No, it's exactly relevant because the FCC has established an artificial standard as to what is and what is not unduly offensive. Your television shows did not depict incestuous homosexual pedophilia in that manner because they were being upstanding, decent citizens---they depicted it in that way because that's the only way they can depict it without incurring a large FCC fine. Novelists don't have to worry about FCC fines, so they're not constrained by the same standards.
In today's climate I strongly disagree. We've got to become as fierce as our opponents.
Then we'll never break this cycle of retail politics we're mired in, and we'll always get crappy candidates, and we'll always lose good people who would have much to contribute if only they had led a squeaky-clean life since their quickening.
Moreover, as I pointed out, Webb's pattern of words and images are simply going to concern a lot of people. Put it this way; what if *every* book written by Webb contained graphic scenes of incest? How many books would he have to write before the public could legitimately begin to question his character, judgment, temperment, etc.?
Webb's not William S. Burroughs, no matter how hard you try to make the shoe fit.
"artificial standard"
I see nothing artificial about the standards. They seem to be a reasoned estimate of what the public wants to see on television. Moreover, I don't think you can claim that broadcast TV's depictions of incest or other social tragedies are less effective than the kind of thing that Webb wrote in his books. I'd say, in fact, they were more effective.
Regarding the "cycle of retail politics," I suspect it's more a function of lying than of brutal facts, which is how I view the release of this Webb material.
Webb may not be Burroughs, but his graphic language and imgages puts him as close to Burroughs as he is to, say, Joseph Conrad or Barbara Kingsolver.