Censorship
this is a repeat of my post over at kuro5hin.org regarding ken park and the censorship debate. for the sake of prosperity and psuedo intellectualism i've repeated it here:
I'm curious.
There are a number of assertions in this debate saying that censorship is "a foul word in any language" but I have yet to see an ARGUMENT against censorship - yet alone a cohesive, systematic argument.
Personally, I don't think censorship is of itself a bad thing. I think the question is where we draw the line between what should and shouldn't be censored. And we need to be coherent and intelligent about it.
(Incidentally, I've read quite a lot of first amendment jurisprudence so I'm obviously influenced by that)
Ask yourself the following:
Do you believe that government should not make laws against ANY speech?
If so, does this include commercial speech? Does that include commercial speech which is deceitful? If it doesn't, then you've already contradicted yourself. Making illegal deceitful commercial speech is censorship - it is the removal/punishment of speech which is considered to be damaging.
Does it include hate speech? (Ironically, most vocal liberals who are against censorship probably anti hate speech laws - which is amusing to me because I reckon I could make a quite convincing argument that Larry Clark's work is highly mysogynistic and potentially a form of hate speech).
Does it include seditious or treacherous speech? Should I legally be able to publish extensive and accurate details on how to blow up the whitehouse or to overthrow the government?
Does it include paedophilia? Does it include sexual acts involving consenting adults when it masquerades as child sex?
If you answered 'no' to any of the above then you support censorship on some level.
"But I don't believe in censorship of art!" you cry. To which I ask 'when does speech become art? where do you draw that line? can paedophila ever become art? why not?'
I'm opposed to the censorship of Ken Park in particular - I mightn't like Larry Clarke much - but I don't think Ken Park is any more damaging morally than the Matrix - which reduces violence to computer game consequences (killing innocent people is OK if they're part of the system and HEY they don't bleed). Yes, I realise that means I could argue that the Matrix and its sequels could be censorsed. And I agree. There ARE reasons for people to want to censor the Matrix and there ARE reasons for people NOT wanting those films censored. Part of living in a liberal and federal democracy is the idea that you can nut out these issues... that civil society plays a very active part in forming the WAY OF LIFE of a particular state.
And that y'know some people might find something you have no problem with so offensive that they want to stop others from saying it - which is the exact justification for anti hate speech laws (ie you mightn't have a problem being a racist but I do and I am going to stop you from saying your racist thoughts).
I'm curious.
There are a number of assertions in this debate saying that censorship is "a foul word in any language" but I have yet to see an ARGUMENT against censorship - yet alone a cohesive, systematic argument.
Personally, I don't think censorship is of itself a bad thing. I think the question is where we draw the line between what should and shouldn't be censored. And we need to be coherent and intelligent about it.
(Incidentally, I've read quite a lot of first amendment jurisprudence so I'm obviously influenced by that)
Ask yourself the following:
Do you believe that government should not make laws against ANY speech?
If so, does this include commercial speech? Does that include commercial speech which is deceitful? If it doesn't, then you've already contradicted yourself. Making illegal deceitful commercial speech is censorship - it is the removal/punishment of speech which is considered to be damaging.
Does it include hate speech? (Ironically, most vocal liberals who are against censorship probably anti hate speech laws - which is amusing to me because I reckon I could make a quite convincing argument that Larry Clark's work is highly mysogynistic and potentially a form of hate speech).
Does it include seditious or treacherous speech? Should I legally be able to publish extensive and accurate details on how to blow up the whitehouse or to overthrow the government?
Does it include paedophilia? Does it include sexual acts involving consenting adults when it masquerades as child sex?
If you answered 'no' to any of the above then you support censorship on some level.
"But I don't believe in censorship of art!" you cry. To which I ask 'when does speech become art? where do you draw that line? can paedophila ever become art? why not?'
I'm opposed to the censorship of Ken Park in particular - I mightn't like Larry Clarke much - but I don't think Ken Park is any more damaging morally than the Matrix - which reduces violence to computer game consequences (killing innocent people is OK if they're part of the system and HEY they don't bleed). Yes, I realise that means I could argue that the Matrix and its sequels could be censorsed. And I agree. There ARE reasons for people to want to censor the Matrix and there ARE reasons for people NOT wanting those films censored. Part of living in a liberal and federal democracy is the idea that you can nut out these issues... that civil society plays a very active part in forming the WAY OF LIFE of a particular state.
And that y'know some people might find something you have no problem with so offensive that they want to stop others from saying it - which is the exact justification for anti hate speech laws (ie you mightn't have a problem being a racist but I do and I am going to stop you from saying your racist thoughts).
posted by stu willis at
8:35 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home