sim is Crazy" stand unchallenged WASN'T working.

So, let's keep doing it this way.   

Je Suis Charlie

Charlie Hebdo (14 January 2015):

Muhammad holds a sign saying Je Suis Charlie and the caption reads "All is forgiven".

On 7 January 2015 five Charlie Hebdo cartoonists were assassinated in a terrorist attack in Paris: 

Cabu, Wolinski, Charb, Tignous & Philippe Honore

In total, 17 people were victims of the attacks in Paris between 7-9 January 2015.

CBLDF Defender #1

CBLDF Defender #1

Publisher: Comic Book Legal Defense Fund

Release Date: April 2015

Price: Free!

Comic Book Legal Defense Fund is proud to announce that CBLDF Defender, a new free quarterly news magazine coming to you from the front lines of the fight for free speech, is now available. Each issue of CBLDF Defender will bring engaging creator interviews, detailed analysis of current censorship news, and in-depth features that tell the story of the people fighting for the freedom to read. Neil Gaiman kicks off the first issue with an in-depth interview on his battles with censorship.  We're also taking you to the front lines, with news and analysis on the latest censorship battles raging in schools and libraries across the USA. Take a look at international cartoonist rights issues and the free speech fallout from the Charlie Hebdo massacre. Plus, a lively history of Bill Gaines, the U.S government, and the birth of the Comics Code! Let's take a look at the attack on reading and how CBLDF is working to fight censorship!

CBLDF Defender #1 is available from your comic book store, comiXology, Issuu, or as a free PDF download.

Elephantmen: Shots #1

Elephantmen: Shots #1

by Richard Starkings & Others

Image/CBLDF, May 2015

Diamond Code MAR150521

Image Comics and the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund (CBLDF) join forces once again to bring readers a new Elephantmen one-shot collection in Shots #1, written by Richard Starkings and drawn by Dougie Braithwaite, Ian Churchill, Boo Cook, Shaky Kane, Moritat, Tim Sale, and Dave Sim. The proceeds of this book will go toward helping protect the First Amendment rights of comics creators, publishers, and retailers. Led by Tim Sale’s nine-page "When the Night Comes", this special Elephantmen: Shots #1 collects all the Elephantmen strips from Hero Comics, Liberty, and The Thought Bubble Anthology. The collection also features the hard-to-find Judge Dredd, Strontium Dog, and Marineman crossovers and beautiful covers by J. Scott Campbell and Tim Sale.

All proceeds earned from Elephantmen: Shots #1 will go toward supporting the CBLDF.

RICHARD STARKINGS:

I’m sure I wasn't the only comic book creator affected by the Charlie Hebdo massacre earlier this year. It was a deeply shocking and terrifying event that sent ripples throughout the cartooning world. It really made me realize the importance of supporting organizations like the CBLDF, who stand vigilant for cartoonists whether there’s a traumatic event capturing our attention or not. I counted up the strips that we'd produced for The Hero Initiative, Thought Bubble and, of course CBLDF’s own Liberty Annual and decided that, rather than do nothing but worry, I could put out a special issue of Elephantmen to benefit the CBLDF. Eric Stephenson at Image Comics agreed and... voila!

Susan Alston: CBLDF Podcast

COMIC BOOK LEGAL DEFENSE FUND: 
(Podcast #10, 17 February 2015)

In this episode, CBLDF Executive Director Charles Brownstein talks to former CBLDF Executive Director Susan Alston about the early days of the Fund! Topics discussed include: Mike Diana, Paul Mavrides, social media, the Supreme Court, and much more.

Susan Alston was Dave Sim's last girlfriend. She was the CBLDF's first Executive Director (1993-1997) and former board member (1997-1999), and is currently a development, marketing, and communications professional based in western Massachusetts, USA. Alston began her career as Assistant Director of Marketing at Bank of Boston, then as Director of Administration at Tundra Publishing, owned by Kevin Eastman. In 1993, Tundra merged into Kitchen Sink Press, whereupon Denis Kitchen offered her a part-time position overseeing CBLDF administration. Shortly thereafter, with the onset of the Mike Diana case and a large donation from Dave Sim, the position was moved to fulltime. After leaving CBLDF in 1999, Alston took her interest in fundraising, marketing, and communications and honed them at positions with Smith College, Mount Holyoke College, VNA HealthCare, and Center for Human Development. In 2012, Alston earned her Master’s degree in Strategic Fundraising and Philanthropy from Bay Path College. Alston rejoined the CBLDF in 2013 serving on its newly formed Advisory Board together with Neil Gaiman, Frank Miller, Jim Lee, Matt Groening, Mike Richardson, Chip Kidd, Louise Nemchoff and Frenchy Lunning.

Neil Gaiman: My Credo

Neil Gaiman: My Credo (14 February 2015)

Neil Gaiman's 'My Credo' is a response to the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attacks in Paris on 7 January 2015 and the subsequent attacks in Copenhagen, Demark on 14 February 2015.

Je Suis Charlie: Stand Up For Free Speech

The Five Assassinated Charlie Hebdo Cartoonists

Cabu, Wolinski, Charb, Tignous & Philippe Honore (not pictued) 

In total 17 people were victims of the terrorist attacks in Paris between 7-9 January 2015
(Art by Tom Tomorrow)

COMIC BOOK LEGAL DEFENSE FUND:
(from Stand Up For Free Speech, 8 January 2015)

Index on Censorship, the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, and PEN America call on all those who believe in the fundamental right to freedom of expression to join in publishing the cartoons or covers of Charlie Hebdo on January 8 at 1400 GMT.

We believe that only through solidarity – in showing that we truly defend all those who exercise their right to speak freely – can we defeat those who would use violence to silence free speech. We ask media organisations, individuals and everyone who supports free speech to join together in this action.

Each publication will select a cartoon, a range of cartoons, or covers that they believe best reflect the right to free expression and publish at the same time globally. The idea is a moment of unity in which we show that together we stand up for journalism and the right to free speech, no matter what, and to show our support and respect for those killed on January 7.

“The ability to express ourselves freely is fundamental to a free society,” said Jodie Ginsberg, CEO of Index on Censorship. “This includes the freedom to publish, to satirise, to joke, to criticise, even when that might cause offence to others. Those who wish to silence free speech must never be allowed to prevail.”

“Satire is both a privilege and a necessity in a free society. The freedom to question, to expose, to mock ultimately makes institutions, belief systems, and leaders stronger. The resort to murderous vengeance for the crime of drawing and publishing cartoons represents a terrifying perversion of religious values and an assault on our shared values.  No matter how offensive, speech is never a justification for violence.” Suzanne Nossel, Executive Director, PEN American Center

"The attack on the Charlie Hebdo offices is tragic, but it is also proof of just how powerful cartoons and cartoonists can be. Despite threats and prior attacks, the publishers, editors, and cartoonists of Charlie Hedbo never relented in using satire to question the world around them," said Comic Book Legal Defense Fund Executive Director Charles Brownstein. "CBLDF stands with Charlie Hebdo and their dedication to free expression."

(Click image to enlarge)

THE CHARLIE HEBDO COVERS EXPLAINED:

Left: Published in 2006, the headline reads "Mohammed Overwhelmed by Fundamentalism." In the cartoon, Muhammad weeps as he states, "It's hard to be loved by idiots," a comment on religious extremism that has marred Islam. Within its pages, the magazine reprinted 12 cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad which had originally appeared in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, bringing unprecedented condemnation from the Muslim world. Then editor Philippe Val was taken to court by the French Council for the Muslim Faith alleging that the issue fomented hatred against Islam. Val was acquitted in a decision seen by many as a victory for freedom of the press, however this issue of Charlie Hebdo has since been considered the one which positioned the magazine as a target for terrorist attacks.

Middle: Perhaps the issue of the magazine that inspired the largest international reaction was published in 2012, and sports a cover depicting an orthodox Jewish man pushing a Muslim man in a wheelchair. The headline reads "Intouchables 2" (a spoof of the movie The Intouchables, at the time, France's second biggest box-office hit  in which a rich white man who is paralyzed from the neck down hires a black ex-con from the projects to be his caretaker). But, as with the 2006 cover, the deeper controversy came on the next page with a satire of another movie, this time Innocence of Muslims, in which an ex-con paid people to act out scenes that had nothing to do with Islam before replacing the audio to create a terrible movie ridiculing the Prophet Mohammed. No one saw the movie at the time, but he posted a 14-minute video on YouTube and an anti-Muslim activist in Virginia translated it into Arabic and sent the link to activists in Egypt resulting in violent protests. The Charlie Hebdo cartoon depicts the prophet naked and in pornographic poses, and the French government urged the magazine not to publish the images. When the magazine refused, the French government closed embassies and consulates in about 20 countries as a precaution.

Right: The previous year, Mohammed graced the cover to celebrate the Tunisian Islamist party Ennahda's victory in the recent elections. As a response, Charlie Hebdo printed a special issue called Charia Hebdo (pronounced like Sharia law, or Islamic law) "guest edited" by the prophet himself. The cover promised "100 lashes if you don’t die of laughter!" Charlie Hebdo's homepage was subsequently hacked and replaced with the single phrase "No god but Allah." The office was attacked with a Molotov cocktail that destroyed all the property and equipment inside. (Following that, the magazine published a Muslim man kissing a cartoonist.)

"...When I started drawing, I always thought we were safe, as we were drawing pseudo Mickey Mouse. Now, after the deaths, the shoot outs, the violence, everything has changed. All eyes are on us, we’ve become a symbol, just like our cartoons...."

Luz (Charlie Hebdo cartoonist)

"We have a lot of new friends, like the pope, Queen Elizabeth, and Putin. It really makes me laugh. Marine Le Pen is delighted when the Islamists start shooting all over the place... We vomit on all these people who suddenly say they are our friends. They've never seen Charlie Hebdo."
Willem (Charlie Hebdo cartoonist)

FURTHER READING:

• Charlie Hebdo: Magazine Site, Wikipedia Page and Background Context
• Charlie Hebdo covers explained: Hooded Utilitarian, Index On Censorship, Pen America, CBLDF, National Cartoonists Society, New Statesman, Reporters Without Borders, The Intercept, Huffington Post, Slate, Gawker, Understanding Charlie Hebdo.
• Jyllands-Posten's 12 Cartoons Of Mohammed: The Comics Journal, Brussels Journal
• More Reactions: Alan Moore, Neil Gaiman, Joe Sacco, Robert Crumb, Art Spiegelman, Ralph Steadman, Steve Bell, Albert Uderzo, Zunar, Ruben Bolling, Matt Madden, Batton Lash, Ted Rall, Tim Kreider, Stephen Fry, Arthur Goldhammer, Jeet Heer.  

The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund

Friends Of Lulu

Cerebus #288 (March 2003)
art by Dave Sim, assisted by Chris Verhoeven

DAVE SIM:
(from a letter to 'Friends Of Lulu' dated 24 January 1996, printed in Cerebus #206, May 1996)

"Advocating censorship of any kind would not only be against our firm belief in freedom of expression but is diametrically opposed to our goal of expanding the comics market."

...I guess I just find this confusing. Maybe it's just me. Although there have been rumblings of censorship and advocacy of censorship from people I have talked to about FoL, I take you at your word. You don't advocate censorship. It was not my intention to accuse you of advocating censorship. What I was doing was sketching the parameters of a simple program which might assist in the fight against censorship. I am alarmed by the Planet Comics bust in Oklahoma. In examining what I can do to assist the retailers and their customers to defend their First Amendment rights, the answer I came up with was "not much." I can continue to donate royalties and payments for various "outside Cerebus" projects to the CBLDF. But in terms of directly affecting the situation in Oklahoma City, the answer, alas, was "not much." I did an interview with a student newspaper in Oklahoma in which I tried to state the case for freedom of expression. But, beyond that, addressing letters to the local daily newspaper or alternative paper or what-have-you would be an exercise in futility. No one has heard of me or Cerebus in that context. My words would carry no weight -- most likely I would just be viewed as another "smut peddler" jumping to the defense of other "smut peddlers."

Because Friends of Lulu has a roster of female professionals as active members, because censorship has been linked historically with... if there was a valid synonym for "feminist," I would use it here... feminist movements, because we are very short of resources in the comic-book field which have a snowball's chance in hell of swaying mainstream public opinion to the cause of creative freedom in the comic-book field... I took a stab in the dark. As an outsider examining the situation board -- a non-American, non-CBLDF board member, a non-Friends of Lulu member.

Having put my case as eloquently as I could, I find it very disappointing that the reaction amounts to little more than the regurgitation of platitudes capped by a rhetorical cul-de-sac that amounts to little more, in my view, than "We're going to sit this one out, Dave."

The fact that no effort is (evidently) going to be expended even to determine if there is a level of interest within the ranks of the 160 or so female members of your organization to assist in ending censorship and that your seven-member board views the offhand 'enunciation' of a "firm belief in freedom of expression" to be sufficient when two retailers are apt to be imprisoned possibly for a total of eighty years (to me) belies your expressions of support for the retail community.

I mean, come on!

Friends Of Lulu Logo (2004)
by Diana X. Spinkle

Friends of Lulu (1994 to 2011) was a non-profit, national charitable organization in the United States, founded to promote readership of comic books by women and the participation of women in the comic book industry.

Free Speech: Defending The Inch

'Drinking Buddies' Print
Art by Dave Sim & Gerhard
(Available exclusively from CBLDF)

DAVE SIM:
(from a speech in support of CBLDF, San Francisico, 1995)

When I was asked to be Master of Ceremonies here tonight, I thought it appropriate to say a few words that might have greater resonance here, in the Bay Area, rather than elsewhere. To that end I enlisted the support of someone you've met already, and uh, I would ask you to give him another nice round of applause, Mr. Brian Hibbs of the Haight's own Comic Experience. Brian went all the way to the library for this, so we hope you enjoy it. 8 hours of infrequent cigarette breaks while prowling through newspapers on microfilm, the guy should get a medal of some kind.

June 3rd, 1909, a day of infamy in the history of this great Metropolis. On that date San Franciso became the first city in the great republic to have a genuine, official, brand spanking new, city-supported censorship board. Less than a month before, the SF Board of Supervisors, had passed unanimously, unanimously, ordinance #761. In the convoluted syntax and phraseology common to legislation the world over, it read, as follows, and you'll forgive me... when I read things like this, I tend to slip into a Groucho Marx voice:

"It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, association, or corporation to display or to cause to display, or permit to be displayed at any moving picture exhibition or at any entertainment at which moving pictures are exhibited, any picture, illustration or delineation of any nude human figure or of any lewd or lascivious act or of any other matter or thing of an obscene, indecent, or immoral nature or offensive to the moral sense or [now at this point, this guy is really struggling to make a sentence, so he throws in some parentheses at this point], in such detail as to offend public morality and decency [throws another parenthesis at the end of that one], any murder, suicide, robbery, hold up, stabbing, assaulting, clubbing or beating of any human being."

Unable to make hide, nor hair of what they were talking about, the Mayor signed it into law on May 13th. Norman W. Hall, Secretary to the newly formed Board of Censorship, in regarding this dogs breakfast of alarmist incoherencies, was moved to observe, "From the above, it will be seen that the scope of the Board's action is wide." Mr. Hall is to be commended in retrospect as a master of understatement.

In its four years of existence, the Board found no fewer than 476 films to condemn, no fewer than 158 films to modify. At least four arrests were made. In one notable case, it required an arrest, a criminal prosecution, and the keen and even handed assessment of a municipal court judge to determine that a moving picture did not qualify for condemnation or modification under the (quote) "wide scope of the Board's action." That a film of a boxing match did not constitute the "assault and clubbing or beating of a human being."

The single public report issued by the Board of Censorship is a model of its kind, and I mean that in the unkindest possible way. Here's a great quote from it:

"The Board is enthusiastic in its endorsements of the moving picture, and desires to encourage its patronage by the public."

How very benign of them, how positively redundant to issue a report, in 1911 encouraging people to go see movies. It's rather like signing a petition in 1995 encouraging people to watch more television. The single public report (one pictures it descending from the hills above the city, carved on stone tablets) the single public report pontificates:

"With those moving pictures that depict positive immorality or criminality in detail there can be but one verdict... condemnation!"

The report then goes on to describe the positive immorality and criminality contained in those films in excruciating detail. By the way, shouldn't that be "a portrayal of immorality in a positive light"? Positive immorality, h'mmmm. Perhaps catching himself drooling from the corner of his mouth, the author of the report hastens to add:

"These particular pictures are mentioned not to condemn a great industry, but to impress the necessity of avoiding such productions, in order to secure the patronage of the decent-loving [I guess he means decency loving unless the Board was also in the business of rating the romantic abilities of the people of SF] self respecting public, and at the same time we have alluded to them to show the obvious importance of a careful censorship."

As we gaze back at the year of the report, 84 years distant from us, we are moved to speculate on the all consuming and disastrous effect upon the morals of the citizens of this great metropolis had the pharisees of Los Angeles, those eternal corrupters from Gomorrah by the Pacific, been able to circumvent the vigilance of the Board and inflict upon the unsuspecting, though by all accounts, decent-loving citizenry of SF, such Mephistophelean fare as, and these are the actual titles of films condemned by the Board: Saved by a Sailor, Getting Even With Everybody, The Bankers Daughter, The Way of The Transgressor is Hard, The Italian Sherlock Holmes, and my favorite - The Story of Lulu According to Her Feet.

What peril, what disaster so narrowly averted, what heroism that for a stipend of a mere $50 a year, these stalwart defenders of the public good, submitted themselves to the soul jeopardizing imagery contained in The Story of Lulu According to Her Feet. Of course there was another film that they condemned, a film banned from public display at the time of it's release, within the city limits of SF -- Charlie Chaplin's The Tramp.

It is at this point in my narrative, at this point in every confrontation with the forces of censorship, the forces of oppression, that their buffoonery, their silliness, their Keystone Cop, slapstick dog and pony show, ceases to be funny and become serious... deadly serious.

Whether you are talking about film-near-to-the-point-of-its-genesis or the comic-book-as-literature-near-to-the-point-of-its-genesis, eventually, sooner rather than later, the battle lines are drawn and the issue becomes clear.

The respective trenches having been excavated in this ancient conflict, one envisions a manifestation of creative-freedom-as-absolute, facing it's opposite number the-self-appointed-guardian-of-the-public-good, raising respectively their pointed fingers of self righteous wrath and approbation after the fashion of revival tent preachers, crying out in a unison of accusation: "If we give you an inch, you'll take a mile," and in this they are both entirely accurate.

Where the boundaries of convention are violated, the floodgates invariably open. Inadequate works, poorly conceived, execrable in their execution, having naught to recommend them but provocation for provocation's own sake of society's overly sensitive souls -- this follows in the wake of genuine innovation, as night follows day. An inch is granted and a mile is taken.

But to make room for the sublime we must defend the absurd, the guttural, the moronic, the fourth, fifth, and tenth rate. If the forces which are interested in sequestering From Hell are to be kept at bay, we must resist those efforts against a work like Verotika #4, deplorable as it is -- and the imagination boggles at what imitations Verotika itself might engender.

To give the censor an inch on on Verotika is to invite them to take a mile. The hammer blow which strikes down Verotika as self-evidently worthless trash glorifying violence against women will next descend, you can make book on it, upon Howard Cruse's Stuck Rubber Baby, or Donna Barr's Desert Peach for their portrayal of, to quote the rhetoric of the right wing, "an immoral lifestyle." Our goal is not the defense of mindless pornography; our goal is not the advocacy of creative works which degrade any group or individual. These substandard and repulsive works are not the standard we bear.

In the waning hours of the twentieth century we believe that individual choice must be preeminent, if we are to call ourselves a civilized people, a free people. Whether as San Franciscans, as Californians, as Americans, as North Americans, or as citizens of the global village. Just as no one should be forced to create, publish, distribute, display, sell, or buy comic books in violation of their personal choices and preferences, so too must it be seen as a violation of inherent human rights to impede anyone from creating, publishing, distributing, displaying, or buying the comic books of their choice.

Your assistance in guaranteeing these fundamental freedoms to choose is urgently needed; no contribution can be considered too small. A $5 contribution from each of a 100 people, a $20 contribution from each of 25 people, a $500 contribution from a single donor. Each contribution buys someone, somewhere, a minute, or an hour, or a day, of freedom from the imposition of a collective will upon the rights of them as an individual.

Neil Gaiman, and the Board of Directors of the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund ask for your contribution in the name of the ideal of free expression of creative ideas, and the fundamental human right to participate in and enjoy free expression without fear of prosecution.

Help us to defend that inch and the mile will take care of itself.

The iPetition: Ray Cornwall

RAY CORNWALL:
(iPetition signatory no. 480, 22 July 2013):

I read all 300 issues and all 6000 pages. There's a lot of things I could say about Dave, some good, some bad. But I don't think I'd brand him a misogynist. He's complicated, anti-feminist, heterosexist, and a little paranoid. He's too quick to brand things as belonging to the "Marxist-feminist-homosexual axis". (Obviously, I don't agree with most, if not all, of his opinions in this area.) He's also a staggering comic book genius, a man who self-taught himself to become one of the best artists on the planet, a hard-working man who willed himself to produce a 6000 page cohesive, readable, funny, though-provoking narrative over four decades. And he didn't stop - Judenhass, his short follow-up work, is must reading for anyone who is interested in the history of anti-Semitism, and glamourpuss, his sadly aborted comics series, was a fascinating review of fashion, photorealism, and Alex Raymond. He's now working on the followup to that with IDW. Dave's also one of the most charitable men I've ever seen, donating large chunks of money to causes he believes in. Whether it was a six-figure check to the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund or a continuing donation to anti-hunger efforts in Canada, he gives his money selflessly. He's given advice to would-be comics artists, and helped a number of artists get their start in comics. There are times when being a fan of Dave Sim is incredibly frustrating, when I've shaken my head at an emotional rant (his Tangents essay was hard to stomach). And there are other times when I've wept openly at the brilliance of his work. I've read all of his Cerebus work, and I urge anyone willing to read challenging material to do so. Cerebus might shock you; Cerebus might repulse you. But the work (and his post-Cerebus work, too) is utterly fascinating and worth your time. 

Support Dave Sim's right to free speech by signing the ipetition.

Drinking Buddies

"Drinking Buddies" Print
Art by Dave Sim & Gerhard

A gorgeous 8.5 x 11 inch print by Dave Sim and Gerhard originally created in the early 1990's as a fundraiser for the CBLDF, this print is signed by Dave Sim, printed on heavy stock, and is once again for sale from the CBLDF.

A Defender Of Liberty

Cerebus Backcover Advert (1997)
Art by Dave Sim & Gerhard

THE COMICS JOURNAL:
(from a News Watch article, The Comics Journal #189, August 1996)

The Comic Book Legal Defence Fund has named Cerebus creator Dave Sim and underground legend Paul Mavrides as the first recipients of the fund's Defenders Of Liberty awards. The pair were honored at the San Diego Comic Book Expo for their efforts as industry leaders in support of free speech rights.

Mavrides - who is perhaps best known for his work on the Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers - was selected for his unyielding battle with the California State Board of Equalisation over their decision that only prose manuscripts could be considered exempt from sales tax. He finally won in court after five years of legal wrangling with the BOE that saw Mavrides devote an inordinate amount of time  to enlisting support for cartoonists.

Sim was given the honor due to his tireless and generous financial support of the CBLDF; by far the leading contributor to the fund's treasure chest, he donated more than $122,000 over the past few years, in addition to raising money for the CBLDF by selling autographs at conventions and giving away original art to be auctioned off. Sim donated his entire royalties from several projects, including the Spawn-Cerebus cross over issue.

GARY GROTH:
(from the article The Comics Profession 1980-2000, The Comics Journal #220, February 2000)

Image is our next stop on the slippery slope to the deepening feeling of ennui and lethargy that has gripped the industry. Image, which wrapped itself around the Capraesque theme of the little guys vs the big, bad corporations of America, Mom and apple pie, is a flash-point in both the corruption of creator rights and the trend among professionals for mistaking money-grubbing for principle... How Frank Miller, Neil Gaiman, Alan Moore and Dave Sim could've been gulled by these idiots is beyond understanding (I'm not even sure how Miller's, Gaiman's and Moore's profiting obscenely by Image vs Sim's giving all his Image profits to the Comic Book Legal Defence Fund enters into the moral equation; does that make Sim smarter or stupider than the rest?).

Free Speeches

Illustration from Free Speeches, Oni Press (1998)
Art by Dave Sim

DAVE SIM:
(from Free Speeches, Oni Press, 1998)

If we are to be a free people and if we are to set ourselves apart from those who practice and advocate suppression, censorship, the imposition of one person or group's sensibilities upon another, then we must adhere to the absolutism of our position. If the forces which are interested in suppressing or labeling or sequestering Alan Moore and Eddie Campbell's From Hell are to be kept at bay, we must resist efforts along the same lines with a work like A Taste Of Cherry in Verotika #4... To give censors an inch on Verotika is to invite them to take a mile - and within the confines of that mile might well exist From Hell, Sandman, Stray Bullets, Love & Rockets - perhaps even Spiegelman's Maus or Eisner's Dropsie Avenue.

The True North

The True North (1987) & The True North II (1991)
Art by Dave Sim & Gerhard

RACHEL PEABODY:
(from the Comics Syurp Blog, October 2011))

In September of 1987, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police seized 192 comics from a comic book shop called Comic Legends in Calgary, Alberta. They also charged owners Julie Warren, Darren Ott and Dale Clarke with circulating obscene materials. The comics in question were adult comics and were never intended for children, nor were they sold to children. The reason for the search and confiscation of the comics was that a 14-year-old boy purchased a copy of Warlock 5 by Aircel Comics, and his mother complained. Warlock 5 was not a comic that was seized that day.

When comic artists caught wind of this, as they would, they were outraged. As a result, Paul Stockton, Leonard S Wong, Liz Schiller and Derek McCulloch formed the Comic Legends Legal Defense Fund (hereafter CLLDF). In order to raise funds for Warren, Ott and Clarke, CLLDF published an anti-censorship comic book anthology called The True North. Despite the unfavourable circumstances with which it was created, the comic book is an excellent testament to the conviction of the comic book industry both in and outside Canada. It also features a fantastic array of Canada’s writers and artists, as well as some Americans, spanning [every] style, era and genre.

Unfortunately, all three shopkeepers were convicted with a fine of $5500. Although they did appeal with the help of CLLDF, the result was only a reduced fine.

In 1991, the CLLDF published True North II, a second anthology collection, again anti-censorship, and again, a great collector’s item. What I love most about these comics is the sampling of so many different Canadian writers and artists.