Re: U.S. State Dept criticizes Chinese net-censorship

["Paul S. Penrod" <furballs@netcom.com>]

On Fri, 8 Mar 1996, Declan B. McCullagh wrote:

> Excerpts from internet.cypherpunks: 8-Mar-96 Re: U.S. State Dept
> critici.. by JFA T. QC, Canada@citene 
> > There is no such thing as "self-censorship".  Either you stick to 
> > your values, and then it is *not* censorship, or then you do not,
> > and then, it is neither.
> 
> Self-censorship does happen, and it's a growing problem in the arts
> community. (I'm not a commercial artist, so this is my understanding
> from other panelists and speakers at a conference I spoke at last month.)
> 
> Making art more palatable or less "extreme" to curry favor with
> corporate patrons, or to get that NEA grant, or to get that faculty
> position is self-censorship, and it does happen.
> 

To me this sounds more like an argument on perspective.

IF you hold to the premise that self-censorship is based in a large part 
on witholding your natural inclination and/or reaction, then yes the 
argument can be made that self-censorship occurs all the time. However, I 
would submit that J.F.A. is correct and that your position is but a 
subset of the original statement.

To wit: If I found myself in a situation where the person involved was 
behaving like a jerk - but I did not speak my mind (as to achieve some 
defind goal, favor, etc.) because my moral compass indicated that such an 
action was inappropriate to acheive said goal - then I can make the case of 
both self-censorship (by your definition) and non-censorship (as none was 
required) by J.F.A's definition. It's called personal restraint based 
upon the practice and acceptance of culturally defind rules of civil 
behavior within a particular community.

As to the art community:

I find pieces of "art", such as the cross in the urine, extremely 
distasteful and insulting to the christian sects who value that symbol as 
part of their religious culture. However, the NEA thought it was 
"brilliant" enough to warrant a grant to the artist in question - who 
profited by his work. Now, who, if anybody is correct in their stance 
about what is or is not "acceptable" material for publication and support 
with tax dollars ?

Anwser? It's purely subjective. I choose to censor my viewing to not 
include works that I deem offensive or immaterial. Obviously, somebody 
thought it was wonderful enough to give the guy money for his effort. 
Different strokes for different folks.

As to censorship itself:

Censorship, IMO, is tool that we (as people) use every day to screen out 
unwanted or unnecessary information. It is not a bad thing - just a tool. 
Where things change with respect to it (as a tool) is in to what purpose 
it is put.

When censorship is encouraged or utilized for the express purpose of 
controlling information content and/or flow so as to subjegate the will 
of another to your own control, then I personally view this as wrong. 
Others will disagree (especially in certain sections of UNCLE). They will 
make the case for service to the community based upon National Security 
interests, politcal cause, religious, etc. So be it.

As it stands, even with the exercise of unrighteous dominion, we still 
have the agency to choose to accept or reject the conditions we find 
ourselves in. Rationalization only serves to salve our conscience when we 
tell ourselves there is no choice, when we have already made the choice 
and have resigned ourselves to it.

The founding fathers wrote the Bill of Rights in the order of appearance 
for a specific purpose and intent. They did not enjoy the same freedom of 
discussion and representation as we do today (even with all the silly 
restrictions UNCLE seems to feel are necessary in legislating our 
morality). The First Amendment (free speech) was first because they felt 
it was more important than all the rest. Without it, the other amendments 
are without meaning and just execution.

However, they did not intend that such rights as free speech be practiced 
without using common sense. It is one thing to hold a view repugnant to a 
community of your peers - but quite another to attempt to force that view 
upon them without their consent by court action or political coercision. 
The tired and worn example of shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded movie house 
is a perfect example of a bone-head manuever made to test the fence. In 
some other place or time, it may be considered funny or annoying - but in 
today's society (where people tend to get hyper-sensitive) it is 
considered criminal by statute of law as the potential consequence of 
such an action may inadvertantly bring harm to another. Hence - we as a 
culture have attempted to codify common sense into legal statute (which 
itself is a larger bone-head maneuver attempting to rectify the first).

Where does this leave things:

For society at large, the divisiveness of the actions promulgated by 
people looking for offense - coupled with the encouragement by lawyers to 
seek redress by way of tort (which profits them, but not the litigating 
parties), only serves to tear the fabric of the republic as it was 
created by the founding fathers. We will willingly GIVE UP our right to 
free speech in all it's forms over time because our selfish behavior 
encourages us to act unwisely to "get even" with the other guy. The 
government has to do nothing except sit back and encourage the trend, so 
that people will petition the very goverment that derives it power and 
authority from the governed to take it away from them. Then, when it is 
too late - they will realize that they gave away their most precious 
posession - as Esau gave up his birthright over a meal.

I wouldn't worry about the art community and any perception of 
self-censorship. Historically, artisans, writers, scientists and other 
creative people tend to be among the first of the rats to flee the 
sinking ship and swim to places more tolerant of their world view. There 
will always be a home for such people as creativity is always appreciated 
in one form or another by somebody.

...Paul