Thoughts About Censorship
A couple of years ago, I wrote a research paper about censorship in the music industry, specifically censorship directed at record album covers. It traced censorship practices from, roughly, the "Golden Age" of album art (the point where album covers ceased to be merely advertisements for the contents, e.g., title of album, name of artist, possibly a photo of artist, possibly name of best-known song(s), not much else) and began to be seen as opportunities to shape artist image or artistic concepts.
At nearly 100 pages, with almost as many large images, I'm not going to cut and paste it all here, but it was a fascinating subject to explore.
Ideas about what is and is not acceptable to show on album covers, references to the None More Black "Smell the Glove" Spinal Tap cover spoofing censorship, a discussion about Sgt. Pepper... (one of the first "covers as art"), bigbox retailer censorship, the PMRC, American prudishness in a sexually-charged society, American attitudes toward violence versus nudity/sexuality, using illustrations versus using photographs, sneaky anti-censorship protests and "stuff that slipped under the radar," practices outside the US...you can see that it was a topic hard to confine to a few paragraphs.
To choose a good book, look in an inquisitor’s prohibited list. ~ John Aikin
I also regularly discuss book banning, something that offends me intellectually. My favourite books have all, with few exceptions, been featured on banned book lists. What do they have in common? Typically they discuss "difficult" topics, discrimination against "Otherness," dystopian worlds, technology gone awry, the dangers of theocracies, man's inhumanity to man, individuals refusing to kowtow to peer / societal pressures, a peek "behind the scenes" (be it the meat-packing industry, the military, politics, economics, Colonialism, xenophobia, you name it).
Examples of books I can see from where I am sitting right now, and which I recommend?
Diary Of A Young Girl (Anne Frank),
Animal Farm and 1984 (George Orwell),
Brave New World (Aldous Huxley),
The Handmaid's Tale (Margaret Atwood),
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (Ken Kesey),
Slaughterhouse 5 (Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.),
To Kill A Mockingbird (Harper Lee),
The Catcher In The Rye (J D Salinger),
The Jungle (Upton Sinclair),
The Devil's Dictionary (Ambrose Bierce),
Catch-22 (Joseph Heller),
The Mind's I (Douglas Hofstadter),
Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your History Textbook Got Wrong (James W. Loewen),
A Clockwork Orange, (Anthony Burgess, with original last chapter restored)
Flowers for Algernon (Daniel Keyes),
The Little Prince (Antoine de Saint Exupery),
The Scarlet Letter (Nathaniel Hawthorne),
Go Ask Alice (Anonymous),
Watership Down (Richard Adams),
Christiane F (Uli Edel),
The Chocolate Wars (Robert Cormier),
Lord of the Flies (William Golding)
& Nickel and Dimed (Barbara Ehrenbach).
Most are so torn up I have to identify them through familiarity, either because i got them second-hand (or thrid- or fourth-) or re-read a cheap paperback version so often the pages came loose (I need a new Harper Lee book, dang it).
Perhaps you see the connections and relations.
Recently, on LJ, censorship has become a Hot Topic, and whereas most people seem to be vaguely "against it," many couch their objections to censorship as a concept by adding caveats. It's okay if it "protects children." It's okay if it only applies to practices and groups I don't like or agree with. It's okay if it is done with good intentions. It's okay if the censored stuff is "really bad".
Personally, I'm rather radical in my views. I'm for ZERO censorship. None. Stigmatizing content makes it more attractive. Words and ideas do not hurt people, failing to fully understand words and concepts will. I agree that certain things should be age-restricted, but even then, if a child's parents feel that their child is capable of understanding and intellectually dealing with a certain film, book, or idea, then it is ultimately up to those parents to allow or restrict access to it, not a governmental entity, or the Church (whichever sect you care to name), or even their peers.
Nothing was censored when I was growing up. That said, my parents didn't exactly have pornography scattered all over the house, and we were a fairly modest lot and taciturn about discussing certain things, but I had access to every book in the house, and every book at the library. In fact, when I managed to read every book in the elementary school library, I was sent to the middle school and high school branches. I was about eight at the time.
I won't say that, at age eight, I understood every single concept I was reading. Nabokov's Lolita was a little beyond my intellectual capacity. I wasn't exactly sexually attuned at age eight (late bloomer? lack of cable television? we weren't big on television, actually, of any kind). I understood that an adult had basically kidnapped a young girl, but little else registered. When I re-read it later, I was still not scandalized. Ideas, in general, do not harm me. Reading Bret Easton Ellis's fictionalization about a serial killer may have been unpleasant, but I also read Ann Rule (worked with Ted Bundy, briefly, is now prolific true crime genre writer), Truman Capote (possibly most literary treatment of true crime ever), and I don't glorify the behavior discussed, I consider it a way to zorch any remaining naivete about the depth and breadth of human nature in all its permutations.
If anything, if anyone is keeping tabs on my reading habits, I'm probably red-flagged as a subversive liberal pigdog. I read books by furriners and uppity women and black people and Asian people and commie pinkos! Some of 'em ain't even Christians! Heresy. Of course, I then give them cramps by checking out a wagonload of kiddie lit that my friends who have PhDs in English are studying.
Not everything is to my taste, of course. I don't like romoporn. You know, bastardly white knight saves "feminist" damsel with heaving bosom. Occasionally I'm suckered into reading shop'n'fuck chicklit, but it isn't my favourite genre. I also dislike westerns, "war novels," "inspirational" books, and crap. I was actually offended to receive a copy of The Bridges Of Madison County once. Because it is poop. Also, I found it ironic that the people who gave it to me focused on the "twu wuv" part, and not the "adulterous dishonesty" part, when normally they'd be up in arms gossiping like mad if such a scenario happened to anyone they knew personally. Whatever. Primarily I hated it because it was shit.
I am also a DJ, and, as such, because my radio station wishes to continue broadcasting, we kowtow to FCC guidelines about what we can and cannot play.
It is a violation of federal law to broadcast obscene programming at any time. It is also a violation of federal law to broadcast indecent programming during certain hours. Congress has given the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the responsibility for administratively enforcing the law that governs these types of broadcasts. The Commission may revoke a station license, impose a monetary forfeiture, or issue a warning, for the broadcast of obscene or indecent material.
Obscene Broadcasts Are Prohibited at All Times
"I love words. I thank you for hearing my words. I want to tell you something about words that I uh, I think is important. I love..as I say, they're my work, they're my play, they're my passion. Words are all we have really.
We have thoughts, but thoughts are fluid. You know, [humming]. And, then we assign a word to a thought, [clicks tongue]. And we're stuck with that word for that thought. So be careful with words. I like to think, yeah, the same words that hurt can heal. It's a matter of how you pick them.
There are some people that aren't into all the words. There are some people who would have you not use certain words. Yeah, there are 400,000 words in the English language, and there are seven of them that you can't say on television. What a ratio that is. 399,993 to seven. They must really be bad. They'd have to be outrageous, to be separated from a group that large. All of you over here, you seven. Bad words. That's what they told us they were, remember? 'That's a bad word.' 'Awwww.' There are no bad words. Bad thoughts. Bad Intentions.
And words, you know the seven don't you? Shit, Piss, Fuck, Cunt, Cocksucker, Motherfucker, and Tits, huh? Those are the heavy seven. Those are the ones that will infect your soul, curve your spine and keep the country from winning the war.
Shit, Piss, Fuck, Cunt, Cocksucker, Motherfucker, and Tits, wow. Tits doesn't even belong on the list, you know. It's such a friendly sounding word. It sounds like a nickname. 'Hey, Tits, come here. Tits, meet Toots, Toots, Tits, Tits, Toots.' It sounds like a snack doesn't it? Yes, I know, it is, right. But I don't mean the sexist snack, I mean, New Nabisco Tits. The new Cheese Tits, and Corn Tits and Pizza Tits, Sesame Tits Onion Tits, Tater Tits, Yeah. Betcha can't eat just one. That's true I usually switch off . But I mean that word does not belong on the list.
Actually, none of the words belong on the list, but you can understand why some of them are there. I am not completely insensitive to people's feelings. You know, I can dig why some of those words got on the list...like cocksucker and motherfucker. Those are...those are heavy-weight words. There's a lot going on there, man. Besides the literal translation and the emotional feeling. They're just busy words. There's a lot of syllables to contend with. And those K's. Those are aggressive sounds, they jump out at you. CocksuckerMotherfuckerCocksucker. It's like an assault, on you. So I can dig that.
And we mentioned shit earlier, of course. Two of the other 4-letter Anglo-Saxon words are Piss and Cunt, which go together of course. But forget about that. A little accidental humor there. Piss and Cunt. The reason Piss and Cunt are on the list is that a long time ago certain ladies said 'Those are the two I am not going to say. I don't mind Fuck and Shit, but P and C are out. P and C are out.' Which led to such stupid sentences as 'OK, you fuckers, I am going to tinkle now.'
And of course the word Fuck. The word Fuck, I don't really...well, this is some more accidental humor, but I don't really want to get into that now. Because I think it takes too long. But I do mean that. I mean, I think the word fuck is an important word. It's the beginning of life, and, yet it's a word we use to hurt one other, quite often. And uh, people much wiser than I have said, I'd rather have my son watch a film with two people making love than two people trying to kill one other. And I of course agree. I wish I know who said it first, and I agree with that. But I would like to take it a step further. I would like to substitute the word fuck, for the word kill in all those movie cliches we grew up with. 'Okay Sheriff, we're gonna fuck ya now. But we're gonna fuck ya slow.' So maybe next year I'll have a whole fuckin' rap on that word. I hope so.
Uh, there are two-way words, but those are the seven you can never say on television. Under any circumstances you just can not say them ever, ever ever, not even clinically. You can not weave them in the panel with Doc and Ed and Johnny, I mean it's just impossible, forget those seven, they're out.
But, there are some two-way words. There are double-meaning words. Remember the ones your giggled at in sixth grade? 'And the cock crowed three times.''Hey, the cock the cock crowed three times. It's in the bible.' There are some Two-way words, like it's okay for Curt Gowdy to say 'Roberto Clemente has two balls on him.' But he can't say, 'I think he hurt his balls on that play Tony, don't you? He's holding them. He must have hurt them by God.' And the other two-way word that goes with that one is prick. It's okay if it happens to your finger. Yes, you can prick your finger, but don't finger your prick. No, no."
In short, we can't say any of those words. Music we play can't say any of those words. We also have to beware of "Ass" and the like. Oh, you can say "So and so IS an ass" but you can't say "So and so has a nice ass." (Nor "arse," which is relevant only because the focus of my show is Britpop music and related genres.)
Personally, I don't go around dropping a lot of "f-bomb"s all the time. Oh, I say it, and frequently, but there's a time, and there's a place. On the mic? Not so much. Because it's a "bad" word? No, more because it is inelegant and imprecise speech. I may want to say "fuck this shit," but I am going to sound woefully inadequate if I do. Better that I define why the shit is so fucked up in the first place: when the shit is fucked up, then describe why it is shit, and why it is fucked.
Then go kick something inanimate, if you must.
Take away the right to say "fuck" and you take away the right to say "fuck the government." ~ Lenny Bruce
Since I am not a big fan of most of the musical genres that are more profanity-laden than others, I don't run into this situation as often. I get complacent, because profanity does not offend me overmuch. So I play a live concert version of a song, thinking all will be well, and somewhere in the middle, the singer pauses and cusses prolifically because he dropped his motherfucking pick into his motherfucking acoustic guitar, goddamn it all to fucking hell, and, well, oops. It happens. I should have remembered to flag that track for no-no words the last time I played it.
Some of my favourite artists have pottymouths. I love them in spite of it. Or, more accurately, their words do not offend me. I have the option to run the tracks through the zorchifier process, wherein an unpaid undergrad gets around to blooping out the no-no words after a few months, or I have to drop the sound out manually while in the DJ booth (this is fraught with the potential for mishaps), or I can't play certain songs.
Worse, the policy isn't always applied evenly. Sometimes songs with "shit" are okay, sometimes they aren't. There doesn't appear to be any consistent standard. Some terms are okay as long as they don't refer to sex, sometimes they are kind of okay if sex is just implied, sometimes they are just plain Right Out. Note that the audience for my radio show are people who are awake from midnight until 4AM or later Sunday night -- early Monday morning. Not a lot of minors, few of which would be attracted to my show, because I play no Britney Spears. Okay, to be fair, I would have listened to it when I was eleven or twelve, and look how I turned out. :) But I was probably the only eleven year old listening to Jobriath, Nina Hagen Band, and David Werner. (Hell, I was the only eleven year old listening to The Who and Pink Floyd as far as I knew at the time. If the alternative was The Eagles, Billy Joel, Phil Collins, .38 Special, Foreigner, or Jackson Browne, I wasn't having any of it. Actually, those artists weren't the big dealios at the time, but I couldn't tell you what was, and they are close enough chronologically to give you a general idea. I was already sick of commercial radio at that point.)
Who are we protecting when we censor words? They may be "profane," but, in many ways, by defining them as "profane," we give them an added weight and power they shouldn't possess. Furthermore, I've heard kindergarteners who have filthier mouths than I ever had. If the parents aren't "protecting" their own kids, why is society as a whole being forced to "protect" them?
ACTION: For more information about the precise guidelines, go to the source. Please contact the Federal Communications Commission about its attempts to define "decency" for the public. You might encourage the FCC to focus its attention on media consolidation instead, which has a much broader and more lasting impact on the content of the nation's airwaves.
CONTACT: Phone--888-CALL-FCC (225-5322). Fax--202-418-0232. E-Mail--fccinfo@fcc.gov, Web--http://www.fcc.gov
When does censorship cross the line?
Everyone should be allowed their own private censorship but they should not inflict it on others. Only through reading and education can we grow and perhaps conquer our greatest problem: ourselves.
The only things that should be censored are that which pertains to national security. Of course, our own government sees nothing wrong with "outing" their own spies in the interest of political expediency (or to avoid answering questions about non-existent WMDs). We have the First Amendment, not the First Suggestion.
When is censorship applicable? When not?
Parents should decide for themselves what to let their children be exposed to. Parents should monitor Internet use, TV viewing, media exposure. Parents should also revise standards as children age, and not expect the same standards to apply to a 6 year old as well as a 16 year old.
Adults, however, should make their own choices. Period. Full stop. It is not the government's job to interfere in what adults can see, do, say, hear or think.
Who should have the power to censor?
Parents or guardians of small children should exercise discretion as regards what their kids are exposed to.
Businesses should be able to monitor internal intrawebs. Company policies need to be posted clearly and consistently applied.
Corporations should be allowed to set their own standards. However, these should be clearly stated and consistently applied.
Special Interest Groups should not have the power to censor other, unrelated, groups, individuals, or companies. They should not be allowd to impose their standards on other, unrelated, groups, individuals, or companies. They should not be allowed to make rules for other, unrelated, groups, individuals, or companies.
"Community Standards" is a phrase which invites groups to enforce their standards on others.
Personal responsibility is key.
Do I object to ratings systems, per se? Actually, no, though I do wish they were consistent. Also, I don't think we should rely solely on ratings systems to set standards. They are flawed, as any system run by human beings with opinions and motivations is flawed. There will always be things that are rated incorrectly, in someone's estimation. Using ratings systems as a jumping off point when making an informed decision is the key. Don't let someone else define for you what you can and cannot see. If you are a parent, it is up to you to review what your children see and hear.
What should and shouldn't be censored?
All information should be free. Adults should have the right to choose what they view, read, listen to, hear, say.
This is not to say that all venues are appropriate for unrestricted speech or media.
Something is wrong when executions are aired / publicized to little outcry or complaint, but the pre-calculated flashing of Janet Jackson's pastie-adorned nipple causes a huge uproar.
Is censorship morally or sociably right? Wrong? Neither?
Censorship is equated with morality, when it is not necessarily a moral issue.
Society as a whole is rife with double-standards, and cannot be relied upon to set guidelines which are appropriate for everyone.
Censorship starts off being "for the good of the people" and then before you know what's happened, that freedom of speech is gone.
Religious groups in particular are fond of advocating censorship "for the good of the people" but not everyone shares their religious views. Alas, we have "freedom of religion" but not "freedom from religion" in this country. Most egregious? Attempts to rewrite history and to claim "America was founded on Christian principles" when that is patently not the case. Read more about deism, Thomas Jefferson and other Founding Fathers for accurate information.
You can set standards for yourself, your minor children, and any company or website you, personally or as part of a collective, run. You cannot and should not set standards for anyone else.
The First Amendment protects unpopular speech. Like it or not, pedophiles have the right to discuss whatever they want to discuss. Words are not deeds. If and when they act on their illegal urges, or make concrete plans to act on them, that is when they should be apprehended and given a fair hearing. Personally, I think that groups that openly discuss illegal activities are a boon to law enforcement! It's not that difficult to track down and keep an eye on people who are openly planning illegal activities. Driving them underground just makes it harder to keep tabs on them. Don't like the laws you wish to break? Try to change them. Society as a whole will adjust, eventually, if laws are unjust or wrong. If they are not wrong, and there's a darn good reason for something to be illegal, the laws will not change. It is a slow process, but we've seen it work both ways (Abolition, Prohibition, (not) owning slaves, (not) allowing women to vote, Civil Rights, Gay Rights). The law is an evolving thing.
If you get right down to it, pedophiles talking about their pathology publicly is not the same thing as a pedophile actually turning into a child molester in fact. Pedophilia is the urge, child molesting is the act. I may have the urge to strangle someone, and talk about it, and talk about it freely, but that does not make me a murderer. Personally, I find pedophiles vile. On the other hand, I'm not keen on slash fiction or racial jokes or icons with porn in them; I choose not to participate in communities that like slash fiction, think racial jokes are funny, or where I might have to see some nekkid stranger's lumpy bum bobbling up and down, or exposed genitalia. It won't kill me if I accidentally run across any of the above, but because I'm not particularly fond of any of that stuff, I take it as a warning label that I'll probably see more of the same if I return to that particular community and act accordingly.
Where can you learn more about censorship issues?
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. ~ Voltaire
In the interest of fairness, here's an opposing viewpoint:
Americans are constantly harping about our freedom of speech, using censorship as a bad word. Is it? I've been thinking that a little bit of censorship is a very good thing. For instance, I'm a member of the One Million Moms march trying to help clean up our airwaves by writing to sponsors and distributors of programs that are too degrading and disgusting to be on television. Okay, it's censorship. But is it a bad thing? I don't think so. I also have a degree in Psychology and one of the things that people should realize is that copycatting is huge in this country. When a celebrity commits suicide, or is reported to commit suicide, a lot of young people who idolize that celebrity copycat, shocking and devasting family members who had no clue why their loved one would do such a thing. But we are a nation of jumping on the bandwagon. Maybe all nations are, but I can only speak for the one I know best. And this is why censorship, if done correctly, really is necessary.
Recently, I've been involved in an issue about the movie Farhenheit 9/11. Now, I refuse to go see it, since I know that Moore makes it his business to spout political "facts" of which at least some of are not correct or are taken out of context to where they can't be understood by the public in general. So I have to assume he has done the same in this "movie" which is being called a documentary, though Moore calls it op-ed. Well, it is either one or the other. If it is his outlook on things, from his personal point of view, it should not be called a documentary, because many, if not most, people who go to see it will get caught up in the hype and believe everything within is the truth. I can't say it isn't, since I have yet to talk to anyone with real knowledge of the political scene who has bothered to go see it. But I can't believe it is, either. Censorship comes in when we, as the public, insist that the piece is marketed for what it is: not a documentary, not facts, but personal opinion and major Hollywood editing. I don't think that's a bad thing. I think that is of the utmost importance. Regardless of how intelligent people can be individually, as it says in "Men in Black," as a group people can be ... well, I think the movie says stupid, but I would say they jump on the bandwagon.
In recent times, it's "cool" to bash our government and people have lots of fun doing so, mainly because it's also a human trait to want to blame anyone else for your problems instead of taking personal responsibility. But that's for another post on another day.
Bashing our government is not cool. It's also not helpful or productive. Spreading rumors and hate and propanganda is not cool or helpful. It seems very odd to me that the same group promoting anti-war sentiment is saying they want peace, but what they are doing is putting the nation at odds with itself, promoting negativity and hate. No, the government cannot go unchecked, but neither should the media, including film, television, and newspapers.
Why is it that our media is siding against our country? Because negativity sells? Anything for a buck? Do the American people ever hear about all of the good things that are going on in Iraq? Do you realize our soldiers are over there handing out school supplies and basic living necessities to Iraqi children who have not had them since they were born? Have you stopped to think about how spreading kindness and caring to these children who have known nothing but deprivation can help make their country a kinder, more peaceful place to live? Kindness is contagious. So is negativity.
As a side note, I do realize there is some media honestly supporting our country, disseminating two-sided facts and talking about the good things going on and what we are actually achieving. I'm afraid that it's much too rare, however. Optimism tends to not sell as well. Whose fault is that? Ours. They will provide what we ask for. How about a bit of censorship as far as not buying negativity or one-sided journalism? I wonder, if this is sent to the papers, how many would publish it?
Want to hear the facts? Try going to www.whitehouse.gov - how many of you have ever been there? Try going to www.military.com to see the other side of things. If you're concerned about our service members, take a few minutes to send them a note of support at www.anyservicemember.navy.mil/ instead of protesting, which does nothing but hurt them personally.
I think, if it's okay to censor our personal web sites, message boards, email lists, and what we say to each other on a day to day basis, it has to be so much more important to censor what goes out to not only our nation, but to the rest of the world. It's a rule in polite social gatherings not to talk about politics because it's personal to people. Why then, is it okay for our media and for Hollywood, to spout political comments as if they are facts when they have no real knowledge about what is going on inside the government? We all need to stop listening to the rhetoric and check things out for ourselves, reading both sides of the story. We need to stop refusing to listen to each others' opinions and start using those opinions to look into what may very well be against our personal views, but a substantial opinion all the same.
Please, feel free to respond with educated opinions and I may add to this with opinions I receive (not if sent anonymously, but identity can be not posted). Don't bother repeating rhetoric because it will be deleted. A little censorship is a good thing.
Ganked the above from this page.
More thoughts on censorship:
The fact is that censorship always defeats its own purpose, for it creates, in the end, the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real discretion. ~Henry Steele Commager
The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen. ~Tommy Smothers
Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. ~Potter Stewart
We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our tongue, at our peril, risk and hazard. ~Voltaire, Dictionnaire Philosophique, 1764
The dirtiest book of all is the expurgated book. ~Walt Whitman
Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too. ~Voltaire
I am thankful for all the complaining I hear about our government because it means we have freedom of speech. ~Nancie J. Carmody
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859
Books won't stay banned. They won't burn. Ideas won't go to jail. In the long run of history, the censor and the inquisitor have always lost. The only weapon against bad ideas is better ideas. ~Alfred Whitney Griswold, New York Times, 24 February 1959
Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one. ~Abbott Joseph Liebling, "Do You Belong in Journalism?" New Yorker, 4 May 1960
A free press can be good or bad, but, most certainly, without freedom a press will never be anything but bad. ~Albert Camus
Nature knows no indecencies; man invents them. ~Mark Twain, Notebook, 1935
What progress we are making. In the Middle Ages they would have burned me. Now they are content with burning my books. ~Sigmund Freud, 1933
Obscenity is not a quality inherent in a book or picture, but is solely and exclusively a contribution of the reading mind, and hence cannot be defined in terms of the qualities of a book or picture. ~Theodore Schroeder
Assassination is the extreme form of censorship. ~George Bernard Shaw, "The Rejected Statement, Part I," The Shewing-Up of Blanco Posnet, 1911
Censorship feeds the dirty mind more than the four-letter word itself. ~Dick Cavett
The test of democracy is freedom of criticism. ~David Ben-Gurion
If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859
To limit the press is to insult a nation; to prohibit reading of certain books is to declare the inhabitants to be either fools or slaves. ~Claude-Adrien Helvétius
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. ~John F. Kennedy
God forbid that any book should be banned. The practice is as indefensible as infanticide. ~Rebecca West
If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. ~Noam Chomsky
Every human being has a right to hear what other wise human beings have spoken to him. It is one of the Rights of Men; a very cruel injustice if you deny it to a man! ~Thomas Carlyle
You can cage the singer but not the song. ~Harry Belafonte, in International Herald Tribune, 3 October 1988
I'd probably make more sense if I'd had more than seven hous of sleep since Monday. C'est la vie, I accept that my debate is not as strong as it might otherwise be. And que sera sera, I am sure to hear about all the logical flaws. That's okay.
What do you think?
At nearly 100 pages, with almost as many large images, I'm not going to cut and paste it all here, but it was a fascinating subject to explore.
Ideas about what is and is not acceptable to show on album covers, references to the None More Black "Smell the Glove" Spinal Tap cover spoofing censorship, a discussion about Sgt. Pepper... (one of the first "covers as art"), bigbox retailer censorship, the PMRC, American prudishness in a sexually-charged society, American attitudes toward violence versus nudity/sexuality, using illustrations versus using photographs, sneaky anti-censorship protests and "stuff that slipped under the radar," practices outside the US...you can see that it was a topic hard to confine to a few paragraphs.
To choose a good book, look in an inquisitor’s prohibited list. ~ John Aikin
I also regularly discuss book banning, something that offends me intellectually. My favourite books have all, with few exceptions, been featured on banned book lists. What do they have in common? Typically they discuss "difficult" topics, discrimination against "Otherness," dystopian worlds, technology gone awry, the dangers of theocracies, man's inhumanity to man, individuals refusing to kowtow to peer / societal pressures, a peek "behind the scenes" (be it the meat-packing industry, the military, politics, economics, Colonialism, xenophobia, you name it).
Examples of books I can see from where I am sitting right now, and which I recommend?
Diary Of A Young Girl (Anne Frank),
Animal Farm and 1984 (George Orwell),
Brave New World (Aldous Huxley),
The Handmaid's Tale (Margaret Atwood),
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (Ken Kesey),
Slaughterhouse 5 (Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.),
To Kill A Mockingbird (Harper Lee),
The Catcher In The Rye (J D Salinger),
The Jungle (Upton Sinclair),
The Devil's Dictionary (Ambrose Bierce),
Catch-22 (Joseph Heller),
The Mind's I (Douglas Hofstadter),
Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your History Textbook Got Wrong (James W. Loewen),
A Clockwork Orange, (Anthony Burgess, with original last chapter restored)
Flowers for Algernon (Daniel Keyes),
The Little Prince (Antoine de Saint Exupery),
The Scarlet Letter (Nathaniel Hawthorne),
Go Ask Alice (Anonymous),
Watership Down (Richard Adams),
Christiane F (Uli Edel),
The Chocolate Wars (Robert Cormier),
Lord of the Flies (William Golding)
& Nickel and Dimed (Barbara Ehrenbach).
Most are so torn up I have to identify them through familiarity, either because i got them second-hand (or thrid- or fourth-) or re-read a cheap paperback version so often the pages came loose (I need a new Harper Lee book, dang it).
Perhaps you see the connections and relations.
Recently, on LJ, censorship has become a Hot Topic, and whereas most people seem to be vaguely "against it," many couch their objections to censorship as a concept by adding caveats. It's okay if it "protects children." It's okay if it only applies to practices and groups I don't like or agree with. It's okay if it is done with good intentions. It's okay if the censored stuff is "really bad".
Personally, I'm rather radical in my views. I'm for ZERO censorship. None. Stigmatizing content makes it more attractive. Words and ideas do not hurt people, failing to fully understand words and concepts will. I agree that certain things should be age-restricted, but even then, if a child's parents feel that their child is capable of understanding and intellectually dealing with a certain film, book, or idea, then it is ultimately up to those parents to allow or restrict access to it, not a governmental entity, or the Church (whichever sect you care to name), or even their peers.
Nothing was censored when I was growing up. That said, my parents didn't exactly have pornography scattered all over the house, and we were a fairly modest lot and taciturn about discussing certain things, but I had access to every book in the house, and every book at the library. In fact, when I managed to read every book in the elementary school library, I was sent to the middle school and high school branches. I was about eight at the time.
I won't say that, at age eight, I understood every single concept I was reading. Nabokov's Lolita was a little beyond my intellectual capacity. I wasn't exactly sexually attuned at age eight (late bloomer? lack of cable television? we weren't big on television, actually, of any kind). I understood that an adult had basically kidnapped a young girl, but little else registered. When I re-read it later, I was still not scandalized. Ideas, in general, do not harm me. Reading Bret Easton Ellis's fictionalization about a serial killer may have been unpleasant, but I also read Ann Rule (worked with Ted Bundy, briefly, is now prolific true crime genre writer), Truman Capote (possibly most literary treatment of true crime ever), and I don't glorify the behavior discussed, I consider it a way to zorch any remaining naivete about the depth and breadth of human nature in all its permutations.
If anything, if anyone is keeping tabs on my reading habits, I'm probably red-flagged as a subversive liberal pigdog. I read books by furriners and uppity women and black people and Asian people and commie pinkos! Some of 'em ain't even Christians! Heresy. Of course, I then give them cramps by checking out a wagonload of kiddie lit that my friends who have PhDs in English are studying.
Not everything is to my taste, of course. I don't like romoporn. You know, bastardly white knight saves "feminist" damsel with heaving bosom. Occasionally I'm suckered into reading shop'n'fuck chicklit, but it isn't my favourite genre. I also dislike westerns, "war novels," "inspirational" books, and crap. I was actually offended to receive a copy of The Bridges Of Madison County once. Because it is poop. Also, I found it ironic that the people who gave it to me focused on the "twu wuv" part, and not the "adulterous dishonesty" part, when normally they'd be up in arms gossiping like mad if such a scenario happened to anyone they knew personally. Whatever. Primarily I hated it because it was shit.
I am also a DJ, and, as such, because my radio station wishes to continue broadcasting, we kowtow to FCC guidelines about what we can and cannot play.
It is a violation of federal law to broadcast obscene programming at any time. It is also a violation of federal law to broadcast indecent programming during certain hours. Congress has given the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the responsibility for administratively enforcing the law that governs these types of broadcasts. The Commission may revoke a station license, impose a monetary forfeiture, or issue a warning, for the broadcast of obscene or indecent material.
Obscene Broadcasts Are Prohibited at All Times
- Obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment and cannot be broadcast at any time. To be obscene, material must meet a three-prong test:
- An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
- The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and
- The material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
- Information regarding the details of what was actually said (or depicted) during the allegedly indecent or obscene broadcast. There is flexibility on how a complainant may provide this information. A complainant may submit a significant excerpt of the program describing what was actually said (or depicted) or a full or partial tape or transcript of the material.
- In whatever form the complainant decides to provide the information, it must be sufficiently detailed so the FCC can determine the words and language actually used during the broadcast and the context of those words or language. Subject matter alone is not a determining factor of whether material is obscene or indecent. For example, stating only that the broadcast station "discussed sex" or had a "disgusting discussion of sex" during a program is not sufficient. The use of specific, isolated words does not itself determine whether material is indecent. For example, listing only isolated words spoken by a radio announcer without more detail is not enough information for the FCC's staff to initiate an investigation. Also, general descriptions without a detailed explanation of what was actually stated (or depicted) are generally not sufficient.
- The date and time of the broadcast. Under federal law, if the FCC assesses a monetary forfeiture against a broadcast station for violation of a rule, it must specify the date the violation occurred. Accordingly, it is important that complainants provide the date the material in question was broadcast. A broadcaster's right to air indecent speech is protected between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. Consequently, the FCC must know the time of day that the material was broadcast.
- The call sign of the station involved. The FCC's obscenity/indecency enforcement program is directed at individual broadcast station licensees and not individual radio announcers, the music industry, or specific music performers. Accordingly, the FCC's staff must know the call sign of the station that aired the material. It is not enough, for example, to name the radio announcer who made the on-air statement.
- Of necessity, any documentation you provide to the FCC about your complaint becomes part of the FCC's records and may not be returned.
"I love words. I thank you for hearing my words. I want to tell you something about words that I uh, I think is important. I love..as I say, they're my work, they're my play, they're my passion. Words are all we have really.
We have thoughts, but thoughts are fluid. You know, [humming]. And, then we assign a word to a thought, [clicks tongue]. And we're stuck with that word for that thought. So be careful with words. I like to think, yeah, the same words that hurt can heal. It's a matter of how you pick them.
There are some people that aren't into all the words. There are some people who would have you not use certain words. Yeah, there are 400,000 words in the English language, and there are seven of them that you can't say on television. What a ratio that is. 399,993 to seven. They must really be bad. They'd have to be outrageous, to be separated from a group that large. All of you over here, you seven. Bad words. That's what they told us they were, remember? 'That's a bad word.' 'Awwww.' There are no bad words. Bad thoughts. Bad Intentions.
And words, you know the seven don't you? Shit, Piss, Fuck, Cunt, Cocksucker, Motherfucker, and Tits, huh? Those are the heavy seven. Those are the ones that will infect your soul, curve your spine and keep the country from winning the war.
Shit, Piss, Fuck, Cunt, Cocksucker, Motherfucker, and Tits, wow. Tits doesn't even belong on the list, you know. It's such a friendly sounding word. It sounds like a nickname. 'Hey, Tits, come here. Tits, meet Toots, Toots, Tits, Tits, Toots.' It sounds like a snack doesn't it? Yes, I know, it is, right. But I don't mean the sexist snack, I mean, New Nabisco Tits. The new Cheese Tits, and Corn Tits and Pizza Tits, Sesame Tits Onion Tits, Tater Tits, Yeah. Betcha can't eat just one. That's true I usually switch off . But I mean that word does not belong on the list.
Actually, none of the words belong on the list, but you can understand why some of them are there. I am not completely insensitive to people's feelings. You know, I can dig why some of those words got on the list...like cocksucker and motherfucker. Those are...those are heavy-weight words. There's a lot going on there, man. Besides the literal translation and the emotional feeling. They're just busy words. There's a lot of syllables to contend with. And those K's. Those are aggressive sounds, they jump out at you. CocksuckerMotherfuckerCocksucker. It's like an assault, on you. So I can dig that.
And we mentioned shit earlier, of course. Two of the other 4-letter Anglo-Saxon words are Piss and Cunt, which go together of course. But forget about that. A little accidental humor there. Piss and Cunt. The reason Piss and Cunt are on the list is that a long time ago certain ladies said 'Those are the two I am not going to say. I don't mind Fuck and Shit, but P and C are out. P and C are out.' Which led to such stupid sentences as 'OK, you fuckers, I am going to tinkle now.'
And of course the word Fuck. The word Fuck, I don't really...well, this is some more accidental humor, but I don't really want to get into that now. Because I think it takes too long. But I do mean that. I mean, I think the word fuck is an important word. It's the beginning of life, and, yet it's a word we use to hurt one other, quite often. And uh, people much wiser than I have said, I'd rather have my son watch a film with two people making love than two people trying to kill one other. And I of course agree. I wish I know who said it first, and I agree with that. But I would like to take it a step further. I would like to substitute the word fuck, for the word kill in all those movie cliches we grew up with. 'Okay Sheriff, we're gonna fuck ya now. But we're gonna fuck ya slow.' So maybe next year I'll have a whole fuckin' rap on that word. I hope so.
Uh, there are two-way words, but those are the seven you can never say on television. Under any circumstances you just can not say them ever, ever ever, not even clinically. You can not weave them in the panel with Doc and Ed and Johnny, I mean it's just impossible, forget those seven, they're out.
But, there are some two-way words. There are double-meaning words. Remember the ones your giggled at in sixth grade? 'And the cock crowed three times.''Hey, the cock the cock crowed three times. It's in the bible.' There are some Two-way words, like it's okay for Curt Gowdy to say 'Roberto Clemente has two balls on him.' But he can't say, 'I think he hurt his balls on that play Tony, don't you? He's holding them. He must have hurt them by God.' And the other two-way word that goes with that one is prick. It's okay if it happens to your finger. Yes, you can prick your finger, but don't finger your prick. No, no."
In short, we can't say any of those words. Music we play can't say any of those words. We also have to beware of "Ass" and the like. Oh, you can say "So and so IS an ass" but you can't say "So and so has a nice ass." (Nor "arse," which is relevant only because the focus of my show is Britpop music and related genres.)
Personally, I don't go around dropping a lot of "f-bomb"s all the time. Oh, I say it, and frequently, but there's a time, and there's a place. On the mic? Not so much. Because it's a "bad" word? No, more because it is inelegant and imprecise speech. I may want to say "fuck this shit," but I am going to sound woefully inadequate if I do. Better that I define why the shit is so fucked up in the first place: when the shit is fucked up, then describe why it is shit, and why it is fucked.
Then go kick something inanimate, if you must.
Take away the right to say "fuck" and you take away the right to say "fuck the government." ~ Lenny Bruce
Since I am not a big fan of most of the musical genres that are more profanity-laden than others, I don't run into this situation as often. I get complacent, because profanity does not offend me overmuch. So I play a live concert version of a song, thinking all will be well, and somewhere in the middle, the singer pauses and cusses prolifically because he dropped his motherfucking pick into his motherfucking acoustic guitar, goddamn it all to fucking hell, and, well, oops. It happens. I should have remembered to flag that track for no-no words the last time I played it.
Some of my favourite artists have pottymouths. I love them in spite of it. Or, more accurately, their words do not offend me. I have the option to run the tracks through the zorchifier process, wherein an unpaid undergrad gets around to blooping out the no-no words after a few months, or I have to drop the sound out manually while in the DJ booth (this is fraught with the potential for mishaps), or I can't play certain songs.
Worse, the policy isn't always applied evenly. Sometimes songs with "shit" are okay, sometimes they aren't. There doesn't appear to be any consistent standard. Some terms are okay as long as they don't refer to sex, sometimes they are kind of okay if sex is just implied, sometimes they are just plain Right Out. Note that the audience for my radio show are people who are awake from midnight until 4AM or later Sunday night -- early Monday morning. Not a lot of minors, few of which would be attracted to my show, because I play no Britney Spears. Okay, to be fair, I would have listened to it when I was eleven or twelve, and look how I turned out. :) But I was probably the only eleven year old listening to Jobriath, Nina Hagen Band, and David Werner. (Hell, I was the only eleven year old listening to The Who and Pink Floyd as far as I knew at the time. If the alternative was The Eagles, Billy Joel, Phil Collins, .38 Special, Foreigner, or Jackson Browne, I wasn't having any of it. Actually, those artists weren't the big dealios at the time, but I couldn't tell you what was, and they are close enough chronologically to give you a general idea. I was already sick of commercial radio at that point.)
Who are we protecting when we censor words? They may be "profane," but, in many ways, by defining them as "profane," we give them an added weight and power they shouldn't possess. Furthermore, I've heard kindergarteners who have filthier mouths than I ever had. If the parents aren't "protecting" their own kids, why is society as a whole being forced to "protect" them?
ACTION: For more information about the precise guidelines, go to the source. Please contact the Federal Communications Commission about its attempts to define "decency" for the public. You might encourage the FCC to focus its attention on media consolidation instead, which has a much broader and more lasting impact on the content of the nation's airwaves.
CONTACT: Phone--888-CALL-FCC (225-5322). Fax--202-418-0232. E-Mail--fccinfo@fcc.gov, Web--http://www.fcc.gov
When does censorship cross the line?
Everyone should be allowed their own private censorship but they should not inflict it on others. Only through reading and education can we grow and perhaps conquer our greatest problem: ourselves.
The only things that should be censored are that which pertains to national security. Of course, our own government sees nothing wrong with "outing" their own spies in the interest of political expediency (or to avoid answering questions about non-existent WMDs). We have the First Amendment, not the First Suggestion.
When is censorship applicable? When not?
Parents should decide for themselves what to let their children be exposed to. Parents should monitor Internet use, TV viewing, media exposure. Parents should also revise standards as children age, and not expect the same standards to apply to a 6 year old as well as a 16 year old.
Adults, however, should make their own choices. Period. Full stop. It is not the government's job to interfere in what adults can see, do, say, hear or think.
Who should have the power to censor?
Parents or guardians of small children should exercise discretion as regards what their kids are exposed to.
Businesses should be able to monitor internal intrawebs. Company policies need to be posted clearly and consistently applied.
Corporations should be allowed to set their own standards. However, these should be clearly stated and consistently applied.
Special Interest Groups should not have the power to censor other, unrelated, groups, individuals, or companies. They should not be allowd to impose their standards on other, unrelated, groups, individuals, or companies. They should not be allowed to make rules for other, unrelated, groups, individuals, or companies.
"Community Standards" is a phrase which invites groups to enforce their standards on others.
Personal responsibility is key.
Do I object to ratings systems, per se? Actually, no, though I do wish they were consistent. Also, I don't think we should rely solely on ratings systems to set standards. They are flawed, as any system run by human beings with opinions and motivations is flawed. There will always be things that are rated incorrectly, in someone's estimation. Using ratings systems as a jumping off point when making an informed decision is the key. Don't let someone else define for you what you can and cannot see. If you are a parent, it is up to you to review what your children see and hear.
What should and shouldn't be censored?
All information should be free. Adults should have the right to choose what they view, read, listen to, hear, say.
This is not to say that all venues are appropriate for unrestricted speech or media.
Something is wrong when executions are aired / publicized to little outcry or complaint, but the pre-calculated flashing of Janet Jackson's pastie-adorned nipple causes a huge uproar.
Is censorship morally or sociably right? Wrong? Neither?
Censorship is equated with morality, when it is not necessarily a moral issue.
Society as a whole is rife with double-standards, and cannot be relied upon to set guidelines which are appropriate for everyone.
Censorship starts off being "for the good of the people" and then before you know what's happened, that freedom of speech is gone.
Religious groups in particular are fond of advocating censorship "for the good of the people" but not everyone shares their religious views. Alas, we have "freedom of religion" but not "freedom from religion" in this country. Most egregious? Attempts to rewrite history and to claim "America was founded on Christian principles" when that is patently not the case. Read more about deism, Thomas Jefferson and other Founding Fathers for accurate information.
You can set standards for yourself, your minor children, and any company or website you, personally or as part of a collective, run. You cannot and should not set standards for anyone else.
The First Amendment protects unpopular speech. Like it or not, pedophiles have the right to discuss whatever they want to discuss. Words are not deeds. If and when they act on their illegal urges, or make concrete plans to act on them, that is when they should be apprehended and given a fair hearing. Personally, I think that groups that openly discuss illegal activities are a boon to law enforcement! It's not that difficult to track down and keep an eye on people who are openly planning illegal activities. Driving them underground just makes it harder to keep tabs on them. Don't like the laws you wish to break? Try to change them. Society as a whole will adjust, eventually, if laws are unjust or wrong. If they are not wrong, and there's a darn good reason for something to be illegal, the laws will not change. It is a slow process, but we've seen it work both ways (Abolition, Prohibition, (not) owning slaves, (not) allowing women to vote, Civil Rights, Gay Rights). The law is an evolving thing.
If you get right down to it, pedophiles talking about their pathology publicly is not the same thing as a pedophile actually turning into a child molester in fact. Pedophilia is the urge, child molesting is the act. I may have the urge to strangle someone, and talk about it, and talk about it freely, but that does not make me a murderer. Personally, I find pedophiles vile. On the other hand, I'm not keen on slash fiction or racial jokes or icons with porn in them; I choose not to participate in communities that like slash fiction, think racial jokes are funny, or where I might have to see some nekkid stranger's lumpy bum bobbling up and down, or exposed genitalia. It won't kill me if I accidentally run across any of the above, but because I'm not particularly fond of any of that stuff, I take it as a warning label that I'll probably see more of the same if I return to that particular community and act accordingly.
Where can you learn more about censorship issues?
- Banned Book Week
- Cyber Rights And Digital Liberties Encyclopedia (CRADLE)
- CyberLaw
- CyberTimes Communications Decency Act Home Page
- CYBERsitter censoring sites based upon political agenda
- The Ethical Spectacle
- Peacefire - Open Access for the Net Generation
- Who's Watching the 'Watchers'?
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. ~ Voltaire
In the interest of fairness, here's an opposing viewpoint:
Americans are constantly harping about our freedom of speech, using censorship as a bad word. Is it? I've been thinking that a little bit of censorship is a very good thing. For instance, I'm a member of the One Million Moms march trying to help clean up our airwaves by writing to sponsors and distributors of programs that are too degrading and disgusting to be on television. Okay, it's censorship. But is it a bad thing? I don't think so. I also have a degree in Psychology and one of the things that people should realize is that copycatting is huge in this country. When a celebrity commits suicide, or is reported to commit suicide, a lot of young people who idolize that celebrity copycat, shocking and devasting family members who had no clue why their loved one would do such a thing. But we are a nation of jumping on the bandwagon. Maybe all nations are, but I can only speak for the one I know best. And this is why censorship, if done correctly, really is necessary.
Recently, I've been involved in an issue about the movie Farhenheit 9/11. Now, I refuse to go see it, since I know that Moore makes it his business to spout political "facts" of which at least some of are not correct or are taken out of context to where they can't be understood by the public in general. So I have to assume he has done the same in this "movie" which is being called a documentary, though Moore calls it op-ed. Well, it is either one or the other. If it is his outlook on things, from his personal point of view, it should not be called a documentary, because many, if not most, people who go to see it will get caught up in the hype and believe everything within is the truth. I can't say it isn't, since I have yet to talk to anyone with real knowledge of the political scene who has bothered to go see it. But I can't believe it is, either. Censorship comes in when we, as the public, insist that the piece is marketed for what it is: not a documentary, not facts, but personal opinion and major Hollywood editing. I don't think that's a bad thing. I think that is of the utmost importance. Regardless of how intelligent people can be individually, as it says in "Men in Black," as a group people can be ... well, I think the movie says stupid, but I would say they jump on the bandwagon.
In recent times, it's "cool" to bash our government and people have lots of fun doing so, mainly because it's also a human trait to want to blame anyone else for your problems instead of taking personal responsibility. But that's for another post on another day.
Bashing our government is not cool. It's also not helpful or productive. Spreading rumors and hate and propanganda is not cool or helpful. It seems very odd to me that the same group promoting anti-war sentiment is saying they want peace, but what they are doing is putting the nation at odds with itself, promoting negativity and hate. No, the government cannot go unchecked, but neither should the media, including film, television, and newspapers.
Why is it that our media is siding against our country? Because negativity sells? Anything for a buck? Do the American people ever hear about all of the good things that are going on in Iraq? Do you realize our soldiers are over there handing out school supplies and basic living necessities to Iraqi children who have not had them since they were born? Have you stopped to think about how spreading kindness and caring to these children who have known nothing but deprivation can help make their country a kinder, more peaceful place to live? Kindness is contagious. So is negativity.
As a side note, I do realize there is some media honestly supporting our country, disseminating two-sided facts and talking about the good things going on and what we are actually achieving. I'm afraid that it's much too rare, however. Optimism tends to not sell as well. Whose fault is that? Ours. They will provide what we ask for. How about a bit of censorship as far as not buying negativity or one-sided journalism? I wonder, if this is sent to the papers, how many would publish it?
Want to hear the facts? Try going to www.whitehouse.gov - how many of you have ever been there? Try going to www.military.com to see the other side of things. If you're concerned about our service members, take a few minutes to send them a note of support at www.anyservicemember.navy.mil/ instead of protesting, which does nothing but hurt them personally.
I think, if it's okay to censor our personal web sites, message boards, email lists, and what we say to each other on a day to day basis, it has to be so much more important to censor what goes out to not only our nation, but to the rest of the world. It's a rule in polite social gatherings not to talk about politics because it's personal to people. Why then, is it okay for our media and for Hollywood, to spout political comments as if they are facts when they have no real knowledge about what is going on inside the government? We all need to stop listening to the rhetoric and check things out for ourselves, reading both sides of the story. We need to stop refusing to listen to each others' opinions and start using those opinions to look into what may very well be against our personal views, but a substantial opinion all the same.
Please, feel free to respond with educated opinions and I may add to this with opinions I receive (not if sent anonymously, but identity can be not posted). Don't bother repeating rhetoric because it will be deleted. A little censorship is a good thing.
Ganked the above from this page.
More thoughts on censorship:
The fact is that censorship always defeats its own purpose, for it creates, in the end, the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real discretion. ~Henry Steele Commager
The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen. ~Tommy Smothers
Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. ~Potter Stewart
We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our tongue, at our peril, risk and hazard. ~Voltaire, Dictionnaire Philosophique, 1764
The dirtiest book of all is the expurgated book. ~Walt Whitman
Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too. ~Voltaire
I am thankful for all the complaining I hear about our government because it means we have freedom of speech. ~Nancie J. Carmody
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859
Books won't stay banned. They won't burn. Ideas won't go to jail. In the long run of history, the censor and the inquisitor have always lost. The only weapon against bad ideas is better ideas. ~Alfred Whitney Griswold, New York Times, 24 February 1959
Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one. ~Abbott Joseph Liebling, "Do You Belong in Journalism?" New Yorker, 4 May 1960
A free press can be good or bad, but, most certainly, without freedom a press will never be anything but bad. ~Albert Camus
Nature knows no indecencies; man invents them. ~Mark Twain, Notebook, 1935
What progress we are making. In the Middle Ages they would have burned me. Now they are content with burning my books. ~Sigmund Freud, 1933
Obscenity is not a quality inherent in a book or picture, but is solely and exclusively a contribution of the reading mind, and hence cannot be defined in terms of the qualities of a book or picture. ~Theodore Schroeder
Assassination is the extreme form of censorship. ~George Bernard Shaw, "The Rejected Statement, Part I," The Shewing-Up of Blanco Posnet, 1911
Censorship feeds the dirty mind more than the four-letter word itself. ~Dick Cavett
The test of democracy is freedom of criticism. ~David Ben-Gurion
If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859
To limit the press is to insult a nation; to prohibit reading of certain books is to declare the inhabitants to be either fools or slaves. ~Claude-Adrien Helvétius
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. ~John F. Kennedy
God forbid that any book should be banned. The practice is as indefensible as infanticide. ~Rebecca West
If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. ~Noam Chomsky
Every human being has a right to hear what other wise human beings have spoken to him. It is one of the Rights of Men; a very cruel injustice if you deny it to a man! ~Thomas Carlyle
You can cage the singer but not the song. ~Harry Belafonte, in International Herald Tribune, 3 October 1988
I'd probably make more sense if I'd had more than seven hous of sleep since Monday. C'est la vie, I accept that my debate is not as strong as it might otherwise be. And que sera sera, I am sure to hear about all the logical flaws. That's okay.
What do you think?