I looked it up, and "Howl" was eventually allowed through on the grounds that the courts decided it was of "redeeming social importance". In other words, since Ginsberg is actually good, they were willing to let it pass. From the extract of the comic in question printed here, I'm willing to assume that this comic isn't particularly good (it looks like something a teenager would draw in the back of his maths book) so it'll be interesting to see how this will play out.

The other thing is this: while standards of obscenity have dropped considerably over the decades (to the point where Howl's objectionable phrase "fucked in the ass by saintly motorcyclists" seems almost quaint) there has to be a hard limit somewhere, and we've pretty much reached it. We're at the point where all pornography is acceptable except child pornography, and this case is going to be about arguing where the boundaries of "child pornography" are. Now, I'd say that a line drawing of two chracters who appear to be children (but are stated in the text not to be) having graphic sex is nothing like actual child pornography (which is harmful to actual children) but on the other hand I have a hard time summoning up the motivation to really defend it.