Indeed it was, it was also a form of corporate harassment and copaganda. It is now in the hands of the nonpropfit Comic Book Legal Defense Fund that protects the free speech rights of comic artists and publishers, which is one of the biggest "Haha frick you!" to censorship in history. Hays Code was the same thing, a form of corporate harassment.
If nobody is being hurt, and you don't like it, then mind your business.
William M. Gaines could've considered his words a little bit better. His EC comics were the reason why comics were attacked, and most people considered his attempts at defense lacking.
>With the publication of Dr. Fredric Wertham's Seduction of the Innocent, comic books like those that Gaines published attracted the attention of the U.S. Congress. In 1954, Gaines testified before the Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency.[7][8] In the following exchanges, he is addressed first by Chief Counsel Herbert Beaser, and then by Senator Estes Kefauver:
>Beaser: "Is the sole test of what you would put into your magazine whether it sells? Is there any limit you can think of that you would not put in a magazine because you thought a child should not see or read about it?" >Gaines: "No, I wouldn't say that there is any limit for the reason you outlined. My only limits are the bounds of good taste, what I consider good taste." >Beaser: "Then you think a child cannot in any way, in any way, shape, or manner, be hurt by anything that a child reads or sees?" >Gaines: "I don't believe so." >Beaser: "There would be no limit actually to what you put in the magazines?" >Gaines: "Only within the bounds of good taste." >Beaser: "Your own good taste and saleability?" >Gaines: "Yes."
>Kefauver: "Here is your May 22 issue [Crime SuspenStories No. 22, cover date May]. This seems to be a man with a bloody axe holding a woman's head up which has been severed from her body. Do you think that is in good taste?" >Gaines: "Yes sir, I do, for the cover of a horror comic. A cover in bad taste, for example, might be defined as holding the head a little higher so that the neck could be seen dripping blood from it, and moving the body over a little further so that the neck of the body could be seen to be bloody." >Kefauver: "You have blood coming out of her mouth." >Gaines: "A little." >Kefauver: "Here is blood on the axe. I think most adults are shocked by that."
But it was for children. It was marketed and sold specifically for them. That's the primary reason for the whole controversy. The secondary reason was that I don't think any media for actual adults was allowed to be that graphic at the time, either.
This isn't any worse than Bugs Bunny/Warner Brothers or Tom and Jerry Cartoons from the same era or a decade earlier.
Never trust anybody who wants t abn something or pass laws in the name of "Protecting the children".
Those kinds of people are NEVER to be trusted.
But it was for children. It was marketed and sold specifically for them. That's the primary reason for the whole controversy. The secondary reason was that I don't think any media for actual adults was allowed to be that graphic at the time, either.
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/01/26/kellyanne-conway-home-visited-by-police-after-nude-photo-of-daughter-appears-on-twitter.html
WHY DID YOUR PRESIDENT'S WHITE HOUSE ADVISOR POST CHILD PORNOGRAPHY ON TWITTER?
>back in the day >artists fighting against and working around external censorship
SOUL >today >brainwashed artists willingly censoring themselves
SOULLESS
Yes. It's a shame too, We could use something like this today. You know, besides the existing "progressive" comic authority we effectively have today.
t. Guy who doesn't read comics but subscribes to grifters who say they're bad online.
>Grifter
It was the Hays Code but for comics rather than movies.
That was Republicans.
Indeed it was, it was also a form of corporate harassment and copaganda. It is now in the hands of the nonpropfit Comic Book Legal Defense Fund that protects the free speech rights of comic artists and publishers, which is one of the biggest "Haha frick you!" to censorship in history. Hays Code was the same thing, a form of corporate harassment.
If nobody is being hurt, and you don't like it, then mind your business.
William M. Gaines could've considered his words a little bit better. His EC comics were the reason why comics were attacked, and most people considered his attempts at defense lacking.
>With the publication of Dr. Fredric Wertham's Seduction of the Innocent, comic books like those that Gaines published attracted the attention of the U.S. Congress. In 1954, Gaines testified before the Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency.[7][8] In the following exchanges, he is addressed first by Chief Counsel Herbert Beaser, and then by Senator Estes Kefauver:
>Beaser: "Is the sole test of what you would put into your magazine whether it sells? Is there any limit you can think of that you would not put in a magazine because you thought a child should not see or read about it?"
>Gaines: "No, I wouldn't say that there is any limit for the reason you outlined. My only limits are the bounds of good taste, what I consider good taste."
>Beaser: "Then you think a child cannot in any way, in any way, shape, or manner, be hurt by anything that a child reads or sees?"
>Gaines: "I don't believe so."
>Beaser: "There would be no limit actually to what you put in the magazines?"
>Gaines: "Only within the bounds of good taste."
>Beaser: "Your own good taste and saleability?"
>Gaines: "Yes."
>Kefauver: "Here is your May 22 issue [Crime SuspenStories No. 22, cover date May]. This seems to be a man with a bloody axe holding a woman's head up which has been severed from her body. Do you think that is in good taste?"
>Gaines: "Yes sir, I do, for the cover of a horror comic. A cover in bad taste, for example, might be defined as holding the head a little higher so that the neck could be seen dripping blood from it, and moving the body over a little further so that the neck of the body could be seen to be bloody."
>Kefauver: "You have blood coming out of her mouth."
>Gaines: "A little."
>Kefauver: "Here is blood on the axe. I think most adults are shocked by that."
This isn't any worse than Bugs Bunny/Warner Brothers or Tom and Jerry Cartoons from the same era or a decade earlier.
Never trust anybody who wants t abn something or pass laws in the name of "Protecting the children".
Those kinds of people are NEVER to be trusted.
Conversation should've ended with "It's not for children".
But it was for children. It was marketed and sold specifically for them. That's the primary reason for the whole controversy. The secondary reason was that I don't think any media for actual adults was allowed to be that graphic at the time, either.
And now lgbt communists are specifically targeting children. I see no cca. Yikes
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/01/26/kellyanne-conway-home-visited-by-police-after-nude-photo-of-daughter-appears-on-twitter.html
WHY DID YOUR PRESIDENT'S WHITE HOUSE ADVISOR POST CHILD PORNOGRAPHY ON TWITTER?
Looks like a hag
>back in the day
>artists fighting against and working around external censorship
SOUL
>today
>brainwashed artists willingly censoring themselves
SOULLESS
Censorship is like predators. Without it keeping the herds fit and trim all the other animals get flabby and sickly and drown in their own shit.
it was a mistake
It was the conservatives of their day having a moral panic.