A mirror of the eeesite "A Song of Ice and Fire"

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

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 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".

Min
User ID: 9433023 Oct 8th 7:46 PM
You have it, Kay. The point is just to behave right. No kidding. When I talked to Nazis, I did not beat them up /though it _really_ might have been fun), because I thought, no, I will not get down to this niveau. All it would prove is that I run out of better arguments, and that I'm wrong. Which I am not. SO I will stay just the polite person I usually am, and let them make the mistakes.

A good tactic in other things, too: Let the eney make the mistakes. :-)

Seriously. In the conclusion, this would mean that if we just stay ourselves without denying truths we believe in, and if we still try to treat everyone with at least some respect, and strive to make the worl better where we can, censorship will not be needed anymore. Could it be just that?

Ser Gary
User ID: 9279843 Oct 9th 10:41 AM
Min, your last paragraph spoke volumes to me. It also put me in mind of your "Chaos" topic. Perhaps the only way to truly measure "goodness" is to have enough "badness" around so that you have something to measure it against. Respect is important, and open communications are important. But no matter what people try to do to change the world for the better, it will inevitably need more changing.

That's not to say we should throw our hands up in the air and stop trying to improve things. Au contraire, it's a signal that we must all work that much harder at it. The reality is that order and chaos must co-exist in this world (am I quoting Jeff here?). They are equally bad in their entirety. We must therefore find the proper balance that will make them acceptable to the vast majority of the people. We cannot take away freedoms in the process, though. The world has found that losing an initial "seemingly inconsequential" freedom inevitably leads to the loss of more freedoms. And that is unacceptable to me.

There are people in this world who consider me a "Changer". I take that label as a great compliment :)

Confusing? Cryptic?

KAH
User ID: 9209903 Oct 9th 11:14 AM
Watcher;

I'm not sure if I follow you.
Fair enough, the government is responsible for protecting it's citizens' rights from foreign enemies etc., but I do not see the link to censorship here.

You know the old byword; 'Sticks and stones may hurt my bones, but words can never hurt me'.

(the lyrics to Vengaboys' "We're going to Ibiza" is an obvious exception to this rule)

I just cannot see how citizens' rights are threatened by free speech from other governments and multinational corporations.

Sphinx
User ID: 0638514 Oct 9th 6:17 PM
It really is infuriating that there's no easy answer. I've been really impressed by the posting on this; Min, Kay and Swithin, I disagree with almost nothing you've said since my last post. We all seem to be pretty much in agreement about what's ok and what isn't, as must be billions of what we would see as reasonable people the world over, but we just can't see a way it could be enforced without the enforcers starting to infringe rights, which is exactly what we're arguing against.

I may just be paraphrasing what's been said before here, but it comes down to censoring the views we don't agree with (either by legislation or violence; violence in order to shut someone up is essentially censorship), or allowing them a platform. Either have huge drawbacks as we've mentioned.

Kind of an aside, but most certainly on-topic, I have a friend who takes the militant view on this and actually has beaten Nazis shitless numerous times. It's very tempting. I don't neccessarily agree that it shows your argument isn't good enough (did our declaring war in 1939 show that our argument wasn't good enough?), but I think I agree that, ultimately, it's self defeating. I'm put in mind of a song lyric - 'convince an enemy/convince him that he's wrong/you win a bloodless battle/the victory is long/a simple act of faith/of reason over might/if you blow up his children/you'll only prove him right'.

Another kind of aside; I think my last posting on 'Good Movies' (strangely) was relevant to this topic, particularly to Min's points on debating with Neo-Nazis. It's about American History X, but it's a spoiler, so if you've not seen it, I strongly recommend that you DO SO, then read the post.

Swithin
User ID: 0443584 Oct 9th 8:22 PM
Well Sphinx, everything in your post was very much *on* topic, especially when you bring up the film industry.

So far we have discussed the wild and unrestrained fringe elements which we feel *deserve* censorship, even if we won't apply it. We all seem to agree that controlling our anger is necessary to make up for the evils of others, and I doubt that we'll any further unanymous statements about what we must do. It is, as you say, infuriating.

But what about the subtler shades of censorhip? Samuel Fuller was basically blacklisted after his thoughtful movie 'White Dog.' Michael Powell wasn't allowed to work in any of the British studios after his excellent but controversial 'Peeping Tom.' The public has no say in these matters, is it censorship when though inspiring controversy leads to its own demise, and yet neonazi groups are allowed to keep spewing forth their shit? Are we handling censorship properly, since in its many forms we might say it is weakening human culture? No regulation is helping hate groups and hurting artists. Is this what we want?

Oh well.

Sphinx
User ID: 0638514 Oct 10th 5:43 AM
I think this goes back to some of the points Kay made. It's a kind of 'In-House' censorship which, whilst it may be detestable, we can reasonably do little about. Studios, directors, companies, etc. have a right to choose what they want to help publicize. I must admit that I'm not familiar with the works you mention, but from the context you use them in, I'm sure I personally would agree with them rather than the industry.

However, even if I could think of a practical way to stop this 'censorship' other than getting out there and financing such work myself (which my budget just doesn't run to at the moment :]), I can't see that enforcing it wouldn't create as many ethical issues as the current situation.

Min
User ID: 9433023 Oct 10th 10:50 AM
The really difficult point, Sphinx, is: As you said, thousands of people try to do and think the "right" things. Why would some morons have the right to make things worse, to destroy the striving of hundreds, of thousands, just because they're insane? We obviously have to interfere. We agree in this. But how. That is the point. Does csnsorship help at all?

When you gave that example of your friends who goes beatong up Skinheads, I was reminded of a very interesting discussion I had several years ago. I used to work in a bistro, and me and the other waiters all were good friends, and so was the keeper of the place with us. One day, one of the other waiters pinnued up the foto of a Skinhead, bloodcovered after been beaten up, and wrote on the foto: "WE don't serve Nazis". We all loved it. When the keeper of the bistro came, she removed the photo. First, we were angry with her, and told her WE would definitely not give such a bastard a coffee. And she said: "Yes you will, and I will explain why". And so she did. She told us that, if a Skinhead came in, wanting to order a coffee, and we would throw him out just because he's a Skinhead, without having spoken a single word to him, we would be as bad as him who judges people by the colour of their skins. And we would leave him more aggressive than ever after this incident. But if we let him drink his coffee in peace at our place, where Turks and Greece and black people drink and chat with germans, it would take away a part, if even a part of his aggressions, and may - _may!_ - teach him that living peacefully together is a good thing. He might perhaps talk to one of the Turks and understand that they're no enemies.

Well... I had to admid that these were very valuable points. I agree - the idea of beating them shitless is tempting, but... it would be self-defeat. I really think it would be.

DarthDarthBinks
User ID: 1696934 Oct 10th 1:23 PM
An interesting anecdote from the west coast. I go to school at Berkeley, and there are often protesters and demonstrators, preachers and fanatics talking. One day, a man dressed up as Hitler and began talking. He was immediately surrounded by a crowd of people who were yelling at him, threatening him with bodily harm, etc. While not particularly nice, this wasn't unexpected.

What was unexpected was that the man was actually just talking about environmental issues, saving trees, protecting rivers, and the like. He was just using the costume as a gimmick to get people to listen on this campus that is saturated with these talkers. He eventually left after the threats of violence became more real.

Now, that wasn't censorship, but it certainly does apply to the issue of listen before you judge. While his get-up might have offended people, it was just a costume, and his message was not particularly offensive. My only point from the anecdote is that on a campus known for its free speech rallies, this man was drowned out. If one dislikes a message, one shouldn't silence it, as it only makes news and editorial fodder for the next couple of weeks.

Sphinx
User ID: 0638514 Oct 10th 4:52 PM
I agree with most of what you've said there, Min. I should clarify that the guy I was talking about actually has a skinhead. He doesn't beat people up for their look, he and others break up organised events which target minorities. He doesn't hurt those who look the look or even talk the talk, but those who walk thwe walk. All I'm doing there is clarifying, I've had debates with him where I take the opposite position to him. It's a sticky issue.

But the keeper of your bistro is a wise woman.

DarthDarth, I agree that technically your man in the Hitler costume was doing nothing wrong, and certainly I feel no law should be passed banning Hitler costumes, but he was at the very least insensitive. OTOH, the protestors should have calmly explained why this was so rather than threatening violence.

Min
User ID: 1446254 Oct 11th 1:39 AM
Darth, I agree with Sphinx. Of course you should listen to someone before threatening him, but this costume was a _very bad joke_. If you have something reasonable to say, doing it in a Hitler costume is not the right way.

Back 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 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".
Min User ID: 9433023	Oct 8th 7:46 PM You have it, Kay. The point is just to behave right. No kidding. When I talked to Nazis, I did not beat them up /though it _really_ might have been fun), because I thought, no, I will not get down to this niveau. All it would prove is that I run out of better arguments, and that I'm wrong. Which I am not. SO I will stay just the polite person I usually am, and let them make the mistakes. A good tactic in other things, too: Let the eney make the mistakes. :-) Seriously. In the conclusion, this would mean that if we just stay ourselves without denying truths we believe in, and if we still try to treat everyone with at least some respect, and strive to make the worl better where we can, censorship will not be needed anymore. Could it be just that?
Ser Gary User ID: 9279843	Oct 9th 10:41 AM Min, your last paragraph spoke volumes to me. It also put me in mind of your "Chaos" topic. Perhaps the only way to truly measure "goodness" is to have enough "badness" around so that you have something to measure it against. Respect is important, and open communications are important. But no matter what people try to do to change the world for the better, it will inevitably need more changing. That's not to say we should throw our hands up in the air and stop trying to improve things. Au contraire, it's a signal that we must all work that much harder at it. The reality is that order and chaos must co-exist in this world (am I quoting Jeff here?). They are equally bad in their entirety. We must therefore find the proper balance that will make them acceptable to the vast majority of the people. We cannot take away freedoms in the process, though. The world has found that losing an initial "seemingly inconsequential" freedom inevitably leads to the loss of more freedoms. And that is unacceptable to me. There are people in this world who consider me a "Changer". I take that label as a great compliment :) Confusing? Cryptic?
KAH User ID: 9209903	Oct 9th 11:14 AM Watcher; I'm not sure if I follow you. Fair enough, the government is responsible for protecting it's citizens' rights from foreign enemies etc., but I do not see the link to censorship here. You know the old byword; 'Sticks and stones may hurt my bones, but words can never hurt me'. (the lyrics to Vengaboys' "We're going to Ibiza" is an obvious exception to this rule) I just cannot see how citizens' rights are threatened by free speech from other governments and multinational corporations.
Sphinx User ID: 0638514	Oct 9th 6:17 PM It really is infuriating that there's no easy answer. I've been really impressed by the posting on this; Min, Kay and Swithin, I disagree with almost nothing you've said since my last post. We all seem to be pretty much in agreement about what's ok and what isn't, as must be billions of what we would see as reasonable people the world over, but we just can't see a way it could be enforced without the enforcers starting to infringe rights, which is exactly what we're arguing against. I may just be paraphrasing what's been said before here, but it comes down to censoring the views we don't agree with (either by legislation or violence; violence in order to shut someone up is essentially censorship), or allowing them a platform. Either have huge drawbacks as we've mentioned. Kind of an aside, but most certainly on-topic, I have a friend who takes the militant view on this and actually has beaten Nazis shitless numerous times. It's very tempting. I don't neccessarily agree that it shows your argument isn't good enough (did our declaring war in 1939 show that our argument wasn't good enough?), but I think I agree that, ultimately, it's self defeating. I'm put in mind of a song lyric - 'convince an enemy/convince him that he's wrong/you win a bloodless battle/the victory is long/a simple act of faith/of reason over might/if you blow up his children/you'll only prove him right'. Another kind of aside; I think my last posting on 'Good Movies' (strangely) was relevant to this topic, particularly to Min's points on debating with Neo-Nazis. It's about American History X, but it's a spoiler, so if you've not seen it, I strongly recommend that you DO SO, then read the post.
Swithin User ID: 0443584	Oct 9th 8:22 PM Well Sphinx, everything in your post was very much on topic, especially when you bring up the film industry. So far we have discussed the wild and unrestrained fringe elements which we feel deserve censorship, even if we won't apply it. We all seem to agree that controlling our anger is necessary to make up for the evils of others, and I doubt that we'll any further unanymous statements about what we must do. It is, as you say, infuriating. But what about the subtler shades of censorhip? Samuel Fuller was basically blacklisted after his thoughtful movie 'White Dog.' Michael Powell wasn't allowed to work in any of the British studios after his excellent but controversial 'Peeping Tom.' The public has no say in these matters, is it censorship when though inspiring controversy leads to its own demise, and yet neonazi groups are allowed to keep spewing forth their shit? Are we handling censorship properly, since in its many forms we might say it is weakening human culture? No regulation is helping hate groups and hurting artists. Is this what we want? Oh well.
Sphinx User ID: 0638514	Oct 10th 5:43 AM I think this goes back to some of the points Kay made. It's a kind of 'In-House' censorship which, whilst it may be detestable, we can reasonably do little about. Studios, directors, companies, etc. have a right to choose what they want to help publicize. I must admit that I'm not familiar with the works you mention, but from the context you use them in, I'm sure I personally would agree with them rather than the industry. However, even if I could think of a practical way to stop this 'censorship' other than getting out there and financing such work myself (which my budget just doesn't run to at the moment :]), I can't see that enforcing it wouldn't create as many ethical issues as the current situation.
Min User ID: 9433023	Oct 10th 10:50 AM The really difficult point, Sphinx, is: As you said, thousands of people try to do and think the "right" things. Why would some morons have the right to make things worse, to destroy the striving of hundreds, of thousands, just because they're insane? We obviously have to interfere. We agree in this. But how. That is the point. Does csnsorship help at all? When you gave that example of your friends who goes beatong up Skinheads, I was reminded of a very interesting discussion I had several years ago. I used to work in a bistro, and me and the other waiters all were good friends, and so was the keeper of the place with us. One day, one of the other waiters pinnued up the foto of a Skinhead, bloodcovered after been beaten up, and wrote on the foto: "WE don't serve Nazis". We all loved it. When the keeper of the bistro came, she removed the photo. First, we were angry with her, and told her WE would definitely not give such a bastard a coffee. And she said: "Yes you will, and I will explain why". And so she did. She told us that, if a Skinhead came in, wanting to order a coffee, and we would throw him out just because he's a Skinhead, without having spoken a single word to him, we would be as bad as him who judges people by the colour of their skins. And we would leave him more aggressive than ever after this incident. But if we let him drink his coffee in peace at our place, where Turks and Greece and black people drink and chat with germans, it would take away a part, if even a part of his aggressions, and may - _may!_ - teach him that living peacefully together is a good thing. He might perhaps talk to one of the Turks and understand that they're no enemies. Well... I had to admid that these were very valuable points. I agree - the idea of beating them shitless is tempting, but... it would be self-defeat. I really think it would be.
DarthDarthBinks User ID: 1696934	Oct 10th 1:23 PM An interesting anecdote from the west coast. I go to school at Berkeley, and there are often protesters and demonstrators, preachers and fanatics talking. One day, a man dressed up as Hitler and began talking. He was immediately surrounded by a crowd of people who were yelling at him, threatening him with bodily harm, etc. While not particularly nice, this wasn't unexpected. What was unexpected was that the man was actually just talking about environmental issues, saving trees, protecting rivers, and the like. He was just using the costume as a gimmick to get people to listen on this campus that is saturated with these talkers. He eventually left after the threats of violence became more real. Now, that wasn't censorship, but it certainly does apply to the issue of listen before you judge. While his get-up might have offended people, it was just a costume, and his message was not particularly offensive. My only point from the anecdote is that on a campus known for its free speech rallies, this man was drowned out. If one dislikes a message, one shouldn't silence it, as it only makes news and editorial fodder for the next couple of weeks.
Sphinx User ID: 0638514	Oct 10th 4:52 PM I agree with most of what you've said there, Min. I should clarify that the guy I was talking about actually has a skinhead. He doesn't beat people up for their look, he and others break up organised events which target minorities. He doesn't hurt those who look the look or even talk the talk, but those who walk thwe walk. All I'm doing there is clarifying, I've had debates with him where I take the opposite position to him. It's a sticky issue. But the keeper of your bistro is a wise woman. DarthDarth, I agree that technically your man in the Hitler costume was doing nothing wrong, and certainly I feel no law should be passed banning Hitler costumes, but he was at the very least insensitive. OTOH, the protestors should have calmly explained why this was so rather than threatening violence.
Min User ID: 1446254	Oct 11th 1:39 AM Darth, I agree with Sphinx. Of course you should listen to someone before threatening him, but this costume was a _very bad joke_. If you have something reasonable to say, doing it in a Hitler costume is not the right way.