Boondocks Redux

[gnomi]

While I may have been overly paranoid about comics censorship at the beginning of October, this morning's Boston Globe had an article on just this subject that delves into why newspapers choose to censor the comics and whether this is an appropriate response to controversial strips.

The Globe has not been censoring the strips that the Washington Post decided were in bad taste and, honestly, I don't believe that there would be any reason to censor these particular strips and not, for instance, Mallard Fillmore in any given week. But that's just me.

Comments

[half-double.livejournal.com]

Man. That so sucks. Censoring comic strips because they actually make us think or push some edges, rather than being bland & unfunny like - well, I won't name names, but you get the idea.

The quote from the Star Tribune guy made me giggle, though; sometimes I think the comics page is the only place freedom of expression is alive at that paper.

[zsero.livejournal.com]

I pretty much agree with the Ombudsgod on this. Comparing Bush to Hitler, or calling Rice a lesbian is not cool, and drawing pictures around the message doesn't make it cool. Nor, BTW, is calling Sharon a hook-nosed money-grubbing baby-blood-sucking joo. If it's not funny, it doesn't belong on the funnies page, it belongs on the opinion page. And if you wouldn't print it in an opinion piece, don't print it as a cartoon.