The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund will today be hosting a free online workshop, discussing its efforts toward establishing an in-house ethics committee. I believe the idea is to compose a set of standards which then may be reapplied across the comic book industry at large, to safeguard against abuse irregardless of recipient or beneficiary. While the non-profit has done commendable wonders over the past three and a half decades defending creatives, their publishers and the store-owners carrying their products all from attempts at censorship, leadership of recent years have sadly generated scandals of their own. Most notably with previous top dog Charles Brownstein finally stepping down long after charges of unwanted sexual advances made against him by a comic artist who was neither available or interested. Many professionals, particularly within the CBLDF, evidently did much to defend Brownstein’s misconduct, in turn leading to an atmosphere of additional discrepancies.
In my media days I was a card-carrying member of the CBLDF, for a time even promoting a certain search engine which contributed a percentage from its ad-click results to the charity of one’s choice explicitly to advance the CBLDF’s resources. And, I have spoofed them nonetheless. I’ve had dealings with Brownstein myself as well, the man kindly giving me free advice on what my legal options were in regards to a particular forum helping itself to content I was generating. If he had been ousted within 2 or 3 years of the initial accusations, he would not have been present to share his time with me. I love what the CBLDF has done and what it might continue to do, but the feelings are complicated.
Early last month, I wrote
“I’ve never seen a study to this end, but I am convinced that both personal and interpersonal abuses are more common in creative industries, because so much of creativity necessarily stems from ego. Artisans have to indulge to unearth imagination, but then audiences themselves have to feel catered to all the more, because what is propelled is considerably not art appreciation but the bottomless demands of industry. Self-obsession may produce wonderfully alluring artworks, but it’s also to blame for our biggest societal conflicts and hangups. I mean, patriotism, the grandest form of collective self-obsession, is ironically measured by a willingness to endanger as many lives as possible for the sake of convenience, entitlement or privilege, from being pro-gun and pro-war no matter the native casualties which invariably result, to opposition toward welfare and universal free healthcare as though keeping all citizens alive and healthy were somehow unpatriotic. This pathos is loudest today among those personalities indignant about not wearing masks in a pandemic, their own words and actions inferring that personal comfort, personal entitlement and personal privilege somehow matters more than the life of others. If there exists a bigger problem than the censoring of words and ideas, suppressing or magnifying them beyond reason usually for lucrativeness but also for the sake of personalized comfort, entitlement and privilege, it’s this concept that endangering others is itself some sort of right. And that any impairment against infringing the rights of others to life and liberty is itself somehow an infringement of civil or basic human rights. I see the uphill battle in all of this and I realize how providing a nonpartisan, objective perspective, regardless if all the logic in the world supports the argument, irrevocably falls on deaf ears. For it is a hard thing to stomach, the realization that the most self-serving among us by default never have our best interests in mind. It stings no less realizing that what we want of this life is not what this life provides for us.
I’ve been trading email with the current Prez of the CBLDF, suggesting they adapt one of the old initiatives from the Friends of Lulu as their own, and he looks to be open to my idea. When the FoL was dissolved a decade back, I had suggested we donate the archives of records to the MoCCA comic book museum in NYC, for posterity and historical curiosity, and while I served on the final board of directors for FoL at the time he was actually on the MoCCA board, so somehow he thinks my current suggestions come from a valid point of reference.
But what I’m suggesting now is a system for the CBLDF to provide nonpartisan voice of reason, to resolve certain issues by way of added perspective, ideally to save some of these matters from ever actually going to the courts. Like an in-house anti-defamation league, reminding industry insiders who may not know the details of a particular harassment scandal leaping to defense for whomever, and to save industry outsiders who may know no actual details about a particular harassment scandal demanding heads on spikes, to all just step back and mind their own beeswax. And then today Wikipedia announces the same thing for its entire platform, a community code of conduct to preempt any abuses of power. I told the CBLDF guy, that there is so much call now for the government to step in to oversee the digital social networks, as well as demands for these networks to better police themselves, and when neither wants to regulate for fear of cutting into profit margins or self-ingratiating chains of command, it really does fall on the people to set the standards for themselves, or at least for their better angels. Like not just a digital variant of a neighborhood watch, but one that is mindful enough to know the differences and to respect the differences between what is private and what is public. Part of the new CBLDF initiative is expanding their mission statement to protect whistler-blowers, and preventing mob mentality, especially lynch mobs which generally grow from personality cults, is perfectly well in keeping with that, good and true. I learned firsthand how foolhardy it is to exert my own will across a medium, but wanting the betterment of all its players nonetheless is a rich example for how life is as unconcerned with ambition as it is with vainglory or retribution, as such constructs are servicing only one’s own throbbing member and nothing more.”
All things considered, this is what I would like to see unfold, doubtful though it may be as while non-partisanship always sounds good at day’s end everyone wants exceptions. American exceptionalism somehow comes from Americans insisting on exceptions for themselves or whomever they like, which is decidedly far from exceptional.
How likely might a modern and vocal endorsement of “The Creator’s Bill of Rights” by the CBLDF as well as by publishers and distributors be, as a potential framework to establish an industry-wide code of conduct? I realize, being from 1988 and at the time applying generally to indie creators it is regarded as a relic, if regarded at all, but I do feel its points stand the test of time. Further context here.
I feel taking such a framework further, fleshing it out to cover such grounds from employer retaliation to the interpersonal biases between creators themselves unfortunately commonplace to any creative industry, is vital. Regardless of political mandates or religious dogmatics or corporate initiatives, no life is truly accepted as equal by subjective standards but those one wishes to befriend, to fuck or to vicariously be. And I think this is the core of the many cases known and unknown concerning industry insiders using and abusing one another, and obviously the same misconduct extending on to satelliting media and fandom alike, the commonality for rationalizing one’s own quirks, whims or fetishes while castigating the same liberties in others.
For example, there was the recent scandal centering on Warren Ellis. Despite making money for a number of businesses while pleasing many fans and mentoring a number of industry professionals along the way, dozens came forward about past indulgences on his part, yet all the while and persisting to this day there were big names ready, willing and able to defend the man and by extension whether they like it or not, his conduct. I do not believe in lynch mobs, and at least outwardly nobody could or should, but I do not believe that ethics have much of a dividing line of grayness between the black and white of circumstantial evidence. We need to be forgiving and understanding of one another, by all means yes, but not only for those who most appeal to our respective subjectivity. Contrasted with someone like Ethan Van Sciver, who has indulged his own prejudices to such public extents as to generate national headlines for the comicsgate melodrama, and what could or should a universally applicable solution be? In terms of handling unpopular beliefs, I don’t think companies, be they publishers or distributors, should censor anybody themselves, but rather allow paying customers to decide what does and does not sell. The actress Roseanne and the director James Gunn each voicing partisan views on their respective social media accounts had nothing to do with the TV program she was starring in or the movie he was filming, so it was unethical for either to be fired. ABC and Disney should have allowed consumers to make those judgement calls through supporting or not supporting, else-wise it’s the matter that unfolded, of telling consumers what they should want, demand being manufactured to meet preordained supply rather than supply being manufactured to meet existing demands. The polar opposite of how free markets are supposed to run. If boycotts were incapable of any measurable effect, then our political leaders accepting campaign contributions from Israeli financial interests would never flip the fuck out over the slightest mention of BDS.
However, if someone were putting polarizing ideas into their actual work, promoting racism or sexism or homophobia, etc, then they could and should be canned, because threatening demographics or potential demographics is not at all how one grows sales numbers. But if their off-center perspectives are only ever voiced behind closed doors, if it happens at a bar after hours to a convention, it becomes popularity contests. It should be up to co-workers to decide for themselves without employer retaliation whether to work with such persons or not. We absolutely must one and all have the ability to formulate our own thoughts and feelings, but as well must we one and all face whatever social repercussions to result should egocentric thoughts or feelings be proffered outside the solitaire of one’s gourd. Freedoms tend to come with responsibility, especially personal responsibility. The abject avoidance of personal responsibility being the only pathway to riches provides a compelling counterpoint for too many egocentrics, but also the source of societal divisions, the inevitable breakdowns and collapse of community and fraternity. I prefer the idea that we exist to help one another, not that we exist to service one another, but this is why I cannot for the life of me get along with capitalists.
Comicsgate was/is the concern that reading materials manufactured for-profit only be produced by persons who look and act as do you, featuring characters who look and act as you specifically would wish to, in stories created exclusively for persons who look and act as do you. Essentially, one side was/is outraged for there to be non-male, non-white, non-hetero characters anywhere at all, or that non-male, non-white, non-hetero creatives were employed or that non-male, non-white, non-hetero demographics were being appealed to. Historically, they were the largest talent pool employed, and the largest audience, all thanks to the exceedingly narrow worldview which comes from egotism. But times do change. The other side was/is outraged that stories involving non-male, non-white, non-hetero characters would ever be conveyed by non-male, non-white, non-hetero creatives or fail to be adored by readers who had little say in themselves being male, white or hetero. The mentality is often applied to Hollywood, with demands for only gay actors to perform gay characters, regardless if the talent or skill is best suited for the particular role as though a singular attribute were all that might define a given character, thus deflating the entire purpose of acting. Both sides deny the fact that everyone is capable of possessing an imagination, deny that any voice may possibly have more than one thing to say, and are deeply frustrated that their particular demographic is not enjoying the fruits of unquestioning dominance.
The answer to comicsgate would be to anonymize the creators, so that they could only be hired or judged by their merits and mettle, rather than alignments they’ve no physical control over for good or bad. It’s the same answer to Washington, DC, as anonymizing candidates would accentuate the necessities of the job itself as opposed to attributes they’ve no control over. As in, judge not a woman positively or negatively for whichever job candidacy simply for being a woman, but judge her for her qualifications relevant to the task at hand. Obviously, not everyone has had the same opportunities, but there is no leapfrogging in cultural evolution, and applying shortcuts to equalize the playing field would still be attempting to fix a flat tire on a speeding car. The issues persist because nobody wishes to seriously oust cronyism, rather they wish to claim the largest rewards from it for their own, such as with special interest groups generally aiming for special privilege above and beyond equality. People incensed by prospects of anonymity are revealing they care more about signal-boosting their persona than they do about getting whatever job done effectively. Containment spells are designed to safeguard the ego and protection spells are constructed to safeguard the ego, but this current discourse, from who gets cabinet positions in federal governance to who gets work in comic books, is nothing more than an argument of sociopolitical equivalencies over which side of the divide safeguards the right egos. When every ego can go get tossed.
Honestly, blacklisting (and prisons for that matter) should exist for none else but those incapable of existing without doing harm to others. Physical and sexual harm is certainly more obvious in effect (assuring only murderers and rapists have any place behind bars), but there are all kinds of studies to show that stress from emotional and psychological harm can lead to physical side-effects as well (assuring bankers could and should be locked up to boot). There is a world of fucking difference between mental duress and a bruised ego though. Failure to be loved is oppression only by the standards of an egomaniac. We do not actually all have to love one another for creative industries particularly or society generally to improve, we just have to refrain from ever using or abusing anyone anywhere, refrain from denying self-determination by others individually or federally, regardless of how well any of us might justify the words or deeds. Taking possession of a whip is not the same as abolishing it.
To paraphrase Neil Gaiman from way back, regarding comics particularly or life in general, we really need to defend that which we may not personally agree with just as vigilantly as we defend that which we like, because mandating responses to whatever free speech whether for or against is still the censoring of speech. I feel everyone is entitled to their personalized thoughts and feelings, because we do not actually share a literal hive mind, and we are in fact physically separate entities, the duplicitous assurances of peer pressures and public relations aside. Obstructing or outright endangering the life, liberty or pursuits of happiness for anyone is not at all what a democracy should be about, even if it’s forever the status quo for persons sheltered enough to think that freedom is by any means a finite resource at risk of depletion. Free speech must be universally guaranteed, but free speech unto itself guarantees neither an audience or acceptance, and the core of these many issues is the insistence for personalized exemptions.
Fascists or any other variety of egocentric pathology deserve the right to voice themselves just as much as they deserve to be punched for threatening the livelihoods of others outside their comfort zones, gated communities, safe spaces, news bubbles, echo chambers.or the DIY segregation that is the basic business model for all online social networking. I personally disagree with gun rights advocacy as much as I disagree with anti-maskers during a pandemic, because endangering the lives of others is not an inalienable right. Impairing or infringing upon the inalienable rights of others is not itself a civil or basic human right, contrary to Christian orthodoxy and contrary to American foreign policies. But someone’s failure to flatter me is not remotely the same as my life being placed in jeopardy.
Now, in matters concerning issues of greater importance than opinions, explicitly unethical hiring practices and abuses enacted personally, I would like to suggest a reprisal of the old Unscrewed domain. The premise was for creatives to call out abuses by publishers or fellow creatives either anonymously or publicly, although the website undid itself over lack of fact-checking, as well by its book-keepers making a lot of money invested vanish. But the idea was pure, for people to have the empowerment to voice their concerns without retaliation. The social networks have largely replaced it, but again the lacking accountability to purport the claims giving way to lynch mob mentalities galore. If such a platform might be resurfaced, only with some degree of authentication for checks and balances short of going to the courts, so that it can never be misused against innocent persons, I believe it would be a valuable resource for all parties, provided all parties were capable of separating opinion from reality. Cancel culture must never be applied towards something we dislike, but rather only ever against something posing visceral threat. And not just to ourselves, but toward anyone, anywhere. Harassers particularly, not those persons who have extreme ideas about the world but who selfishly force those beliefs upon others whether sexist or racist or homophobic, etc, have no place in a functioning society. The narrow worldview fundamental for any regarded supremacy is actively maintaining the worst stereotypes about comic books to the detriment of both the medium and the industry. People look for work elsewhere because they rightfully do not have to approve of egos protected, and people stop reading because they rightfully do not have to be audiences for the drama. Freedom is not the ability to impose, it’s the ability to not be imposed upon.
Ego-shaming is the easy solution, but manifestly impossible in a culture, and a society, subsisting and thriving altogether on ego-appeasement.