Decisions of the NZ Indecent Publications Tribunal

The Indecent Publications Act of 1963 defines indecent as : 'describing, depicting, expressing or otherwise dealing with matters of sex, horror, cruelty, or violence, in a manner that is injurious to the public good.' Also Section ii) 1)e) states it counts against the material in question if there is 'likelihood of the person(s) being corrupted by it.' And the notorious Catch 22 of comic book law which has been used in all four cases: — Section ii)3) 'When the Tribunal decides than any picture-story book likely to be read by children is indecent in the hands of children under a specified age that picture-story book shall be deemed to be indecent in the hands of all persons'. This was presumably slipped into the Act by someone influenced by the McCarthy era book 'Seduction of the Innocent' (Wertham) which deals with the corrupting effect of comics dealing with sex, crime and violence on children and which led to the institution of the US Comic Code.

This section gives the Tribunal complete control over comics. Not only can they specify the age down to that of a baby in whose hands it can be indecent, but the 'likely to be read by children' is interpreted as 'sold publicly'.

The mere fact of the comics existence is taken as a likelihood that it can be read by children, and hence bannable at the least indication of corruptive or injurious effect. In defense 'the Tribunal must take into consideration the dominant effect of the book, its literary or artistic merit, and honesty of purpose'. As honesty and artistic purpose is considered to be lost on children only the dominant effect has ever been taken into account.

Last December's decision is the best guide to the Tribunal's feelings on dominant effect. As well as wishing to protect children they show concern in this decision for the welfare of the 'semi-literate section of the adult population' who could be harmed. This liberal patronising attitude to those lacking the same education that the members of the Tribunal have gives an indication of where the Tribunal's ideological position is. The hypocrisy of the Indecent Publications Act is never shown more clearly. While the government legislates the less qualified into socially degrading roles it also generously protects them from any Kung-Fu or masturbatory fixations they may develop in response to their alienation.

Young Lusts and Legion of Charlies (the Calley Manson allegory) were considered unfit for all readers because of undue emphasis on sex and violence.

page 7

Binky Brown meets the Virgin Mary, Motor City (one of Crumb's best and most political comics), Slow Death No 2. 'The Tribunal is of the opinion that children, adolescents, and the semi-literate are unlikely to grasp the meaning or purpose of the comics and are therefore likely merely to dwell on the images presented. The treatment of sex and violence where these occur are likely to have ill effects on children...'

It therefore becomes useless to argue before the Tribunal that a comic has dominant purpose or honest intent because they maintain such purpose and intent is above the comprehension of a child and therefore the child would become a voyeur and suffer lasting behavioural deformations. Any portrayal of sex or violence is ruled out because either it is too sopisticated and the child becomes a voyeur or otherwise the comic is at the child's level of comprehension and the offending sequences create an even more unfavourable impression (on the child?) Heads — the Tribunal wins, tails — the comics lose.

Doping Dan, Mother Oats, Merton of the Movement... while the Tribunal admits the sexual content is minimal, the Tribunal banned them on the following grounds. '.....however the crudity of language along with one or two frames depicting or suggesting sexual activity and some frames depicting the administration of drug dosages could have detrimental effects on the young.'

The Act says 'that is injurious'. The Tribunal has managed to cover all comics by slackening this definition to 'could have detrimental effect'. The Tribunal will ban comics which depict crude language, suggested sexual activity and administration of drugs. As long as the law stays as it is the Tribunal will suppress comics, but what the above analysis shows is that the Tribunal is not liberal in practice, it utilises what legal powers it has to provide the most sweeping practical powers for the suppression of any unorthodoxy in comics.

As a further indication of their establishment position a quote from their decision on Vampirella and Creepie comics (they were passed without restriction) proves illuminating — 'to the very young they would be meaningless' (you would expect that would encourage the young to "dwell on images presented") 'and on those in their developing years' (what about the semi-literates?) 'we do not think these particular publications would make any more injurious an impression than many of the fairy tales on which previous generations have been nutured.' Is this a double standard? Does the Tribunal like werewolf type fairy-tales but not little green dinosaurs? Or is it that Vampirella and Creepie are distributed by the main monopoly magazine agency in NZ and hence carry more economic persuasion?

Section ii)2) 'in the interests of art, literature, science or learning and would be for the public good'. Unfortunately in the case of comics despite their literary and artistic merit and being for the good of a large section of the public ii)2) only applies to ii)1) not to section ii) 30 that covers comics. The Tribunal has also decided in the case of Mr Natural No 2, Zap comix and others that 'their standards of morality, art, and literacy, nullify any satire or humour some pages contain,'