One Speaks; The Other Doesn't

When Paul Levitz and Steve Geppi were appointed to the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund board of directors Sept. 13, it was, from one point of view, an obvious choice on the part of the Fund. The new board members are perhaps the two most prominent and influential figures in the comics industry and both have a history of supporting the Fund in various ways. Before celebrating their arrival on the board, however, certain questions would seem to be in order. Can any organization, especially one as small as the CBLDF, remain unchanged as board members like veteran underground publisher Denis Kitchen are replaced by comics-distribution magnate Steve Geppi and DC Comics President Paul Levitz? What role exactly does the board play in guiding the activities of the Fund? And how might the appointment of Geppi and Levitz affect that guidance? How committed is Geppi, who has a history of condemning and refusing to distribute adult and edgy comic books, to the First Amendment? And how committed is Levitz, who has a reputation for pulping potentially offensive DC comics, to freedom of expression for even the most controversial of comics? The answers to these questions would go a long way toward telling us whether the comics industry has welcomed two powerful First Amendment advocates into key positions in the fight against censorship or if it has set a pair of foxes to guard the henhouse.

As it turned out, Geppi had some new thoughts on the First Amendment that he was willing to share with the Journal, while Levitz had no comment on the subject of free speech.

In the nearly 20 years since it was formed, the CBLDF has racked up a noble, if not always victorious, record of defending comics creators, retailers and publishers from the attacks of angry parents, municipal authorities and large corporations who can't get it through their heads that comics are not necessarily for kids and that Americans have the right of free speech. Its support of the comics industry has been mutual. No other cause has been more successful at raising funds from every corner of the industry from readers to publishers. Though its avowed guiding principle remains the same ("comics deserve the same freedom of expression afforded film, literature and other media"), the organization has undeniably gone through changes. Since 2002, the Fund has gotten a new executive director, a new board president and replaced two of its members.

In a sense, the CBLDF is the anti-CMAA. Both the Comic Magazine Association of America and the CBLDF were formed to respond to the panicked reaction of parents and political authorities to comic books deemed inappropriate for children. But whereas the CMAA and its Comics Code Authority Seal of Approval, by providing a stamp of a priori censorship aimed to reassure mainstream America that comics would never again overstep the bounds of decency, the CBLDF has taken the unapologetic position that comics are artistic expression and entitled constitutionally to the same unrestrained spectrum of possibilities as any other art form. Along the way, the Fund has found itself supporting the legal defense of comics that would have turned original Comics Code Administrator Charles Murphy's hair white. (Levitz's DC remains one of the few comics publishers still loyal to the self-censoring concept of the Comics Code.)

The board's two newest members would, at first glance, seem to be obvious candidates: figures so prominent in the industry it should come as no surprise to find their names at the top of the board's list of desirable appointees. Each man is at the center of one of the most influential and powerful business entities in the comics industry. Their network of contacts makes them invaluable to CBLDF fundraising efforts. Furthermore each man has personally and on behalf of his respective company contributed to the financial well-being of the Fund. According to Brownstein and Oarr, Diamond has made space available at no cost in its Previews catalog for solicitation of CBLDF fundraising products. It has also sponsored silent and live fundraising auctions (including items donated by Diamond Select Toys) on behalf of the organization and provided shipping at no charge. DC has allowed CBLDF promotional materials to piggyback on its shipments from printers to comics conventions. Oarr said, "Paul told me if we need legal help in a certain area of the law or if there's anything the DC legal department can help with, to let him know. In my time [as Fund executive director] he has contributed money to the Fund both personally and through the company."

From another point of view, however, the two might seem to be the last figures in the comics industry that one would think of as champions of free speech. In the early days of distribution to the comics-shop direct market, Diamond was known to be considerably more conservative in what it would carry than its largest competitors. Both Chester Brown's masturbation-themed Yummy Fur and Kate Worley and Reed Waller's anthropomorphically erotic Omaha the Cat Dancer were among the titles that Diamond was too straight-laced to carry. While cartoonist Mike Diana was being defended against charges of obscenity in Florida, Diamond was refusing to distribute any of his 'zines. Levitz is known to have a propensity for pulping completed DC comics that he judges to be offensive. He famously pulped Elseworlds 80-Page Giant #1 in an unsuccessful attempt to eradicate a story by Kyle Baker that introduced Suberbaby to a microwave oven. Copies were inadvertently shipped to foreign markets before the pulping, however, and the story was later published, presumably with Levitz's approval, in the hardcover Bizarro collection. In 2000, he pulped the print run of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen #5 because he was unamused by a single panel depicting an authentic Victorian-era advertisement for a 'Marvel' douche product (thus out-Victorianing the Victorians). Susie the Floozie's scandal anthology, The Big Book of Wild Women, has been shelved by DC for unknown reasons for more than three years. Levitz has expressed personal distaste on more than one occasion for some of the edgier material published by DC's Vertigo line.

[To read the rest of this article, please see The Comics Journal #264.]

All site contents are © 2002