Just a few notes. As you noted in a previous article regarding alcohol prohibition. Education is a much preferable option to prohibition (which has a poor track record of solving anything).
You point out some 16+ labels on Dark Horse reprints of EC Comics. But that doesn't qualify as Wertham level censorship as you imply. Wertham wanted to make comics illegal to sell to people of a certain age. That's very different to putting a label on a comic.
You could make the argument that restrictions of sale of alcohol and cigarettes to minors is a precedent. But those substances are of a very different type than art. There are implications to giving the State power to regular art that I'm not comfortable with.
The only thing I can think of that makes a better case in favour or art regulation is tattoos. But tattoos, like alcohol and cigarettes are a substance which enters the body. Comics are not.
I learned a lot in this series of articles. But I am remain mostly unchanged in my position regarding the matter.
Parents upset at the comics can regulate what comics their children read better than the state can. And if they don;t, the they should.
The evidence for the link between comics and juvenile delinquency is co-relation at best.
Burning comics, the CCA, the senate hearings, none of that solved the problem of juvenile delinquency. Comics were a scapegoat for much bigger problems.
Thanks for reading, and glad I'm you enjoyed them!
Some clarifications based on your comments:
1. Education vs Prohibition: Yes, President Eisenhower had said that legislation was not on the table, and the Winters decision made many of the laws enacted in 1954-1955 moot and unenforceable. Definitely education over prohibition, and the US GOV at this point had learned that lesson.
2. Dark Horse and other comic company labeling: This was a hefty dose of tongue-in-cheek, but there is some truth here as well. What Dark Horse does do is recognize that some materials they sell should not be given to younger children, as it may not be appropriate for them. This is NOT what many Comic Book publishers in 1954 recognized--their self-censoring modules to protect children were non-existent. By agreeing with Wertham that some materials are inappropriate, Dark Horse takes a position similar to Wertham's, that age appropriate restriction is good.
3. Alcohol/Tobacco vs Comics Restrictions: As above, this is a recognition that some things are not appropriate for children, thus care should be taken in exposing them to these things. Are parents the appropriate people to control that? They certainly are vice government. BUT, the 1954 comic companies did not recognize this as necessary.
4. The key element that turned the tide after the Senate Subcommittee hearings was that more parents began to pay attention to what their kids were reading, watching on TV and movie screens, and listening to on radio or records. Parents took control—which is appropriate, as you point out—establishing a wider boycott of comics (at least certain ones) and cutting off the oxygen to EC and other Horror comics publishers. This was not censorship where anyone was denied the ability to publish and distribute. This was denial by the market to recognize the publishers' wares as worthy of purchase.
5. Comics and delinquency link: No one could say one way or the other in 1954 based on aggregate research findings of the day. Wertham’s clinical reviews would have been a basis for further research, but it was hardly complete or comprehensive at the time of the hearing.
6. None of these things solved the problem of juvenile delinquency, though it brought more awareness to the discussion and perhaps additional clarity to the difficulty in solving it. The things you mention DID help address the problem of some misbehaving comic book publishers by raising awareness of parents and other children's guardians. A rough measure of justice, but justice regardless for some rogue companies.
Your earlier comment about Gaines and others in the industry not being able to perceive outside the New York bubble was quite savvy. Creators living in moral cesspools like Hollywood and New York were exposed to levels of depravity that simply would not be tolerated by the average American then. The frog was not close enough to boiled, yet.
I believe that many areas of the country still aren't boiled enough, but the Media is not as willing to report facts as they were in the 1950s.
The Media takes two primary paths these days: (1) flood the zone with useless information, and (2) keep mum about everything related to the story until they no longer can.
The modern Media just colludes and shuts up about certain things, hoping people will stop paying attention. Compare Katrina and Helene response coverage for an excellent example of #2.
The press was already a tool (see Durante’s reports from the USSR, or what they did to McCarthy, for instance), but their chicanery wasn’t as ubiquitous and blatant yet.
Gosh, Gaines really torched himself, didn't he? But imagine being a parent with comic reading kids, watching these hearings on TV, and the severed head covers flash up on screen. My gosh, I'd have outlawed comics in my house on the spot.
As I mentioned above, I think Gaines did more to set off the firestorm than anyone else involved. This is why I did the "View from the Couch" inserts -- critics of the Code and typically of Wertham get into this "public fear" argument. It's hogwash. Parents weren't afraid, they were furious that comics were as shown at the hearings -- they were righteously angry about this stuff being in comics of the day, and more of them started paying attention.
It reminds me of the stuff going on with Disney today, and all the garbage they're cramming into kids shows and movies. The parents are throwing the same kind of fit and Disney is ignoring them the same way. Well, history tells us how that turns out, doesn't it?
Well, America was a majority Christian country back then. And while some institutions had already been infiltrated by those who hate us, most still largely strove to protect our way of life--not pervert and destroy it. Radically different scenario now.
What a dynamite piece! Great read.
Great series of articles!
Just a few notes. As you noted in a previous article regarding alcohol prohibition. Education is a much preferable option to prohibition (which has a poor track record of solving anything).
You point out some 16+ labels on Dark Horse reprints of EC Comics. But that doesn't qualify as Wertham level censorship as you imply. Wertham wanted to make comics illegal to sell to people of a certain age. That's very different to putting a label on a comic.
You could make the argument that restrictions of sale of alcohol and cigarettes to minors is a precedent. But those substances are of a very different type than art. There are implications to giving the State power to regular art that I'm not comfortable with.
The only thing I can think of that makes a better case in favour or art regulation is tattoos. But tattoos, like alcohol and cigarettes are a substance which enters the body. Comics are not.
I learned a lot in this series of articles. But I am remain mostly unchanged in my position regarding the matter.
Parents upset at the comics can regulate what comics their children read better than the state can. And if they don;t, the they should.
The evidence for the link between comics and juvenile delinquency is co-relation at best.
Burning comics, the CCA, the senate hearings, none of that solved the problem of juvenile delinquency. Comics were a scapegoat for much bigger problems.
Thanks for reading, and glad I'm you enjoyed them!
Some clarifications based on your comments:
1. Education vs Prohibition: Yes, President Eisenhower had said that legislation was not on the table, and the Winters decision made many of the laws enacted in 1954-1955 moot and unenforceable. Definitely education over prohibition, and the US GOV at this point had learned that lesson.
2. Dark Horse and other comic company labeling: This was a hefty dose of tongue-in-cheek, but there is some truth here as well. What Dark Horse does do is recognize that some materials they sell should not be given to younger children, as it may not be appropriate for them. This is NOT what many Comic Book publishers in 1954 recognized--their self-censoring modules to protect children were non-existent. By agreeing with Wertham that some materials are inappropriate, Dark Horse takes a position similar to Wertham's, that age appropriate restriction is good.
3. Alcohol/Tobacco vs Comics Restrictions: As above, this is a recognition that some things are not appropriate for children, thus care should be taken in exposing them to these things. Are parents the appropriate people to control that? They certainly are vice government. BUT, the 1954 comic companies did not recognize this as necessary.
4. The key element that turned the tide after the Senate Subcommittee hearings was that more parents began to pay attention to what their kids were reading, watching on TV and movie screens, and listening to on radio or records. Parents took control—which is appropriate, as you point out—establishing a wider boycott of comics (at least certain ones) and cutting off the oxygen to EC and other Horror comics publishers. This was not censorship where anyone was denied the ability to publish and distribute. This was denial by the market to recognize the publishers' wares as worthy of purchase.
5. Comics and delinquency link: No one could say one way or the other in 1954 based on aggregate research findings of the day. Wertham’s clinical reviews would have been a basis for further research, but it was hardly complete or comprehensive at the time of the hearing.
6. None of these things solved the problem of juvenile delinquency, though it brought more awareness to the discussion and perhaps additional clarity to the difficulty in solving it. The things you mention DID help address the problem of some misbehaving comic book publishers by raising awareness of parents and other children's guardians. A rough measure of justice, but justice regardless for some rogue companies.
Your earlier comment about Gaines and others in the industry not being able to perceive outside the New York bubble was quite savvy. Creators living in moral cesspools like Hollywood and New York were exposed to levels of depravity that simply would not be tolerated by the average American then. The frog was not close enough to boiled, yet.
I believe that many areas of the country still aren't boiled enough, but the Media is not as willing to report facts as they were in the 1950s.
The Media takes two primary paths these days: (1) flood the zone with useless information, and (2) keep mum about everything related to the story until they no longer can.
The modern Media just colludes and shuts up about certain things, hoping people will stop paying attention. Compare Katrina and Helene response coverage for an excellent example of #2.
Yeah, mos’ def’.
The press was already a tool (see Durante’s reports from the USSR, or what they did to McCarthy, for instance), but their chicanery wasn’t as ubiquitous and blatant yet.
Gosh, Gaines really torched himself, didn't he? But imagine being a parent with comic reading kids, watching these hearings on TV, and the severed head covers flash up on screen. My gosh, I'd have outlawed comics in my house on the spot.
As I mentioned above, I think Gaines did more to set off the firestorm than anyone else involved. This is why I did the "View from the Couch" inserts -- critics of the Code and typically of Wertham get into this "public fear" argument. It's hogwash. Parents weren't afraid, they were furious that comics were as shown at the hearings -- they were righteously angry about this stuff being in comics of the day, and more of them started paying attention.
It reminds me of the stuff going on with Disney today, and all the garbage they're cramming into kids shows and movies. The parents are throwing the same kind of fit and Disney is ignoring them the same way. Well, history tells us how that turns out, doesn't it?
Well, America was a majority Christian country back then. And while some institutions had already been infiltrated by those who hate us, most still largely strove to protect our way of life--not pervert and destroy it. Radically different scenario now.