Basically the only things Comic Book Legal Defence Fund talks

File: CBLDF Banned Books Week Handbook 2016-002.jpg (1MB, 1988x3056px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1988x3056px

And all they're saying is "well they probably got banned due to having gays and Muslims in them".

>>86291164
What are some banned comics?

File: CBLDF Banned Books Week Handbook 2016-005.jpg (1MB, 1988x3056px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1988x3056px

>>86291198
Dude, these people are fucking lunatics. I seriously hope you guys never gave them any of your money.

>>86291198
My dads private school banned all cape comics because they printed gayness and communism

>>86291164
>Comic Book SJW Defence Fund
ftfy

but muh enlightened euro comics with tasteful depictions of nude prepubescents need a voice

>>86291243
Comics Code?

>seriously trying to tear down the cbldf
Really anon your that much of a fucking faggot they talk about the things that get comics in trouble dont blame them blame society.

File: CBLDF Banned Books Week Handbook 2016-007.jpg (1MB, 1988x3056px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1988x3056px

Apparently not wanting sixth graders to be exposed to any type of this content means you hate gays and non-whites.

It really makes you think.

>>86291262
Even the worst of marvel has a right to be printed.

Frankly they dont deserve it being the only major publisher who is not a member but the cbldf is nice like that.

>>86291198
Charlie Hebbo.

>>86291233
Back when dinosaurs and christfags ruled the earth, they were actually useful.

>>86291288
>liniting a childs exposure to media.
Next you will say kids should not read sandman or hellblazer.

File: CBLDF Banned Books Week Handbook 2016-008.jpg (1MB, 1988x3056px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1988x3056px

>>86291280
This is the first time I'm exposed to them after seeing their logo several times and these people are a fucking joke to anyone with a triple digit IQ.

>>86291303
The very post you replied to was saying Sandman shouldn't be read by kids.

>>86291311
Fuck im retarded.

>>86291288
Everybody should fucking read sandman. Even if just for the content on the nature of fiction and dreams.

File: CBLDF Banned Books Week Handbook 2016-011.jpg (895KB, 1988x3056px) Image search: [Google]

895KB, 1988x3056px

The only reason they're even doing this is not >muh freedom of speech

It's because diversity is so awesome!!!1 Yay!!

Man, I would hang myself if I donated any money to these people.

>>86291359
>It's because diversity is so awesome!!!1 Yay!!
Well that is just blatently untrue.

They have been doing this since long before sjws were even a thing.

>>86291198
Here's a list of banned and challenged comics from their sight. Mostly from libraries and schools.

Amazing Spider-Man: Revelations TPB
Barefoot Gen
Batman: TDKSA
Batman: The Killing Joke
Blankets
Bone
The Diary of a Teenage Girl
Dragon Ball
Drama
The Color of Earth
Fun Home
The Graveyard Book
Ice Haven
In the Night Kitchen
League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: The Black Dossier
Maus
Necronomicon
Palomar
Persepolis
Pride of Baghdad
Saga
Sandman
Sidescrollers
Stuck in the Middle
Stuck Rubber Baby
Tank Girl
This One Summer
Watchmen
Y: The Last Man

>>86291377
Elementary, middle or senior schools? Cause I can accept a number of those books not being allowed in elementary schools

File: 2290052-rj_im_01_01[1].jpg (72KB, 416x640px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 416x640px

>>86291362
The kind of fights they engage in now is different than the shit they got into in the 90s.

Interesting enough, these days they're making the claim that shit is being banned for racist reasons, which they didn't back then.

>>86291377
There was a time that they'd try to cover all books, regardless of political direction. This isn't the case anymore.

>>86291380
Varies by book.

>>86291377
>Barefoot Gen
This one was because the Japanese are still denying there war crimes right.

>>86291380
From what I've read most of them were banned from elementary schools. Apparently that is a case of misogyny, islamophobia and homophobia. If you are to believe CBLDF, anyway.

>>86291380
Just skimming it seems like mostly middle school, high school, and public libraries (though Persepolis just says "Chicago Public Schools").

>>86291404
Here's the link

http://cbldf.org/2014/09/21-banned-and-challenged-comics/

>>86291164
>not storytiming the banned books handbook itself
ONE JOB

>>86291377
>Bone
I will fight the motherfucker who did this.

>>86291389
Yes, all the Barefoot Gen challenges are from Japan.

>>86291380
Well i cant censorship based on age is not ok.
Killing joke, sandman, dragon ball, watchmen and extraordinary gentlemen in particular are things all students probably should read.

>>86291164
... what the hell is a diverse author?
I thought 'diverse' meant 'various', and could only be used with plurals or collective nouns.

>>86291418
Amazingly, Bone is one of the most challenged. It's printed through Scholastic as well so has a bigger presence than most in schools, and has been challenged several times in various places. Reasons vary.

-Promoting smoking and drinking.
-politically, racially, or socially offensive
-violence and horror

>>86291389
Your understanding of politics is worse than /pol/s. That takes real effort.

It's primarily the Japanese equivalent of soccer moms who thought that showing irradiated children dying from disease and starvation is too much for elementary school students.

>>86291437
Fuck banning Bone. I am glad the CBLDF is out there helping it not get banned.

>>86291421
I remember when i was a young child if the library had restricted me to books that were considered age appropriate i would have probably blown my brains out from bordom.

I can understand not asigning these things directly to students but to ban the books is just fucking over the more intelligent children.

>>86291468
The issue is the fact that the Japanese troops were awful even to other japanese. The literal issue was war crimes not the disease and starvation.

>>86291481
Newsflash, these things aren't actually banned banned. Stop falling for these crazies' propaganda.

>>86291377
>Amazing Spider-Man: Revelations TPB
Aunt May discovering who is Spider-Man is THAT bad?

>>86291377
How long until we see flintstones and doom patrol on that list

And thats the great thing about the cbldf flintstones is good and doom patrol is bad but they will defend them both just the same.

>>86291503
If it denys children the oportunity to read the classics its a problem.

If it denys teachers the oportunity to teach its a problem.

If it denys librarys the oportunity to lend its a problem.

File: tmp_26630-1467772353366-241900366.jpg (121KB, 705x691px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 705x691px

>>86291377
>Bone
That's a weird one to see on there. I got into Bone after seeing it at a school book fair.

>>86291503
>various places have banned the book there
>nuh-uh it isn't banned cause ummm cause I say so

>>86291233
>powers that be
>white-cis-conservative
We half a black man in the Oval Office, and an incredible prog at that.

Tell me again how the hell these people think they aren't in charge?

>>86291588
Okay, I ban you from my thread you dumb little faggot. Now go cry to the cucks at CBLDF that I unban you.

>>86291596
Schizophrenia.

>>86291596
>not realising it's always a straight white male's fault
We got blamed for the gay nightclub shooting too

Tell me anons: What comics are you surprised that are NOT on the list?

Charlie Hebbo
Crossed
Bomb Queen
The Pro
What's Millar's worst? Nemesis?
Girls from the Luna Brothers.

>>86291501
The Ukio-e are the weakest they've been in 30 years. And work harder at your reading comprehension. The specific complaint was the horrors of war.

>>86291596
Thats a quote from one of the authors.

And thats the thing many of these chalenged books are sjw tripe but that does not make it ok to ban them.

>>86291634
Go back and notice that my post didn't challenge their ethics on banning books?

I also misspelled have.
Time for bed

>>86291377
>Blankets
Must've been banned at a catholic school for being Protestant.

>>86291651
Oh sorry about that anon i guess im just a bit jumpy.

>>86291669
>>86291651
Also night anon

>>86291377
>Pride of Baghdad

This is a real headscratcher for me. It's a story about a pride of lions that escaped from the Baghdad Zoo during the American invasion. Based loosely on a true story. Is it just perceived as being anti-American as a result of depicting the American military's actions in foreign countries resulting in violence?

>>86291658
Southern baptists ultrachristfags. Too much sex for the public library was their reasoning.

Speaking of which, I notice Crumb isn't on the list.

>>86291723
Interestingly enough the CBLDF says it's commonly challenged for sex, but I can't find any independent source.

I vaguely recall there being lion on lion sex in the book, but nothing beyond PBS fare.

CBLDF's featured banned books for 2016:
>Drama by Raina Telgemeier (Graphix)
>The Color of Earth trilogy by Kim Dong Hwa (:01 First Second)
>Fun Home by Alison Bechdel (Houghton Miffin Harcourt)
>Palomar by Gilbert Hernandez (Fantagraphics)
>Persepolis by Marjane Satrapi (Pantheon)
>The Sandman by Neil Gaiman (Vertigo)
>Stuck Rubber Baby by Howard Cruise (Vertigo)
>This One Summer by Jillian Tamaki and Mariko Tamaki (:01 First Second)

>>86291723
There's rape in it.

>>86291772
Persepolis always gets me. I mean fucking really?

I bet if Crossed was brought up, they'd ban it themselves.

>>86291798

REEEEE MUSLIMS REEEEE

You get the picture.

>>86291817
Yeah, that's the reason. Good job.

>>86291804
No the cbldf does not take sides.
Crossed is just so fucking shit that no library bothers to stock it the sjw shit at least has some sort of audience that would go to a library.

Cant ban a book thats not there.

>>86291164
>What is even the point of their existence?

Amongst other things, help retailers defend themselves when they get attacked by America's retarded "I know it when I see it" obscenity laws when they carry comic that contain nudity.

>>86291890
But all they're doing is fighting for diversity because diversity is awesome(and other such hip adjectives) under the guise of freedom of speech.

>>86291932
Because those are the main things comics are being chalenged for right now.

>>86291932
>Free speech is only worth defending when it supports things I like.

File: MS Terrorist.jpg (232KB, 498x674px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 498x674px

>>86291164
So if i make a black muslim terrorist transsexual hero, CBLDF would fight for my book?

>>86291972
>>86291979
That's like being an idiot as a woman and saying people are calling you an idiot because you're a woman.

You're literally defending this kind of practice.

>>86291723
Oh that sounds interesting im gonna give it a read.

>>86291995

Pray tell, how is defending comics from being banned over featuring a gay character in them objectionable to you?

>>86292006

Yeah, do so. It's a nice done-in-one story by Brian K. Vaughn, who's always a pretty entertaining writer, and who's doing something pretty unusual here. A satisfying little read.

>>86291972
I'm curious if that's actually the case. Correct me if I'm wrong but there are ZERO cases I'm aware of in their recent track record where they intervene because triggered tumblrite types have lost their shit and are trying to get things banned.

In the past they've fought for all political positions, but looking at the rhetoric on their current stuff, I'm not so confident.

>>86291798
Perisopolis is one of those cases where triggered muslims and triggered ultrachristfags both converge.

>>86292040
Are you illiterate?

>>86292006
Alright while thats downloading im gonna have some dinner.

Also why are only some vertigo titles on the dc comics app while others you get from comiXology only.

>>86292067
I mean people getting triggered by diversity.
But thinking about it its not true your right it is still mostly the same nudity and violence stuff the nudity just happens to be common in sjw comics.

>>86292071
he is.

>>86292040
The question here is, is it banned because of a gay character or something else.
Is there any clue its because of divergence or just assumptions that this is because of that.

>>86292111
The leading edge of SJWs are also triggered by nudity and violence just like the soccer moms, except stylized as sexual exploitation of women, and violence against women.

And the level that they're triggered at is like Cho and the Batgirl covers.

I would expect to see more high profile cases where it's the SJWs who have lost their shit and are going ban happy.

>>86292111
>I mean people getting triggered by diversity.
And females.

>>86292095
I want to cum inside ali

>>86292164
>The question here is, is it banned because of a gay character or something else.

A comic book featuring gay people being banned due to its inappropriate depictions of (homo)sexuality sounds pretty cut and dry to me.

>>86292204
>And the level that they're triggered at is like Cho and the Batgirl covers.
Wasn't Cho just second-hand trolling after some people got buttblasted over the Marana Spider Woman covers?

>>86292247
Wait is that a thing lions do share the females that sounds counterproductive.

>>86292247
>i prefer my meat raw
Nevermind i have no interest in cuming inside ali now

>>86292251
They hated cho before that. And the people being butblasted about the manara cover are exactly who I'm talking about in the first place.

Now the CBLDF HAS defended manara for his euro porn work back in the 90's, but would they do the same if it's the SJWs trying to get shit banned?

>>86291164
The took on Canada over some guy's chibi image of sex positions that he had on his laptop as he was crossing the border. That's a positive in my book.

>>86292283
>>86292348
>thats what zill used to say when he would go away with you
Ouch

>>86292373
>would they do the same if it's the SJWs trying to get shit banned?
Yes.

>>86292373

Why in the fuck would an organization founded on the principle of defending art be up for banning anything? Just because they currently happen to highlight diversity as a thing that requires active defending doesn't mean they're bandwagon riding idiots supporting only whatever the current hip thing is. It goes against everything they stand for.

>>86292413
Well their executive director is a J-O-O so how can we trust him?

>>86292401
This comics pretty good but they really should have made the eye injury more apparent its almost impossible to tell the 2 lionesses apart at times.

What's the group that helps out old comic pros?

>>86292407
I'm sure we'll eventually see the case. I'm surprised it hasn't happened already.

>>86292413
Not in favor of banning it. Just choosing to ignore or downplay the cases.

>>86292248
First source

>(homo)sexuality
>(homo)
Second why is it in clamps? Did you add it? Did they add it?
Because maybe its because the gay character has a strong sexual image and so its banned because porn?

Why are they talking about "diversity" like it's the ultimate good?

>>86292464
welp problem solved i guess

>>86292523
Either its just to get the money from sjw to help the greater good.

Or they just highlighted it because its much talked about.

But at the moment, with their reasoning, it seems a little blund or constructed.

>>86292523
>Why are they talking about "diversity" like it's the ultimate good?
The Pilgrim Fathers would've starved and died on the ocean without an Anglican sailor writing a book about how2get2America and they would've starved and died without Americans giving them food as well.
Likewise, the South would probably have never joined the Union if they didn't get those additional votes for every head of Negro in their posession.

Diversity made the USA.

>>86292523

>USA

>literally the melting pot of the world

>not pro-diversity

>>86292550
That ending made no fucking sense but i guess the writers were a little constrained by the true story base.
>>86291723
Probably because they just shot them out of nowhere.

So yeah the american thing.

>>86291164
I'm supportive of them and their efforts considering how much I like comics and dislike the banning of books. Too many shitty situations where some dumbass parent wants to ban Gilbert Hernandez books because thinks it's child pornography.

>>86292523
It's a political move. It implies that their opponents are white supremacists. The certainly didn't do that in the 90's, and it's not like there's been a surge of klan members on school boards since then.

The current cutting edge of the argument is that places like California now have mandatory gay and transexual education starting in kindergarden, and there's obviously going to be a fight over what material is appropriate on transexuality for 5 year olds.

>>86292512

If it was for it being "porn" they would just cite a complaint about explicit sexual content. And even in that case it might be entirely frivolous complaint, like, you actually see a limp dick caricature in one panel with barely any detailing.

>>86292745
>The current cutting edge of the argument is that places like California now have mandatory gay and transexual education starting in kindergarden

That's good, it prevents kids about tolerance and not being total asshats and bullying someone over being different from the so called norm to their infantile minds.

>>86292745
The answer is tell them what a transexual and a homosexual are then if they really give a fuck about it they can go seek more information.

>>86291309
>This One Summer
>worth a look for anything but the art

>>86291658
I'd ban it for being a snoozefest

>>86292588
The US really fucked the 20th century over

I wish Russia had won

>>86291164
They should try more often to unban loli porn

>>86291194
They literally tagged on the whole diversity thing just to imply there is correlation

>>86291377
>Bone
but why though?

File: But Seriously, Folks.jpg (269KB, 500x708px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 500x708px

>>86291164
>What is even the point of their existence?
http://cbldf.org/about-2/

>>86292745
>It implies that their opponents are white supremacists.
Which, on the evidence of this thread, they probably are.

>>86293644
Apparently because one of the cousins is smoking and because it's scary.

>>86291288
Just because you were a fucking retard who couldn't comprehend what they were reading in grade 6 doesn't mean everyone else is

>Not having sexually explicit books in middle school libraries is censorship

No.

>>86292466
Hero Initiative

>>86291288
>It really makes you react.

>>86293952
Yes it fucking it.
Denying a child the right to sandman is an atrocity.

>>86293899
I think this is the core of it these censorship supporters cant comprehend that many children are probably smarter then they are you cant just stifle there growth.

>>86294090
The child can just get it from somewhere else.

>>86294112
I agree with your point, but if you're going to criticise someone else's intelligence, you really should take a moment to proofread your post first.

>>86294090
1. Sandman isn't even that good.
2. If a person wants to read Sandman, they can purchase it or get it from the public library.

File: 1463978451154.jpg (75KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 720x540px

>>86294090
>Denying a child the right to sandman is an atrocity
>he fell for the Sandman is good and Gaiman can write meme

>>86294090
Go away Neil
You peaked in the early 2000s

>>86293952
Yea basically this

>>86294137
Some people do not exactly have a whole lot of options.

>>86294152
Anon I dont know how you grew up but children usually dont have the money to drop 100 dollars on comics

>>86294263

You know what most children do have?

The fucking Internet.

>>86294193
>not Gaimeme

>>86294235
It is censorship, pretty cut and dry censorship.

>>86294253
Then that's a parenting problem not a censorship problem

>>86294281
There large books anon a lot of people cannot spare the bandwith.

I really fucking hate this board.
>oh they said diversity
>oh we should hate them because I'm triggered faggot from /pol/

>>86294290
Anon as someone who was exposed to R rated shit at a young age I can tell you it generally makes masturbation addicted 4chan browsing degenerates (judging by me and my friends).
Should they be able to get playboy too? How is that not censorship in the same token?

>>86294296
That's not a parenting problem. The fact that you weren't a blowjob or didn't shake hands with Mr Coathanger when you were very, very small—that's a parenting problem.

>>86294347
I don't give a shit about you or your personal experience anon so why even bring it up?

>>86291599
Award winning counter agrument.

>>86294351
>kids not being allowed to go to the public library or being raised in a shit area
>anyone but the parents fault
>>HURR YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN AN ABORTION
struck a nerve there poorfag?

>>86294316
Hell im a fucking grown adult and i still have to be careful with it cant auctualy get decent deals where i live.

>>86294347
Anon, what made you a masturbation-addicted, 4chan browsing degenerate was 1) having a functioning set of genitals, and 2) undiagnosed autism. Not a funnybook.

>>86294365
Answer my question then

>>86294296
So we just abandon children in shitty situations.

>>86294334
>oh they said diversity

Hey, Tumblr Tourist. Imagine if you bothered to read these things like the rest of us.

>>86294347
Playboy is pornography, we're not talking about erotica here, we're talking about Lolita and Finnegans wake.

>>86294381
I'm not even the Anon you were originally responding to. I just think your parents would be happier people for having had access to birth control.

>>86294415
I did and I don't see a problem here. I see you trying to make a problem but I don't see an actual problem.

>>86294347
Well, current Playboy isn't as explicit as it used to be but I see your point.

>>86294425
And why is it you that gets to draw that distinction but not the school board? Jesus fuck, I would hardly consider 'not allowed in a child's school library' as being banned.

>>86294472
If you don't see a problem then you need to go back.

>>86294472
An organisation whose only focus is meant to be anti-censorship has only tangentially-related political rhetoric plastered on their site. It is undeniably odd.

>>86294425
So what? Still censorship. Where is your line drawn? Just explicit pornography? Why is your line more valid?

>>86294403
>what if the difference between Art and pornography
I don't know but I know it when I see it. You're talking about photos of naked ladies vs literature as if they're the same but they're not.

>>86294506
To add onto this, all these 'banned' books are just books that almost made the cut but didn't. Shit like Robert Crumb doesn't show up on these ban lists only because no one would even think of trying to put them in a child's school library. Do these people really think that stopping literally any piece of print media from getting into the hands of children is censorship?

>>86294472
The problem is you're arguing with people who use the word "cuck" unironically and think The Onion's Kelly is secretly one of their own.

>>86294509
>still censorship
No it's not, playboy is wank material aimed at adults.

>>86294539
>Implying photos of naked ladies aren't art.
Stop censoring you shitlord.

Either way, you're missing the point entirely. Stuff for children doesn't need to be or not be art, it just needs to be things that won't scar them and/or make them stick their hands down the pants of their schoolmates.
And, like it or not, indie comics that show young europeans doing anal artistically can cause that.

>>86294543
They do it so that they can cry wolf about evil "white, cis, heteronormative men" (this is a quote from one of the images uploaded) and their hate for anyone who's not.

>>86294506
Diversity is only a political issue if you're against it so why are you against it?

>>86294584
They've got good articles, and Sandman is most definitely aimed at adults.

>>86294425
You know that Playboy actually contains lots of articles and was it's height even one of the best paying magazines for prose writers?

>>86294615
>they got good articles
And they publish thise without the naked ladies.
>Sandman is aimed at adults
No it's not.

>>86294609
Proffessing a societal need for greater diversity in media is most definitely a political statement, I bet your sophism sounded much smarter in your head.

>One complaint from an Alabama school in 1983 wanted to reject it because it was "a real downer," a reason that earned it fifth place on ALA's Ten most farfetched reasons to ban a book."

https://www.thenation.com/article/anne-franks-diary-too-explicit-school/

They've defended people from the government from child porn chargers because they had manga. Don't be a faggot OP.

>>86294617
Then we should let kids read those stories and articles.

>>86294634
So we have to take the naked ladies out of Playboy to give it to children, but the naked ladies in Sandman get a free pass?

>Sandman is not aimed at adults
So its aimed at children, or is it family-oriented?

>>86294604
That was a quote from the author the cbldf itself made no such statement.

>>86294615
>Sandman is most definitely aimed at adults.
I read it in my early teens, which is about the right time to read almost anything by Gaiman.

>>86294667
Sandman is aimed at all people interested in dreams and storys.

>>86294671
Including it on their website is in itself a statement. You're not a child anon, read between the lines and think on a grownup level.

>>86294667
Sandman is aimed for everyone.

>>86294694
>read between the lines
It's what Sen. McCarthy would want.

>>86294694
You're going to trigger his memory of not taking the hint when an obese girl liked him. Alas, he'll die of virgin rage.

>>86294667
What's wrong with nudity? Why do you have such weird hangups about the human form anon?

>>86294694
>this pamphlet about censorship has a person giving there views on censorship that means those views are officialy endorsed.

>>86294744
Perhaps its the fact that showing children sexual content, which nudity is often tied to in media, especially in sequenital art where the nudity must have a stroy purpose, and this can encourage maladaptive sexual behaviour that can be harmful to the child and other children around them?

No, it must be because I'm a repressed American, although I've never been to the continent.

>>86294667
>so we have to take the naked ladies out of playboy
No we don't but we can if it makes you uncomfortable. Honestly I have no problem letting kids read Playboy but Americans are prudes like that. That's why you need a CBLDF in the first place.

>>86294745
>>86294785
This person appears to be 'quoting' my opinion in his posts. Of course, I'll just ignore this, as this quotation has no actual meaning and is just decoration.

>>86294804
>Nudity is sexual
No it's natural.

>>86294804
I never called you an american you touchy faggot.
>the fag doth protest too much methinks

>>86294823
Are you new to 4chan anon
I was showing your opinion with implication arrows to show that i belive it to be an absurd theory.

>>86294806
>>86294832
So you would agree then that comics with blatant depictions of sex or sexual actions should not be show to children? I really don;t have a problem with showing children nudity, I just think its silly to have some artistic ideal of showing children everything under the sun, ignoring the fact that certain material can have real and harmful effects on their development.

ITT: Busybodies who think children will be emotionally and mentally scarred by exposure to Classical statuary.

>>86294647
>professing a societal need for greater diversity is definitely political statement
Only if you're against it.

>>86291377
Well most of these are basically R rated
I know for sure plenty of then have nudity, at least tits and full frontal male for some.

But they should unban Maus. That shit is real good especially when you're doing lesson on nazi Germany as a Jew.

>>86294876
But you just said before that quoting someone on a webpage doesn't actually indicate anything?

>>86294823
>What is greentext?

>>86294897
>Missing the point

How fucking stupid are you?

>>86294867
To be fair we always have faggots in these threads trying to make it about america so i can understand anon being jumpy about that

Anon is still a fucking faggot for the first half of that post though.

>>86291311
or 20 year old college students, apparently

>>86294877
Define "Blantant" faggot because they're a difference between hardcore anal pounding and a night in paris.

>>86294920
Yeah man, who cares if showing children sex can cause them to touch each other inappropriately, leaving both children scarred from molestation and children developing patterns of non-consensual sexual behaviour from a young age, the important thing is they get to see sweaty European sex!

>>86291377
What're the odds that it was soccer moms and schoolmarms who complained about these rather than the pupils themselves?

People just don't know what is appropriate for certain ages.

I remember my public library would have Mouse Guard in the adult graphic novel section, but I Kill Giants in the kid section.

After that every time I would go to the library I'd move the mouse guard to kids section and I Kill Giants to teens. It kept pissing off the librarians that I did though.

>>86292067
see >>86291288

>>86294895
Well the point i was making was about context.

In the context of an organisation like the cbldf presenting a book about censorship it is not an endorsement.
And wait a second your statment does not make sense my implying was just as little an endorsment as the sjws quote.

>>86294917
Not that Anon, but I got what you were saying fine. And you didn't just miss the point: you never even had it in your field of vision.

>>86294877
>so you agree
No I don't. A kid reading about someone getting a blowjob doesn't really fuck them up anymore than playing a violent videogame.

>>86294920
>we always have faggots in these threads trying to make it about america
It kinda is, though it applies somewhat to the UK as well. I mean, have you ever flipped through an all-ages comic published outside the Anglosphere?

>>86294948
Have you ever played Doctor anon?

>>86294985
So its not child abuse to show children a video of a guy giving head? That would have no effects on the child.

You're looking at this from a philosophical level, ignoring the fact that these things have proven detrimental effects on a child's psychology, including inappropriate sexual behavior that affects their peers.

>>86294985
Did you know that an adult of the same sex as the child molesting the child vastly increases the odds of that child growing up and saying it's gay?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11501300

May not be strictly related, but I think it's food for thought.

>"SJWs aren't like the Comics Code Authority," said /co/
>"They're just a loud vocal minority on some internet site," said /co/

You faggots couldn't spot a gun even if it was stuck up your nostrils.

>>86294955
>People just don't know what is appropriate for certain ages.
Kids know just fine: it's only adults who're confused about it.

>>86294922
Yeah thats another thing many of these arent just children getting affected its adults as well.

And its worth noting the slippery sloop is real if this kind thinking catches on it will grow to the point of book burnings.

>>86295008
>What is non-consensual.

And please, don't debase yourself to arguing that preschool children commuting non-consensual sex acts on each other is fine and dandy.

>>86294948
How's that gas mileage on that minivan?

>>86295005
Oh im not going to deny that in general americans are to fucking prudish but it seems like a lot of it is just people wanking there hatboner for the country with insulting prudes as a means to an end.

>>86295020
But it's /pol/ arguing for censorship.

>>86295039
I don't get the reference, must be an American thing. I'm probably not whatever hated outgroup you've decided I am though.

>>86295020
In what way is the CBLDF like the CCA?

>>86294948
Define young age.

>>86295019
>I am in no way misrepresenting this study in order to imply that all gay men are child molesters.

>>86295070
5,6,7,8.

>>86291421
Yeah, but you have to admit there's a line SOMEWHERE. Elementary Schools probably shouldn't be carrying things like Bomb Queen and Crossed, for example.

>>86291164
Wasn't the CBLDF originally set up in the '90s for the guy that got popped for buying a hentai manga in Dallas?

>>86295091
Not all obviously, but more frequently than non-gays gays are child molesters.

>>86295095
Yeah thats only a thing thats happening in your head anon.

No child is going to go fuck there friend because some womens sheets slipped off her when she was raised into the air.

>>86295010
>implying they're the same thing
They're not.

>>86295124
Well, you've allayed my fears, anonymous man on the internet.

I mean, its not like children are wired to copy behavior they see modeled to them. Oh wait...

>>86295021
Yeah but even when kids know they do their best to ignore it.
I mean if you asked a kid what games you feel he is the appropriate age to play, good chance that list will be full of games that would be rated M.
Same goes for movies and comics.

The thing is that comics are way smaller time than movies or vidja, so there is even less people to make a case for or against.
So it'll usually get plenty that are allowed to the kid that shouldn't, or plenty blocked that should be allowed.

>>86295106
No because children vary your just fucking over the more developed children.

I would hope a child would drop bomb queen and crossed because they are fucking shit but they should be allowed to try it and come to that conclusion themselves.

>>86295127
How are they different anon:? Would a comic blowjob be okay, but not a cartoon one? What if its a rotoscoped cartoon, is that different from live action?

Where you draw the line seems far more arbitrary and nonsensical than these schools.

>>86295106
Persepolis and Sandman are fairly obviously not Bomb Queen and Crossed, though.

>>86295176
Your ideas verge on child abuse.

>>86295176
You're one of those idiots letting their 6 year old kid watch Predator 2 and Mall Rats, ain't ya?

Also ITT: whataboutisms.

>>86295186
Sandman's first trade includes a story where a diner full of people get brainwashed into having a giant orgy and then kill each other like wild animals.
Also a woman who is basically a bedsore ridden heroin addict, except the heroin is dream sand.

>>86295177
>how are they different
How are they not?

File: 1472133971102.png (45KB, 600x600px)

45KB, 600x600px

>>86295176
>5-7 year olds reading Crossed

I don't have a HORSECOCK so this'll have to do

>>86295229
>>86294681

>>86295177
>how are they different
Medium through which the blowjob is portrayed. Reading anout something is different from watching a video.

>>86295205
>Predator 2
Gross

>>86295176
I wouldn't even let a twelve year old read crossed
dear god anon, I hope you never get kids!

>>86295205
Hey, I loved the Predator movies as a kid.

>>86295273
>>86295294
You both failed to answer me. How does the comic medium have such an obviously lower impact than say, a cartoon medium?

Why is it that your drawing of a line at the medium is so much smarter than their drawing of the line at the content?

>>86295229
Which is all portrayed as a bad thing.

>>86295326
>explain nuance to me cause I'm a retard

>>86295326
You failed to answer me faggot.
Tell me how a video and a comic are exactly alike then maybe I'll give a fuck.

>>86295205
I let my kids watch It follows, teach them about stranger danger

>>86295339
That'd still have it be a book that is visually equal to an R rated movie.

Now days highschools aren't allowed R rated movies and something 6th grade below can't even have the occasional pg13 slide.

So it wouldn't be too crazy for a school full of teens have their principal go "I don't want comics or movies that are above teen rating shown by us"
And the same for a school for a preteens.

>>86295342
>>86295360
I'll structure the question in a way that you chucklefucks can answer.

What is it specifically about sound and the illusion of movement that makes depictions of sexual acts harmful to children where they otherwise aren't?

And for the idiot that thinks I have some obligation to answer his 'no you!' question without having put up any defence against my argument, how about you stop posting.

>>86295379
Well while I think it is a good movie I also think that's fucked up.
I'd prolly wait till my kid was a teen before showing that

>>86294584
Still havent explained where your line is drawn and why its more valid
Sandman is aimed at adults, it was published under the adult oriented imprint of DC

>>86295360
Both comics and videos are visual mediums.

>>86295459
Advertised as for adults /=/ for adults.

Sandman is for everybody

File: QmawmMHayzrVqJ9NbTGoe8qHPCxfGmcABdq8pfVSbwSyTa.jpg (971KB, 1000x1511px) Image search: [Google]

971KB, 1000x1511px

>all these people saying Sandman is appropriate for all audiences

Suggested for Mature Readers still basically means "rated M for Mature"

>>86295511
>Purely emotional argument that means nothing practically

>>86295459
>Sandman is aimed at adults
No it's not

>>86295527
But they've got a radical, far-out, artistic view! That means they're real deep thinkers and visionaries, not autistic idiots who have no idea about how to raise children!

>>86291164
>diversity

I too stand up for the rights of green and purple skinned people. Does the blue arm represent corpses? Anyway since this shit is done mostly by white people I do wonder. Do these people find this fun or feel good about it as when you help an old lady cross the street? Whatever happened to read a comic for fun then move on to other stuff. I just can't grasp this mentality of self hatred and standing up for non-white people no matter what. Yes, racism is bad and everyone should love each other yada yada, but this cult like behavior is both scary and pathetic.

>>86295393
How about you tell us how your friend molested you after he read a comic.

>>86295532
Bit that's what censorship is.

>>86295532
They dont put those ratings on books because they belive it they put those ratings on books because they would get in trouble otherwise.

File: skeleton.gif (1MB, 540x540px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 540x540px

>>86295560
I'll take that as an attempt to opt out of the argument while saving face. Have a nice day, and don't have kids any time soon.

>>86295527
But it says mature readers. Clearly they mean mature people such as myself

>>86295459
I don't draw a line and that's why my viewpoint is more valid.

>>86295620
You should phone him up anon and take a chance with romance.

File: Screenshot_20160915-104755.png (614KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

614KB, 1440x2560px

>why's muh Spiderman noir blocked from my kid's intermediate school

>>86295648
You had quite literally just drawn a line at Playboy magazine.

The thing is, none of these books are actually offensive. Would CBLDF defend Holy Terror? What about The Unfunnies or Wanted? What if someone did a comic adaptation of The Turner Diaries or Mein Kampf? The Anarchist's Cookbook? One of those PUA guides?

They're not actually taking a stand or putting their necks out on the line. Nothing about this is brave or groundbreaking.

>>86295648
So you're not against just comic book censorship, but any censorship at all?

>>86295551
>Take me, for example. I was brought up properly, and look at me now.

>>86295688
No I didn't, I just stated a fact and the fact is Playboy is for wanking.

>>86295697
Not even fans of The Unfunnies would defend The Unfunnies.

>>86295556
If solidarity is self-hatred, then discrimination is self-love.

>>86295709
I read it for the articles was never just a meme.

File: Screenshot_20160915-104740.png (474KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

474KB, 1440x2560px

>why is muh Sandman blocked from the middle schools?

>>86295697
>none of these books are actually offensive
Then why are they banned.

>>86295741
They're not banned, just some primary schools in America decided to take them out of their libraries, oh the horror!

>>86295732
Yeah and then you jack off to a playmate. You can titillate both heads but playboy was a nudie mag first and foremost.
>emphasis on was

>>86295697
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Whataboutism

>>86295768
>they're not banned, they're just banned.

>>86295768
Looks like baning to me.

Censorship, you say?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9856_xv8gc

>>86295697
>would CBLDF Defend such and such
Probably, Now Stop being a faggot.

>>86295780
Even as somebody for whom the tits were just a nice added bonus i miss them.

>>86295768

Exactly. Content curation is entirely legal under the first amendment. Speech is not being restricted, rather it's simply being denied a platform that it's not legally entitled to.

You can argue that's a dick move, but then don't get surprised when stuff that offends you starts to get through as well.

>>86295844
Anon a lot of us hate half of the shit we praise the cbldf for defending.

>>86295800
>>86295818
Having a cry because your local primary school doesn't stock JTHM might just be the most pathetic crusade against 'censorship' I've ever heard of.

>>86295741
>>86295800
>>86295818
Not that Anon, but it's true that the comics have not been banned. If they had been banned, then it would be illegal to print or distribute them *anywhere* in the country. Only the State has the power to enforce a ban.

>>86295793

>rationalwiki

Lmao

>>86295838

>probably

We don't know because it hasn't happened. That doesn't mean any one option or another. My point is that their principles haven't actually been put to the test yet, so there's healthy room for doubt.

>>86295886
Do you want another cca anon.

>>86295697
Why not email your question to them and get back to us?

>>86295917
Your trying to make your point more valid by falling back on legal definitions.

>>86291164
>>86291194
>>86291233
>>86291259
>>86291288
>>86291309
>>86291359
>>86291387

wew lad

>>86295939
Do I want another organization that pressures companies into not publishing certain things? Of course not.

Do I care if school organisations exercise their right to curate the media they expose children to? No, it'd be fucking weird if they couldn't.

>>86295793
>Place calls itself RationalWiki
>Is a liberal hellhole

>>86295966
Even within a normal definition, its not banned. If I stop handing out free candy, I didn't ban candy, If schools stop stocking a certain book, they haven't banned that book.

>>86295985
Well one will inevitibly lead to the other censors are people who never stop pushing for more.

You cant just ignore a problem until it gets huge thats how we got ww2.

>>86295533
Yes, it really is.

>>86296020
They have banned the book if they stop stocking it because wont somebody think of the children.

File: Goalposts.jpg (160KB, 500x400px)

160KB, 500x400px

>>86295926
>Lmao
Trying to deflect the point by making the conversation about the website that hosts the article won't work.

>>86291288
Why would having diverse content make books that are basically R rated fine?
I mean they're good books but mature content should still be recognized when it comes to "should I lend this to kids to read"

File: oh damn.jpg (15KB, 220x262px)

15KB, 220x262px

>>86294952
100%. The one on LoEG: Black Dossier from >>86291412 is especially hilarious.

>Library in Kentucky gets book
>Library assistant objects to sex in book, requests library to move it from graphic novels to adult fiction
>Library says nah
>Assistant proceeds to check out the book for a full year, returning it only to check it out again
>Eventually someone reserves it
>Assistant uses staff privileges to discover the reserve is by an 11 year old girl
>Talks another co-working into helping her cancel the reserve
>both fired for overstepping authority and committing censorship

>>86295966
As said, I'm not the Anon you've been talking to. I'm just pointing out a basic fact, and you're sabotaging your own argument by disregarding it.

>>86296050
I'm pretty sure Gaiman would disagree.

>>86296029
>One will inevitably lead to another
That's not how this works, at all. There's complex issues here related to child development, child psychology, the duty of care that schools hold towards children etc. Schools have always curated and have always had the right to curate what books they stock.

If I asked a school to order in a European fetish book and they refused, neither my rights nor the publishers rights have been infringed.

>300 posts
>51 posters

Fuck off /pol/

>>86295990
>I only read the articles critical of conservatism
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moonbattery

>>86296054
No. If you begin to punish children for bringing the book to school, that would be banning it. You can argue, but removing a book from your library isn't the same as banning it.

>>86296050
It's marketed towards mature reader but that's just marketing.

>>86296054
Some books really should be held from kids of a certain age though.

I mean as a parent you could say you're fine with letting your 12 year old read Watchmen, and so buy it for your kid.
But as a principal of a school you don't exactly have the definite say on if this kid is fine to read Watchmen. Solution? Don't stock Watchmen.

>>86296068
It is when I'm questioning your shitty source that attempts to define a word that doesn't exist so that others can easily codify and categorize your arguments for you so you don't have to think so hard.

>>86296133
You're banning the poor kids from reading it and that's bullshit.

>>86296097

I'll just bet.

>>86296134
That's not even *wrong*.

>>86296141
WAAAAAAAA KIDS ARE SMARTER THAN ADULTS

WAAAAAAAAAA YOU'RE STIFLING THEIR GROWTH BY NOT LETTING THEM LOOK AT CARTOONS

WWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

>>86296091
Exactly as I thought.

>>86296154
If they wanna really read it they can get their parents to buy it for them.
Or illegally download it and act like they're old enough to read it (wouldn't be the first time of a kid online saying they're 18)

>>86296120
Thats 6 posts to the user.
Not sure what that means though.

>>86296192
Poor kids got poor families you twat ;_;

>>86296141
It dam well should be the principles job to work around overprotective parents.

A school that bows to shitty parents will churn out shitty students

>ban the most influential and easily studied at every level deconstruction ever printed.
Whats even the point of english class if you wont study literature.

>>86296142
>a word that doesn't exist so that others can easily codify and categorize your arguments for you
On this basis, no logical fallacy should ever have a term attached to it.

>>86296192
See
>>86294316

>>86296245
Then have the parent check it out for them if the book is out in mature reading at the public library.
Or illegally download it, like we fucking do 3 dozen times a week.

>>86296296
>telling kids to be criminals
Anon should be banned from schools.

>>86296292
>>86294316
A large TPB in cbr format it like 500mb tops.
Most people could fit 100 comics on their phone alone.

>>86296326
We are banned from schools.
What fucking school ain't site blocking 4chan?

>>86296170
Not that Anon, but if this is how you handle a polite disagreement, then toddlers have an advantage over you by a wide margin.

Im conflicted i want to argue with people that auctualy are against the cbldf some more but i also want to go to bed its 00:21 and i have spent an entire night doing it.

This new argument is really dumb. If people are really arguing that Principals have a duty to stock inappropriate texts because they have a duty to expose children to these books, there's enough classics out there far more important and influential than Watchmen and Sandman that any school library would be fill before these were considered.

>>86296340
You have clearly never lived in rural australia.

>>86296418
My rural Australian school library had Spider-Man comics and Ironfist Chinmi. I wasn't crying because I had to go to the local library to read about Comedian raping Silk Spectre.

>>86296400
>there are other important things so these ones dont matter.

>>86296418
dude who the fuck cares about Australia

>>86296462
You mean the rape that was portrayed as very much a bad thing.

So individual libraries/schools are banning comics they dont deem appropriate?

So these people going to these libraries/schools can just purchase the same comics online or in stores with no trouble at all, should they really want to read them?

This isn't "Nationwide ban" or "book burning" level. Its just libraries or schools not wanting workers to get chewed out by angry parents every other day.

>>86296511
Hmm, I guess it is okay to show to preschoolers then, you got me anon.

>>86296511
Saying it is a bad thing is still having a story that visually has it.
Which would mean that it is a book that is basically R rated.

>>86296532
The 'charity' needs something to keep them afloat between major cases that happen only every few decades and less and less now,and /co/posters need something to feel self-righteous about.

>>86296532
>This isn't "Nationwide ban" or "book burning" level.
And there are those who would like to make sure it never gets that far.

>>86296596
>one school doesn't want book A
>this means all schools don't want book A
>this means everyone else doesn't want book A

>>86296596
>If we don't stop then at the middle schools in Texas or some random public library in Michigan
>We won't be able to stop them at The Supreme Court!

>>86296496
Thats just my expirence im sure there are other places where the situation is just as fucked.

>>86296532
>This isn't "Nationwide ban" or "book burning" level
Because the cbldf works to stop it before it reaches that.

>>86296679
>If we don't stop then at the middle schools in Texas

Back in my youth, I don't even think we had comics at the library. Just Hank the Cowdog and other scholastic books. The fact that they have them now seems like an improvement to me

>>86296545
>Which would mean that it is a book that is basically R rated
And the mpaa is almost as much of a joke as the cca was

>>86296532
Libraries and schools are public places, freedom of speech applies to them. Nobody should be fucking banning or censoring anything, and it's pretty sad to see people arguing in favour of it on 4chan.

>>86296701
You believe that?

This is some propaganda-level blind faith here.

>>86296701
Anyone got a "this is bait" image on hand?
Ain't got none in my phone.

>>86296648
>>86296679
You start out surrendering the small things, you end up surrendering the big things, too.

>>86296679
Because we were so fucking sucesfull in 1954

>>86296736
>You believe that?
Different Anon, but yes, cbldf and similar organisations are important for that reason.

File: 1473757094104.jpg (315KB, 786x800px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 786x800px

>>86296701

>>86296679
itt: people who have never heard of fredric wertham.

>>86296732
If you hang around here long enough, you'll realise that many of the people who profess to be on the side of freedom are actually pretty authoritarian.

>>86296873
>>86296822
1954 thought all comics were for kids and should be regulated to kid appropriate only

Nobody is looking at our R rated superhero flicks and Parental Digression Is Advised zombie TV shows and thinking comics now days are for kids only.

Schools really should treat comics like movies or any other entertainment medium
And realize that some comics aren't middle school appropriate.

>>86297021
>thinking comics now days are for kids only.
But they are this has been shown over and over again.

>>86297078
>comics today aren't for kids
>so they should be allowed in elementary schools

I will not stop until there is the complete collection of To-Love-Ru on the shelves of every school library in the United States

>>86297078
Well admitidly its more a problem on the cartoon side but you still see a bit of it in comics.

>>86297078
>>86297099
This makes me think i should go to bed though when i said proven time and time again i was thinking of cartoons not comics so i think i might be to tired to continue.

Bye guys it was fun even the faggots i was arguing with.

File: Groucho Marx.jpg (29KB, 350x250px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 350x250px

>>86297021
>Parental Digression
This whole thread is one long parental digression, Anon.

>>86297284
Get out of here Groucho
Recent generations only know of you from people parodying you, not you directly at all.

File: 1459568191492.png (47KB, 522x472px)

47KB, 522x472px

>>86296732
Walking down the street to the next library or buying the comic online is hard, eh?

I know many libraries in my area are located almost next door to elementary schools so kids have a place to hang out until their parents come to pick them up. It's not unreasonable for a library with a huge stream of 3rd graders to pull certain comics off shelves.

This is no more censorship than telling a 10 year old to go home when he wants to buy a ticket to an R-rated film.

>>86297372
>It's not unreasonable for a library with a huge stream of 3rd graders to pull certain comics off shelves.
Yes it is. It's not a public library's job to decide what morality to enforce because it runs contrary to the principle of freedom of speech and information. Cinemas are private enterprises and buying a film ticket is a transaction at their discretion.

If parents want to police what their kids read, fine. But this is just a case of either buck-passing parents demanding state schools and libraries parent their children according to their subjective moral codes or libraries and schools pushing their own moral agenda, neither of which should be allowed.

>>86297364
Fuck you I love duck soup.
>a movie I got at my local public library