

Indie Comics Seized by Customs Agents at US-Canada Border - mcantor
http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/05/13/indie-comics-seized-by-customs-agents-at-u-s-canada-border/

======
jameskilton
Do note, this is someone going INTO Canada. For once it's not our (America's)
stupid border patrol but someone else's!

~~~
gabrielroth
Just responding to your 'for once': U.S. publishers have long had this kind of
trouble with Canadian obscenity standards. In many ways the U.S.'s free-speech
regime is pretty broad-minded compared with other western democracies. I
suspect you're experiencing a kind of sample bias, where you (as an American)
hear more about U.S. free-speech violations than about restrictions elsewhere,
and thus believe that they're more frequent.

~~~
tseabrooks
I don't think he was referring to the U.S. because of an abundance of free
speech issues... Rather he was pointing out that we hear A LOT of bad press
about the U.S. border control in general... (i.e. confiscating laptops)...

------
ygreek
It feels ridiculous that I can easily send any pdf or jpeg files to Canada or
nearly any place connected to the Internet, and no one would interfere. But
somehow the exact same pictures printed or drawn on paper are subject to the
border inspections and potential seizure.

~~~
tseabrooks
For some countries those electronic files are being treated to a 'border
inspection' also... It may seem like Tin Foil Hattery... But I remain
unconvinced that this doesn't happen for some / a lot / most countries...

------
hsmyers
It might be just me, but I have this perception that the censors are winning.
That in fact the fight is pretty much over...

~~~
binarymax
Alan Ginsberg's HOWL was seized by customs in the 1950s when being imported
into the US from the foreign printer. He had his day and court and the
obscenity charge was overturned. So it is possible that the Canadian courts
will decide not to censor the material.

~~~
hugh3
I looked it up, and "Howl" was eventually allowed through on the grounds that
the courts decided it was of "redeeming social importance". In other words,
since Ginsberg is actually _good_ , they were willing to let it pass. From the
extract of the comic in question printed here, I'm willing to assume that this
comic isn't particularly good (it looks like something a teenager would draw
in the back of his maths book) so it'll be interesting to see how this will
play out.

The other thing is this: while standards of obscenity have dropped
considerably over the decades (to the point where Howl's objectionable phrase
"fucked in the ass by saintly motorcyclists" seems almost quaint) there has to
be a hard limit somewhere, and we've pretty much reached it. We're at the
point where all pornography is acceptable _except_ child pornography, and this
case is going to be about arguing where the boundaries of "child pornography"
are. Now, I'd say that a line drawing of two chracters who appear to be
children (but are stated in the text not to be) having graphic sex is
_nothing_ like actual child pornography (which is harmful to actual children)
but on the other hand I have a hard time summoning up the motivation to
_really_ defend it.

~~~
starwed
_"I'm willing to assume that this comic isn't particularly good (it looks like
something a teenager would draw in the back of his maths book) so it'll be
interesting to see how this will play out."_

There at least two comics talked about in the article, and the other one
(Black Eye) looks way more polished.

Besides, there's a difference between the technical skill of the artist and
whether the thing itself has artistic merit.

-edit- Apparently Young Lions has recieved some recognition and favorable response from critics: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaise_Larmee>

------
eps
Can someone who actually saw comics in question comment on whether they are of
an objectionable nature?

~~~
anamax
> Can someone who actually saw comics in question comment on whether they are
> of an objectionable nature?

Of course they're objectionable. Everything is objectionable to someone.

Oh, you meant whether you'd object, or maybe "good people would object".
That's different....

