Thread: Censorship

Does the frequently read phrase, "all should be permissible on a writing site, there should be no censorship", really hold up? Is any subject matter, whatever content, from any angle, really acceptable?

I see you've been dipping in the moonshine again....

Damn, you cranking this up again.
Actually, I always figured most people who haunt writing sites are aware that some are cool with some things but not others, while the next site might have different guidelines. So you get aware of this and put stuff where it's accepted.

I think the larger question is the one I raised in the "education" trainwreck: are there ANY sort of absolute rights anywhere, online or real world? I mentioned WalMart not selling certain records and MTV no running certain videos. They're businesses: they show or sell what they choose. Anybody who doesn't like it is free to open their own network or store.

I'd say that I pretty much don't beleive there is such a thing as "censorship" in the private sector. Just selection. If a government is censorting news or art or whatever, people can complain because they are supposedly a member of that government. But if the New York Times decided not to run an stories about China whupping up on Tibet, is that "censorship", or just a private enterprise exercising it's own pursuit of happiness?

These kind of questions will become more numerous over the next few years, just watch.

I am not happy about people messing with my work, and have been known to walk out on badly needed paychecks rather than let a single phrase go out under my byline if it makes me too ill. (Example: the phrase "African American". I'm not retarded so I don't use words like that). But everybody has the right to run their own business as they see fit. (Notice I didn't take the money, THEN yap about being "censored".)

This strikes me as a highly noobish concern. To stereotype, I would see "censorship" declaimers as idealistic sophomores, whereas experienced writers and artists have come to grips with the world of other people and relative rights of authorship.

DISCLAIMER: Some potentially offensive stuff follows.





































My position is that writing forums should naturally engender dialogue. Censorship obviously limits dialogue. If somebody wants to post erotic photographs of their autistic eight year old son, or upload their oil painting in which Hitler sodomizes a Hassid, I'm game. Both are disgusting images, and harsh words would be exchanged by both audience and artist, but my belief is that the point of art, if there is any point to art at all, is to provoke a reaction in all parties involved. Not everybody will agree about certain things in art. Probably nobody will agree on anything in or about art. Fortunately, art isn't about agreement or disagreement. It's about resonance. Art without resonance is like a castrated cupid, or a pitbull without any of his teeth. Art without resonance is ultimately pointless because it doesn't make people talk about it. Setting little boundaries to delineate acceptability is taking a snip out of those balls and knocking out a few of those teeth. One could make a good argument (not me, not now) that setting those boundaries is an arbitrary process as far as art is concerned (legality and ethics are another matter entirely).

In my book, the point of art is to give people a good time, or at least incite thinking. Showing people pictures of sodomy ain't art to me, unless it does one of those two things (the vast majority of the time, no). And if it does the former, something wrong's going on.

Originally Posted by caelum

In my book, the point of art is to give people a good time, or at least incite thinking. Showing people pictures of sodomy ain't art to me, unless it does one of those two things (the vast majority of the time, no). And if it does the former, something wrong's going on.

I think your definition pigeonholes. No idea where you got the "give people a good time" bit. Some art accomplishes that, especially things like music and film, but it doesn't mean it is essential to the idea of art. Entertainment is consequential, not fundamental. Also, thinking is a part of it, but what about feeling? Imo, art should work the heart as much as it works the head. That is why I used the word "resonance". Covers both angles and maybe a few more.

If you don't think sodomy is art, then I imagine you have your reasons (not that I agree or disagree either way). And if you don't already have them, then you will make them. Or as you put it, it "incites thought". And if we were to get into a debate over the artistic validity of pictures conveying sodomy (and the debate over the line between the erotic and the pornographic will never be resolved), then our dialogue is a reflection on the representation(s) of sodomy we both reference in that dispute.

Originally Posted by Edgewise

I think your definition pigeonholes. No idea where you got the "give people a good time" bit. Some art accomplishes that, especially things like music and film, but it doesn't mean it is essential to the idea of art. Entertainment is consequential, not fundamental.

You say entertaining is consequential to art, but I say that that depends on your definition of art. According to my definition, it is fundamental. My art exists to entertain, to no other purpose, hence "give people a good time". Of course, others may not share my defintion.

Also, thinking is a part of it, but what about feeling? Imo, art should work the heart as much as it works the head. That is why I used the word "resonance". Covers both angles and maybe a few more.

Feeling was directly addressed by the first half of my definition, "giving people a good time". What could that refer to if not feeling? Don't think by good time I mean happiness; that is part of it, but on the whole I mean a positive emotional response. That can include sadness, even anger. If I watch a sad, thought provoking movie like Schindler's List, that is a positive emotional response for me.

Originally Posted by Edgewise

If you don't think sodomy is art, then I imagine you have your reasons (not that I agree or disagree either way). And if you don't already have them, then you will make them.

This is a curious statement. Are you implying that I will invent reasons to support my position?

As for sodomy being represented as art, if it is done in a way that incites thought or creates a positive emotional response, then I will accept it as art. I'm basically flying with my definition up there because I don't see anything wrong with it.

During the bleeper experiment, I looked at a few of the stories I'd posted and was a little surprised by the all the asterisks. To me the problem was the asterisks were distracting and kind of took me out of the story and I didn't like it. However, I did not shake my fists at the heavens and cry censorship. I actually got a little chuckle out of it.

The way I see it, I post my work here for feedback. This isn't -- I hope -- the ultimate venue for it. So while I think the asterisks deal or any more heavy-handed means of eliminating profanity is less than ideal, I don't think it would prevent anyone from reading my work and commenting on it. We're all writers here -- theoretically -- and hopefully have decent imaginations, therefore I think we'd all be capable of figuring things out by the context.

But more importantly, because I don't see this as the ultimate destination for writing, I think the case for censorship is very weak. Once I'm satisfied with a piece of writing, I'm free to submit it to any publication and include any language or content I wish.

I think there are some folks who get a certain amount of gratification from feeling persecuted and making a big deal out of things. In this case, I think some people lost sight of what this place is for. It's a tool. A means of improving. It's not a showcase for work. And even if it was, it would be up to the discretion of the owner to decide what's shown and what isn't. Just like any publication, theater, gallery, etc. etc.

I think you'd find that an absolutely anything goes forum would eventually descend into a place where people are simply trying to out-shock each other. I think the many of the people we all look to for valuable feedback would leave. And then what would you have?

So we're left with trying to please as many people as possible. To maintain some sort of balance. That involves a lot of subjective judgment and a good dose of common sense. I think if we all make some effort to think twice, consider the wider membership and why we're all here in the first place, it shouldn't be problem -- especially considering the amount of leeway we have if we just use a simple disclaimer in the creative sections.

I'm sorry for the roughness in the former thread. I think if some statement from the moderators, where it clearly articulates we're in a very unfortunate, yet necessary situation of limiting a usage of certain words, but then aptly justifies it, by giving some way more concrete examples of what the site else has to put up with and how this action will help it, it would dampen up the tensions around here.
If such a statement is not possible, then I cannot believe all the word fuzz before was anything else than evasive maneuvers, steering the boat around the storm.

Having the discussion continue here in another box, without such a statement starting it, seems to me quite pointless. At least in regards to those unhappy with the principle of censuring certain words on these boards. And that is where this whole topic comes from, is it not?

And btw sorry for going off-topic! I thought it smarter to say here than start a new thread in the suggestion box...

I think if some statement from the moderators, where it clearly articulates we're in a very unfortunate, yet necessary situation of limiting a usage of certain words...

Again, with a disclaimer, you can use profanity in the creative sections. What's so unfortunate?

This thread was started to discus the issue of censorship in general. I understand that some may view it in terms of the moderation on this particular forum but that was not the aim of the OP.

You said writing site -- not censorship in general. Given that, not exaclty a big leap to take this forum into consideration.

Originally Posted by JosephB

You said writing site -- not censorship in general. Given that, not exaclty a big leap to take this forum into consideration.

You're being pedantic, Joseph, or perhaps I worded the OP badly. I was just making the point that this was not intended to become an extension of that other thread. Martin put it into my head that a discussion on censorship in general, and attitudes to it, wouldn't be a bad idea. Of course, board moderation is an element of that but it isn't the specific issue on this one.

Originally Posted by Baron

...or perhaps I worded the OP badly.

There are plenty of other writing sites around.

Most of the ones I have visited do not just allow any old material to be posted.