Newsgroups: alt.comics.alternative From: mfragass@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (Michael Fragassi) Subject: Re: FANZINE CARTOONIST FORBIDDEN TO DRAW Message-ID: Sender: news@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu (USENET News System) Organization: Indiana University References: <2u6k4d$3og@beta.qmw.ac.uk> <2u7df5$6ei@finzi.ccinet.ab.ca> <2u8jui$a48@finzi.ccinet.ab.ca> Date: Wed, 22 Jun 1994 22:09:56 GMT Lines: 50 Here's some information about getting Diana's stuff. First, it's not Last Gasp who put out Superfly, it's Mike Hunt Comix. (Although you can probably order copies through Last Gasp's mail order.) You can get it for $4.00 (which includes postage) to Mike Hunt Comix, PO Box 226, Bensenville, IL, 60106, (708) 794-2723. Also, they apparently sell Boiled Angel #7 and #ATE, the two issues that the Florida Purity Police picked up and prosecuted him for. They cost $6.66 each or $10.00 for both; each are over 100 pages. These are limited editions, signed and numbered. And for the high-rollers, they've got original art for I think $225 a page; some of these are on display at Quimby's in Chicago. Mike Diana's home address is P.O. Box 5254, Largo, FL, 34649. I've got a copy of Superfly, and be warned -- this stuff is unrelentingly harsh. The prosecution witnesses claimed that for something to have "artistic value", it must somehow & in some way "affirm life". As hollow and false as that standard is, it's true that there's not a lot that can be viewed as being "life affirming" in Diana's work, at least not by your average jury. All the stories are tragedies, extremely gruesome ones. I thought I was fairly jaded, but Diana's stories disturbed me. Which is at least partially the point. The artwork is very stark, both detailed and cartoony, and very graphic. Fiona Symth (Nocturnal Emissions) likes Diana's work, and their styles are similar in some ways. Other info about Mike Hunt comics: he apparently only publishes three titles right now. Besides Superfly, there's Frank Phantom, the latest by "Mr. X" (Al Frank), who used to do Tad Martin: Average American Teenager. The main story is a valentine/tribute to Bjork, called "Bjork's Brain". You should buy it, just for that. The other book is Dixie, which I never looked over since the cover implied that it was another Cherry Poptart-type ripoff jackoff book. However, I've since learned that what might distinguish Dixie from these rags is that it's drawn and written by a woman. All of these are $4 from Mike Hunt. Also, a few weeks ago, the Village Voice had a full page cartoon giving the story of Mike Diana's case, done by Peter Kuper, who was a defense witness at the trial. Finally, if you're interested in supporting the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, they sell two t-shirts for $20.00 each. One is a Groo shirt, the other is a Chester Brown drawing of Ed lying on a table as hands strap duck tape over his mouth, with the caption "Fight Censorship". (PO Box 693, Northampton, MA, 01061.) This information comes out of a zine called "Censorshi*" that I found in Chicago last weekend, which costs $2 from Mark Arnold, 1464 La Playa #105, San Franscisco, CA 94122. -- __________________________________________________________ Mike Fragassi mfragass@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu Psychology & Cognitive Science Program, Indiana University From: zampino@panix.com (Phil Z) Newsgroups: alt.comics.alternative Subject: Re: FANZINE CARTOONIST FORBIDDEN TO DRAW Followup-To: alt.comics.alternative Date: Wed, 22 Jun 1994 08:27:23 +0100 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC Lines: 22 Message-ID: References: <1994Jun21.172613.545@midway.uchicago.edu> <2u7amt$kl0@agate.berkeley.edu> In article <2u7amt$kl0@agate.berkeley.edu>, walter@physics7.Berkeley.EDU (Walter K. Stockwell) wrote: > Is there any way to get copies of "Boiled Angel"? I'd love to see > what this stuff. This court case is outrageous -- can't draw etc. > Also, if/when this "Fuck Florida" thing comes out, it'd be cool > if someone in the know posted where to get it. I haven't seen it mentioned in this thread, so I thought I'd point out that Last Gasp followed the Florida decision almost immediately by releasing "Superfly" which collects various Diana works together. I spoke to a comic store salesman while I was in SanFrancisco on vacation about the book. He told me that it was his understanding that the book was postitioned to force a court action against Diana, and that a well known civil rights attorney was ready to move in and defend Diana. I have't heard much about the book, but I can recommend it as representing some of Diana's work that a court might almost understand as reflective of our deranged society, and also containing some simply outrageous and disturbing images. Great stuff! Phil Z From: GLENN5@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (Glenn V. Morrison) Newsgroups: alt.comics.alternative Subject: Re: FANZINE CARTOONIST FORBIDDEN TO DRAW Message-ID: <16FDCD565.GLENN5@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU> Date: 21 Jun 94 19:10:23 GMT References: <1994Jun21.172613.545@midway.uchicago.edu> Organization: University of Georgia Lines: 31 In article <1994Jun21.172613.545@midway.uchicago.edu> lf7z@ellis.uchicago.edu (Obscured By Glenns) writes: >Ha! That's great! I'd love to be in that thing! I hadn't heard that >bit before. An old buddy of mine is an Intellectual Property lawyer, >he told me there's no way Florida will make it through that appeal. >He argued to me, that as horrible as it was that this had to happen, >the precedent when Diana wins the appeal will help protect people from >these sorts of shenanigans in the future. Maybe even in certain >portions of Florida. :-) I sure hope my friend is right, this thing >rips the constitution six ways from Sunday. We got your "glorified >fascism" righ 'chere. How much do you think the State of Florida will >be paying Diana in the way of compensation? :( Thanks for typing in >the article, Nina. >Pax ex machina, >Glenn I'd be VERY surprised if Florida has to pay Diana any compensation. That's not the way these things generally work. And I don't think the precedent will have much value either, since obscenity cases _by_definition_ are looked at on a case-by-case basis. The best hope, although it's a pipe-dream, is for the Supreme Court to finally realize that the obscenity exclusion from the First Amendment is nonsensical and only serves to hurt people, and to throw it out. ___________________________________________________________________ | "There are no stupid questions...just stupid people." | | Glenn V. Morrison, aka Glenn Five | | Internet: glenn5@uga.cc.uga.edu CompuServe: 72600,3634 | | USPS: 445 Meigs Street, Athens, GA 30601 Phone: (706) 354-8673 | |_________________________________________________________________| From: jwondga@valis.worldgate.edmonton.ab.ca (Justin Wondga) Newsgroups: alt.comics.alternative Subject: Re: FANZINE CARTOONIST FORBIDDEN TO DRAW Message-ID: <2u7df5$6ei@finzi.ccinet.ab.ca> Date: 21 Jun 94 19:01:57 GMT References: <2u6k4d$3og@beta.qmw.ac.uk> Organization: WorldGate Internet BBS, Edmonton, Canada (403)444-7685 Lines: 48 Rosenberg (bob@sake.dcs.qmw.ac.uk) wrote: : Ever notice how these things only happen in Florida? That's the media for ya. The media has painted Florida as the censorship capital of the U.S. Ha! Crap like this, banning rapper's albums, exotic dancers to dance and other such fascist tactics happen everywhere, especially up here in Canada. A lot of comics, records, movies and magazines are frozen at the border, just because some skittish parents pressured some idiot politician (whose popularity is sagging, and needs more votes to get re-elected, adopts this so-called "war on filth", and conservatives and the religious right jump right up to support him or her.) and managed to pass a bill to outlaw such stuff, "for the sake of the children". ITEM: The classic book, "Of Mice and Men" was lobbied to be taken out of school libraries, because a pastor in Red Deer found over 100 instances of the Lord's name taken in vain. He never really read the book, he just thumbed through it with a red felt marker, marking where he found objectionable. He passed this on to a MP in Red Deer, who only had a Grade 8 education. The MP took action on banning the book, and when challenged about some of the content in Shakespeare's works, said "he'd look into other such material as well". ITEM: A retired nurse in Stettler has made a lobby to ban exotic dancing in Alberta. Her argument is that men who watch strippers perform will get aroused and then go out and rape someone, or molest some child. She has no scientific evidence to back this theory. (In fact, according to a study, rapists do not rape because they just got horny- they did it because it hurts other people and it's a power trip.) On a near monthly basis, you can read a new letter to the Editor in the Edmonton Sun, with her rants about the evils of seeing naked women dancing. Is this the kind of society we want to live in? What we are allowed to read is determined by religious zealots, uneducated politicians and frightened single-minded lobbyists? -- *--------------------------------------------------------------------------* Justin Wondga -Telecommunications Engineering Technologist for Hire- jwondga@worldgate.edmonton.ab.ca jwondga@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca URL: http://valis.worldgate.edmonton.ab.ca/~jwondga/bookmark.html *--------------------------------------------------------------------------* From: sutton@garnet.berkeley.edu Newsgroups: alt.comics.alternative Subject: Re: FANZINE CARTOONIST FORBIDDEN TO DRAW Message-ID: <2u7qav$pg9@agate.berkeley.edu> Date: 21 Jun 94 22:41:35 GMT References: Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 30 In article , nina wrote: >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >This is an article I found in this month's "Art in America." > >I want to do something about this, but I don't know how to go about it. >I want as many people as possible to hear about this....we have to be aware >and >fight against this kind of outrageous attack on artistic freedom. >__________________________________________________ Well, there *is* something we can do - support the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund! They are non-profit and they're out there helping people like Mike Diana and Paul Mavrides. They take contributions, and they also sell cool t-shirts and buttons that say "I read banned comics". If you want more info, write to: Comic Book Legal Defense Fund PO Box 693 Northampton, MA 01061 or call them at 1-800-992-2533 (and tell them you heard about them on the net- they're trying to get hooked up and need encouragement...) laurel, who recites the First Amendement every morning -- Laurel A. Sutton | "Remember when we were really poor, Dept. of Linguistics, UC Berk. | and we couldn't afford heat or hot The most cynical girl | water or decent food or newspapers... in the world | oh wait, that's now." From: cate@brahms.udel.edu (Catherine M Leonard) Newsgroups: alt.comics.alternative Subject: Re: FANZINE CARTOONIST FORBIDDEN TO DRAW Date: 25 Jun 1994 12:52:20 -0400 Organization: University of Delaware Lines: 75 Message-ID: <2uhnc4$d6v@brahms.udel.edu> References: <2uc92f$m41@finzi.ccinet.ab.ca> In article , Alvaro Pereira wrote: > > I saw the Journal article about Diana's work and have followed this >discussion. I wonder how *female* fans feel about his work and his claim >that he's trying to show the horror of the victims. Though I firmly believe >he should be able to draw and sell whatever he wants, I think his claim that >he's showing the tragedy of the situations in this books is suspect. But, >I don't have the perspective of a victim or a female. What do the *women* >comic-book readers think of his work, and do they feel that this >material should be censored the way that it was? I think it takes a lot of talent to portray suffering and that there are many well intentioned artists and writers out there who don't do it very well. (I haven't, btw, seen or heard of Diana's work before now so I'm really reacting to other works I've seen.) I've also seen too many gratuitous comics that use a "show the horror of the victims" argument to lend credibilty to something that titillates and does nothing else. This whole issue has always been a tough one for me because I'm a rabid believer in free speech as well as someone who has done extensive work with rape/incest victims. The real life suffering of a 5 year old who has been raped by her father has been captured in too few works. At worst, there are some people out there who get jollies from seeing any kind of representation of suffering, and feed off of that. I still believe that a majority of sexual violence and other violent acts portrayed are against women, but I don't believe that looking at such things turns people into slobbering criminals. It would be intersting to conduct a study to determine the validity of that belief. I'm more intersted in why they get off on that sort of thing, how they got that way, and whether they express it in real life. At best, I believe that some artists really do have noble intentions but no experience or knowledge of the aftereffects of such violence. And it does seem that in the past few years more violence against men is being portrayed. There's a parallel to this in real life as more boys and young men "come out" as survivors of sexual abuse. I would still argue, however, that most of the sexual violence shown is against women. A good example of a work that realistically portrays the aftereffects of violence is THE CROW. O'Barr does a fantastic job of showing that violence and its aftermath are not simple things and neither are the people who commit acts of violence. The questions that arise for me center around whether a piece of art/media can influence behavior, do artists carry some sort of social responsibility, and is there something wrong with gratuitous titilation? The question of censorship is not a difficult one for me; I don't think we have the right to make those kinds of decisions, especially when notions of what constitute "decent" constantly change. I don't think that a single work can make someone behave in a certain way, I'm more concerned with the ways in which people are socialized to believe that it's either OK to fuck children or believe that incest doesn't happen. Art has always been a way in which the social order has been challenged, and if artists have a social responsibility it's met by issuing that challenge. Ultimately, I think the artist's only real responsibility is to her or his own conscience. As to the value of titulation, I am forced to admit that I laugh and pant at least twice a month over Lobo. (so sue me :-) ) If I'm bothered by the idea that some dickhead is actually turned on by reading what amounts to snuff comics, I guess I'd rather he or she did that rather than go out and act on an impulse that comes from within him or herself. Either way, I don't have the right to censor, no matter how many 3 year old survivors of kiddie porn I know. And this gets really tough because I do believe that kiddie porn should be illegal (read: censored). What makes me angry about pro-censorship types is that they are the first to blame real victims of violence. How many child molestors have been priests or ministors? Censoring Diana and others like him is a smoke screen--it gives a false impression that censors are "doing something about violence/pornography" while they continue to blame victims of real violence while promoting their stupid rhetoric about "family values." Art=affirm life? Give me a fucking break. Rant mode off, asbestos suit on, :-) Cate Newsgroups: alt.comics.alternative From: lf7z@ellis.uchicago.edu (Obscured By Glenns) Subject: Re: FANZINE CARTOONIST FORBIDDEN TO DRAW Message-ID: <1994Jun21.172613.545@midway.uchicago.edu> Sender: news@uchinews.uchicago.edu (News System) Reply-To: lf7z@midway.uchicago.edu Organization: University of Chicago References: Date: Tue, 21 Jun 1994 17:26:13 GMT Lines: 30 In article ninas@ea.com (nina) writes: >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >This is an article I found in this month's "Art in America." >by Jack Rosenberger, "Art in America", June 1994 > > Hunt told "Art in America" that he will publish a special -edition > fanzine later this year to raise funds for the Comic Book Legal > Defense Fund of Northampton, Mass., which is assisting in Diana's > appeal. The tentative title is "Fuck Florida." Ha! That's great! I'd love to be in that thing! I hadn't heard that bit before. An old buddy of mine is an Intellectual Property lawyer, he told me there's no way Florida will make it through that appeal. He argued to me, that as horrible as it was that this had to happen, the precedent when Diana wins the appeal will help protect people from these sorts of shenanigans in the future. Maybe even in certain portions of Florida. :-) I sure hope my friend is right, this thing rips the constitution six ways from Sunday. We got your "glorified fascism" righ 'chere. How much do you think the State of Florida will be paying Diana in the way of compensation? :( Thanks for typing in the article, Nina. Pax ex machina, Glenn ...................................................................... "My time is a piece of wax, flowing on a termite, and it's choking on the splinters" --- Dada g-carnagey@uchicago.edu, if you must know ...................................................................... Newsgroups: alt.comics.alternative From: pereiraa@cis.umassd.edu (Alvaro Pereira) Subject: Re: FANZINE CARTOONIST FORBIDDEN TO DRAW Message-ID: Sender: usenet@umassd.edu (USENET News System) Organization: University of Massachusetts Dartmouth References: <2u6k4d$3og@beta.qmw.ac.uk> <2u7df5$6ei@finzi.ccinet.ab.ca> <2u8jui$a48@finzi.ccinet.ab.ca> <2uc92f$m41@finzi.ccinet.ab.ca> Date: Fri, 24 Jun 1994 15:14:21 GMT Lines: 11 I saw the Journal article about Diana's work and have followed this discussion. I wonder how *female* fans feel about his work and his claim that he's trying to show the horror of the victims. Though I firmly believe he should be able to draw and sell whatever he wants, I think his claim that he's showing the tragedy of the situations in this books is suspect. But, I don't have the perspective of a victim or a female. What do the *women* comic-book readers think of his work, and do they feel that this material should be censored the way that it was? ------ Alvaro P. Newsgroups: alt.comics.alternative From: mfragass@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (Michael Fragassi) Subject: Re: FANZINE CARTOONIST FORBIDDEN TO DRAW Message-ID: Sender: news@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu (USENET News System) Organization: Indiana University References: <2u6k4d$3og@beta.qmw.ac.uk> <2u7df5$6ei@finzi.ccinet.ab.ca> <2u8jui$a48@finzi.ccinet.ab.ca> <2uc92f$m41@finzi.ccinet.ab.ca> Date: Fri, 24 Jun 1994 18:18:56 GMT Lines: 14 Female victims? Hell, what about the male victims? In the comics in Superfly, _everyone_ suffers horribly, a few more men than women. This isn't "rape fantasy comix", this is "life is a living hell of tragedy and pain comix." This isn't going to be many people's cup of tea, obviously, but that doesn't mean he should be prosecuted for it. (Also, since at least one of the comics cited by the prosecution concerned bestiality with a dog, you may want to ask about the canine victims.) -- __________________________________________________________ Mike Fragassi mfragass@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu Psychology & Cognitive Science Program, Indiana University From: boe666@u.washington.edu (Beast of Eden) Newsgroups: alt.comics.alternative Subject: Re: FANZINE CARTOONIST FORBIDDEN TO DRAW Date: 25 Jun 1994 04:21:44 GMT Organization: University of Washington Lines: 30 Message-ID: <2ugbco$fu3@news.u.washington.edu> References: >The conditions of his probation are unusual. Besides being required to >undergo a psychological evaluation and perform eight hours of community >service each week for three years, Diana must enroll in a college-level >journalism ethics course and work full-time. Additionally, Diana is >forbidden to draw, have any contact with children under the age of 18, >and is subject to unannounced searches to ensure that he is not "creating >obscene materials." That's not even the half of it; Alternative Press Review also lists that the punishment includes: a $3000 fine, paid off at $100/month, an additional $60/month probation fee, he has to pay the full enrollment fee for the "ethics in journalism" class, his "psychological evaluation" means twice monthly appointments with a state appointed psychiatrist which *he* has to pay for ($100 per appointment) *and* he has to completely cooperate with the prescribed treatment, up to and including being medicated. His ban on contact with anybody under 18 (he's only in his early 20s is lifelong because he's a "sex offender". To say that this punishment adds insult to injury is to put it mildly. This punishment is totalitarian in its implications, it essentially is imprisonment without bars. The psychiatric part is very disturbing, being reminiscent of the way Soviet dissidents (such as people who published samizdat (sp?) literature) were punished with imprisonment in psychiatric "hospitals". (It seems like every freedom they gain in the former Soviet Union is followed by the loss of one here.) It seems to me that this sentence is not only in clear violation of the first amendment, but also the fourth (cruel and unusual punishment). Beast of Eden From: boe666@u.washington.edu (Beast of Eden) Newsgroups: alt.comics.alternative Subject: Re: FANZINE CARTOONIST FORBIDDEN TO DRAW Date: 25 Jun 1994 05:14:04 GMT Organization: University of Washington Lines: 15 Message-ID: <2ugees$gi2@news.u.washington.edu> References: <1994Jun21.172613.545@midway.uchicago.edu> <16FDCD565.GLENN5@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU> GLENN5@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (Glenn V. Morrison) writes: >I'd be VERY surprised if Florida has to pay Diana any compensation. That's >not the way these things generally work. And I don't think the precedent >will have much value either, since obscenity cases _by_definition_ are >looked at on a case-by-case basis. But they could set some precedents. They could throw out the DA's argument that, to have artistic value, a work has to be "life affirming", making this standard no longer admissible in future cases. They could also rule the "creative" punishment that the court came up with as unconstitutional, thereby keeping these kind of draconian sentences from occurring again. Beast of Eden From: vx@teleport.com (V-X) Newsgroups: alt.comics.alternative Subject: Re: FANZINE CARTOONIST FORBIDDEN TO DRAW Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 08:08:07 Organization: Fragile Liquid Lines: 16 Message-ID: References: <2u6k4d$3og@beta.qmw.ac.uk> <2u7df5$6ei@finzi.ccinet.ab.ca> <2u8jui$a48@finzi.ccinet.ab.ca> In article zampino@panix.com (Phil Z) writes: >I can't agree with that approach- it's the Diana's and others like him who >bring alternative viewpoints out in the open and help erode the cencorship >we face. Whispering amongst ourselves only reinforces a sense of secret >depravity that we really don't need to feel... sure Diana's work is >*extremely* disturbing, but it does carry the pieces of truth that reflect >on the dark side of our reality. While I agree that the court action was ridiculous, statements like this about Diana's stuff give it way more credit than it's due. The boy is a sick boy, and not a particularly original, interesting or articulate one either. Has anybody else seen the the Mark Martin cartoon in the new Comics Journal (the Robert Gregory one) that pokes at everybody involved--not just the state of Florida? He's got Diana as a toddler, feebly sputtering some drivel about how he used to have to go to church as a child... Newsgroups: alt.comics.alternative From: mfragass@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (Michael Fragassi) Subject: Re: FANZINE CARTOONIST FORBIDDEN TO DRAW Message-ID: Sender: news@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu (USENET News System) Organization: Indiana University References: <2uc92f$m41@finzi.ccinet.ab.ca> <2uhnc4$d6v@brahms.udel.edu> Date: Mon, 27 Jun 1994 19:52:29 GMT Lines: 54 In <2uhnc4$d6v@brahms.udel.edu> cate@brahms.udel.edu (Catherine M Leonard) writes: >I think it takes a lot of talent to portray suffering and that there are >many well intentioned artists and writers out there who don't do it very >well. (I haven't, btw, seen or heard of Diana's work before now so I'm >really reacting to other works I've seen.) I've also seen too many gratuitous >comics that use a "show the horror of the victims" argument to lend >credibilty to something that titillates and does nothing else. This whole >issue has always been a tough one for me because I'm a rabid believer in >free speech as well as someone who has done extensive work with rape/incest >victims. The real life suffering of a 5 year old who has been raped by her >father has been captured in too few works. I don't think that Diana is really trying to be that empathetic; that is, I don't think it's his goal to "raise consciousness" of what it means on a personal level to be victimized. It's more of a very ruthless look at reality, focusing on tragedy, especially gruesome tragedy. There's a certain amount of gore-for-gore's-sake to it, definately. ("Hey, his arms got chopped off! Cool." -- that kind of thing; the first person reading this who has never watched a horror movie may throw the first stone.) But that's not all there is to it. There's also a commitment to be brutually honest about how life gets portrayed -- and not merely to give tragedy it's due, but to focus on it, almost to the exclusion of just about everything else, forcing the reader to confront this stuff. Here's a quote from an interview with Diana that appears in Superfly: "In a way, because child abuse is so taboo is why I make fun of it. It's on the news right now. Just last week two boys were found in the woods tied up, dead, their genitals mutilated with a blunt object. People eat their dinner and watch the news and it's nothing. For them the news is just another T.V. show. It's make believe. My drawings are saying, 'Wake up and see what is going on around you all the time.'" (I think that the first line with "make fun of it" was an unfortunate choice of words -- he's making fun of the _taboo_, the tendency to sweep this sort of thing under the table [e.g. the Catholic Church's history of "dealing" with abusive priests] or to blandly discuss it on the news like a stock market report; he's not making fun of actual child abuse.) >What makes me angry about pro-censorship types is that they are the first >to blame real victims of violence. How many child molestors have been >priests or ministors? Censoring Diana and others like him is a smoke >screen--it gives a false impression that censors are "doing something about >violence/pornography" while they continue to blame victims of real violence >while promoting their stupid rhetoric about "family values." >Art=affirm life? Give me a fucking break. Amen. -- __________________________________________________________ Mike Fragassi mfragass@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu Psychology & Cognitive Science Program, Indiana University