There’s an enormous, absolutely critical distinction from a Free Speech perspective between merely “voicing concerns, protesting, rebutting, ridiculing, debating and scrutinizing” the content or aims one finds objectionable on the one hand, & attempting on the other to prevent others from having the same opportunity to evaluate the work of art for themselves, which is what censorship is.
You wrote: “The right to free speech allows the artist to present ideas in a public forum.”
But preventing the publication or re-publication of a work because one deems it to be objectionable in some manner entirely precludes the right of the artist to present his ideas in the public forum.
You also wrote: “Sometimes the audience uses a collective voice in an attempt to instigate change. This is not encouraging censorship or monitoring thought—quite the opposite.”
If using “a collective voice in an attempt to instigate change” involves precluding the right of the artist to be heard by others, that unquestionably constitutes “censorship” & “monitoring thought,” which is precisely what you’ve attempted to do in your Sexist, Degrading Bullshit II: Comic Book Edition post, wrapping yourself in the First Amendment’s legal protections, while at once perverting it aims.
As the American Library Association notes in its Intellectual Freedom and Censorship Q&A:
"What Is Censorship?
Censorship is the suppression of ideas and information that certain persons—individuals, groups or government officials—find objectionable or dangerous. It is no more complicated than someone saying, “Don’t let anyone read this book, or buy that magazine, or view that film, because I object to it! ” Censors try to use the power of the state to impose their view of what is truthful and appropriate, or offensive and objectionable, on everyone else. Censors pressure public institutions, like libraries, to suppress and remove from public access information they judge inappropriate or dangerous, so that no one else has the chance to read or view the material and make up their own minds about it. The censor wants to prejudge materials for everyone.
How Does Censorship Happen?
Censorship occurs when expressive materials, like books, magazines, films and videos, or works of art, are removed or kept from public access. Individuals and pressure groups identify materials to which they object. Sometimes they succeed in pressuring schools not to use them, libraries not to shelve them, book and video stores not to carry them, publishers not to publish them, or art galleries not to display them. Censorship also occurs when materials are restricted to particular audiences, based on their age or other characteristics.
Who Attempts Censorship?
In most instances, a censor is a sincerely concerned individual who believes that censorship can improve society, protect children, and restore what the censor sees as lost moral values. But under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, each of us has the right to read, view, listen to, and disseminate constitutionally protected ideas, even if a censor finds those ideas offensive.”
(emphasis mine)
“Like a cyberspace Paul Revere, Sparanese sent word to various email lists including SRRT (Social Responsibilities Round Table) and Library Juice, explaining Moore's situation. She conveyed this battle wasn't just one man's struggle with a publishing house, but was a battle to preserve free speech and to stop censorship.
Two days later Harper Collins phoned Moore. "What did you tell the librarians?" they asked. "We're getting hundreds of letters a day from angry librarians. Do you know how much business we do with these people?"
Harper Collins eventually gave Stupid White Men the green light but not before informing Mr. Moore "you are out of touch with the American people." They handed him the list of cities for the book tour. There were only three listed: Ridgewood, NJ Arlington, VA and Denver, CO. The message was clear to him, Harper Collins wanted no association with his book: Moore was on his own.
On the first day of its release, all 50,000 copies were sold. The next day it was the number one seller on amazon.com. By the fifth day, the book was in its ninth printing. As of today, it is in its twenty-second printing and is selling faster than the latest works from Grisham and Clancy combined.”
“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary 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
“He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition: for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. ”— Thomas Paine, Dissertation On First Principles Of Government
Debate, even fierce disagreement, is central to the democratic marketplace of ideas, but censorship is the tool of totalitarian politics, a disease equally of the far left & the far right.
Given that you “screen”all comments to your blog, and given how deeply this issue concerns me, I’ve just set up a blog of my own and will be posting these comments there, with a link to this entry of yours, just in case you should decide to censor my comments, too.
Webbadge courtesy of the A.L.A.:
Free People Read Freely
2 comments:
Charlotte,
Thank you for reading Die Wachen. I appreciate your desire to join in the discussion regarding the August 15th post "Speak Out." As I'm sure you are aware, comments on Die Wachen are moderated before posting. After review, your recent comment has been deleted for the following reasons:
* Length. Individuals using the comment function are asked to keep their comments concise—brief in form, but comprehensive in scope.
* Outside sphere. Individuals using the comment function are asked to keep their comments within the sphere of the subject presented in the entry. This comment appeared to include discussions from alternative entries and/or multiple websites.
To prevent future comment posting difficulties, I recommend reading the comment policy located on the F.A.Q. section of Die Wachen: http://diewachen.com/2006/02/frequently-asked-questions.html
I’m sorry you felt my entry was establishing state-supported censorship, rather than joining in the disagreement inherent with protest. Nevertheless, I am glad to see you’ve chosen to post this comment on your own blog. By doing so, your words can still reach a public forum and be used to instigate changes you deem important.
Again, thank you for reading. I'm sorry it was necessary to delete this comment, but welcome you to join future discussions.
Sincerely,
J.E. Remy
diewachen.com
Ok, he doesn't want your comment on his blog, but seems happy you commented?
Why am I reminded of when people say "Your call is important to us", just before they put you on hold?
Steve
Post a Comment