The oddest thing about this book is its title. Oh, the main implications are accurate enough. It's a modern day pro-censorship book about comics. However the central argument of the book seems to be that comics (aside from undergrounds) were pretty wholesome until around the 1980s. In order to make this argument he completely avoids any of the more controversial books of earlier eras, and accordingly does not mention Wertham or the original Seduction of the Innocent anywhere in the text.
In fact throughout he avoids rather than addresses evidence that might hurt his claims. For example he classifies comics as rate or not, with the titles stating "Suggested for Mature Readers" being the ones he feels are rated for the benefit of younger readers, and everyone else as not rated. However, many of the ones that he labels "not rated" are in fact rated "Approved by the Comics Code Authority," which of course is not a point in favour of his arguments.
Essentially, unlike Wertham, who tackled censoring comics from a psychiatrist point of view, Fulce does so from a religious point of view. Fulce was once a comic fan to the point of running a comic store, so part of his attack seems to emanate from disillusionment with his hobby.
In fairness to the book, it does have some good points to it. It is nicely formatted, breaking down his areas of attack into occultism/new age, anti-Christian, sex, negative role models, violence, and profanity. And it cannot be denied that comics do go overboard at times in these areas, so I have nothing against tackling some of those issues when they do arise.
Also, most of the book consists of examples illustrating his points, with things he finds objectionable covered up. One irony that occurs here is that "bastard" is made to look like "batard" which is in of itself a French swear word with the same meaning as the English word.
However he does, again, avoid looking at aspects on the other side (e.g. pro-Christian role models). He also doesn't provide overly strong evidence in favour of his points beyond a minimum of research. He also plays "guilt by association", somethings stating that comics can lead to pornography, sometimes stating they are pornography, at which point he launches into studies that don't necessarily reflect comics themselves
He is also selective in explaining his reasoning. Sometimes it is clear why he has a problem with something (e.g. his argument against pre-marital sex), other times, as with homosexuality it's less clear (I think he lumped that into his explanation of things like sex with robots and animals but I'm not sure).
As a final point, I think it speaks volumes when he admits that if you follow his suggestions, even other churches (though his own denomination is never clearly stated) might oppose you. While he does present his own rationalization for this, it does point out how extreme his views are.