Censorship

I censor myself.

Actually I should rephrase that. When I write things for publication here, I read over it, check for misspellings, revise text, and remove things on occasion. This is the normal proofreading process, and I would be remiss if I did not do it. I edit myself.

Often, I reread things and find misspellings. I go back and fix them. Sometimes, as with the incorrect reference earlier this summer, I make a mistake and want to draw attention to it. This week, I even removed a link form an article before I posted it.

I had found pictures of The United Satanic Apache Front performing, and had linked to them from the Jack Davis birthday description in the Willie Brown lampoon. I changed my mind before posting the piece and removed the hyperlink.

Why? I don't know exactly. It didn't seem to fit the tone of the satire. Maybe I should have left the Jack Davis bit out altogether. Maybe I need an editor. I do the best I know how, and in this case I edited myself.

Censorship is something entirely different. Censorship occurs when an individual, or group, or school board, or gorvenment body, decides that what someone else wrote should not be read. I did not censor the United Satanic Apache Front by not linking to their page. I exercised editorial powers over the content (which includes hyperlinks) of my page.

Suppose, however, the Internet Service Provider that hosts their site tells them to remove the photos. That is censorship. I oppose that.

Although I want to be completely serious here, I do not intend to repeat others' arguments against censorship. Instead, I approach this subject as I think all should be approached. With empathy and an attempt to put yourself in another's place. Imagine if what you thought, what you believed in, was censored. I do not mean to imagine that others disagree with what you say, but that they did not allow you to say it at all. That is what censorship does. It is prejudicial and it is ignorant.

The term "free flow of ideas" has a connotation of "accepting ideas". I do not mean that. I do not even want tolerance of ideas. If you disagree with someone, fight back. But the arsenal for the fight should not include gags.

When I first thought of writing a page for Banned Book Week, I found a lot of links like this one on the American Booksellers' Association's Book Web. Now I just want to vent.

If you visit the page referenced above, you will see that they list some books that have been banned. They focus on well known, highly regarded or popular authors, whose banning should strike the reader as incomprehensible.

While this does serve to shock the senses and draw attention to the very real problem of censorship, it also seems to justify certain forms of book banning. By saying, "How dare they remove Slaughterhouse Five from the library?", is there a tacit statement that other, less worthy novels, do not deserve the same protection?

I think so. Fighting censorship often means defending the repulsive. Too often, this is inferred by others as embracing the repulsive. It is easy to take up the fight for Huckleberry Finn; it is harder to advocate American Psycho. There are people who do defend both flavors of book. Here is how The Boston Coalition for Freedom of expression will mark Banned Book Week this year. Also online, a description of a recent banning in Rockford, Illinois. I happen to know Bob Chatelle, who maintains the sites I linked to above. He is dedicated to freedom of expression, and I admire that. The mainstream media is not. Mostly beacuse they follow the money. Newsweek and Time sold a lot of magazines with Princess Diana's photo on the cover after her death. I wonder if they will defend the tabloids who used that same tactic week after week now that they are under attack for hounding her.

That same mainstream media is owned by large multinational corporations. Wal-Mart is very effective in editing content of the music sold in its stores. Independent book store are losing ground to large chains. It almost seems like the battle is lost.

The battle continues, and the Internet is a new landscape. It warrants the same, if not more, freedom. It is in danger of losing it. Mostly from concerns that children are at risk from the free flow of information. To avoid a long discussion, I'll just point out how entirely inappropriate it is to screen all information based on what is appropriate for a five year old child.

Speaking of which, you'll notice that I don't give "parental guidelines" for my pages. To tell you the truth, I don't feel bad about that at all. The site is mostly text. Contrary to my normal speaking pattern, I avoid profanity here. I think it might undercut my more serious rants, and that I don't need it when I'm trying to be funny. This is another example of editing myself. When I do throw in the odd "fuck", I make no apologies. It is almost a reward for sitting through my long, rambling rants.

The reward for reading this entirely humorless piece is that it stops now, and I have a sight gag here:

End Censorship

I thought about leaving this out, but decided that would be the same as censorship.

I'll stick to editing.

[September]
[Home]

Last Updated: 19 September 1997
Rant Back!