The Ghost of Wertham, by Mike Gold
As comics fans, we should always be on the frontlines of the war to protect freedom of expression.
After all, it was our medium that was forced into a severe case of arrested development for a decade. Beginning in late 1940s and led by mascot psychiatrist Fredric Wertham, the Saturday Evening Post and the Readers Digest, comic book creators became seen as nothing less than child molesters and the medium was pressured into “Comics Code Authority” censorship and became trapped in its “childish claptrap” image for a generation. Hundreds of cartoonists, publishers, editors, and engravers lost their jobs; those that were among the fortunate few who remained gainfully employed told their neighbors they were “commercial artists” or some such lest they be chased out of suburbia by an angry mob.
For the past 20 years we’ve had a dangerous clown in the Senate who, when he’s not trying to get our armed forces to blast every Moslem in the middle east into smithereens (yep; it’s Memorial Day, so let’s honor our brave men and women by bringing them home from Iraq) is busy trying to raise our nation’s children on behalf of their evidently incompetent parents. Sadly, I’m talking about one of my own senators,
“independent” Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, a man no more independent than Karl Rove or Dick Cheney.
Senator Joe has actually threatened artistic creators with government censorship if they do not bow to his whims. Yeah, I know, I already compared him to Rove and Cheney so telling you he wipes his ass with the Bill of Rights is kind of redundant. Joe’s spent the past two decades – and our tax money – intimidating the forces that produce video games, movies and music he doesn’t appreciate, all the time hiding under the Great Flag of Cowards, the one that reads “save the children!” Now, he’s turned his attention to YouTube.
Earlier this week, Lieberman’s homeland security committee issued a report identifying the Internet as “one of the primary drivers” of the terrorist threat to the United States. Really, Joe? Do you believe everything you read on the Internets? Are you the only person alive who can weed out the BS? I guess all that online pornography is just the bait, the gateway to Moslem brainwashing. Of course, that’s a little hard to understand as fundamentalist Moslem dictates have the same attitude towards porn as… well… as Joe Lieberman, actually.
Yesterday’s New York Times ran an editorial under the headline “Joe Lieberman, Would-Be Censor.” They state, in part:
The Internet is simply a means of communication, like the telephone, but that has not prevented attempts to demonize it — the latest being the ludicrous claim that the Internet promotes terrorism.
Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut is trying to pressure YouTube to pull down videos he does not like, and a recent Senate report and a bill pending in Congress also raise the specter of censorship. It is important for online speech to be protected against these assaults.
Mr. Lieberman recently demanded that YouTube take down hundreds of videos produced by Islamist terrorist organizations or their supporters. YouTube reviewed the videos to determine whether they violated its guidelines, which prohibit hate speech and graphic or gratuitous violence. It took down 80 videos, but left others up. Mr. Lieberman said that was “not enough,” and demanded that more come down.
Even if YouTube pulled down every video Mr. Lieberman did not like, radical groups could post the same videos on their own Web sites. Trying to restrain the Internet is a game of “whack-a-mole” that cannot be won, says John Morris of the Center for Democracy and Technology. Having the videos on YouTube may even be a good thing, because it makes it easier for law enforcement officials, the media and the public to monitor the groups and their messages.
Senator Joe Lieberman, as your constituent and as a concerned American who believes that what you and your ilk have done to this nation is far worse than the all-too-real terrorist threat, I call upon you to honor and respect both the parents of the United States of America and the principles upon which this nation was founded. Stop threatening government censorship. Get your nose out of everybody else’s business.
When it comes to your childish multimedia book-burning, I say… Never Again.
Mike Gold is editor-in-chief of ComicMix.
Great post, Mike. I read the editorial yesterday and was sickened by the pandering to the right by that political hack, Lieberman. Enough of our rights have been eroded by the Patriot Act in the name of fighting terrorism. We must continue to call people out who would deny even more of our freedom as granted by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and fight to get back the rights that have been taken away. Its the most American thing we can do.
…those that were among the fortunate few who remained gainfully employed told their neighbors they were “commercial artists” or some such lest they be chased out of suburbia by an angry mob."Daddy is a crook, dear – he publishes "MAD" Magazine…"As i said in a comment to a post about this over at PCMag, "Right – protect our freedoms by cutting back our freedoms."Every time this sort of thing comes up, i am reminded of the line from the original "Spirit" story "The Awful Book" (retitled "The Awful Comic Book" and poorly rewritten for reprint):"…on my way home, I encountered the school psychologist, Doctor Wolfgang Worry, conducting his weekly book-burning…" (or words to that effect).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW2YHBfRhVcI found this take on Lieberman interesting:Lieberman was the first indication that there were actually Republicans in the Democratic Party. Forgive my naivety, but before the series of betrayals by Lieberman against important progressive legislation… I thought people with his sensibilities, voting for the war, for the Patriot Act, and voting against Medicare benefits for a very severely taxed generation of elderly ill, and against the few ideological stands the so-called left has been willing to brush up against since Bush took office… here were registered Republicans. Herr Lieberman helped me realize there is not much of a fine line left between the middle of the right and the edge of the left. We have moved so far over that even middle America stands perched on one foot, with it's one strand of hair tossed across its frowning face, trying to straighten the coffee in a cup that will forever be leaning far too right to ever feel balanced again. No good American can go out into the street today and not turn gray with nausea at the complacency of every single newspaper, financial institution, and influential individual in the conspiracy to keep this unqualified, uneducated, unelected criminal in office. Lieberman was an important candidate, and he, above all of them, is a turn coat who helped to nullify the potency of the left.-Rickie Lee JonesFebruary 27, 2006http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2006/02/ricki…Ah well, Rickie Lee Jones' opinion probably won't affect her career too badly. And where were Lieberman and Bush when the public was being organized in a witch hunt against The Dixie Chicks? The Dixie Chicks were banned from country radio. Essentially CD burnings were organized. The band received death threats. What was George Bush's take on this throwback to McCarthyism and Nazi Germany? Here's what Bush said: "The Dixie Chicks are free to speak their mind. They can say what they want to say … they shouldn't have their feelings hurt just because some people don't want to buy their records when they speak out … Freedom is a two-way street … I don't really care what the Dixie Chicks said. I want to do what I think is right for the American people, and if some singers or Hollywood stars feel like speaking out, that's fine. That's the great thing about America. It stands in stark contrast to Iraq…"In other words, in Bush's view black lists, book burnings and death threats are just part of the two way street of freedom. Yes, I'm putting words in Bush's mouth. But there should have been some official outrage on the part of the President to the hellish way the Dixie Chicks were treated for an off-hand remark.http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/dixie_chicks_shut…http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/opinion/15thu4….
Well, to defend George W. Bush here.. ("I'll take 'Words I Never Expected To Come Out Of My Mouth' For $500, Alex…")Being a celebrity does indeed cut both ways. If you are going to use your celebrity to take a stand one way or the other, you are risking alienating those who disagree with you. I haven't gone to a Dennis Miller gig in five years. It took me a long time before I could watch a John Wayne movie, and I had closely followed Gary Sinese's career since his earliest days at the Steppenwolf Theater. And don't get me started on that rat Elia Kazan (well, except for A Face In The Crowd, which pertains to this very point). I admire those celebrities who do take an educated stand — in other words, they know what they're talking about and not merely camp followers. Even those with whom I disagree. They are putting their livelihood on the line for their beliefs.
A boycott is different than a blacklist. And not buying something or even quietly throwing something in the trash is different than a public book burning (or, in the case of the Dixie Chicks CD, steamroller parties). One is an informed choice, the other is the incitement of mob mentality. And cutting both ways should NEVER include crap like death threats. That's the time when the leader of the FREE world needs to step up and say, "Listen people, this is getting out of hand. We don't KILL people just because we don't like what they have to say." The Dixie Chicks couldn't even BUY commercial time for their movie, "Shut Up and Sing," in 2006 because NBC didn't want to be linked with a controversy. The Dixie Chicks can't even buy commercial air time on some country radio stations to promote concerts. When does that start to infringe on free speech?The Dixie Chicks never "made a stand." One of them made an off hand remark, between songs, during one concert. This was quoted out of context and given legs by conservative talk radio. The Dixie Chicks were vilified beyond rational logic. Anti-Bush, Anti-war, or any other political sentiment wasn't at the center of their art. Attempts made by the band to apologize for their remark, saying that the Office of President deserves a certain level of respect, were not met with any kind of similar gestures from the other side. Apologies didn't mean as much as the media creating super-villains.
I agree with you in the specific, although you certainly don't need to establish a blacklist in order to piss off broadcasters who operate in fear of the FCC 24/7. And that's just what the Right thrives on — fear.
John Mellencamp did make a stand and put his livelihood on the line with his version of the song "To Washington" from his 2003 album Trouble No More:So a new man in the White HouseWith a familiar nameSaid he had some fresh ideasBut it's worse now since he cameFrom Texas to WashingtonAnd he wants to fight with manyAnd he says it's not for oilHe sent out the National GuardTo police the worldFrom Baghdad to WashingtonMellencamp's views alientated many of his long-time fans, who voiced their anger and criticism on his website, and he found himself compared with Osama bin Laden on the radio. http://dir.salon.com/story/ent/music/int/2003/06/…I don't recall if the outrage against Mellencamp was as severe as what happened to the Dixie Chicks, but the executives of his–and the Dixie Chicks's–record label certainly weren't pleased with the song.
You might also find this interesting:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/jose…My mom would say, "This is bad for the Jews."
Ha! Julie Schwartz would have said the exact same thing.