The Random Comic Strip

The Random Comic Strip

Words to live by...

"How beautiful it is to do nothing, and to rest afterward."

[Spanish Proverb]

Ius luxuriae publice datum est

(The right to looseness has been officially given)

"Everyone carries a part of society on his shoulders," wrote Ludwig von Mises, "no one is relieved of his share of responsibility by others. And no one can find a safe way for himself if society is sweeping towards destruction. Therefore everyone, in his own interest, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle."

Apparently, the crossword puzzle that disappeared from the blog, came back.


Monday, January 5, 2009

Censorship and Debate


Is censorship bad? I think most people would say so. I'd agree. But is it what we you think it is? Is it only by government? Are there other, more subtle, forms? And, even official censorship isn't always bad.

Censorship in time of war. Censorship when it comes to children and violence or sexuality (done through a ratings system). There is always censorship in any society. When we say "censorship", we really mean "excessive, undesired, censorship".

In 1939, the use of the word "damn" in the movie "Gone with the Wind" was controversial. It was forbidden to be used except under an amendment to the Production Code passed that year by the Motion Picture Association. Compare that to the language commonly used in today's movies.

In 1962 there was a controversy over the casting of Sue Lyon (then 14 years of age) to play the title role in "Lolita." In the 1997 remake, Dominique Swain was 17 when she was cast in the role and there was no controversy. But the remake was much racier, more daring, than the 1962 version.

But there are several types of censorship we need to consider. The first one we think of is governmental and primarily political. It is the one actually addressed by the First Amendment. Political speech is protected under that Amendment. In time, rulings by the US Supreme Court extended that protection to a great many other areas of expression. Today, I think the Founding Fathers might be appalled (or at least surprised) by the loose interpretation of Freedom of Speech.

Parental censorship is common and considered proper. Few question the right of a parent to determine what his or her child can view or hear. Which often leads to community issues like library access to the internet and how unrestricted it should be.

There is also self-censorship. This covers a wide area including, but not limited to, how you speak in public, what you consider acceptable to write about in a blog, even in speaking to a loved one. Honesty may not always be the best policy so you censor your comments about how your wife (or husband) has gained a few extra pounds.

But there is another form of censorship, one I like to call social censoring. It probably has gone on since humans first began gathering in clans or tribes. For centuries it was the means by which a segment of society has been silenced. In more modern times, with the spreading of the concept of freedom of speech, that has been lessened. But a new form has taken hold, a form which we call "hate speech" restrictions. Certain terms have been made taboo, even actionable. For the most part, this has done good. People have become more aware of offensive terms, more sensitive to others' perceptions of insult.

In some ways, however, it has gone a bit far. When college students steal student papers from newsracks on campus because they find the opinions expressed to be "racist" or "sexist" or "homophobic". When otherwise well meaning groups stage large protests outside of churches because of the religious support of an initiative, when hecklers attempt to disrupt a speech, or shout down a speaker, or demand one be uninvited, the concept of freedom of speech is threatened. Demonstrations which are aimed at denying others the freedom to express themselves simply because the ideas expressed are deemed "hate speech", or "offensive", are wrong, in my opinion.

You cannot have public debate if only one side is considered to be acceptable to be expressed. That is not freedom of expression, just the opposite.When even defending the right of someone to say what society might consider to be offensive is considered to be defending the concepts expressed, well, that is the worst brand of censorship.

14 comments:

~::* Kreativemess *::~ said...

I have gotten into trouble in the past about censorship for mentioning FACTS.

People suck balls.

Michael Horvath said...

Douglas, I may not comment on your posts often but you always get me thinking. Keep up the great work!

Douglas said...

~P~ - Well, facts have a way of getting us into trouble and interfering with what we know is true.

MPH - Thinking can be as dangerous as stating facts. Thanks for the compliment. My ego thanks you too.

Neo said...

if your best friend comes to you and says "I am gay" ... doesn't this have a profound affect on how you see this person and on a greater scale whether you want to be that persons friend... so any how ... don't you see wartime censorship as needed, as in "my right to live supercsedes my right to know?" I think our gov't is forced to tell things that we the public have no right in knowing. (war stuff)

generic Brand said...

Thank you for writing this post! So often people do not understand the necessity of some censorship, and more often want to control the censorship of other groups.

What's even worse is, as you said, hate speech. Not because of the things that are said or what it represents, but because it censored as being racist, sexist, anti-Semitic even though it is still protected by the First Amendment. The same people who proclaimed Don Imus' comments as racist call Christians "gaybashers" because they vote YES on Proposition 8. People don't realize how much of a hypocrite each and every one of us is. I'm okay with every one speaking freely... until it offends me or what I stand for.

I wrote a similar blog a while ago about radio censorship: http://agenericbrand.blogspot.com/2008/09/radio-killed-freedom-of.html

Douglas said...

Neo - I have had a few gay friends. I probably had some more I never knew were gay. It had no effect on our friendship that I could tell. But, yes, it can have an effect on a relationship. But that is a personal revelation, not an issue of censorship. I think that wartime censorship is imperative. The problem lies in discerning what should be kept secret and what should not. Most things are obvious but some are not and therein lies the problem.

Douglas said...

GB - Back in the late 60s (1967, I am pretty sure), there was a song called "Angel of the Morning". A radio station in LA flat out refused to play the song because it felt it was promoting promiscuity. I also recall, not too many years later, a song by the Jefferson Airplane on their "Volunteers" album. Check the Wikipedia entries at:

Airplane 1968

Robot Nine said...

Well written. Making me think of Obama inviting 'Purpose Driven Life' author and pastor Rick Warren to officiate at his inaugeration. Plenty of boos as he is against abortion. I'm irreligious and it bothers me, the uninviting thing and the complaining I mean. For Pete;s sake (whoever Pete is?) can you imagine trying to find a religious figure everyone approves of. Even God would probably fall short.
Nice post. Alan

Douglas said...

The reaction to the selection of "Pastor Rick" reveals a lot about the hard left. To me, it was a good move by Obama. Perhaps it was a calculated one, but that's the cynic in me talking. I think we are in for an interesting 4 years. Watch for the Fairness Doctrine to be revived; that will be an interesting debate.

Hena Tayeb said...

Interesting blog..love the behead those who don't laugh picture. I am a firm believer of laughter is the best medicine. I like your take on things. A good read.

Douglas said...

Thank you, henzy, feel free to hang around. I am an overly productive hack who loves flattery. Even the most obviously insincere is welcome. Yours, then, is especially treasured.

henzy said...

Interesting blog..love the behead those who don't laugh picture. I am a firm believer of laughter is the best medicine. I like your take on things. A good read.

Alan said...

Well written. Making me think of Obama inviting 'Purpose Driven Life' author and pastor Rick Warren to officiate at his inaugeration. Plenty of boos as he is against abortion. I'm irreligious and it bothers me, the uninviting thing and the complaining I mean. For Pete;s sake (whoever Pete is?) can you imagine trying to find a religious figure everyone approves of. Even God would probably fall short.
Nice post. Alan

.::~P~::. said...

I have gotten into trouble in the past about censorship for mentioning FACTS.

People suck balls.