column: EUOLogy: On Pullman and Censorship

[Sigyn]

Insisting that a movie should be boycotted because the ideas contained therein don't agree with yours is equivalent to sticking your fingers in your ears and humming.

Actually, this seems completely appropriate to me.  We live in a free market economy.  If you disagree with a book, don't buy it.  If you disagree with a movie, don't see it. And you are perfectly within your rights to encourage others not to see it as well.  This isn't censorship; this is exercising the right of the dollar. If I think a book is crap and tell others not to read it, that isn't censorship.  My reasons for hating the book doesn't make my trying to get others not to read it censorship either.

As for not letting children see R-rated movies, that's because the government believes in protecting children from certain things like explicit content. However, they can't stop you from showing your kids these things in your own home. It's the difference between public and private consumption.  Here's an interesting article on that:
http://www.slate.com/id/2175730/entry/2175743/

[Skar]

Actually, this seems completely appropriate to me.  We live in a free market economy.  If you disagree with a book, don't buy it.  If you disagree with a movie, don't see it. And you are perfectly within your rights to encourage others not to see it as well.  This isn't censorship; this is exercising the right of the dollar. If I think a book is crap and tell others not to read it, that isn't censorship.  My reasons for hating the book doesn't make my trying to get others not to read it censorship either.

As my statement, which you quoted, makes pretty clear, I didn't say it was censorship.  I agree with you, and explained that I agree, that you're within your rights to stick your fingers in your ears and hum.  And you are, as I explained, also perfectly within your rights to encourage others to also stick their fingers in their ears and hum.   It's just a little pathetic that those who are so averse to the ideas in the movie are so unsure of the quality of their own ideas that they feel they mustn't even listen to the ideas in the movie. It's not wrong, just pathetic.   Are they afraid that the ideas in the movie make more sense than theirs do?  Are they afraid that they're so virally compelling that they or their children will be unable to resist them?

As for not letting children see R-rated movies, that's because the government believes in protecting children from certain things like explicit content. However, they can't stop you from showing your kids these things in your own home. It's the difference between public and private consumption.  Here's an interesting article on that:
http://www.slate.com/id/2175730/entry/2175743/

Yes, when I referred to the secular laws against taking kids to "those" films, I was, in fact, talking about the government.
So is it censorhip?  Is it appropriate? (I think it is.)  Why?  What's the difference between censoring explicit sexual content or graphic violence and censoring certain ideas, like the brand of atheism in "The Golden Compass"?

[Fellfrosch]

I do believe that something must be enforced to count as censorship, but I don't believe that it has to be enforced with the threat of violence. A librarian refusing to stock certain books in the 50s, when those books were completely unavailable through other means, was censorship in every sense, because it was one person choosing and enforcing what other people could and couldn't read. The fact that they didn't do it with a gun doesn't mean it's not censorship.

That kind of thing is almost impossible today, because information is so freely available.

[Skar]

Fell: I quibble.

Quibble 1
If the book being out of the library did, in fact, make it "completely unavailable" then the librarians actions were, in fact, backed up by the threat of violence.  Since forcing the librarian to change her actions would be illegal, the law protected her actions.  And, as we all know, the law only carries force because of, ultimately, the threat of violence.

Quibble 2
My second quibble is that, even in the 50s, the library was not the only source for the books in question.  And as long as it was perfectly legal for private citizens to obtain the book on their own, it wasn't enforced censorship.  It was simply a librarian abusing her position to make it harder to get the book.  And to prevent that paradigm you'd have to start legislating what a librarian can and cannot request for her library.  Nobody wants that.  It would be far simpler, if the town in question wanted the book badly enough, to simply replace the librarian. 

Of course, if the local government resisted her replacement with the power of the law, then, again, we're back to the threat of violence.

[Fellfrosch]

Well if you're going to define enforcement as being inherently founded, however remotely, on violence, then yes, all censorship is enforced by violence. Well done.

[Spriggan]

Now, here's a question for y'all.  I can't quite put my finger on the difference between saying you shouldn't take your kids to see "The Golden Compass" and saying you shouldn't take your kids to see "SAW4" or "Debbie Does Dallas." 

I actually was going to use this against EUOL when he was making this Pullman argument against my mother (saying that she should have an open mind and can't judge it unless she's seen it), I don't need to see a porn movie to know I don't want to see it, same with torture porn.  I know I don't want to see that, same with something that's anti-religious.

I don't give a rat's butt if you see it, that's your choice, but don't tell me that I should try before I decided if I don't like something.  That's bull, and everyone knows it.  Though I probably will see Golden Compass, I know the first book isn't that anti-religious and I don't have any problem with seeing something that was written by someone who thinks differently then me--which is good because then I would never watch any movies ever.

[Spriggan]

I do believe that something must be enforced to count as censorship, but I don't believe that it has to be enforced with the threat of violence. A librarian refusing to stock certain books in the 50s, when those books were completely unavailable through other means, was censorship in every sense, because it was one person choosing and enforcing what other people could and couldn't read. The fact that they didn't do it with a gun doesn't mean it's not censorship.

That kind of thing is almost impossible today, because information is so freely available.

What if I as a bookseller refused to stock a book because I don't agree with the content inside?  Is that censorship? 

A librarian doing that could be since she's a government employee, but what if she refused to stalk a porn book or (as actually happened) that book Madonna made that she was nothing but nude in?  And even if that is censorship why is it acceptable to do so (since I know most here will agree that those things should be in a library).

The problem with censorship, and why I really don't like to argue as much as others on this (I just want to know what people consider censorship) is because it's such an subjective thing and no two people will ever really agree on it.

[Fellfrosch]

I would say, Sprig, that a bookseller refusing to stock a book based on content is a form of censorship. Deseret Book refusing to carry Anita Stansfield because her book portrays an adulterous relationship is censorship. Larry Miller refusing to carry Brokeback Mountain in his theaters because it's about gay men is censorship. Because of the world and age we live in these particular forms of censorship did not really affect us, because they were very narrow and we have plenty of other outlets to get this media if we wanted it. But "censored" does not mean "eradicated from existence." Just because you can obtain the media by other means does not change the fact that Deseret Book and Larry Miller censored them.

[Skar]

Yes, all enforcement is based on the threat of violence, neither by a cavalier definition on my part nor all that remotely.  Since the enforcer has to answer the question, "How are you going to stop me?" it's unavoidable.  Next time a cop tries to stop you for speeding, try just ignoring him.  You'll see that it gets quite violent, very quickly.

If we're going to define censorship as "anyone choosing not to disseminate a piece of artwork for any reason" like Larry Miller and Brokeback Mountain or Deseret Book and Anita Stansfield in your example, then you and I are censors too for we are not disseminating those works either.

Seems to me that censorship, in order to have any useful meaning, has to describe a person or people forcing other people not to see something. Attaching penalties to possession of the offending work, destroying all copies of the offending work, etc...  In your two examples, the guilty parties are merely deciding not to promote something.  It's not censorship, it's free will.  Theirs.

[42]

I don't see a librarian refusing to stock a book as censorship or school saying that a certain book shouldn't be taught. It may be close-minded of those people, but they have a right to be close minded.

For example, I work with some people from time-to-time he feel that they are unjustly censored becaused the government placed them into a correctional facility for view certain media materials. Their reading/viewing material was all child pornography.

I'm okay that the government forcefully censors child pornography. I'm okay with people who view it, distribute it, and make it being horribly punished. Some I wish were punished more severely. I'm fine with my mind being closed to the ideas of child pornography. (To be more open-minded, some of the clients I work with are wonderful people, but would be more wonderful if they were dead.)

In actuality, closing our minds to certain ideas is how people keep their sanity. I would love it if more people were open to understanding more about the plight of the poor in the U.S., AIDS and war in Africa, the treatment of people with mental illnesses, the U.S. health care system, child and domestic abuse, etc.

Honestly, a lot of people I know (friends, co-workers, family) can't handle understanding what it going on. If we were open to understanding everything that happening and all the ideas that are out there, we'd all be wither delusional or disfunctionally depressed. Most people, at their core, would rather be happy than smart or well-informed. So we pick and choose what topics we can handle. I see too many authors out there that try to force their ideas on people, which is just abusive, then scream censorship when people fight back. The censorship counter-attack is just getting old--they should stand up for their ideas some other way.

So I'm okay with peope sticking their heads in the sands. I'm okay with an author not being read. I'm okay with people encouraging others to stick their heads in the sands. People have agency to pull out their heads and the right to face the consequences.

As for people who view things that the government (or a school, community, or religious organization) forceful says they shouldn't view, I feel that organization should be free to use whatever punishments are within their authority. The government can through you in jail; school can suspend, give detention, or expell; communities can ask you to move or stay under the radar; churches can ask you leave the congragation. If you feel the cost of reading the book is worth it, then you're welcome to it.

[stacer]

Librarians debate the censorship question all the time, now, not just in the 50s. Usually, though, they're on the side of free access (let the user decide whether they want to read it, not the librarian) because they see themselves as simply information intermediaries.

I also wouldn't dream to use the word "abusive" if an author writes a book that expresses a viewpoint I didn't agree with. I don't have to read the book, and just because I didn't want to read it doesn't mean others shouldn't have that freedom. That's just an odd description to use.

I posted about this on my own blog today, more related to Mormons in fantasy and children's lit, but I've gotten some interesting comments, if anybody's interested in reading the conversation.

[Skar]

I don't need to see a porn movie to know I don't want to see it, same with torture porn.  I know I don't want to see that, same with something that's anti-religious.

See, this is the question I'm interested in teasing apart.

I am totally OK with the guvmint censoring torture porn and all it's ilk.  I'm not OK with the guvmint censoring atheist movies or mormon movies or communist movies or jewish movies or marxist movies or nazi movies , etc... 

There's a line there.

What defines it?  Why is censoring porn to keep kids from seeing it different from censoring "The Golden Compass" to keep kids from seeing it?  Is keeping porn from kids merely a moral standard most of us happen to share, or is there some deeper principle involved?  Is there a line of secular reasoning that provides for the one but not the other?

Is it because we're physically wired to react to porn but not to intellectual ideas? 

How about violence then? Violence needs to be censored from kids too.  Are we physically wired in some way that watching violence has a detrimental effect on par with watching porn?
 

[Spriggan]

I would say, Sprig, that a bookseller refusing to stock a book based on content is a form of censorship. Deseret Book refusing to carry Anita Stansfield because her book portrays an adulterous relationship is censorship. Larry Miller refusing to carry Brokeback Mountain in his theaters because it's about gay men is censorship. Because of the world and age we live in these particular forms of censorship did not really affect us, because they were very narrow and we have plenty of other outlets to get this media if we wanted it. But "censored" does not mean "eradicated from existence." Just because you can obtain the media by other means does not change the fact that Deseret Book and Larry Miller censored them.

I would have to completely disagree with you and agree with Skar.  I can't believe that something someone does from free will as censoring, which is why I believe for something to actually be censored the government needs to be behind it, like network censors, the network knows there will be punishment if they don't follow the FCC's rules.  There's no punishment for Larry Miller deciding to show BrokeBack at his theaters so how is not showing them censorship?  That doesn't make any sense to me, even if you're usage of the term is more accurate from a dictionary stance.

(on a funny note my brower spell checker wants to replace FCC with the F*Bomb, irony no?)

[Skar]

Ok, this confluence of real life and forum blatherings is just too good not to point out.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=2190410

Squee!

[Sigyn]

I now have the awful image in my head of Skar going "Squee."

I also want to say that I don't feel that by choosing not to read or see something means I'm sticking my head in the sand.  The only reason that is an issue at all with this movie is because it is controversial.  If it weren't controversial, no one would care if I was seeing it or not.  There are thousands of movies and books that I choose not to read, mostly out of time constraints, but also because of content.  No one ever accused me of sticking my head in the sand because I didn't want to read those.  Keeping an open mind doesn't mean I have to expose myself to everything that's out there.

Also, I don't agree that a library or bookstore choosing not to carry an item counts as censorship.  After all, they can't carry everything (space and budget prohibits), so they are always going to be "censoring" to a certain extent.  The librarians I know choose books that they think will appeal to their patrons.  There will always be a certain amount of bias involved, because they're only human.  I don't think that's censorship either.  Publishers only publish certain books, but does that mean they're censoring?  They aren't stopping other people from publishing those books and they aren't stopping anyone from reading those books.