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.
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)...
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.
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...
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.
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.
"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.
After I found Fansadox comics, I came to the conclusion that boundries didn't exist anymore. I don't feel disgusted and everybody can buy/watch whatever they want. But this things are so common nowadays, that I wonder where the boundry should be.
It's not about a "fight" here. Whatever law these were seized under, I'm sure it's been on the books for many years. The customs officer, on the other hand, doesn't have a helluva lot of authority to make the decision. I think it's silly, but hey, silly cases are what gives the Canadian Government a reason to change the law.
On the other hand, a badly-drawn comic book about characters who appear to be children engaged in graphic sexual activity might not be case that does it.
