xie_xie_xie
22 January 2007 @ 10:30 pm
Censorship  
For those who stubbornly seek freedom, there can be no more urgent task than to come to understand the mechanisms and practices of indoctrination. These are easy to perceive in the totalitarian societies, much less so in the system of 'brainwashing under freedom' to which we are subjected and which all too often we serve as willing or unwitting instruments. -Noam Chomsky

Disagreement is not censorship.

Criticism is not censorship.

Debate is not censorship.

Fair opposition is not censorship.

So, what is?

Having your viewpoint, writing, art, criticism, opinion or other expression silenced by force, by unfair opposition, by threats, is censorship.

If someone tells me they'll kill my child if I speak at a political rally, or fire me, or burn down my house, I'm being censored. If the government passes a law depriving me of my right to say what I think about something, I'm being censored.

If someone removes my post from their website, I am being censored, although it's the website owner's right to do that... nonetheless, I'm being silenced.

However, freely expressing your opinion, forcefully and well, with documentation, even ruthlessly and brilliantly ... IS. NOT. CENSORSHIP.

It's the OPPOSITE of censorship. It's the CURE for censorship.

The remedy for speech you don't like is MORE SPEECH.

It's a complete reversal of the meaning of the word "censorship" to say that those of us who express concerns about someone's written work are "censoring" that person. No one is being censored... well, except us, who have repeatedly had our posts removed from the feedback section at Midnight Whispers, where someone made the accusation, in a sneaky way, that speaking out against a story is censorship of the author of that story.

It is a subtle and dangerous message, to say that someone's criticism of your speech is a form of censorship, because whether people do it to themselves or have it forced on them, silence is silence. 

One person's right to express herself doesn't outweigh mine. If she has the right to write her story, then I, or anyone else, have the right to critique it. Freedom of expression is a double-edged sword.
 
 
( Post a new comment )
(no subject) - (Anonymous) on April 18th, 2017 03:52 am (UTC)
[identity profile] justinlovesart.livejournal.com on February 15th, 2007 02:29 am (UTC)
Re: Part II
Ok, I'm having problems sending LJ-replies, so I'm trying this for the third time. Sorry if you've already received it!

You make very compelling points, and I think I agree with your main argument. But I also believe that there are both an emotional and intellectual response to arts in all their forms and that sometime those who have a real expertise (knowledge of a particular art's tradition or techniques, for example) can enlighten us non-experts to appreciate and understand something better.

I am not disregarding the emotional reaction and in fact that's what makes the arts fundamentally more interesting than sciences to me. But often I find myself not wanting to stop at that reaction, wanting to engage on a more intellectual level.

Hearing an art historian talk about a painting, for example, to which I might have have an instinctively positive or negative or indifferent reaction in the first place, might help me to see it in a different light: understand for example whether it is innovative or manieristic, whether it requires particular technical skills, how it relates to the past, to other art of the same period, to the social and political context. It's not that I discard my first emotional reaction, I just don't want it to be the limit of my experience.

Maybe we are talking about different types of critics, though: you're referring to the daily newspaper writers who must condense not only the experience of the play they have just seen in 500 words in one hour. And judge it on top of that. I am talking of more articulate discussions that help me set a piece of art, an opera or a film in context, and possibly illuminate it.

The Glass Menagerie critic who says the play is set during WWII loses my respect even if he praises Randy's performance to the stars. But if ten critics all tell me that the cast is excellent, I tend to give some weight to their words.

By the way, have you already seen this wonderful review from Variety? It reflects very much what you said - in a way that convinced me both emotionally and intellectually! - in yours:

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117932791.html?categoryid=33&cs=1
(Reply) (Parent) (Link)