Thread: Censorship

Originally Posted by Capulet

You should also consider a man walking up to a female coworker and saying something like "I don't think women belong in the workplace while there are babies to feed and floors to wash."

He's just stating his opinion, but how long do you think it would take before he had a sexual harrassment suit against him?

Okay, since it has been recommended that this be considered, let's consider it. I agree that if this man said this, there would be consequences and this is where common sense seems to have deserted our general culture.

In anybody's book this kind of comment should be considered rude. So what kind of common sense response would be called for?

If my boss said it I might wonder if my job was being threatened, context matters a lot right here. So if his opinion of women in the workplace looks to be more important to my future than my work performance, this is a serious problem. I would at the very least want to have a private discussion to clarify.

This would call for a different response than if it was Larry, the guy from the mail room talking over at the coffee machine. I'm assuming that in your comment you're talking about Larry. In this case, shrugging it off with a laugh, a mocking smile, and 'sez you' is probably sufficient. If the guy who holds that opinion has no authority then both he and his opinion can be dismissed as being of no account.

Originally Posted by Foxee

If my boss said it I might wonder if my job was being threatened, context matters a lot right here. So if his opinion of women in the workplace looks to be more important to my future than my work performance, this is a serious problem. I would at the very least want to have a private discussion to clarify.

This would call for a different response than if it was Larry, the guy from the mail room talking over at the coffee machine. I'm assuming that in your comment you're talking about Larry. In this case, shrugging it off with a laugh, a mocking smile, and 'sez you' is probably sufficient. If the guy who holds that opinion has no authority then both he and his opinion can be dismissed as being of no account.

I agree with your response, as I think it falls within the idea of delivering social consequences for bad social behaviour. Deciding if you wanted to work for someone who holds that attitude is appropriate, and I'm maybe a little more vindictive than you so I'd probably have a stronger response for Larry, overt or otherwise. (Try to deliver packages with glued wheels on your cart Mr. Mail Man!)

The problem is, this sort of comment is fodder for the litigious. People will seek damages for harm to reputation, emotional damages, loss of earnings, etc. I don't think all speech, opinion in particular, should have to live under that spectre. If you're claiming something as fact, then perhaps, but not if it's obvious you're just spouting off.

I think the worst part of this is, for Canadians, we have what are called Human Rights Commission, and they have the power to really mess up a person's life, all at the behest of private complaints forwarded to them. The complainant has their legal fees paid for because it's actioned through the state, and the defendant pays their own way. It's been used several times against editors and authors (see the case against Ezra Levant) and is too easy to use as a sword instead of a shield.

Posts relating to moderation have been deleted. The rules of this site are not open to debate. Call that censorship if you like.

Originally Posted by Capulet

I agree with your response, as I think it falls within the idea of delivering social consequences for bad social behaviour. Deciding if you wanted to work for someone who holds that attitude is appropriate, and I'm maybe a little more vindictive than you so I'd probably have a stronger response for Larry, overt or otherwise. (Try to deliver packages with glued wheels on your cart Mr. Mail Man!)

LOL! That would make a good You Tube video, too.

I probably didn't go far enough with consequences with Larry, really (thought about that after I posted) but someone who felt comfortable expressing that kind of opinion openly would probably find themselves ostracized. If they didn't mind that consequence then it wouldn't be much of a consequence but it would be reasonable cause and effect.

The problem is, this sort of comment is fodder for the litigious.

Unfortunately true. Link the possibility of getting money for complaining and people will complain. Lawyers will line up to represent them and get their cut.

I think the worst part of this is, for Canadians, we have what are called Human Rights Commission, and they have the power to really mess up a person's life, all at the behest of private complaints forwarded to them. The complainant has their legal fees paid for because it's actioned through the state, and the defendant pays their own way. It's been used several times against editors and authors (see the case against Ezra Levant) and is too easy to use as a sword instead of a shield.

That sounds like a terrible system.

Originally Posted by MeeQ

Nothing but admire the perfect example of 'freedom of speech'. And then the no doubt riot that would destroy their little hovel.

That's a contradiction in itself. If the result of free speech is getting your property destroyed and possibly bashed, then there's no such thing as free speech.

Abuse of free speech in itself destroys free speech. The media is the biggest destroyers of free speech in western society. Anybody daring to say anything which the media doesn't approve faces a media slandering campaign. In Adelaide a few years ago there was a court case where the main state's print media claimed some guy got his position in an organisation by winning a pissing contest, that he was incontinent etc & etc (not remember the rest). When it went to court, the media organisation in question admitted they made those things up, but they had the right to print it. The media won.
A former Malaysian President also lost a court case in Australia in similar circumstances (media admitted mixing truth with lies in news reports). Now these people mightn't be the nicest people on the planet, but that's not the point.

When you have an organisation group such as the media able to do these things, then not only is there a lack of free speech, you have a lack of democracy. In Australia, much of the material published by media is touching outright lies. Local papers for instance will attack anybody threatening their favourite local council mates by nomination in local elections. At the same time, corruption will be kept hidden.


All of this provides an atmosphere where free speech is artificial and only permissible for special selective groups. The only way to stop this abuse & corruption is to limit free speech. So in effect free speech is self-destructive and cannot exist in reality.

My understanding is that freedom of speech in the United States just means local, state, and federal governments can not arrest you for expressing your views. It does not apply to protecting one from civil lawsuits.

Writ - If, as you say, local, state, and the federal government in the U.S. could arrest someone for expressing their views, I would have been in gaol 20 times at least back in the sixties during the civil rights struggle in Mississippi. My writings were condemned by the State Soverignty Commission, an agency of the state government of Mississippi set up to promote the continuation of segregation. I was named by a Jackson newspaper as a traitor, an enemy of Mississippi, and was called, in print, by a name that does not bear repeating here. I literally had to dodge bullets once returning to Jackson from Natchez with a CBS News Crew I had teamed with. While writing articles and taking pictures demonstrating the evils of segregation enraged the power structure of the time, there was nothing legal they could do to stop us from writing and saying what we believed.

Originally Posted by garza

Writ - If, as you say, local, state, and the federal government in the U.S. could arrest someone for expressing their views, I would have been in gaol 20 times at least back in the sixties during the civil rights struggle in Mississippi. My writings were condemned by the State Soverignty Commission, an agency of the state government of Mississippi set up to promote the continuation of segregation. I was named by a Jackson newspaper as a traitor, an enemy of Mississippi, and was called, in print, by a name that does not bear repeating here. I literally had to dodge bullets once returning to Jackson from Natchez with a CBS News Crew I had teamed with. While writing articles and taking pictures demonstrating the evils of segregation enraged the power structure of the time, there was nothing legal they could do to stop us from writing and saying what we believed.

Lol. My bad, garza. I edited it to say: can not.

You white Civil Rights activists and supporters were hated and attacked more viciously at times than your black peers in the movement.

What about censorship in the public education system?

I will never forget that time in 8th grade when my teacher (who was also the department head of English) handed back my poem with the words "UNACCEPTABLE PLEASE RE-DO" written on it. It was a poem about a girl who was constantly bullied for having a medical condition. The theme of the poem wasn't the problem, but rather the ending. The poem ends off with her being murdered by her classmates and her dead body being discarded into a swimming pool.

My intention for that poem wasn't to promote hateful behaviour or violence. If anything, it was to bring awareness to the issues of bullying, intolerance, and ignorance. I had a talk with the school administrators about whether that decision of "censorship" was justified. They told me that it was solely the teacher's descretion when it came to the issue of assignments. I ended up re-doing that assignment, but with a poem about the lives of fish swimming around in a tank. That's a different story altogether though.

Fast forward several years later to my second year creative writing course. My instructor told us what was acceptable and what wasn't at the beginning of the semester. Coarse language, violence, sexuality (including rape), and other taboo subjects are allowed in our assignments as long as they add to the plot. If you were writing a piece set in WWII or in South Africa under Apartheid, descriptions of racism would be acceptable. On the other hand, extremely graphic violence just for the sake of it was frowned upon. It's like comparing Saving Private Ryan to a slasher film.

In a small town not too far from where I live, a student was suspended from school because of a play she wrote. The play was about the murder of a gay student and it wasn't intended to be hateful. She probably had similar intentions to me. She took it to the media but it didn't get too far from there on (didn't make it to national news). When they interviewed her, the first thing she said was "have you read Nineteen Eighty-Four?"

Where would you draw the line when it comes to public education?

I wonder about how many times the likes of John Steinbeck, Margaret Atwood, J.D. Salinger, and Mark Twain have been told by their teachers that their work was "unacceptable?


Revekka

Originally Posted by Revekka

What about censorship in the public education system?

...Where would you draw the line when it comes to public education?

I wonder about how many times the likes of John Steinbeck, Margaret Atwood, J.D. Salinger, and Mark Twain have been told by their teachers that their work was "unacceptable?

I think there are two different ideas at work here: writing for yourself, and writing for others.

When you are writing for others, be it a teacher, editor, or client you have certain criteria given to you and you either meet them or you don't. If your client asked you to write a poem about flowers and you wrote one about birds, you would be either asked to redo it, or fired. A teacher is your client; if you do not hand in what they want, they will likely at the very least ask you to change it. That's just the reality of writing for others.

As for getting suspended for writing a play, I think that's a little harsh. They could certainly ask her to resubmit something for the purposes of the assignment, and then simply not provide a venue to perform the original play if they disagreed with the contents, but I rarely think kicking someone out of school solves much, particularly for a non-violent issue. A couple chats with the guidance counciller perhaps?

Writing for yourself is a completely different beast though, and the world opens up dramatically in that scenario.