Comic Book Legal Defense Fund

With the President’s recent open approval of same-sex marriage; a federal appeals court striking down the Defense of Marriage Act (claiming it unconstitutional); the success of Life with Archie #16, featuring the marriage of a gay character; and Marvel and DC’s inclusion of prominent storylines about gay characters, one may surmise it is easy for everyone to access constitutionally-protected LGBT materials. This is not the case, as students in a school district north of Salt Lake City will have to get parental permission before checking out a book about a lesbian couple raising a family, according to a recent article on the Huffington Post.

Click through for excerpts from the article and a look at protests against other LGBT content by CBLDF blogger Justin Brown.

Read more →

Anonymous political commentary has been the bedrock of our country’s discourse since before we were a country. Two identical bills, together the so-called Internet Protection Act, are in the legislative process of the New York State Senate and Assembly and aim to eliminate the ability to anonymously participate in political discourse and other discussions that take place on the internet. In their current form, the bills rip the mask off of legitimate, First Amendment protected speech in a vague and an ill-conceived effort to eliminate cyberbullying and “mean-spirited and baseless political attacks” (source: First Amendment Center).

If the bills stand as written and make it to law, we could live in a world where Superman may be able to save Metropolis but he could only blog about it as Clark Kent, and then only if he gives his home address. Wouldn’t the villains in the comic world love that kind of leverage? What about those in the real world?

Click through for CBLDF blogger Christopher Schiller’s analysis of the importance of anonymity and the concerns raised by these bills.

Read more →

by Joe Sergi

I was recently asked to join a Facebook Group called, “Comic Book Fans vs. a Bunch of Moms with Nothing Else Better To Do . . . ” This Group was created in response to the recent actions by the One Million Moms organization who are requesting that its supporters email Marvel and DC comic book companies, “…urging them to change and cancel all plans of homosexual superhero characters immediately. Ask them to do the right thing and reverse their decision to have sexual orientation displayed to readers.” Apparently, One Million Moms believes that if children read about gay characters, they will become gay. Marvel and Archie have responded, defending their positions, and several Social Media groups have begun to form on both sides of the issue. The last news I have heard is that the One Million Moms deleted their anti-gay Facebook page.

This kind of tension has always existed. On the one side, you have the welfare and protection of the community (especially children, who can’t protect themselves). On the other, you have fundamental liberties such as free speech. The problem is that the well intentioned actions of groups in the first category tend to infringe on the rights of the second because it is the simplest solution. This happened in the 1940s when civic minded parents decided that it was in the best interest of their children and the community to burn comic books, which leads me to my first “official” CBLDF column topic: book burning.

More after the jump…

Read more →

In Tokyo, the Youth Healthy Development Ordinance prohibits the sale of publications containing material that is “sexually stimulating, encourages cruelty, and/or may compel suicide or criminal behavior” to people younger than 18. A 2011 amendment expanded the scope of the ordinance to include manga and anime with explicit depictions of children engaging in sexual acts. This week, the manga To Love-Ru Darkness survived a challenge under the ordinance. Click through for details from CBLDF blogger Soyini Hamit.

Read more →

by Joe Izenman

Solitary dissents in the U.S. Supreme Court can offer a fascinating look into the strongest beliefs of the high court’s individual justices. In a recent blog post, the First Amendment Center provides an overview and analysis of several such opinions in the history of first amendment law, including the failed first challenge to the Child Online Protection Act.

Click through for more on the lone dissenter in Ashcroft v. ACLU I, Justice John Paul Stevens, and his comments when the act was challenged a second time by a coalition that included CBLDF, resulting in its defeat…

Read more →