Home Β» Forum Β» Author Hangout

Forum: Author Hangout

Censorship -

PotomacBob 🚫

If Disney refuses to release Song of the South any more because the movie, in some quarters, is considered insensitive on slavery, does that constitute censorship?
If a newspaper that often publishes letters to the editor refuses to publish yours because it violates the newspaper's standards, is that censorship?
If local school libraries have certain books available for students to read, and the state board of education orders certain of those books removed from all shelves, is that censorship?
Does it matter what the content was for it to amount to censorship?
What about Little Black Sambo - a book banned from some shelves in both private and publicly owned libraries?
Could a privately owned library that lends books to the public be guilty of censorship if it, as a matter of policy, refused to carry books on, say, Buddhism? Would it matter if what they banned were books on snakes? or barn-building?

Dominions Son 🚫
Updated:

@PotomacBob

It's complicated.

some strong first amendment activists will claim it's only censorship if the government does it.

If Disney refuses to release Song of the South any more because the movie, in some quarters, is considered insensitive on slavery, does that constitute censorship?

No. They own it, it's theirs. If they no longer want to make it available, that is their right, regardless of the reason.

If a newspaper that often publishes letters to the editor refuses to publish yours because it violates the newspaper's standards, is that censorship?

Maybe. It depends on why and how broadly/narrowly you define censorship.

If local school libraries have certain books available for students to read, and the state board of education orders certain of those books removed from all shelves, is that censorship?

Yes. To the extend that you are talking about public schools you are talking about an entity that is a government actor for purposes of the First Amendment under US law.

That said, censorship in this context is not necessarily inappropriate. Some books aren't appropriate for minors and those can be censored from K-12 school libraries without creating First Amendment issues.

Could a privately owned library that lends books to the public be guilty of censorship if it, as a matter of policy, refused to carry books on, say, Buddhism?

Morally? Maybe? In a way that creates any kind of legal liability? Not in the US.

Replies:   Vincent Berg
Vincent Berg 🚫

@Dominions Son

If Disney refuses to release Song of the South any more because the movie, in some quarters, is considered insensitive on slavery, does that constitute censorship?

No. They own it, it's theirs. If they no longer want to make it available, that is their right, regardless of the reason.

Basically, it's not censorship if the films is no longer profitable, then it's a financial, not a political decisions.

That said, it's routine for small groups of individuals to file proposals to ban a variety of recognized literary classics, in fact, they produce yearly list of the most banned books in America. The majority of those are based on largely racial issues (ex: black people in Mark Twain's books, or pro-LGTBQ books directed at school age students), rather than obvious political stances or changing standards.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son 🚫

@Vincent Berg

The majority of those are based on largely racial issues (ex: black people in Mark Twain's books

Ignoring the fact that for his day Mark Twain was fairly anti-racist and that is in fact reflected in his books despite using terms that were common at the time but considered offensive today.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer 🚫

@Dominions Son

Ignoring the fact that for his day Mark Twain was fairly anti-racist and that is in fact reflected in his books …

You misunderstand. The urge to ban books for race isn't driven by discussions of race, but by an effort to ban the discussion of the causes of racism (i.e. racial prejudices, economic disparities, etc.).

I like to keep up on attempts to ban specific books (at least I used to, back in the day), and there are generally very specific trends at silencing the voice of certain, specific groups, rather than general asthetics.

Replies:   Dominions Son  DBActive
Dominions Son 🚫
Updated:

@Crumbly Writer

but by an effort to ban the discussion of the causes of racism (i.e. racial prejudices, economic disparities, etc.).

Sorry, but I've seen efforts to ban Mark Twain's works form public school libraries and it's never been coming from white conservatives, it has every time been driven by self proclaimed anti-racist activists, and on the basis of proclaiming the works to be racist.

Replies:   Grey Wolf
Grey Wolf 🚫

@Dominions Son

I've seen Twain be attacked pretty much equally from both viewpoints, but if there's an edge, it comes from the 'right' where I am. Maybe that comes from living in an area where there are far more 'conservatives' (I question whether the majority of self-professed 'conservatives' today are at all 'Conservative') then 'anti-racist activists'.

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2 🚫
Updated:

@Grey Wolf

Maybe that comes from living in an area where there are far more 'conservatives' (I question whether the majority of self-professed 'conservatives' today are at all 'Conservative') then 'anti-racist activists'.

There is some truth to that. Then again, the lines between liberal and conservative are murky at best these days. What is a liberal and what is a conservative? What I'm sure of, is both sides have large numbers of radicalized people in their number. People who'd rather burn the country down rather than compromise or worse cede control. The anti-racism crap is just that, crap. Guilt tripping people as a means to control them, aka manipulate them. MLK was the last prominent major figure who gave sound advice on how to bring people together rather than tear them apart imo.

Most of the self-proclaimed anti-racism activist have no clear idea what actual racism looks like. This is especially true on nearly any campus you care to mention.

Going after historical literary works is a mistake. If in fact it is racist, I'd rather it be front and center for all to see. Hiding it, or destroying it, doesn't make it go away. In the long run, it will resurface without context. Context is critical to understand why such works are racist to begin with. Unfortunately, in the rush to destroy or ban it, context is the first victim. In the future, I suspect there will be many such works that pop up only there will be no way to understand or properly frame such works as fiction, much less racist fiction.

Replies:   Grey Wolf
Grey Wolf 🚫

@Remus2

I agree; I'm not on the side of banning anything. I do agree that content can be filtered based on whether it's age-appropriate, and that 'literary merit' is a perfectly valid criteria for what to select (on a limited budget) and teach. That said, I question nearly all claims about something not being age-appropriate for high schoolers, and I don't agree that explicit sexuality means an automatic loss of literary merit.

Twain is unquestionably both age-appropriate and of literary merit.

My knock on 'conservatives' is undoubtedly partly from my perspective. Reagan was (in many, definitely not all) ways a 'conservative'. George Will is a conservative, as were most of his colleagues. There are plenty of other examples. Most of them would laugh in the face of the vast majority of the current 'Conservative Caucus' or other allegedly 'Conservative' politicians and those who support them.

Radicalization is wrecking the country (and, in many places), the world. The near-total ability for people to effortlessly exist in information bubbles which support one's chosen ideology and lambast the other side is part of that.

The notion that compromise and bipartisanship makes one an "In Name Only" member of one's party is disastrous.

Replies:   Remus2  DBActive
Remus2 🚫

@Grey Wolf

Maybe you can tell me what defines a conservative, progressive, and a liberal to you?

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID 🚫

@Remus2

Danger! Danger! Danger!

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2 🚫

@Not_a_ID

???????

DBActive 🚫
Updated:

@Grey Wolf

My problem with the issue of "banning" books in schools and public libraries is simple: no books are banned. There is a difference from prohibiting the sale/reading of books and the idea that the schools or yhe public library should supply the books. Refusal to supply the books is not a violation of either the rights of speech and press or the 1st amendment rights (they are not the same things)

Replies:   Remus2  awnlee jawking
Remus2 🚫

@DBActive

Refusal to supply the books is not a violation of either the rights of speech and press or the 1st amendment rights (they are not the same things)

True.

awnlee jawking 🚫

@DBActive

There is a difference from prohibiting the sale/reading of books and the idea that the schools or yhe public library should supply the books.

My local public library (in the UK) is a member of the inter-library loan scheme and can obtain books (for a fee) for readers from peer libraries and such exalted sources as the British Library. I'd be seriously annoyed if there was any suggestion my locsl library could filter what could be ordered.

AJ

Replies:   DBActive
DBActive 🚫

@awnlee jawking

Your annoyance is not the same as a violation of your rights.

Replies:   awnlee jawking  Remus2
awnlee jawking 🚫

@DBActive

Your annoyance is not the same as a violation of your rights.

I'm not so sure about that.

My local public library obviously severe financial constraints as to how many books it can stock, and I have no doubt the choices are skewed by the preferences of the tiny number of individuals tasked with making the decisions, but surely it would be a violation of my rights to interfere with what I could borrow from the British Library.

AJ

Remus2 🚫

@DBActive

British law and American law will treat that situation differently. It is a mistake to assume they would be the same.

Replies:   DBActive
DBActive 🚫

@Remus2

British law and American law will treat that situation differently. It is a mistake to assume they would be the same.

I realize that but my point remains the same. Annoyance or feeling entitlement does equal a violation of rights. I strongly doubt that the UK (which has many many more restrictions on speech than the US) requires libraries to supply any book that a patron requests. I can't see how that would even be possible given the number of books existing.

awnlee jawking 🚫

@DBActive

I can't see how that would even be possible given the number of books existing.

There's supposed to be a 'complete' set in the British Library (equivalent of US Library of Congress?), although not everything is borrowable because of considerations of rarity and condition.

AJ

AJ

helmut_meukel 🚫

@DBActive

I strongly doubt that the UK (which has many many more restrictions on speech than the US) requires libraries to supply any book that a patron requests. I can't see how that would even be possible given the number of books existing.

You obviously missed or forgot this sentence in AJ first post:

My local public library (in the UK) is a member of the inter-library loan scheme

This inter-library loan scheme is there to provide books not in the local library but made available by other libraries. There is an additional fee involved for those books.
I guess the libraries participating in this scheme provide only a selection of their books.
It's however not tolerable if the local public
library – which is part of the scheme – filters which books from another library e.g. The British Library, a local (adult) patron can get.

HM.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son 🚫

@helmut_meukel

It's however not tolerable if the local public
library – which is part of the scheme – filters which books from another library e.g. The British Library, a local (adult) patron can get.

Whether or not it is morally/ethically tolerable is a separate question from whether it would be actionable under UK law (I do not pretend to know the answer to the latter question).

Replies:   helmut_meukel  DBActive
helmut_meukel 🚫

@Dominions Son

Whether or not it is morally/ethically tolerable is a separate question from whether it would be actionable under UK law

Hmm, this inter-library loan scheme is somehow set up. Any participating library had accepted the rules. If in these rules there is no clause to allow local filtering, then it's actionable. Maybe not directly by the patron but by the board of the loan scheme.

IIRC, we here in Germany have something similar. (Never used it, when I last used our public library about 50 years ago an inter-library loan scheme was in discussion and at least ten years later I read in the local newspaper our library did sign-up.)

HM.

DBActive 🚫

@Dominions Son

Whether or not it is morally/ethically tolerable is a separate question from whether it would be actionable under UK law (I do not pretend to know the answer to the latter question).

I have no idea either but suspect that it would be an issue related to the contract setting up the system rather than fundamental rights.

awnlee jawking 🚫

@DBActive

I strongly doubt that the UK (which has many many more restrictions on speech than the US)

Yet, oddly enough, it's legal to write porn with underage participants.

AJ

Replies:   DBActive
DBActive 🚫

@awnlee jawking

Yet, oddly enough, it's legal to write porn with underage participants.

?
It's legal everywhere to "write porn" with people of any age. Distribution of it may be prohibited, but not in the US.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater 🚫
Updated:

@DBActive

It's legal everywhere to "write porn" with people of any age.

Wrong, it's illegal in some states of Australia. The current law in NSW is such that even writing a story with a graphic description of an under 16 having is illegal as that means you have to have the story on hand and possession of that story can put you behind bars for 10 years.

Replies:   DBActive
DBActive 🚫

@Ernest Bywater

If you don't distribute it,1 how is anyone going to know?

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater 🚫

@DBActive

If you don't distribute it,1 how is anyone going to know?

All they need is some pretext to raid your house / office / etc. and then they conduct a search. It matters not what they were using to justify the search, anything else they find they can charge you with. So, if they think you bought a stolen TV down the pub and they convince a judge for a search warrant, then they can tear your place apart and charge you for anything they find, even if it doesn't relate to the grounds of the search warrant.

Replies:   Remus2  DBActive
Remus2 🚫

@Ernest Bywater

That is true for the states as well.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son 🚫

@Remus2

That is true for the states as well.

Except for the part about possession of a story text being illegal (as child pornography).

DBActive 🚫

@Ernest Bywater

They better have a pretty good, verifiable reasons the search warrant or the search will be tossed.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater 🚫

@DBActive

They better have a pretty good, verifiable reasons the search warrant or the search will be tossed.

Depends on the issuing authority when it's applied for. However, once the search warrant is issued, it matters not if they find anything to justify issuing it or not, they have it and can tear your place apart.

Replies:   DBActive
DBActive 🚫

@Ernest Bywater

I have no knowledge of Australian law. In the US, that's not true.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater  Remus2
Ernest Bywater 🚫

@DBActive

In the US, that's not true.

I'd double check that if I were you, as police in the US often add charges after exercising a search warrant. The only times I've read or heard of material found in a search in the US not being allowed have been when a judge threw it out because they deemed the search unjustified or the warrant issued due to false information being provided.

Replies:   DBActive
DBActive 🚫
Updated:

@Ernest Bywater

My response was to your comment that they only "need some pretext." On a suppression motion they will need to be able to verify the contents of the affidavit of probable cause. Those claims better be verifiable or else the entire search is going to be tossed.

You example also raises another question - reasonableness of the search. If they're looking for a TV they can't search computers or drawers and other locations were the contraband could not be stored. The search has to be reasonable, the search wouldn't survive a motion to suppress.

This is US law, not Australian about which I know nothing.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater  Remus2
Ernest Bywater 🚫

@DBActive

Depending upon what they convince the issuing authority they can search anything listed. One common item that's being seen more often is to search computers and data storage systems for messages and other records of the listed activity. Thus with the TV example, if they can convince the issuing authority I may have sold the TV on they can then have computer records listed for records of the sale or income.

Also, as you so, "on a suppression motion" requires the quick lodging of such a motion by a solicitor and we do NOT have the US system of free defence lawyers. Thus getting such a motion in place requires finding and hiring and expensive legal beagle which will only happen once you can convince them you can pay. Oh, we have a crooked government scheme called 'Legal Aid' which is nothing of the sort, simply a loan process which takes 2 to 3 months to get an application approved.

Replies:   DBActive  Dominions Son
DBActive 🚫

@Ernest Bywater

on motion" requires the quick lodging of such a motion by a solicitor and we do NOT have the US system of free defence lawyers. Thus getting such a motion in place requires finding and hiring and expensive legal beagle which will only happen once you can convince them you can pay. Oh, we have a crooked government scheme called 'Legal Aid' which is nothing of the sort, simply a loan process which takes 2 to 3 months to get an applicati

As I said, I have no knowledge of Australian law or procedure.
I have presented search warrant applications and done suppression hearings both for the state and for defendants. I think the proposed range of search would be hard to sustain in the US, but that's just my somewhat educated opinion. Also in the US, except in extraordinary situations, thesuppression motion doesn't even come about until the accused is formally charged and the case will be going to court - that takes weeks or months.

Dominions Son 🚫

@Ernest Bywater

Also, as you so, "on a suppression motion" requires the quick lodging of such a motion by a solicitor and we do NOT have the US system of free defence lawyers.

My understanding is that in the US, you can't make a suppression motion until charges have been officially filed and the pretrial hearings in front of a judge begin.

Remus2 🚫

@DBActive

You example also raises another question - reasonableness of the search.

That depends heavily on the integrity of the searchers. There are many searches performed every day along America's highway system of cars pulled over for speeding. "They were acting suspiciously" or "I thought I smelled marijuana," so in comes the K9 unit. No warrant ever was written. The same applies in a home with a search warrant.

Remus2 🚫

@DBActive

I have no knowledge of Australian law. In the US, that's not true.

I suggest thinking that one through. If the courts order a search warrant for some random white collar crime, but during execution of the warrant, they come across a stash of illegal drugs, you will be charged. The same goes for any other illegal material.

DBActive 🚫

@Crumbly Writer

Could you link to an example of a conservative attempt to ban Mark Twain?

Replies:   richardshagrin
richardshagrin 🚫

@DBActive

Mark Twain

Initials are MT (empty).

"Samuel Clemens used several pseudonyms during his long writing career. The first was simply "Josh," and the second was "Thomas Jefferson Snodgrass." But, the author wrote his best-known works, including such American classics as The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, under the pen name Mark Twain. Both books center on the adventures of two boys, the namesakes for the novels, on the Mississippi River. Not surprisingly, Clemens adopted his pen name from his experiences piloting steamboats up and down the Mississippi.

Navigational Term
"Twain" literally means "two." As a riverboat pilot, Clemens would have heard the term, "Mark Twain," which means "two fathoms," on a regular basis. According to the UC Berkeley Library, Clemens first used this pseudonym in 1863, when he was working as a newspaper reporter in Nevada, long after his riverboat days.

Clemens became a riverboat "cub," or trainee, in 1857. Two years later, he earned his full pilot's license and began piloting the steamboat Alonzo Child upriver from New Orleans in January 1861. His piloting career was cut short when riverboat traffic ceased at the start of the Civil War that same year.

"Mark Twain" means the second mark on a line that measured depth, signifying two fathoms, or 12 feet, which was a safe depth for riverboats. The method of dropping a line to determine the water's depth was a way to read the river and avoid submerged rocks and reefs that could "tear the life out of the strongest vessel that ever floated," as Clemens wrote in his 1863 novel, "Life on the Mississippi."

Why Twain Adopted the Name
Clemens, himself, explained in "Life on the Mississippi" why he chose that particular moniker for his most famous novels. In this quote, he was referring to Horace E. Bixby, the grizzled pilot who taught Clemens to navigate the river during his two-year training phase:

"The old gentleman was not of literary turn or capacity, but he used to jot down brief paragraphs of plain practical information about the river, and sign them 'MARK TWAIN,' and give them to the 'New Orleans Picayune.' They related to the stage and condition of the river, and were accurate and valuable; and thus far, they contained no poison."
Twain lived far from the Mississippi (in Connecticut) when The Adventures of Tom Sawyer was published in 1876. But, that novel, as well as The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, published in 1884 in the United Kingdom and in 1885 in the United States, were so infused with images of the Mississipi River that it seems fitting that Clemens would use a pen name that so closely tied him to the river. As he navigated the rocky path of his literary career (he was beset with financial problems through much of his life), it's fitting that he would choose a moniker that defined the very method riverboat captains used to safely navigate the sometimes treacherous waters of the mighty Mississippi."

Ernest Bywater 🚫

@PotomacBob

Yes, it's censorship, but self-imposed censorship is legal in all ways. When the censorship is externally imposed there can be legal and moral problems. However, there are conflicts on deciding which is self-imposed and which is externally applied when you get involved with government agencies and other authorities.

richardshagrin 🚫

@PotomacBob

How do you censor a ship?

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son 🚫

@richardshagrin

By hanging it from chains and burning incense inside it.

Replies:   Radagast
Radagast 🚫

@Dominions Son

There was a superyacht destroyed by fire in Rhode Island a week ago. It had just been hoisted out of the water and was still in the gantry slings. Must have been a buddhist unlaunching ceremony. The owners are now able to practise ascetic rejection of the trappings of wealth.

Remus2 🚫

@PotomacBob

It is censorship if mandated by the government directly or indirectly.

joyR 🚫

@PotomacBob

If Disney refuses to release Song of the South any more because the movie, in some quarters, is considered insensitive on slavery, does that constitute censorship?

Nope. Just buy a copy on ebay.

:)

Replies:   Vincent Berg
Vincent Berg 🚫

@joyR

As an example, I chose to restrict my kids access to the Disney channel, since most of their films and shows are decidedly anti-parent (i.e. undermining and belittling either one or both parents, which I felt didn't contribute to a positive family relationship in a quasi-step-step family (my wife took in her sister's kids when she couldn't deal with them due to extensive drug and alcohol problems, and then I married into that pre-existing relationship (of only a year). However, the bigger problem was the fact that the family continually undermined both of us, as the grandmothers manipulated the kids via the parents.

Replies:   Grey Wolf  joyR
Grey Wolf 🚫

@Vincent Berg

Many (not all!) Disney parent relationships have a 'morality play' angle to them. Yes, the kids undermine and belittle their parents - but that's kids, pretty much of any age. Some just didn't dare say it, but I suspect that might make it worse, not better.

The thing is, in most (but, again, not all) of the stories that I've seen, it turns out that the kids who ignore parental advice wind up in a pickle that they would've avoided had they heeded said advice. That happens over and over. There's a lesson: rebel wisely, not just for the sake of rebellion.

And, yes, kids get that, or at least mine did. And, presented with shows without that going on, they had no interest in watching, because there was no connection to what they saw in the world around them.

joyR 🚫

@Vincent Berg

So you are attempting to control your (step-step) kids by denying them Disney movies…

Telling a kid they can't do something their peers do is a guarantee that doing so becomes extremely desirable.

No dictatorship lasts by enforcing petty rules, history proves that. Chances are your kids will get out of your life as soon as possible, breaking off any further contact. That happens often.

Isn't it better that your kids learn from YOUR mistakes, rather that be controlled by your attempt to 'guide' them?

The best way to prepare your kid for life is to establish trust, invite free, frank, two-way conversation. Prove to them they can tell you how they fucked up WITHOUT you going postal on them.

One day you'll find that only family are allowed to see you. Would you rather they want be present as much as possible? Or watch them smile as they sign for the machine to be turned off?

There is no "right" way to be a parent because what suits one family doesn't suit another. Getting it right is a constant challenge. Getting it wrong is easy.

joyR 🚫

@PotomacBob

Could a privately owned library that lends books to the public be guilty of censorship if it, as a matter of policy, refused to carry books on, say, Buddhism?

You answered you own question. I just made it bold.

awnlee jawking 🚫

@PotomacBob

If Disney refuses to release Song of the South any more because the movie, in some quarters, is considered insensitive on slavery, does that constitute censorship?

Yes, if that's the primary consideration.

The correct approach, IMO, would be to continue to make it available but explain the issues involved.

AJ

Replies:   Michael Loucks
Michael Loucks 🚫

@awnlee jawking

The correct approach, IMO, would be to continue to make it available but explain the issues involved.

Sadly the mob of terminally offended people doesn't see it that way. They subscribe to an "if I don't like it, nobody should be allowed to watch it, read it, or hear it" mentality.

Mushroom 🚫

@PotomacBob

If Disney refuses to release Song of the South any more because the movie, in some quarters, is considered insensitive on slavery, does that constitute censorship?

Yes, it is self-censorship. Done to appease those who actually do not know the source material or the movie itself.

I have read people who agree it should not be released, even pointing that out. Never mind that in the movie it was set after slavery ended. And the dialects spoken are actually still spoken to this day in Georgia.

Or that James Basket got a special Oscar for his performance, and the writings of Joel Chandler Harris have been a treasure trove of folk tales from that era, which if not for his writing them down would have been lost forever. That have even been linked to even older folk tales told in Africa.

I find it a shame and disgrace that the best work of James Basket can not be seen.

Remus2 🚫

@PotomacBob

Could a privately owned library that lends books to the public be guilty of censorship if it, as a matter of policy, refused to carry books on, say, Buddhism?

I have my own personal library built up over a few decades. For people I know, I will allow them to borrow one if they ask. I have religious/spiritual text from around the world in it. I had one particular person ask me why I had them. He was a devote southern babtist. My answer was "why not have them?" There was no reply. The operative word here is "private." If he refused to own such works, that's his choice, one I would respect. It would not be taken as censorship. If they are paying for it, no one else has the right to tell them what to buy.

irvmull 🚫

@PotomacBob

If Disney refuses to release Song of the South any more because the movie, in some quarters, is considered insensitive on slavery, does that constitute censorship?

No. It is virtue signalling by weak minded executives who are more comfortable doing that than to OMG! have to work with "those people".

Disney is the worst performing of the "big seven" Hollywood studios when it comes to hiring black directors, according to a new report.

USC Annenberg's Media, Diversity and Social Change Initiative collected data from the top 100 films at the box office every year for the last decade, and found that 5.1% of directors were black – and none of their films were made or distributed by Disney.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/feb/02/disney-and-diversity-women-and-black-americans-not-making-directors-chair

Back to Top

Close
 

WARNING! ADULT CONTENT...

Storiesonline is for adult entertainment only. By accessing this site you declare that you are of legal age and that you agree with our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.