It’s always been known around here that the comics are closely read pages of this newspaper. Their purpose is to elicit a chuckle or two in the midst of our workaday lives. But for some readers they can also evoke a frown. This seems especially true as, over the years, many comic strips have added political and social commentary to the funny lines and drawings. At least they are meant to be funny. And that’s the point: Is humor still the goal and reason for being of comics? For me, the laugh’s the thing, but I don’t have a monopoly on grading comics.

Two regulars of the comics pages made a few people frown this month — "Knight Life" by Keith Knight, and "Bizarro" by Dan Piraro. Complaints about both came to the editors. Interestingly, both comics, and the complaints, revolved around race.

The "Bizarro" panel for July 8 drew the most complaints — four. Titled "Feel-Good Marketing of the Civil War Era," it depicted two Southern ladies examining a petticoat "made from organic cotton, picked by free-range slaves." A letter to the editor from Sgt. Glenn Venner, from Camp Buehring, Kuwait, found that "very upsetting and discriminatory regarding Southern culture and African-American people." He went on: "A newspaper that deals with the military, which encompasses many different cultures and races, should be responsible enough to weed out these comics that breed racism."

James I. Hadley, of Landstuhl, Germany, messaged the editors about the same cartoon. He zeroed in on the meaning of "free range," pointing out that, in connection with animal husbandry, it doesn’t always mean animals are treated humanely. Therefore, "In no sense should slavery have been condoned whether or not slaves were given what might be called free range," he wrote.

Both complaints were wide of the mark, judging from the stated intention of "Bizarro" author Piraro. In an e-mail relayed to me by his syndicate, he acknowledged that the cartoon "was misunderstood by many readers and for that, I apologize whole-heartedly." His target, he said, was not Southerners or slaves but "the ‘feel-good’ marketing of modern times." He’s a vegan and an environmentalist, Piraro explained, and people are being fooled with words like "free-range," "organic" and "humane" on food labels. "By comparing this tactic with something as obviously heinous as human slavery, I hoped to point out the wrongs being sold to us under these banners," said Piraro.

Two installments of "Knight Life" came under scrutiny. The July 3 strip satirized racial profiling. A police officer is made to acknowledge that a silhouette used for target practice really represents a black individual. Capt. Gregory P. Fleming, from Camp Arifjan, Kuwait, said in a message that a number of soldiers saw this strip as "racially insensitive at the very least." He went on: "There is no place for material like that in any paper much less one that is being distributed in a combat zone."

Responding, Executive Editor Robb Grindstaff said there’s a difference between "a humorous, satirical look or making fun of stereotypes … and something that is racist or downright mean." Maybe "we should all lighten up and learn to laugh at ourselves, and maybe that can help us all to see each other as people rather than as skin colors," Grindstaff said.

Easier said than done, as reaction to another "Knight Life" strip showed. That one, printed July 1, had two guys staring at the stars. One questions whether extraterrestrials are racist because "they never abduct people of color." The other responds: "It’s easier to catch white people at night."

That set off sparks. Sgt. George Dotson, writing to the editor, said: "This kind of humor has no place in anything the Army does. Had this been a reference to women or any other race, there would have been an uproar."

I asked for a comment from the author. Turned out Knight and his wife were celebrating the birth of their first child and would not be available for interviews, the man from United Media said. But he sent me a company writeup about Knight, which seemed a little schizophrenic even for a publicity blurb. It spoke of Knight’s "hilariously twisted view of life," and praised how he "deftly blends political insight and neurotic humor."

The syndicate also kindly sent me excerpts from a chat Knight had with washingtonpost.com. Referring to the July 3 "extraterrestrial" strip, a chat participant asked: "Come on! The first famous alleged alien abduction case, that of Betty and Barney Hill (described in the book and TV movie ‘The Interrupted Journey’) involved an interracial couple."

To which Knight, an African-American, replied in part: "[S]ooo many people have sent me a link about the interracial couple that were abducted. I didn’t know. That’s the great thing about doing work like this. You learn so much. I still believe aliens like probing white people more. :)"

Smiley face or not, methinks Knight should have quit while he was ahead. Reminds me of the recent ruckus over The New Yorker’s cover satirizing political hatchet jobs on Barack and Michelle Obama, who are depicted as Islamo-fascists. Predictably, many readers didn’t get the liberal magazine’s point — or didn’t want to — and took the cover at face value.

Let’s hope Knight’s "neurotic" idea of what aliens like doesn’t suffer the same fate.

Getting back to my opening thoughts on the primacy of humor when appreciating (or not) comics, let me say that I saw the jokes in all three entries in question, and thought they trumped the references to any unsavory thoughts. Others will disagree, and editors do withhold what they see as clearly offensive material. But readers err if they expect, through hasty censorship, newspapers to offer redress for spicy comics.