Lincolnite

I agree, I don’t get it.  Did they not publish because they didn’t want to offend lesbians? Maybe they saw the plaid shirt and golf club opposed to broom and black dress as a butch stereotype of a lesbian women. Or maybe they thought the word “lesbian” on the comic page was unfit for young readers. I also agree it is not a particularly funny or clever comic but hardly offensive.

Agreed. I being a man who finds humor in almost ANYTHING finds no humor in this. Not because it is offensive, but because it is unfunny.

It is pretty, I respect that, but the Mona Lisa isn’t funny either.

It is interesting though - I don’t know what would rile folks up more; witches, or lesbians.

It is dawning on me that I have a good personal friend who is a witch, and another who is a lesbian. Perhaps I should introduce them to each other so they can commiserate?

I think the controversy centers around the lesbian witch’s sensible shoes.

;0

Makes those who claim the LJS is a liberal rag look pretty silly right now.

The point of the cartoon seems to be that discrimination exists against gay people. Given the fact that Halloween is (or has become) basically a family-friendly holiday of fun and innocent nonsense, some people just don’t like to be reminded of that reality. Kind of like how during Thanksgiving people don’t like to think about how this government royally screwed over/killed the native populations.

Makes those who claim the LJS is a liberal rag look pretty silly right now.

Maybe, just maybe, they removed the cartoon because it was offensively unfunny.

<i>The point of the cartoon seems to be that discrimination exists against gay people. Given the fact that Halloween is (or has become) basically a family-friendly holiday of fun and innocent nonsense, some people just don

The cartoon doesn’t offend me. I’m offended by the censorship way more. Who are they to determine what’s right or not about a cartoon? They chose the strip to run. There are more offensive things written in that awful “Catty Girls” column than this all the time. So as a newspaper, they are all about freedom of speech, unless you make fun of witches and/or lesbians, or if your team mascot is the Chiefs or Redskins. They caused way more curiosity by omitting the comic than they would have cause by running it, methinks.

I was incredibly upset with the PMRC back in the day when Dee Snider had to testify on Capital Hill - I don’t really think some stuff should be censored in the way people try to censor it. All that experience did was sell millions more Twisted Sister albums and other “naughty” albums than ever would have been sold had they not raised them in front of a camera on national TV. I just don’t get it.

Mr. W. - thanks for allowing a topic on this! Attaboy!

I was surprised this wasn’t a topic yesterday. Bizarro’s syndicate obviously thought the strip was okay to send out.

Did anyone watch Last Comic Standing last summer? A female lesbian comedian was on one of the tryout episodes in the beginning. She had a short masculine haircut, wore clothes that gave her no figure, including a flannel shirt, etc. Her opening joke was that she fit every lesbian stereotype. I thought it was quite funny. Was it okay for her to say that because she’s a lesbian, and it’s not okay for Bizarro because he’s not? I just don’t see this panel as being controversial or having content that shouldn’t be seen by kids, or what have you. I’m sort of curious about what Neal thinks (whodathunkit) - he’s always quite pro-LJS, but I can’t imagine as an artist that he likes the idea of them censoring the work of another artist.

I don’t really think Bizarro is always meant to be funny. I don’t mind a bit of unfunnyness on the comics page, as long as it’s not prince valiant or mary worth. 😛

<i>Either this is a parody post or you

See what I mean? Suggest that the cartoon was censored for making a statement about discrimination and gays in this society and the reaction is a nonsensical and lame ad hominem response.

lol, OK Hillary.  The assertion that Halloween is some sort of family-friendly fantasyland where Pete Ricketts is king and gays and lesbians are hated is ridiculous.  It’s probably not too late to make a trip to Spencers at Gateway to see another side of Halloween you are clearly unaware of.

Come on Dave, you can do better than that. Mischaracterizing counter points and knocking down straw men may be entertaining to you, but it also says a lot more about you than it does with the people you are trying to debate. Do you actually think that there *isn

<i>Do you actually think that there *isn

As someone that spends time at Spencers, along with my wife of 9 years, I have to question the intent of DaveK’s jab at Spencers. Am I to assume he thinks that a store that caters to something besides Casper and My Little Pony is some sort of sinister harbinger of Halloween? Doctor John’s, Spencer’s, Hot Topic-there are aspects of those stores that are for adults ( or only for adults, in one case) and, quite frankly i’m more tokenly offended at the fact that Halloween has become a parody spectacle of a set of religious beliefs held by ACTUAL PEOPLE, the predate Christianity by a few centuries or so.

Can I jump in here again? I think there is absolutely discrimination against gays and minorities and all kinds of things we don’t like to speak about. I think it’s less than 5 years or 10 years or 20 years ago, and more than it will be in 5 years, 10 years, or 20 years from now. I don’t condone it at all.

But back to the cartoon. Would the cartoon make that discrimination worse? Does it help bring the debate in the open? What was gained truly by censoring it from our virgin eyes?

<i>But to suggest that a cartoon disturbs the family-friendliness and innocence about Halloween (a premise I find humorous)

Boys, boys agree to disagree.

I have a my little pony

I just saw Fletch’s request for comment:

<i>I

Also, there is a vocal group of newspaper readers who are very sensitive of being accused of discrimination. They’ll say things like “I just disapprove of homosexuality on moral grounds, and when they’re accused of discrimination, they write letters about how The Left is more intolerant than The Right.

So perhaps it was that use of the term “discriminated” that made them not want to run the cartoon.

Hey Neal. Thanks for the thoughts. I do know you’re not an employee there, but I figured this was more closer to your heart than asking your thoughts about them not using the name “Redskins.” LOL

I appreciate your response!

Its not a day where people want to be reminded of discrimination against gays, let alone have their kids read the daily funnies and ask them what a lesbian is.

I don’t think anyone wants to be reminded of discrimination against people any day.  And I highly doubt that kids who are old enough to read are first learning about lesbians in the Lincoln Journal Star.

I agree with you that it was a poor decision in terms of first amendment principles, but possibly a prudent decision for business reasons, and editors have to consider both.

It’s probably worth noting that freedom of the press is also granted by the first amendment.  It amazes me how people still think anyone is granted a freedom of speech through a private enterprise. 

I wonder if anyone would be talking about freedom of speech if it was a cartoon of religious nature that was ‘censored’.