Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship News Your Rights Online

Comics Code Dead 316

Posted by Soulskill
from the may-make-a-shocking-return-in-later-issue dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Comics Code Dead

Comments Filter:
  • Er, what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Daetrin (576516) on Saturday January 22, 2011 @12:40PM (#34965498)
    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.
    • True in theory (Score:5, Insightful)

      by brunes69 (86786) <`slashdot' `at' `keirstead.org'> on Saturday January 22, 2011 @12:50PM (#34965564) Homepage

      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 (Score:5, Interesting)

        by cptdondo (59460) on Saturday January 22, 2011 @01:05PM (#34965642) Journal

        By teh same token, a G or PG rating is the kiss of death. They laced "Back to the Future" movies with profanity just so they could get a PG-13 movie.

        So the ratings really serve to compress all the movies into PG-13 and R, the difference being the amount of tits and blood.

        There are no really good kids movies or really good adult movies made anymore. I don't see anything like Fellini movies made these days. Or movies like Bedknobs and Broomsticks.

        In a lot of ways, the ratings have really killed truly creative movies; they have to fit the mold of PG-13 or R to get screened.

        • Blood = G or PG
          Tits = OMG! XXX! ding ding ding call the FCC! Call the national guard! The army, navy, marines! Call Reverend Phelps!

          • Re:True in theory (Score:5, Interesting)

            by Bigjeff5 (1143585) on Saturday January 22, 2011 @01:32PM (#34965832)

            Blood = G or PG

            Very small amounts of it, and absolutely no gore.

            The MPAA ratings board is a group of old "married" white women (supposedly parents with children living under roof, though most of them have no children in the house, and why is that the standard anyway?), so of of course tits are going to rate far higher than blood. I'm not being hyperbolic there either. It really is a bunch of old white women.

            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. You can even manage that R rating if you insinuate too much nudity, whether you actually show any tits or not.

            Also, Seduction of the Innocent is a great way to find old smutty comics. Some really great ones in there.

            • Re:True in theory (Score:5, Interesting)

              by iluvcapra (782887) on Saturday January 22, 2011 @02:47PM (#34966420)

              The MPAA ratings board is a group of old "married" white women (supposedly parents with children living under roof, though most of them have no children in the house, and why is that the standard anyway?), so of of course tits are going to rate far higher than blood. I'm not being hyperbolic there either. It really is a bunch of old white women.

              The MPAA rating isn't designed to protect children from content, it's designed to protect studios and theater owners from lawsuits and boycotts, and secondarily from state and federal regulation (btw, the first one has more historical precedent than the second and would be much more serious from a commercial standpoint -- it used to be in the 30s that studios might have to produce at least two cuts of a film for the United States, the one that the studio releases everywhere, and the one that releases in Jim Crow south.)

              Children do not file lawsuits, lead boycotts or write letters to congress. Old busybody white women do (arguendo I accept your stereotype), thus they set the standard. Kids sneak into whatever film they want, studios game the edge, etc.

              Recently this brushed up against Tom Hooper and his The King's Speech, which he was shocked got an R rating, when in every other film market on Earth (even and remarkably the government-rated ones) it was a family film with a G or PG equivalent. All for one seen where people swear, in a completely non-sexual context and for humorous effect.

              • by Moryath (553296)

                Ratings have become as much an ad in themselves and proof positive that the ratings board need to be changed if not abolished.

                When I saw a movie rated "PG-13" for "sexual content, some language and teen partying" I just had to laugh for a while. If that doesn't tell you that the stereotype - a bunch of sexless old white women spinsters who think the end of civilization involves naughty words and a bit of sex - is accurate, I don't know what does.

                Then again, that's what you get with the USA, where a bunch of

            • Re:True in theory (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Idarubicin (579475) <allsquiet@[ ]mail.com ['hot' in gap]> on Saturday January 22, 2011 @03:27PM (#34966752) Journal

              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 [imdb.com] 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 [wikipedia.org].

              • by russotto (537200)

                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.

                The earlier poster must be right about the middle-aged white women on the rating board. They were too busy swooning over Daniel Craig to notice the torture.

                • by drinkypoo (153816)

                  On the contrary, we are talking about the castrating shrew old bitches of the ratings board. They wanted to do the clubbing, because they hate men and their testicles. That's why anything that gets your balls bouncing is evil to them. If they had ever been properly laid maybe we could have some reasonable ratings, but half of them have probably never experienced orgasm.

        • Wow that brings back some memories!!!

          Now THAT is a movie I would like to get a BD remaster of, all cleaned up, so that when I have kids I know they can watch it...

          Time for some googling...

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by theaveng (1243528)

          By teh same token, a G or PG rating is the kiss of death

          Some of the highest-grossing movies were rated G. Like the annual Disney/Pixar animations. PG movies also grossed high.

          So basically you're flat wrong.

        • Re:True in theory (Score:5, Insightful)

          by RobotRunAmok (595286) on Saturday January 22, 2011 @02:08PM (#34966126)

          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 (Score:5, Insightful)

          by arun84h (1454607) on Saturday January 22, 2011 @02:42PM (#34966386)

          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.

        • Horseshit, there are great movies being made, especially for kids. "Up" is one that spings to mind.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by dangitman (862676)

          Bedknobs and Broomsticks.

          That's fucking disgusting. Get out of here with your pornographic filth.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by theaveng (1243528)

        Exactly. Adult-rated movies/games/books are considered unsellable in Walmart, Kmart, et cetera, so artists can't find any publishers to buy their work.

        Also I've found the ESRB to pretty much worthless. When shopping for kids this past Christmas (aged 10 and under) I didn't have a problem finding "Everyone" or Kid games for the girl with the Nintendo, but the boys with the Xbox was a real challenge. Almost all the games are rated Teen or Mature.

        Of course the boys wanted the Mature "kill as many people as

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          That's because you're buying games for the 360, which is loaded to the brim with mature shooter games and the few developers that put out family-friendly games on the system don't put out anything very good. You might find better luck on XBLA, although really most of the good all-ages games are on Nintendo systems.

      • Re:True in theory (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mewsenews (251487) on Saturday January 22, 2011 @01:27PM (#34965802) Homepage

        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.

        • by 0123456 (636235)

          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.

          Age of Conan and Saints Row 2 are both on Steam and both have boobs (OK, SR2 requires a trivial hack to unpixelate them). I think Witcher does too.

          So that's at least two and probably three Steam games with boobs, and I'm sure there are others.

          • by grumbel (592662)

            The first two are just M, not AO. The Witcher seems to exist in an AO version, but not on Steam. Indigo Prophecy Uncut is also AO, but also only on Steam in its cut M version.

            • by MoonBuggy (611105)

              The Witcher seems to exist in an AO version, but not on Steam. Indigo Prophecy Uncut is also AO, but also only on Steam in its cut M version.

              I wasn't aware of that at all, but it is one of the oddest things I've heard in a long time. Steam is pretty much the archetypal example of a service aimed (predominantly) at men in their late-teens to late-twenties, and well under the radar of the 'morality' brigade. If anything it strikes me that self-censorship would be viewed negatively by their users, unlike most bricks-and-mortar retailers who want to maintain a family friendly image.

            • by 0123456 (636235)

              The first two are just M, not AO.

              Yeah, and? The post I was replying to was claiming that you wouldn't find boobs in Steam games. It's blatantly wrong.

              The Witcher seems to exist in an AO version, but not on Steam. Indigo Prophecy Uncut is also AO, but also only on Steam in its cut M version.

              It's hard to tell which version of Witcher is on Steam; I haven't played it since they released the 'Enhanced Edition' to replace the original censored version of the game, but I don't know whether that's still censored because there seem to be multiple versions in existence.

              Part of the problem is the self-supporting nature of censorship; if you only release kids' games because you're not all

      • by houghi (78078)

        And with adult content, people talk about sex or the human body, not murder or killing. Weird.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
          No, not weird -- just very American.
      • Yup. Porn is such a non-profit busines.
    • Re:Er, what? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by russotto (537200) on Saturday January 22, 2011 @12:55PM (#34965582) Journal

      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.

      The comic book code was exactly the same. Only it ended up being harsher than any sort of external censorship (in the US). You'd think people would learn not to fashion the ropes by which they are bound, but the idea of "let's censor ourselves so outsiders don't censor us" still has a lot of currency.

      • Re:Er, what? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Artifakt (700173) on Saturday January 22, 2011 @03:40PM (#34966840)

        The comics code was harsh, and it was obvious the people implementing it were stupid fools, toadies and jerks, bent on agrandizing themselves and their political viewpoint from very early on.
        For stupidity, the code authors didn't know how to write laws in legal English, so they put in clauses forbidding depicting zombieism and werewolfism (I suppose by analogy with the word 'vampirism'.). One of the biggest reasons many people still believe today that finely ground glass in food is undetectable and will kill the eater is that the code prohibited all realistic depiction of any method of murder that even might actually work, so detective oriented characters such as Batman or the Question had to stop solving realistic crimes and solve impossible ones, where magnets attracted copper and giant magnifying glasses could be rendered invisible yet still focus the sun's rays. Ground glass was a favorite during the 50's, one that became incorporated into urban legends.
        For toadying, the early code prohibited ever showing an elected official or policeman committing any crime, even if they were caught and punished. The code linked the American way of life directly with free market capitalism, and prohibited all mention of drug use, even in an negative light, so one of the first cases of a mainstream comic not receiving the code seal was basically that it mentioned "Heroin is bad for you kids, so don't do it, m-kay?" It proved far easier for the code authorities to say "America doesn't have a drug problem, so don't talk about it in comics, at all", than to allow anti-drug messages.

    • Re:Er, what? (Score:4, Informative)

      by locallyunscene (1000523) on Saturday January 22, 2011 @12:57PM (#34965606)
      The CCA wasn't created by an outside group it was created by comic book publishers it self censor, just like the organizations mentioned in the TFS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code_Authority [wikipedia.org]
      • Re:Er, what? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Bigjeff5 (1143585) on Saturday January 22, 2011 @01:41PM (#34965896)

        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.

        • My point was not that it is not censorship because it obviously is; I was just responding to the above commenter that said the ESRB is different.
        • by 0123456 (636235)

          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.

          You're assuming they would want to. The MPAA ratings also gave Hollywood an excellent weapon to keep competitors out of the market; for example, read Lloyd Kaufmann on how the MPAA forced cuts in his movies to remove things that would easily get past them in a Hollywood production.

          • by tverbeek (457094)

            Archie and Bongo stayed with the CCA until now because it didn't limit them: they're in the business of making comics for pre-teens (though Bongo's are smart enough for adults too), so the Code wasn't a problem. Stan Lee (who defied the Code exactly once, when he agreed to a government request to publish a drugs-are-bad story in 1971) said that he never had any trouble with the Code, because he wasn't interested in writing stories about all the stuff the Code prohibited.

            On the other hand, there's pretty pe

  • and in the meantime for the past quarter century I have wanted the porn industry to establish the same kind of warnings. I'm still waiting.
    • I have wanted the porn industry to establish the same kind of warnings.

      What? "All stunts were performed by professional actors. Don't try this at home."?

  • what? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 22, 2011 @12:44PM (#34965526)

    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?

  • by John Hasler (414242) on Saturday January 22, 2011 @12:46PM (#34965542) Homepage

    And it was always voluntary. The publishers were not subject to external censorship. They chose to follow that "code" (and of course not all did. You just never heard of those who didn't.)

    • by vbraga (228124) on Saturday January 22, 2011 @12:55PM (#34965588) Journal

      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?

    • by westlake (615356)

      And it was always voluntary. The publishers were not subject to external censorship. They chose to follow that "code" (and of course not all did. You just never heard of those who didn't.)

      The comic book - like the pulp fiction magazine (Think Astounding, Black Mask, Wierd Tales,etc.) - was driven close to extinction by television and the 25 cent paperback book. Mickey Spillane and Mike Hammer.

      The crime and horror comics were an attempt to re-capture a teen age and adult readership. The problem was that in

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by jedidiah (1196)

        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.

  • ...as well as his roommate Leonard Hofstadter and friends Howard Wolowitz, and Raj Koothrappali.
  • Good riddance (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Eravnrekaree (467752) on Saturday January 22, 2011 @01:04PM (#34965638)

    *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.

    • 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.

      Like the two-party system that convinces people that there's a "good guys" camp and a "bad guys" camp and causes them to act irrationally in support of "their tribe" and spit vitriol against the "other tribe"?

      • It is a good point. Perhaps a multiparty proportional system would be better, would end the dual party system and lead to less us vs. them, such as the party lists in europe, which by its nature. leads to a much greater diversity of parties. All a party needs is 5% of the popular vote. Secondly, it assures that everyones vote counts. A party list can be combined with a transferable prefeerance list vote for people whose party fell below the 5% threshold.

    • 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.

      While there is much that I like about Europe, the idea that there is little or no censorship is not correct. They have their own types of censorship that center on what *they* believe is bad; just as the US does. Neither is necessarily better; just different.

    • 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.

      But your model of taking most of what people earn in order to pay for this utopia is somehow not ideological? I mean if you want to say your way is better then that's your prerogative, but don't claim you're objective while you're doing it.

      • Good question. Its not that ideological since I beleive that people should have a right to do what they wish as long as it does not take away others rights to do the same. So in the case of nudism people should have a right to not wear clothes in an outdoor location such a beach or park, or not to, its their own choice, but they should not have a right to force on others at such places to not where clothes, or to wear them. So, this is letting people make up their own minds about their own preference rather

    • and its really appalling that Republicans who blather on about freedom are the first to support authoritarian censorship

      Right, and I'm sure that no democrats would ever want to censor something... Oh wait... In 2010 out of the 19 senators to support the censorship of the internet (AKA COICA) the majority of them were... democrats. Now, I'm not saying that both parties aren't to blame for the censorship in our society but it is laughable to claim that one of the two very similar parties in power is more guilty than another.

      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 western Europe is truly socially liberal is a lie. Heck, in some places you can't even

  • by GodfatherofSoul (174979) on Saturday January 22, 2011 @01:11PM (#34965688)

    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.

    • well, thats not exactly true. If you bought rare comics, then you were good and you're doing better today than if you invested in Gold. If you bought 500 copies of Spawn #1 , or Youngblood #1, you're an idiot.

      • You mean it wasn't a good idea to use those few hundred copies of Action Comic #1 I found in a box in my basement as tinder?

  • "only simplistic stories for children would be told using the medium of sequential art"

    Yeah, That's exactly how comics have been since the CCA.

    Eyeroll
    • Yes they have. And that in turn opened a huge, dangerous venue. Because the immediate assumption of pretty much everyone past the age of 25 was that "if it's comic style, it's suitable for children".

      In came Anime. I will never forget the afternoon I spent watching Princess Mononoke in a movie theater. Hint for movie theaters: WATCH your damn movies before you simply roll them so you KNOW which movies are not for kids. And hint for parents: Just because it's a "comic movie" doesn't mean it's a good idea to t

  • by ulaanbaatar (1981600) on Saturday January 22, 2011 @01:32PM (#34965834)
    Now maybe Batman and Robin can be honest about their love.
  • by Reed Solomon (897367) on Saturday January 22, 2011 @01:44PM (#34965936) Homepage

    Archie Comics spokesman mentioned the whole "we're not going to have any women in refrigerators" just because we're dropping the comics code, which is somewhat ironic, as the woman in that particular refrigerator came to be as a direct result of the comics code authority interference. Originally in the Green Lantern story the incident occurred in, the woman in question was supposed to be brutally murdered, but the comics code didn't want people to see a murdered woman, so instead, they had her put in the refrigerator and alluded to it instead. Nice work, comics code.

  • by Hognoxious (631665) on Saturday January 22, 2011 @01:49PM (#34965968) Homepage Journal

    Last year Bongo (publishers of the Simpsons comics) quietly dropped out.

    I was on the internet in minutes, registering my approval.

  • ARCHIE has a gay character? After decades of frustration with the girls did Archie come out?
    • No! Jughead was always the gay one. Remember how he always had that girl that looked like him run after him and he was always running away from her? Now he can declare his undying love for Moose and Moose can stop hanging around with that annoying Midge just to cover...

  • by Opportunist (166417) on Saturday January 22, 2011 @02:22PM (#34966230)

    And until "real" censorship, i.e. government mandated censorship, happens, this will stay dead. Let's hope for a long resting in peace.

    The only reason such "codes" could fly is that the makers of art had to rely on a distribution system that could force such arbitrary restrictions on them. Write to our code or we don't publish, and if we don't, nobody worth mentioning will. You will not sell your comic, you will not show your movie, your game will never be sold.

    Now, the internet makes the whole scheme crumble. You don't sell my game, my comic book, my movie and nobody in the US does? So I sell it through a publisher in another country, and unless the US forbids import of the game (and unless they plan to swing that censorship hammer, they won't), I couldn't care less for your "code of conduct". People who are fed up with your "coded" content will gladly look abroad and with global shipping, yes, it might cost them a bit more, but they get what they want. Whether I pay 5 bucks for a comic I don't want or 8 for one I do is not going to break my neck financially.

    But it sure will break yours, since I'm not the only one who can't care less for your "coded" crap.

  • by digitalhermit (113459) on Saturday January 22, 2011 @03:01PM (#34966530) Homepage

    Just wait until the next issue when they realize that Comics Code was *NOT* dead, but instead placed in suspended animation when his arch nemesis switched the translator module causing a brain cascade failure... And in all that time, Comics Code was in an alternate reality, getting stronger, leveling up....

    Next issue.. Comics Code returns!

  • effectively ensuring that in North America, only simplistic stories for children would be told

    So there *was* a reason American comics are inferior to manga!? And I tough it was only a matter of personal taste.

    (There are good western comics I know, *I guess*, I've read great things about The Sandman)

Aren't you glad you're not getting all the government you pay for now?

Working...