Comics Code Dead

tverbeek writes "After more than half a century of stifling the comic book industry, the Comics Code Authority is effectively dead. Created in response to Fredric Wertham's Seduction of the Innocent, one of the early think-of-the-children censorship campaigns, and Congressional hearings, the Code laid out a checklist of requirements and restrictions for comics to be distributed to newsstand vendors, effectively ensuring that in North America, only simplistic stories for children would be told using the medium of sequential art. It gradually lost many of its teeth, and an increasing number of publishers gave up on newsstand distribution and ignored the Code, but at the turn of the century the US's largest comics publishers still participated. Marvel quit it in 2001, in favor of self-applied ratings styled after the MPAA's and ESRB's. Last year Bongo (publishers of the Simpsons comics) quietly dropped out. Now DC and Archie, the last publishers willingly subjecting their books to approval, have announced that they're discontinuing their use of the CCA, with DC following Marvel's example, and Archie (which recently introduced an openly gay supporting character, something flatly forbidden by the original Code) carrying on under their own standards. The Code's cousins — the MPAA and ESRB ratings, the RIAA parental advisory, and the mishmash of warnings on TV shows — still live on, but at least North American comic publishers are no longer subject to external censorship."

Comments

Er, what?

[Daetrin]

I don't know about the MPAA or the others, but i know the whole point of the ESRB was that it was a voluntary measure the video game industry took on itself in order to avoid something like the Comic Book Code getting created by an outside group. So it's not external censorship and it's really kind of weird to put it up as an example of the Comic Book Code's "cousin" living on. It's really a good example of the _right_ way to inform consumer about what's in the content they're consuming without being subject to censorship.

Re:Er, what?

[Bigjeff5]

It's funded by the publishers, but it is an external, independent entity, and the publishers have for years been slaves to it.

Just like the MPAA and RIAA ratings boards.

They subjected themselves to this form of censorship (one they had at least a modicum of influence over) to avoid government censorship. They were coerced by senators and congressmen and various executive agencies (like the FCC). It was the lesser of two evils. That does not mean it was not and is not still evil.

To make an analogy, my putting on a pair of handcuffs while you hold a gun to my head does not make me a willing participant of captivity.

The irony is if they had allowed government censorship they probably could have taken a page from Larry Flint's book and fought (and won) on constitutional grounds. American entertainment would be very different today if publishers had the balls to stand up for their constitutional rights.

what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gay characters are harmful to children? Children who might be gay themselves, and feel like monsters since they aren't aware that being gay is fine since they are never exposed to positive examples of it, in say, comics?

How does this kind of idiocy exist?

True in theory

[brunes69]

While schemes like the MPAA and ESRB systems are good in theory (rate the content, allow people to make their own decisions), the market realities of them basically end up resulting in "no adult content allowed". No one will stock or publish an ESRB AO game, just like no theatres ever show NC-17 films. As such there is no money in them, and the end up never being made.

Re:True in theory

[mewsenews]

No one will stock or publish an ESRB AO game, just like no theatres ever show NC-17 films.

I was about to make a snide comment about digital distribution eventually making this argument moot. However, I then realized that digital distribution is rapidly coalescing into a handful of retailers like Steam and iTunes app store, and they're just as unlikely to carry boobs than their brick and mortar counterparts.

Re:True in theory

[RobotRunAmok]

a G or PG rating is the kiss of death.

This premise, like your "Back to the Future" reference, is over twenty years out of date.

During that time, Hollywood (re?)discovered kids and families; some of the biggest blockbusters distributed recently have been rated G and PG, while the number of R-Rated movies being produced is a fraction of what it was back in the "Back to the Future" days.

Re:True in theory

[arun84h]

All three of the "Back to the Future" movies are rated PG, not PG-13 as you stated.

If anyone wants to see the clandestine and ridiculous nature of the MPAA ratings board, check out the movie "This Film Is Not Yet Rated". It shows just how messed up the rating process is, and how forcibly they /try/ to control the creativity of film makers. They're often successful, which is very sad. Ratings are largely arbitrary and shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone. These scum bags need to be disposed of.

Re:True in theory

[Idarubicin]

The ratings really are absolutely ridiculous. Besides being pretty inconsistent from one movie to the next, you can kill a million people rather graphically and still get a PG-13 rating, but show tits for more than about 3 seconds (or more than once) and it's a guaranteed R rating.

I was gobsmacked to discover that The King's Speech actually drew an R rating from the MPAA. (Apparently, they objected to the use of profanity - including the dreaded 'fuck' - even in the context of speech therapy. For the record, it was part of one of the most brilliantly funny scenes in the film.) The Lord of the Rings films, meanwhile, get a PG-13, despite impalements, beheadings, and the deaths of thousands. Casino Royale gets a PG-13, even with all its James Bond violence, and the sadistic clubbing of the protagonist's testicles while he's tied to a chair.

This Film Is Not Yet Rated is an excellent, biting documentary about the MPAA's secretive, deceptive, politicized ratings system. You should be warned, however, that while the film currently has no MPAA rating, an early version of the film received a provisional NC-17 rating.

Re:The "Comic Code" never had any "teeth".

[vbraga]

Just the fact people doesn't know other publishers outside the voluntary control means the control has some efficacy, probably by making commercially nonviable to be outside of it. This is, in practice, censorship, isn't it?

Good riddance

[Eravnrekaree]

*Ding dong the witch is dead*. And good riddance. Censorship has no place in a freedom loving society and its really appalling that Republicans who blather on about freedom are the first to support authoritarian censorship. Censorship and other social conservative ideas generally makes a society by condoning violent behaviour and sanctioning supression and violence against others who have views, expression or opinions some do not like.

Skin never hurt anyone, the idea that nudity or sex is bad (or psychedelics for that matter) is completely concocted by society, these things are victimless, as a society we should let individuals make up their own minds and decisions, rather than have a authoritarian government and the right wing religious organisations, the private quasi or defacto governmental form of that, watching over our every move.

I prefer more of a western European model, with a socially liberal atmosphere and little or no censorship, nude beaches etc, and governments that concern themselves with making sure people have food, housing, good jobs, and health care, and education, rather than obsesssing over imposing arbitrary ideologies on people. As a social libertatian, that is what we believe in and leads to a truly safe society.

The idea that nudity is wrong is, in fact, a lie. It is a lie promulgated by oppressive religious ideologies that are designed to control, enslave and indoctrinate peoples minds. It is opposed to individual liberty and rationality, that people should have individual self determination rights and things which do not deprive others of their own freedom should not be enacted. Nudity is victimless, it takes away no ones right to not or to wear clothes as they prefer. In fact, laws against nudity take away our right to make these choices for themselves. Nudity is truly harmless, and there is much more of it in Europe. Yet Europe is far safer than the US and has much less violent crime, an overall safer society.

The most socially conservative places in the world, such as Iraq, or Afghanistan are also the most dangerous and violent.

Ironically the country that Republicans seem to want is one where public school has been replaced by bible school, harmless. natural and innocent things like nude swimming have been banned, and with children dying on the street from starvation and treatable medical conditions, massive military and industrial prison complexs and so on.

We will all be better off when we evolve past medieval religious ideologies and systems of oppressive social control designed to take away individuals freedom, not preserve them.

The industry is just hurting itself

[GodfatherofSoul]

I haven't collected since I was a kid...actually I've never collected. I just got them and read them until the covers literally fell off. But, those young readers were the pool from which adult readers sprang. Creating titles that everyone could read is what made the industry so ubiquitous. Now, it's a boutique niche with drastically reduced readership. Maybe that's made it more satisfying to the adult readers, I don't know.

I had a friend in college who collected and bragged about the value of his collection with the confidence of a basement full of gold bullion. That was before everyone figured out the only readers left were just the collectors, and the valuation formulas were all wrong. Kind of like their own economic bubble.

Re:Very similar to smoking bans

[spire3661]

Smoking bans are in place because you are igniting a caustic material in a public area. Your smoking affects others around you and that's where your rights start to seriously fade fast. Think about this logically, why would it ever be ok to light things on fire in public and subject others to the results of said fire? In no way do you have an inalienable right to ignite chemicals in public places whenever you feel like it.

Re:Very similar to smoking bans

[ClioCJS]

Smoking bans aren't typically in public areas, they are typically in private areas open to the public. Trying to call privately owned bars "public" is misleading rhetoric. Bans are typically are not in place in actual public areas like streets and park;, they are in bars that are privately owned.

Nobody is forcing you to go into that bar, anymore than anyone is forcing you to read a comic book with a gay character. But thanks for pointing out the douchey tyranny of the majority - You are against freedom. The freedom for a property owner to own property and say "this is what I want to happen on my own property". Your mentality is also the exact same mentality that stomps out adult stops, strip clubs, and sex clubs. "Something is going on that I don't like, so I'm going to whine to the government to control the behavior of consenting adults." Whether you realize it or acknowledge it, you are anti-freedom. People like you are why I would never open a business.

Re:Very similar to smoking bans

[ClioCJS]

Huh? How did that rebuttal make any sense whatsoever?

First off, we are not talking about public parts. We are talking about private businesses. So already, you're using a strawman fallacy to attack a completely different situations than the one I'm talking about.

Second off, IF I OWNED MY OWN ESTABLISHMENT that consenting could enter into, and take a dump on the table - AND THIS IS WHAT MY CLIENTELE WANTED TO DO - Who the fuck are you to tell me I can't? If I open MY doors to the public, all of a sudden the public gets to tell me what to do?

But yea, anonymous coward, way to talk about something completely different and irrelevant. You win the internet.

Re:The "Comic Code" never had any "teeth".

[jedidiah]

The comics code wasn't just avout being respectable, it was also about enforcing 50's era ideas on racism. Saying it was only about 'quality' is just demostrates total cluelessness on the part of the commenters.

In fact it is quality that was killed by the code.

Re:Very similar to smoking bans

[AK Marc]

That ownership of property means you can do what you want on your property within law.

Second hand smoke is poison. You can't poison people on your private property. Selling is legal, sex is legal, selling sex on your property is illegal. And no one is telling you that you can't smoke in your own bar after hours when no one is there. You still have that freedom. You just can't enter into an employment contract that makes your employees slaves, nor requires that they be poisoned every time they show up to work, whether they are working in public parks or your "private" establishment.

That's a strawman representation/response to tyranny of the majority, which is the weakest part of democracy.

So you support it while hating many things that come from it? Or do you not support it? Tyranny by the majority is a natural result of democracy, and if you think it's such a problem, what other governmental structure would you prefer?

Tyranny of the majority is a real problem to be addressed with real discourse, not comparisons to dictatorships and Hitler and such.

You brought up Hitler not me, and, in case you didn't know, Hitler was democratically elected. Democracy leads to Hitlers, not protects us from them.