Censorship - Writers Forum

freebird · 07-17-2005, 05:59 PM

I have been told in more ways than one, by more than person to shut up. The fact that others do the same, if not worse or that one discussion subject is deemed appropriate and another is deem inappropriate makes me wonder? I remember reading this little prayer: Dear God, Grant me courage and eloquence to boldly speak the truth when I know it; honesty to keep my mouth shut when I don't, the wisdom to know the difference, and the determination and integrity to discover the facts.

The little prayer I read was posted by someone named David Veksler. Never heard of him before or since. But it goes well with a recent editorial entitled "Free Speech on Campus: Under Attack from Both Directions?" by Donald A. Downs

"Free Speech on Campus: Under Attack from Both Directions?"

The recent Harvard University faculty vote of “no confidence” for university president Lawrence Summers and the call for the resignation of University of Colorado’s Ward Churchill point to a return of censorship from both the right and the left on college campuses.

In January, Summers was asked at a closed meeting to pose some provocative thoughts about controversies in higher education. Obliging the request, Summers speculated on the reasons why women might, in general, have less aptitude at the higher ends of achievement in science and math than men. The reaction by the feminist left to these remarks was swift and strong, culminating in the “no confidence” vote on Summers. That the faculty of America’s most renowned university considered the enforcement of a politically correct viewpoint more important than respect for free thought and the honest pursuit of truth speaks volumes about the status of free speech and academic freedom in higher education.

Recent speeches by professor Ward Churchill accusing Americans of being “murderers” for tolerating American policy in the world, and comparing the victims of the World Trade Center attacks to “little Eichmanns” who were somehow morally culpable for their fate, has also had significant fallout. The president of the University of Colorado has resigned, and Colorado officials are calling for Churchill to be fired. When the University of Wisconsin at Whitewater decided not to revoke a previous invitation it extended to Churchill to speak (one of the few schools to take this stand), the Wisconsin legislature debated a resolution that would have empowered the University of Wisconsin’s Board of Regents to “timely dismiss” a professor whose ideas they deem to be “dishonorable.” That this power would destroy the very fabric of academic freedom escaped the champions of this measure.

These responses suggest that many individuals who should know better have not learned the lessons of the last fifteen years, when a different type of censorship began to spread across college campuses around the country: censorship in the name of “politically correct” leftist causes. Such censorship sent a chill across higher education, unfairly ruining many careers in the process. The Churchill affair portends the return of a more traditional type of censorship: that purveyed by the right, coming from outside the university’s gates. Suddenly, academic freedom is besieged from both the left and the right.

The politically correct censorship of the left also remains alive and well, in another recent case at the University of Nevada. Consider the plight of economics professor Hans Hoppe at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Last November, Hoppe spent a minute or two in a lecture opining about how homosexuals might have different time horizons in making decisions about saving money because they tend not to have their own children. This remark offended a student, who proceeded to accuse Hoppe of “harassment” of homosexuals. (Whatever happened to taking the intellectual freedom route by talking to the professor or presenting a counter-view in class!) An all too typical coercive investigation ensued. Fortunately for academic freedom, Hoppe is resisting the investigation, and has marshaled the support of the supporters of academic freedom around the country.

All of these cases reflect the political imbalance of faculties nationwide and the politically selective way in which some on the left have reacted to the most prominent threats to free speech and academic freedom on campus. Conservatives have borne the brunt of speech codes and related policies, and have comprised the vast majority of speakers who have been shouted down when they enter the campus public forum. Too many on the left have not spoken out against such forms of censorship, probably because the other side’s ox was being gored. Indeed, Churchill himself has obstructed Columbus Day parades, claiming that they represent “hate speech.” He was no champion of free speech until his own speech came under attack.

But the last thing American campuses need is censorship from the right piling onto the preexisting censorship from the left. Universities will not regain the public trust that they have squandered until they stand up and defend the principles of free speech and academic freedom for everyone, regardless of their politics.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Donald A. Downs is a Research Fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland, California and Professor of Political Science, Law, and Journalism at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. He is the author of the new book Restoring Free Speech and Liberty on Campus (Cambridge University Press).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is censorship to you?

freebird · 07-17-2005, 06:20 PM

Here is an example of censorship in Great Britian.

Quote:

Left-wingers fall out over claims of censorship
By Stephen Robinson
(Filed: 05/03/2002)

ALLEGATIONS of censorship are roiling through the world of Left-wing magazines as disgruntled writers say they have been muzzled in trying to challenge their editors' post-September 11 anti-Americanism.

John Lloyd, a former editor of the New Statesman as well as a regular contributor, became so disgusted by the magazine's "ferociously anti-American coverage" and its savage criticism of Tony Blair for backing Washington that he wrote a letter for publication denouncing it.

In his letter, Mr Lloyd said the magazine's failure to advance any kind of alternative to the war on terrorism meant it had opted to "abdicate criticism and analysis for denunciation and cynicism".

He noted that the New Statesman had a long record of getting important issues wrong, such as its past belief that Stalin was a great leader and that Hitler should be appeased. "It is now tending to follow and confirm a fashion on the Left that America is the source of world evils and that New Labour is a servile failure," he wrote.

As a former editor, he had reason to assume the letter would be published without quibble but Peter Wilby, the editor, had other ideas.

"There is no reason why John, who is a regular contributor, should have a privileged position to attack the editorial line of the New Statesman," Mr Wilby said. Four weeks after Mr Lloyd sent his letter, it remained unseen by outsiders until he emailed it to The Telegraph yesterday.

Mr Wilby said he had taken a policy decision that the magazine would vigorously oppose the "war on terrorism", partly to make itself distinctive in a crowded media market. He said there was also a clear commercial logic to his magazine's editorial line, as circulation had surged by almost 25 per cent since September 11.

In the current issue, one columnist offers his New Statesman earnings to anyone who will kill President Bush though, given the notorious stinginess of the magazine's payments, that is unlikely to prove a tempting offer.

Similar charges of censorship and anti-Americanism have stirred the normally tranquil waters of the London Review of Books, a somnolent Left-wing literary journal.

The magazine "spiked" a lengthy essay by David Marquand, the political scientist, praising Mr Blair's "impeccable" response to the September 11 attacks.

Mary-Kay Wilmers, the editor, emailed Mr Marquand explaining that she could not run the piece as "I can't square it with my conscience to praise so wholeheartedly Blair's conduct since September 11".

In an effort to mollify her disgruntled contributor, she added: "I hope you won't think I'm being doctrinaire."

Mr Marquand was furious, firing back an email denouncing her "outrageous" decision to censor his writing, noting it was the first time it had happened to him in 40 years of writing freelance articles for various journals.

He said: "What you are really saying, camouflaged by this talk of conscience, is that the contents of your paper have to conform to your personal prejudices . . ."

Mr Lloyd says a new "bunker mentality" has taken hold on the Left, combining the old neo-Marxist intelligentsia and the younger, idealistic voices of anti-globalisation.

© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2005.

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...05/nleft05.xml

freebird · 07-17-2005, 06:22 PM

"The only freedom which counts is the freedom to do what some other people think to be wrong. There is no point in demanding freedom to do that which all will applaud. All the so-called liberties or rights are things which have to be asserted against others who claim that if such things are to be allowed their own rights are infringed or their own liberties threatened. This is always true, even when we speak of the freedom to worship, of the right of free speech or association, or of public assembly. If we are to allow freedoms at all there will constantly be complaints that either the liberty itself or the way in which it is exercised is being abused, and, if it is a genuine freedom, these complaints will often be justified. There is no way of having a free society in which there is not abuse. Abuse is the very hallmark of liberty."

--Former Lord Chief Justice Halisham, U.K.

What is censorship to you?

Hodge · 07-17-2005, 06:26 PM

Censorship is the act of simply not allowing a form of expression.

Certain things, like yelling "bomb!" on a crowded airplane, are very dangerous, and in those cases the safety of everyone onboard takes precedence over your right to make an ass of yourself. But otherwise, anything should go. People need to be educated about things—we don't have free will, and if given the right information we'll make the same choices. Forcing someone to stop being an idiot only leads to an idiotic resistance.

freebird · 07-19-2005, 08:25 AM

Your freedom ends where my begins.

Capulet · 07-20-2005, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freebird

Your freedom ends where my begins.

Ah, but where does yours begin, and mine end? What if I enjoy burning garbage in my backyard, or holding loud backyard parties at 2AM?

We all agree to give up some personal freedom to coexist peacefully in society. Like your previous post stated, it's a balacing act between acting responsibly within society while still defending your rights against those who would limit you for their own selfish ends.

Talia_Brie · 07-20-2005, 08:36 PM

[ot:56ebe3d145]Capulet's back

Yay, the flying dog[/ot:56ebe3d145]

Capulet · 07-21-2005, 10:26 AM

Hey Talia

I'm gonna have to jump out of this Debate thread though, as it's gonna blooow my mind arguing some of these points. I'm just too much the devil's advocate to ever let a debate end! lol

Viper9 · 07-23-2005, 10:43 PM

The Telegraph article reprinted here is a good example of free expression at work. Despite the Telegraph's dubious record of honesty and long history of scandal-mongering for right-wing causes, it's allowed to publish what it wishes (thankful, surely, for the weak libel laws in the UK).

Good for them!

freebird · 07-24-2005, 01:40 PM

Hey Viper, post it or at least the link. Thanks!

Capulet · 07-25-2005, 03:05 PM

I think he was talking about the article you had posted above Freebird.

freebird · 07-25-2005, 06:49 PM

You are right. Man I was pumped for some new information. Thanks Capulet

Sixpack · 09-26-2006, 09:26 PM

censorship is when the Pope cannot speak without uprising and cartoonists must hide

Mystery · 09-28-2006, 02:07 PM

Cencorship is beautiful.
I would rather live with censorship than withoutout it, the real question is who should control censorship? I would fully allow someone like hodge to do so, because he has the understanding to do it properly, like he said stuff like shouting "bomb" or "terrorist" in an airplane is dangerous, as would be expressive views that all black people must die or that whites are superior(racism arguement).
However, censoring thing's like swear words in songs, imho, is just wrong. It's an excuse for parents to be lazy. The children WILL learn these words and use them wherever you like them or not, im living proof of that, I will never keep my children from swearing even infront or me, I will only let them know the consequences of pissing me off with overuse of it.

Hodge · 09-28-2006, 04:38 PM

Umm, I wouldn't advocate that kind of censorship... I wouldn't advocate any censorship. You can still cry "fire!" in a crowder theater, but you'll just get in trouble for causing damage without cause. And I'd never tell someone they couldn't say something racist. Then there'd be no reason for me to reply with some caustic remark.