Comics, Simpsons, and Free Speech

You know, if Andy Martello were here, he'd have a hearty chuckle.

(Thanks to the blogosphere, he technically is always here, but that's another discussion altogether)

It all started when Neil Gaiman weighed in on a recent Australian court case, which made it illegal to own pictures of cartoon characters (like The Simpsons in "adult situations". The decision's claim was that the pictures were child pornography; most free speech advocates would state that although in slightly poor taste, the pictures were not child pornography (especially since, well, actual children were not used in the creation of said pictures). In fact, fellow blogger Rich had what I thought was the last word in the discussion.

Since then, the blogosphere has been set alight, with one blogger disagreeing with Gaiman, and a Newsarama commentor, well, performing the best Bill O'Reilly impersonation this year. (In all fairness, Newsarama did write a brief article outlining the issues involved).

Now, for the record, I disagree with Ms. D'Orazio - cartoon characters in adult situations can be slightly tasteless, but minor ones....that shouldn't be illegal. Depending on what you read, either US federal law includes cartoons and computer-generated graphics as being "illegal", but the courts are trudging through it one case at a time. It's...a rather difficult situation, to determine what is appropriate (whether sketches are the same as having actual children victimized) versus the overall effect (is such art fuel for further exploitation). It's a tough issue, and further debate is needed....

But a deeper point - free speech means that, at times, we will be offended by something - a piece of art, a statement, but if we're having conversations about comics, dissension and debate are healthy...and necessary to our democracy. It means that out of two differing ideas, a new idea can be hatched. It also means that we will be challenged on our beliefs...and that we will be stronger when someone challenges us. This is so important that, when the US Constitution was written, it was made the very First Amendment. So despite the fact that we have many differing opinions, no single one of us has the right to deny or insult opinions that differ from ours. Although I don't believe that owning such material is wrong (just tacky and tasteless) - and would not do so myself - I have to admit that, once this is attacked, it then becomes an eye-of-the-beholder issue.

But in many ways, that's part of the reason why I wish Andy was "here", metaphorically speaking. He and I would have a hearty debate. We'd disagree. But then, we'd have a laugh, snickering at the fact that I managed to sneak the word "porn" into this post so frequently, thereby increasing the number of hits to the blog.