PSA Monday: Airboy and the Constitution

Scene from Airboy PSA.  Click for the full page.From Airboy #21 (May 1987) comes a PSA celebrating the 200th anniversary of the U.S. Constitution. It does this by playing up a court case that occurred in 1969 (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District) and appealing to the sympathy of students (but I wonder how many students actually read Airboy, it always struck me as more of an adult nostalgia title — though a well-written one).

Personally, I’m impressed that the school principal seems to be arguing his case in front of the Supreme Court. Maybe the school district would have won if they’d actually hired a lawyer.

Tags:

6 Responses to “ PSA Monday: Airboy and the Constitution ”

  1. What really impresses me about the ad is the banner to dissenting views in the last panel. It’s a hardcore defense of free speech that covers swastikas, of course, but the really weird inclusion is the apparent masonic sign at the edge. Are there a whole lot of junior masons fighting to be heard? Or any?

  2. This is awexxome; I’ve never seen this ad before, and that’s one of my favorite court cases. I think Clatter is right–when was the last serious Mason crackdown in America?? I suspect it was tougher to find “symbols” of any type and the artist was just reaching.

  3. What caught my eye was not so much the Masonic symbol, but the eye/pyramid symbol in the upper left…I was going to mention it originally, but I didn’t want draw attention from the Illumnati…

  4. I didn’t see an artist credit listed, but it looks sort of like Lee Weeks’ early work (and he WAS working with Eclipse around this time). Does anybody know if I’ve guessed right?

  5. Am I the only one that thinks that bald judge looks like Judge Wapner of the People’s Court?

  6. Yeah, the “courtroom” scene is one of the best DWNR (”drawn with no reference”) situations I’ve read in a while! Two decent excuses are that a) no photography is allowed in the Court and b) this wasn’t exactly paying work, I suspect.

    But yeah . . . we do have fotos of the justices, though!

Leave a Reply