shadowkat: (reading)
Learning quite a bit about the censorship laws of the 1920s and 30s, and how the courts interpreted the First Amendment. Including a brief history on Ernst Morris, the co-founder of the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU.

Interesting quotes :

1. Margaret Anderson, the editor of The Little Review, insisted that the genuine art rested upon two principles:


"First, the artist has no responsibility to the public whatever." The public, in fact, was responsible to the artist. "Second, the position of the great artist is impregnable... You can no more limit his expression, patronizingly suggest that his genius present itself in channels personally pleasing to you, than you can eat the stars."


This reminds me of a discussion that I had this weekend with two women from India, who stated prior to colonialism - they had more freedom of expression. The influx of the British and the missionaries had to a degree quelled that and made them self-conscious. They began to self-police themselves. The culture responsible for the Karma Sutra was now afraid to talk about sex at all.

Art was quelled.

It also reminds me of a discussion I had with a friend once regarding Margaret Mitchell and Flannery O'Connor's racism - she stated that she would rather it wasn't suppressed, because it enabled her to understand how they thought better - so she could come up with a counter-argument.

Ernst Morris's take on Censorship was slightly different and more encompassing. Morris started his career fighting the ban on a sexual education guide or pamphlet.
Then eventually chose to take up the fight regarding Ulysses, in an effort to change the censorship laws of the US. Ernst Morris thought of Freedom of Speech and the First Amendment as a way to keep the culture roiling not as a source of stability.


Censorship was a tactic used by entrenched powers to quell democracy's inherent turbulence, and groups like the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, Ernst thought, were their moral instruments. Censorship was what happens when power brokers who benefit from the status quo team up with moralists who believe society is perpetually on the brink of collaspe.

To fight for the freedom of books was to fight for the priniciple of self-governance that had inspired the American Revolution. For Ernst, there was no strict separation between political and sexual ideas - burning books sent a chill across the entire culture.

"Censorship," he wrote, "had a pervading influence on the subconscious recesses of individual minds." It altered the way the country approached science, public health, psychology and history. Only a blinkered Victorian mentality, Ernst thought, could think that the Roman Empire fell because of its moral decadence."


[This is just my personal opinion, gathered from various studies, I can't guarantee that is absolutely true: No, the Roman Empire ironically fell for the same reason the British Empire eventually did. If the Victorians had a been a wee bit more self-aware - they may have stopped the downfall of their own empire. Over-expansion. In short they took on more than they could chew, over-drew on their resources, and went bankrupt. It's also the same reason the Soviet Union and US are running into problems now - again taking on far more than you can afford - or allowing your grasp to outstretch your reach. WWI just about did Britain in. Rome was pretty much done in by all the wars and territorial fights that they were constantly dealing with. Had zip to do with culture, or sex, and a heck of a lot to do with violent and somewhat pricy warfare.]


The worst part about the censorship regime was that it was maddeningly arbitrary. Books that circulated for years might be banned without warning. Customs officials might declare a book legal only to have the Post Office issue it's own ban. A judge or jury could acquit a book one day and condemn it the next, and the wording of the statues themselves stoked confusion.


Apparently the NY Criminal Law Statute had about five descriptive words, while the Federal Law just had one - obscene. So Ernst decided to go after the Federal Tariff Law. So instead of going after the law regarding the transit of publications through US Mail, he went through the law governing imports from foreign countries. This way no one went to jail and they might get it over-turned.

Only one problem? The customs officials didn't make a habit of searching every packaged imported, hence the reason people had been sneaking the book in by importing it. Ernst had to take the package back to the customs officials and insist that they search it, so that it would be seized and he could fight the law in court.

I found this to be hilarious. He also had Joyce's assistant cut and past critical praise in the front of the book - so that he could use the critical praise in court.

Fascinating book - amongst the more informative and interesting non-fiction or historical novels that I've read. Most have a tendency to put me to sleep. Not that this one doesn't as well...but not quite as often.
shadowkat: (Default)
Just read in EW, an article about The Hunger Games movie - it's an interview with Gary Ross, who directed Pleasantville and Seabiscuit. Apparently he tore through the books as well. It's the first YA novel since Harry Potter to really hit a huge cross-over audience (ie. male/female adults and children). The producer and director seem to really get it - that this is a story so universal that it doesn't know any age.

Of the three books? The Hunger Games is by far the best, although I'm partial to Catching Fire - because it does a great satirical riff on the cult of celebrity and the cost to both society and the objects of the worship.

Agree with Ross about YA books - some great works of literature are YA. Here's a brief list of the books I've loved as YA and adult:

* Witches of Worm by Zelphia Keatley Synder
* Animal Farm by George Orwell
* Lord of the Flies by William Fielding
* The Chocolat War by Rodger Cormier
* The Lion, the Witch, and The Wardrobe by CS Lewis
* The Secret Garden by Frances Hodgson
* The Outsiders by SE Hinton
* Escape to Witch Mountain by Alexander Key
* The Wizard of Earthsea by Ursula Le Quin
* Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll
* Mary Poppins by PL Travers
* Charlie and the Chocolat Factory by Ronald Dahl
* James and the Giant Peach by Ronald Dalh
* The Dark is Rising novels by Susan Cooper
* Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
* A Separate Peace by John Knowles
* Blubber by Judy Bloom
* Harriet the Spy by Louise Fitzhugh
* The Hobbit by JRR Tolkien
* Farhenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury
* The Veldt - a short story by Ray Bradbury
* The Contender by Robert Lipstye
* Vision Quest by Terry Davis

As an aside, I'm against censoring or changing any of the words in Mark Twain's classic Huckleberry Finn for the following reasons: 1) Twain a humorist and social critic of his time, deliberately wrote the novel in the dialect of the region in which he grew up and knew. Using colloquialisms and verbage used at that time. He used the word "nigger" in part to depict the racism of the society and critique it. At the time the book was published, the white society attempted to censor the novel and ban it for how it depicted racial relations at the time (Mark Twain wrote it shortly after the Civil War, and the book took place before the Civil War when Missouri was still a slave state). I figured that out when I was in Junior High and read it for the first time. Anyone who has read this novel - realizes it is written in dialect and in the voice of an uneducated, poor white boy, in Missouri in the 1800s. 2) It is in my opinion the height of self-righteous arrogance not to mention gall to change someone else's words to please your own sensibilities - specifically in their published work of art without their permission or knowledge, and long after their gone. Granted Twain most likely wont care, but we change his meaning, we change his words, it's not longer by Mark Twain. And where does it end? The slippery slope is a slick one. It reminds me a bit of when Turner decided to colorize black and white films - ruining several as a result. His decision to do this had a positive result - many, Martin Scorsese amongst them rushed forward to restore the films to their original black and white glory. In many cases the filmmaker deliberately chose the black and white medium even though color was available. 3) How do we learn from past blunders if we erase them? Our novels are history. A historical record of where we have been. To go back and change bits that we don't like, edit them out - is worse than George Lucas going back and editing his original Star Wars Films (something that still grates on my nerves - but at least he was the original creator.). 4) Why do it? To protect someone's feelings? To make it accessible? First children have been reading this novel for ages. The word exists. And I've read books by numerous authors who have used words such as "cunt", "mick", "honky", "puta", etc...And as a child I was tormented by kids who used words they'd read in Kurt Vonnegurt's Slaughterhouse 5 (which I remember reporting to my mother - whose response was to initiate a Junior Great Books Reading Club at lunch time to discuss these books and books like them in a safe and friendly setting. She could have protested and had the book banned from the library or school of course - which is the easy path, the one that requires the least time on her part -- and they would have complied no doubt - but banning books any books was considered the root of all evil in my home, and besides what would it have solved? That's why the boys reading it to begin with - because it was forbidden. What they ached for was someone to discuss it with. ) I was taught by my parents that the answer is not to censor but to discuss, to analyze, to examine, to think it through and to understand why a word such as "nigger" is nasty and how Mark Twain used it and how others have and what it means. In short I was taught to THINK not run away, or hide from things that offended me. But to think about them. Censorship is not the answer - all you do is bury it underground and slide into Orwellian Groupthink. Perhaps, methinks, a re-reading of George Orwell's 1984 and Ray Bradbury's Farentheit 451 is in order?

Sorry, for the rant. But I feel rather strongly about that. I'm all for political correctness in some settings, but art...and expression? We need that. We need to know how others view the world. Twain's Huck Finn challenged how many of his contemporaries saw racial relations, and serves as a historical reference point for the race wars that existed. It took place before the civil war - in a slave state. From the perspective of a boy, who runs away with a runaway slave - Jim. The boy sees Jim as Jim. But those around him...see Jim as the slave, a nigger, lower than low - and Twain deftly shows through Huck's eyes that the people who use that word are in fact the unworthy ones. It is a love story between Jim and Huck - and you need, require that word to understand what Jim sacrifices for Huck and what Huck owes Jim. How alone Jim is, how desperate. And how dependent they are on each other. There's a reason Huck Finn resonates ...it's an anti-racism book, depicting that people are in the end just people.

But interpretations clearly vary. (shrugs). And that's okay. But censoring is NOT the answer. Nor is changing the content. That's kills discussion. And we need the discussion!
shadowkat: (Default)
I seldom do this.

But, after reading [livejournal.com profile] liz_marks and [livejournal.com profile] scrollgirl's posts - scrollgirl even posted a link on a news article regarding what happened - I wrote my own somewhat heated response to Six Apart. Not the best in the world. But I decided this is something I have to take a stand on, even if I rarely if ever read the stuff they are talking about and do not know any of the journals that were deleted.

What happened? (in case, like me, you were blissfully unaware of this) Apparently Six Apart deleted approximately 500 lj journals and lj communities based on a complaint by an a parental focus group called Warriors of Innocence. They deleted any journal that appeared to have incest, child pornography, discussions related to it, pornographic fanfic, discussions about incest/molestation/child abuse, or rape. They did not limit it to the ones that were obviously over the line. Nor did they warn the users, inform them to stop or remove content (cease and desist letters) or they would be deleted. They just willy nilly deleted. Unless I misunderstood something. But it appears that Six Apart just deleted without telling anyone first or even giving the people a chance to remove the content.

So here's what I wrote:

I've just read a very disturbing piece of news online today. Did you really delete 500 personal journals and writing communities without warning or informing the writers and hosts of those communities?

Even a lawyer wouldn't do that. Usually a lawyer sends a cease and desist letter first warning the writer to remove questionable content or lock it as dictated by the rules. Same is true of most discussion boards I have been on, where the moderator informs the correspondents that their posts will be removed or have been removed for these reasons.

In my own journal - I warn people in my biographical section that I will delete posts without notice, even if they have responses.

That is the polite thing to do. The civilized thing to do. The PROFESSIONAL thing to do.

Also, why couldn't you have found a reasonable alternative? Why cater to one faction? Who from all reports is clearly in the minority? Aren't you a reputable business?

There are ways to prevent underage children from reading inappropriate content, without censorship. There is a difference between pedophillia or solicitation and writing fiction - or do you think Nabokov was a pedophile?

I think at the very least you owe the people whose journals that you deleted without warning and potentially without cause an apology. If they were paid journals - you owe them full reimbursement. That again is what a reputable and professional organization run by adults not children would do.


I understand Six Apart is a business and may not want certain content on its live journal site, but the site was not always a business making venture and Six Apart only recently acquired it a few years ago.

It's one thing to delete things in your own journal - I do that all the time. But it is quite another to agree to host someone's journal on your site, then without warning delete it because their content offends you. I'm sorry, if you are going to do that you can at least let the person know first - so they can leave and at least save their content elsewhere.

Profile

shadowkat: (Default)
shadowkat

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated May. 30th, 2025 07:47 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios