Originally posted by Christina:
I'm taking a course on the history of American Mass Media and while the right to free speech IS a right enshrined in our Constitution, that right can (and sometimes does) get Limited (as in the MPAA ratings, one time the comic book code and cases of treason.).
The companies in your examples agreed to publishing standards in their own best interests. Even in the case of the Marvel Spiderman drug storyline famously printed without the Comics Code seal there was never a question of whether they could legally publish, it was a question of public opinion and backlash in their own industry.
The Constitution ensures that the
government doesn’t do the limiting of free speech. If I want to write bad poetry, fine. If I want to have it published I either need to convince a publishing house that it is print (and profit) worthy or pay to do it myself. If I can’t get published then I either need to write better poetry, write something else, find a different publisher or find a bag of money. Nothing requires anyone else to read my stuff or invest money in publishing it.
My input as a consumer is if I don’t find the story engaging, if I don’t like the direction the company takes the characters or if I don’t like how they treated one of their writers I have the option of not buying their product. As a business, they can either write stories that people will buy, get into another business, sell the business to someone else or explain to their stockholders why printing their poor performing magazines are more important than returning a profit.
