This is a mirror of the now defunct eesite ASOIAF webboard.

The discussions for G.R.R. Martin's awesome series "A Song of Ice and Fire" are now being held at: Current ASoIaF Webboard

You cannot post new messages to this board. Go to the Current ASoIaF Webboard for the most current discussions.

A Song of Ice and Fire / Other Topics / Censorship

Back 20 Messages Next 20 Messages
Swithin
User ID: 0443584 		Oct 5th 1:20 AM
The graphic sex and violence topic has died. I just started reading the posts and realised that I very much want to encourage and sponsor such discussions. Kay, Jeff, Kevin, and Omer, you all raise very good points. It seems that all of you have a lot of common sense behind your positions, and you only differ in the nuance about how you organize said common sense.

I'll make a short post if this topic goes up.
Watcher
User ID: 7761613 		Oct 7th 12:39 PM
To give my thoughts on my last post. I don't think the first three are examples of censorship. A private store has the right to carry and not to carry what it wants. The Record Label doesn't have to produce someone's album and that person can produce their own CD. With the spread of the internet and MP3 this is even more true.

The last two are gray. I think that schools should carry as much information as possible. I also believe the intent of why something isn't being carried is just as important as why it is. In both of these cases the play/book was banned because someone was offended. You don't have a right not to be offended. If there was 5 books on Wicca and they only wanted to ban one then I wouldn't have a problem. But there are no books on Wicca and schools should make an effort to expose their students to as much as possible.
The stopping of a Huck Finn because it is racist is also wrong. I simply don't think that book is racist. Again it is the intent of what the author is saying rather then the words he uses.

KAH, I disagree with you that it is better not to let the government in and trust to market forces. A Democrat/Republican government should be responsible to the people, market forces are only responsible to their shareholders. I believe capitalism makes a good economic system but is bad government system.
KAH
User ID: 9209903 		Oct 7th 2:34 PM
Watcher;

Well.
The state should ideally be responsible to the people, and indeed, that is how it (more or less) works in most Western countries. But it is not cut in stone that this will always remain so.

Germany and Italy represented (and still represents) a very high cultural level throughout the last centuries.
Yet, they let themselves degenerate into fascism and nazism for a few horrible years, with all the consequenses that had for the countries themselves, and for the rest of Europe east of Ural.

If it could happen there, it could happen anywhere. History sadly has a tendency to repeat itself.
It might be a much less chance for that to happen in the western world today, but we cannot rule it out completely.

As I have said before, the state is basically a tool - it can be used for good and bad.
It has legal monopoly of all uses of force, other than in self-defence (roughly speaking). Is it not best, then, to keep _checks_ on such a mighty juggernaut?

Uninhibited speech is such a check, and while the state subsidizing a paper (in order to let others than the rich have a say on the public agenda) does not prevent anyone from speaking, it gives in to the notion that the state should have a foothold within mass media.

Of course, this might not mean anything in itself, but suppose that a crisis emerge. War, unemployment, whatever.

This is often followed by the call for the 'strong man', when the trust in the old politicians has reached abysmal levels.
The 'strong man', the charismatic one, the one who craves power for it's own sake. For him, democracy means nothing beyond a means to come to power. Once installed, democracy is only a threat to his own position, seeing as there is always the chance that he will be removed by the same people who once put him on the taburette (or whatever you US people call 'em).

Well, if he wants to sit forever, he needs to rid himself of democracy, and to do that, he has to rid himself of all the checks that are on him, paramountly amongst them the mass media. That has to be controlled by him, and to do that, he might use the foothold already established. There is less chance that the public will react then, than if the State and mass media from the beginning are adamantly separated.


I'm not one of the foaming-around-the-mouth libertarians; let's just say that I think they have a point or two.
Jeff
User ID: 0227464 		Oct 7th 4:38 PM
I suppose I also qualify as a non-foaming at the mouth libertarian.

Watcher, the school problem is tricky. School libraries have very limited funds. They can only carry certain books, and choices clearly have to be made based on perceived literary merit. One person's perceived literary merit is the next person's sheepwrap.

The point is that there are no _objective_ standards that can be used to determine which books should be "in" and which are "out". That's why its almost inpossible for a court to rule that a certain book must be included -- what's the standard? Tolkien vs. Twain -- how can a court decide? That type of policy decision is inherently one that must be left to the legislative or executive branches, which in this instance is the local school board or superintendent.

I guess the bottom line is that a school shouldn't be required to carry any particular book.
Sphinx
User ID: 0638514 		Oct 7th 5:20 PM
I believe that the government react to the strongest public opinion, which is not neccessarily the will of the majority. Or else they act in the way which will gain them most votes and/or give them most power. I think that we have to be very careful how much control over censorship we allow a government to have.

I mean, this may be taking things too far, but too much government control over censorship can result in situations that have occurred in China and Russia, where speaking out against the state is censored. Obviously, that's not going to happen in a hurry in the west, but the area inbetween is something we need to be aware of, IMNSHO.

Min
User ID: 1446254 		Oct 8th 1:50 AM
I agree about that, Sphinx. The line is very tricky. Being a journalist myself, I am a strong supporter of free speech, of course. But there are points when I question my own principles.

Here's the example.

Yesterday night, I browsed ICQ users for some specific thing. And I found someone who had in his "interest-page" (or however that may be called) things like "collecting Nazi flags and badges, hating Jewish people, Hitler". I was really horrified that such a person was allowed to expose his insane mind and ideas via the net. Of course I am aware of the fact that madmen like Neonazis and child-abusers inhabit the net, but when you stumble over one of them, it's terrifying all the same. And I thought that no, this person has NO right at all to be heard or even to speak out loud.

Sphinx, you just mentioned China and Russia as examples where you can not say what you think. That is, of course, horrible (I had friends in Eastern germany and know what they went through before the reunification). But there are things in Germany, too, that you are not allowed to say aloud. It is forbidden to talk of the "Holocaust-lie", a term invented by some Neo-Nazis who try to tell that the holocaust was invented by the allied troops to shame Germany (needless to say that this is complete bullshit). It is forbidden to state this in public, and if you do so, you will face a court for it. And that is a kind of censorship I support.

Omer, I know that you talked against censorship a lot, as did I. But that is a sensible question especially for us both. Would you like to tell me what you think of it? Forbidding this statement is purest censorship which we both oppose. But in this special case, I think that dangerous and stupid things like that should be forbidden to state in public before any of our children could catch this desease. I know that children educated in the right way would not catch it anyway, but still...

I'd like to know what you think.
Swithin
User ID: 0443584 		Oct 8th 2:14 AM
Good points Min, but can one truly kill a lie by giving it the credence of persecution? The problem evidenced (yay, verbification!) by the holocaust-lie is that society is fragmented, and each separate fragment is already unwilling to listen to the others. By driving a societal splinter even further away, you are sealing their fate as zealots, gods forbid even martyrs. If something is ridiculous in the light, that's where it belongs. Conspiracy theories have a way of perpetuating themselves, and using the disapproval of the sane as further proof of the god-like influence of the conspirators. The only way to stop the neonazis is to either kill them all or make them see how silly they really are. I'm not moved enough by the historical irony to suggest the former, as human beings they all deserve the respect to be given a chance for redemption.

This has become an interesting conversation.
KAH
User ID: 9209903 		Oct 8th 2:25 AM
Min;

Think of it this way - having the neo-nazis and the like airing their dirty laundry publicly, might give us the opportunity to meet their crap with rational arguments.

Else they will only be reassuring eachother without being called on their statements, and they will drag in other people, unbeknownst to the general public.
After all, even if you censor their statements in public, you cannot stop them from talking about it in a nachspiel or other informal arrangements, where they'll meet influencable outside people.

In other words - if there is no neo-nazi speaking his crap publicly, there is no need for me to actually take the trouble and counter such thoughts, even if I know that they exist?

A law isn't really a good argument against nazism in itself - it is just a sign that the state do not endorse the view. It does not immediately follow that a thing is bad because the state doesn't endorse it. Thus, I think we should leave it to the general public to pick apart the nazi arguments.
Swithin
User ID: 0443584 		Oct 8th 2:31 AM
BTW thanks for the humourous e-mails, Kay. They are truly appreciated.
Min
User ID: 1446254 		Oct 8th 3:17 AM
swithin: "human beings they all deserve the respect to be given a chance for redemption"... where have you been while I defended this over and over again in the very "Redemption" topic?

You are both, of course, right. As I said: As a principle, I agree. But incidents like the one described above make me question my principle all over again. It's the same with redemption, but that belongs in that topic, and we are talking about censorship. I believe you to be right, but when I stumble over such a moron, if in the internet or in the real world, I honestly just want him to shut up.

I don't know if you ever actually had the chance to "talk" to Neo Nazis. I had (in Germany and in America both), and I put "talk" in quotation marks because senseful talk is nothing you can have with them. They will not listen to arguments, and they will not see the stupicity of their ideas even if confronted with the most intelligent oppositions. Jeez, you know my sharp tongue, and I assure you it's better in my first language, but I never found a way to readch those bastards with mere argumentation. Never. At acertain point, they will just tell you: "But that never happened". And you will say: "What about the photos?" - "Fakes". And you will say: "What about the eye-witnesses?" - "Bribed. Lyars". Hey, you know I _can_ discuss even in a polemic way if needed, but with those people, you just. can. not. get there. There are just three ways to end a discussion like that: Going away, which comes close to giving up, leaving them to their triumph. Or beating the sh*t out of them - the most temptative thing to do I must admid, though I generally oppose mere violence. Or handing them over to a court because they stated forbidden things.

All three possibilities are bad. Giving in to their arguments which I could never accept? Giving in to violence which I hate? Giving in to censorship which I oppose?

Ugly decisions.
Swithin
User ID: 0443584 		Oct 8th 3:34 AM
Min - first of all, why am I awake? I have class at 11:30 tomorrow... hey, I should go to bed. I missed the Redemption topic because it was large and intimidating when I started checking this (my one and only) board. I'll read the posts, if you'd like, tomorrow.

No, I've never had the experience of talking to a nazi. I've had many heated exchanges with brazen meta-republicans and their ilk, and it's tempting to compare the two, but that would be both unfair and ignorant of me. It's a difficult question to answer, and I'm not really a deontologist, but I feel letting them live with their opinions is the only sensible choice. Beating the 'sh*t' out of one would be fun, but then I've only once come close to hitting a man out of anger, and it's not worth wasting my first time on one of those... they are below contempt, I don't want to sully myself.

Does censorship apply to those living in self-imposed ignorance? We are debating something similar in my medical ethics class. I'm leaning towards freedom of knowledge, but I still haven't made up my mind.

People will hate me for saying this, but STUPID PEOPLE BOTHER THE HELL OUT OF ME! I'm fairly sure it was a typo, but you came up with a perfect word for the state in which they live: stupicity.
Min
User ID: 1446254 		Oct 8th 7:25 AM
No, I guess (just a guess) that people will not hate you for this statement. I certainly don't. I tell myself over and over again that stupidity is not really someone's _fault_, but I never manage to persuade myself fully. And I guess (another guess) that you can find other posters here who may be... not as tolerant towards stupidity as would be nice and friendly. :-)

Does cencorship apply to those it is meant for? Honestly, I do not think so. It is the same as with these Neo-Nazis I spoke of. They will not see it. They just will not, no matter what I or the state or anyone else might try.
And they will get their books, their flags and badges (each of those forbidden in Germany when it comes to Nazi-ideology) anyway.

But censorship is not meant for those. I personally do not want my children infected with ideas like that. Which would not mean that I would simply ignore them. I would confront my children (Or will confront them when I have them) with the German history and the ideas of the Nazis, trying to explain them what a horrible time, what a horrible mistake that was. But I want to do it at the appropriate age, with the appropriate means, and I do not want any Neo-Nazi bastard able to try and put his insane ideas in their innocent minds without me knowing it. It's as simple as that. And there may also be children who will not be as cared for as mine (hopefully) will be, who will not receive such an education, and who will be easier to infect perhaps. Most Neo-Nazis and Skinheads in Germany are pretty young, between 12 and 18, and from the lower classes, mere boys and girls who don't find a job and come from ruined families. I think it's pretty much the same in other countries. Those should have been protected earlier.

Mark me: I still am opposing censorship. These are just things I realized for myself, things where my general principles do not work. I do not question these principles in general. I just question them in special cases.
Min
User ID: 1446254 		Oct 8th 7:28 AM
And here, I find the first argument against myself already. *sigh*

Obviously, as Nazi propaganda _is_ forbidden here, and as there are still Skinheads around, the censorship did _not_ protect those kids to become what they are.

And so we're back at Kay's argument: It stays up to the parents, the families.

Could the point be that censorship simply doesn't work, not even in cases where we all tend to wish for it, even as we despise it?
KAH
User ID: 9209903 		Oct 8th 10:41 AM
I think you hit the nail on the head, Min - censorship is extremely difficult to enforce completely.

You cannot, for instance, completely stop the neo-nazis from _speaking_ with eachother, or innocent children (unless you change society into some nightmarish kind of Soviet-clone, where a word might be picked up by an _agent provocateur_ and land you in prison. I'd rather not go there).

Thus, one should rather let them into the arena, and take them on there. And no, of course they will not listen. That is not necessarily the point with debating with them in the first place.

The point is that you have people watching the debate from the sideline. UseNet is an excellent example of this - for every poster, there might be two lurkers, just watching. If you engage in debate against the neo-nazi then, chances are that
you will not convince him. But you have a very good chance of convincing the lurkers that the nazi is full of shit.

Most I have seen from the nazis are incredible pyramids of conspiracy theories, so lopsided in their argumentation that any moderately intelligent non-querulantic person will see it, _once it is challenged_.
Min
User ID: 1446254 		Oct 8th 10:49 AM
That is a good point, Kay. A comforting one. I think you got me there.
Kevin
User ID: 1766884 		Oct 8th 11:09 AM
There is an annual Aryan Nation (neonazi) march in Idaho near me. The funny thing about this march is that if it weren't for the protests, it would be ignored by the media. Are those protests giving publicity to the nazis or is it a good thing to show that they aren't to be tolerated.

This year was interesting. They applied for the permit to march down the main street of the town. The town council did not want to support them but had no legal grounds to deny them. The council gave them permission to march but not on main street. They were given permission to march on the road in front of the city dump (I still laugh). The city council was overturned in court. The march went on. Protesters showed up and blocked the parade route. The protesters then got into a scuffle with police as the police now protecting the rights of the nazis had to remove the protesters. The nazis were very well behaved and when all was said and done, it was the protesters that looked bad.
KAH
User ID: 9209903 		Oct 8th 11:12 AM
To add;

Even if the bystanders are not fully convinced - as you say, most Nazis dodge any argument by saying 'lies, conspiracies, fakes' (effectively putting the burden of evidence on you), and it is a whole job to not let them slip away - even if they still are not fully convinced, at the very least one get's them to _question_ the views of the nazis. '
If all one has gotten is the nazi version of the story, chances are that the person will be much less critical minded towards that version.
Watcher
User ID: 7761613 		Oct 8th 11:18 AM
Schools do have limited funds, I understand this and wouldn't force a school to carry a book on blue-eyed Japanese bagpipe players because that group was under represented. The problem is these books were pulled from the schools library shelves because a religious group objected to them. That is wrong and I should have clarified it earlier.

Of course a government should have checks and balances to ensure that it doesn't trample over the rights of its citizens. OTOH we need a strong enough government to protect the rights of its citizens from being curtailed by other governments, multi-national corporations and other entities. It is a fine line that will always infringe on someone's right no matter where it is drawn.

Another example are boom cars. Where does the right to play your music as loud as you want and a persons right not to listen to it begin/stop? Does a person have a right not to listen to it? What is to loud? Should we censor boom cars? Would that be an infringement of free speech?

I'm not a liberal, I just play one on TV
KAH
User ID: 9209903 		Oct 8th 11:19 AM
Kevin;

It all depends on how it is done. There is a good way and a bad way to go about it, and from what I can tell, you just described the bad one. Giving the nazis an air of martyrdom is not a good idea.

Here in Norway, there's a whole plethora of micro-parties on the extreme right wing. One of their 'grand old men' is one Arne Myrdal. When he was touring parts of Norway to give speeches, many people wanted to show what they thought of his message.

They did so by showing up at his meetings _en masse_, turn their backs on him, and give him the finger. That was it, and from what I can tell, it was an immense success.
Watcher
User ID: 7761613 		Oct 8th 11:21 AM
Uhmm.. My last post was responding to posts before the nazi thing got bought up. My contribution is: "Nazis, I hate Illinois Nazis".
Back 20 Messages Next 20 Messages