I do not believe there would be any untenable precedent set at all.

I don't know if there are other examples, but over on the CSBG board I pointed out that DC changed the cover to Adventures of Superman #629 after its solicitation (featuring bathroom voyeur Superman) caused a bit of controversy.

And that didn't set a bad precedent. In fact, the change barely got noticed. DC didn't slide into changing lots of covers because of every little complaint.

Whether or not the comic is any good, though, is irrelevant. I just don't like the idea of the blogosphere taking offence at something and then assuming the cover should be changed because we don't like it, when we make up such a small sample of the audience (hell, most of us DON'T make up part of the Heroes for Hire audience). Seems uncool to let the moral minority choose for the majority and all that, even if those people have the best interests of the industry at heart.

Plus, the name of this blog is 'Comics Should Be Good'. Does that look like the cover of a good comic to you?

If Marvel pulled this cover they would indeed get on a slippery slope for reasons already explained in these comments.

I completely disagree.

I do not believe there would be any untenable precedent set at all.

But I don't think any of the people feeling offended by this were buying Heroes for Hire in the first place so it probably wouldn't make much of a dent. Basically, it's a shitty comic with a shitty cover, but nobody's twisting your arm or forcing you to like it. Just don't buy it if you don't like it.

Self-censorship was only brought up to illustrate how changing the cover may be considered a form of censorship- as in a lesser form of the type practiced during the time of the Comics Code, when writers and artists would censor themselves for fear of the Code, and I'd love to see you tell those folks that it's not a word.

It wasn't a "OH MY GOD THIS IS CENSORSHIP WE'RE ALL DOOMED!" thing, and there was no "outcry" whatsoever. Like T. said, the outcry/overreaction is coming from the people who were offended by the cover.

Godwin’s Law was instated to make people stop bringing up the Nazis in shallow and ridiculous situations, by humiliating them with how ludicrous their own overreacting was. We need a similar internet law to stop fans from pissing themselves over any possibility of something not being released or published as “censorship”, because seeing a serious term misused in this way is vile. Boiled Angel was a case of censorship in comics; this is just a case of Marvel being disgustingly disingenuous and skeevy.

Someone could also argue that the offended people are actually overreacting more than the people complaining about censorship. Search the blogosphere and Newsarama and tell me who is more vocal and livid, the "This sets womankind back 100 years" crowd or the "this is censorship" crowd. For the people who started the controversy to begin with to now accuse dissenters of overreaction is rich.

I can’t believe people are honestly making the argument that if Marvel changes the cover it’ll “embolden” the feminists to DESTROY ALL FUN.

WE HAVE TO DEFEND THIS ONE SHITTY COVER TO THE DEATH OR ELSE ALL BREASTS WILL BE OUTLAWED BY THE LEFTIES AND ALTERNATIVE COMIC PUBLISHERS! I’M ONLY MASTURBATING TO BLACK CAT AS A POLITICAL STATEMENT! HURGBURGLBURGHURGL!

While I agree with the basic intent of your comment (in that I don't think it really would be a big deal if Marvel changed covers), I don't think it is nice to paint the people who disagree with the assertion as folks who masturbate to pictures of Black Cat.

That's basically the mirror image of "you guys are a pitchfork mob."

Doesn't really help to insult the people you're disagreeing with.

Perhaps, at best, "self-censorship" could be practed by a government relative to itself.Marvel cannot practice self-censorship because it is not a legal governing body. It may, at best, make a decision that weighs the pros and cons of publishing the cover versus changing the cover. It's obvious that Marvel does not intend to change the cover, so I don't understand the outcry over supposed "self-censorship".

Real censorship is a serious problem because it promises terrible legal consequences for people who speak out. Serious not in the sense of "oh noes, no more naked boobs", but in the sense of losing one's life, freedom, or livelihood. To use the term "censorship" so cheaply in this debate is extremely shameful, and disrespectful to anyone who ever had to suffer the burden of real censorship. It reflects very poorly on the intelligence, taste, and sensibility of those who use it so loosely and disrespectfully.

Godwin's Law was instated to make people stop bringing up the Nazis in shallow and ridiculous situations, by humiliating them with how ludicrous their own overreacting was. We need a similar internet law to stop fans from pissing themselves over any possibility of something not being released or published as "censorship", because seeing a serious term misused in this way is vile. Boiled Angel was a case of censorship in comics; this is just a case of Marvel being disgustingly disingenuous and skeevy.

I don't disagree with you there, it does seem to be coming out at just the right time to pick up where the MJ controversy left off. I guess I'm just suffering from "controversy burnout." It seems to take one thing, no matter how slight, to set someone off and that always snowballs into something bigger than it needs to be. (This applies to life outside of comics these days too.)

WE HAVE TO DEFEND THIS ONE SHITTY COVER TO THE DEATH OR ELSE ALL BREASTS WILL BE OUTLAWED BY THE LEFTIES AND ALTERNATIVE COMIC PUBLISHERS! I'M ONLY MASTURBATING TO BLACK CAT AS A POLITICAL STATEMENT! HURGBURGLBURGHURGL!

If some people like cartoon super-hero almost porn, then who are we to say that they can't (or shouldn't) have it?

That Marvel is willing to defend the cover, or at least not condemn it as poor judgment, makes me wonder how seriously they take their own ratings.

They don't.
When it launched, around the same time as their own ratings system did, the Ultimate line was meant to be all ages, and was rated as such.
By issue five of Ultimate X-Men, people were being called bastards, we saw a post-coital couple duck under the covers for some more, and then one memeber of that couple threaten to stick a candlestick up the other one's arse, as well as lots of violence.
All fine for teen readers, no argument, butt not exactly all ages.
Marvel's rating system has nothing to do with the content of the book, just how they want to rate it.