What is censorship?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Inspired by the recent news/joke re radio stations "banning" songs deemed controversial in light of the recent tragedy. I have a feeling the word "censorship" should only be applied to the actions of government. Private businesses, be they Wal-Mart or a radio conglomerate, have the right to decide how and what they sell to their customers (just as we have a right to protest/boycott based on what they do and do not provide to customers.) But the word “censorship,” as it applies to free speech guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution, does not apply.

I had an involved email discussion on this subject a long while ago with Eric Nuzum, who wrote a book on the subject (here is his web site -- http://ericnuzum.com/banned/). My argument was that indie record stores are not “censoring” Celine Dion when they refuse to stock her records, and the same applies to Marilyn Manson (or whoever) and Wal-Mart. Nuzum felt that the intention behind business decisions is what made an act censorship (refusing to stock Marilyn Manson because your customers don’t want to buy it is one thing, refusing to stock him because of what he represents is another.) Any thoughts? When do business decisions become infringements on free speech, as defined by your government?

― Mark, Wednesday, 19 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

This is England. If somebody, anybody, anywhere in the country is paralyzed by arachnophobia, 'Spiderman' goes. If somebody gets killed by an exploding toaster, all records by Bread are banned. It was even worse in Canada, except there you didn't have tabloids screaming 'Ban This Sick Filth!' for days.

― dave q, Wednesday, 19 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Then surely England wins for comedy outrage value?

― DG, Wednesday, 19 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Do corporations have the same rights as individuals? A big effort to sell the idea of corporate = private in the last half of the century has certainly defined them as such. If that's the case, then itz all biznezz, baby.

― Jason, Wednesday, 19 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I don't think a business decision by a private company about what they sell EVER counts as an act of censorship, unless it has some sway over law. Refusing to distribute an item is not the same as making it a crime to *consume* that item and if a product is unavailable because key sellers won't stock it, it's not a censorship / free speech issue at all: rather, a problem with the free market.

It comes close to a dividing line with the BBC (being funded by tv owners through the licence) and also film certification, which is a ludicrous failing legal imposition.

Meanwhile I don't think the UK is particularly restrictive, we just have odd ways of keeping the darker stuff hidden and occasionally lapses. The tabloids don't really control what we can see, just perhaps what is broadcast nationally during peak hours. We've had Chris Morris, Intimacy got a national film release, Andres Serrano is at the Barbican next month.

I'm totally against censorship in any circumstance, even the most horrific you can imagine. I reckon responsibility for what children see lies entirely with those who are in charge of them.

― chris, Wednesday, 19 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Ya know, I think we go about everything completely wrong. Some movement has to happen in which people change their core beliefs or else no amount of laws will help us figure out how to live freely and peacefully. Censorship is stupid, but it can seem necessary in a world that encourages seperateness and violence. We say we are for freedom and fairness and opposed to violence and prejudice but our entire way of life is based on getting what you can before the other guy does, hoarding what's valuable, raising prices on rare commodities, winning at all costs (or whatever's considered "fair" at the moment, a definition of which can justify almost any action, depending on individual perception).

So, it comes back to those who have stuff and those who are in need of stuff, the winners and the losers. The fact that there are people in need of stuff is the very reason some words or images are perceived as a threat; these words or images speak about the unfairness of society and to the people who identify with this reality. It scares those who have stuff and acts as an aggitator for those who don't have stuff.

But, censorship is not all about violence. People want to censor you speech and your sexual behavior and sexual preferences. This is more than just "polite society", this is controlling society and it should be illegal. Libidos are natural and therefore more "right" than any restrictions certain people might want to put on it. Words are arbitrarily judged by people with ridiculous moral hang-ups. These people need to get a grip on reality. "Fuck" is "sex" it just sounds different. And "fucking" means either "having sex" or "very much", as in "I fucking love ice cream!" There is nothing fucking wrong with it. 100 years ago "poop" was probably naughty. It's still naughty and shameful to talk about your feces. Who decided this shit? And what's wrong with examining my cock in public? At what age is nudity no longer "cute"?

What is censorship? Nonsense.

― Nude Spock, Wednesday, 19 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Censorship is a warm puppy. Wait, that's not right...

― Dan Perry, Wednesday, 19 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Spock, do you really "examine" your cock in public?

― Sean, Wednesday, 19 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

"this is controlling society and it should be illegal": sorry, this made me chuckle...

― mark s, Wednesday, 19 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Little oxymoron, paradox what have you... ;-)

The point is not whether I examine my cock in public, but whether or not it is permissible. And, as long as we're on the subject, it is not permissible for anyone to examine their cock in front of me... until we've made the change.

― Nude Spock, Wednesday, 19 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Censorship is fucking awful. See dave q's comments.

― rezna, Wednesday, 19 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

i call for a public examination of spock's cock, before any judegemetns are passed

― Geoff, Thursday, 20 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

two years pass...

Censorship is bassed soley on religious concerns. Christions of all kinds are the majority of all people in America. And they seem to be controling what is censerd based *only* on there values. Why else would Wal mart refuse to stock marilin manson? There are actualy people in the world who beilive in what he represents. (im not one of them:) ) you never here them complaining.

― Jonathan towles, Wednesday, 31 March 2004 20:02 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, Marillion Manson. Xtians hate that shock-prog.

― Vitamin Leee (Leee), Wednesday, 31 March 2004 20:26 (twenty-one years ago)

The point is not whether I examine my cock in public

Errr....yes it is, buddy. That's exactly the point. Ah ha ha ha....HA HA ha ha ha....Ah ha ha ha ha!

― Skottie, Wednesday, 31 March 2004 21:57 (twenty-one years ago)

thirteen years pass...

as @planoneck notes, one of the few mainstream outlets to note this moral hazard was NYTimes yesterday https://t.co/lWPjWevs8Q
— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) September 27, 2017

― ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 27 September 2017 20:30 (eight years ago)

mods pls delete

― Mr. Eulon Mask, urging the UN to ban the "homicide robot" (bizarro gazzara), Wednesday, 27 September 2017 20:32 (eight years ago)

Posting tweets as if it were content is censorship

― passé aggresif (darraghmac), Wednesday, 27 September 2017 20:33 (eight years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.