Musings on Censorship

Why Censor?

 Life has shown that some form of censorship is a necessary evil to keep society running. Freedom of the press doesn't extend to copyright violations or libel; for good reasons. Freedom of speech doesn't extend to driving a sound truck through a quiet neighborhood in the middle of the night. Spammers on the internet get their posts canceled by third parties (something that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago, but is now seen as a public service.)

You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. (Unless, of course, there actually is a fire.)[1]

On the flip side of the argument: the suppression of ideas is one of the most evil things there is. People can't run a society if all the facts and ideas are not available. Individuals can't live their lives if Big Brother is always there, telling them what they can read, what they can know, what they can think.

In this society, we hold the free flow of information and ideas very dearly. Thus the necessary limits on speech, in turn, have very strict limits on them. Libel laws cannot be used to suppress criticism of public figures, or to suppress the truth. Copyright laws do not prevent critics from quoting from copyrighted works.

The kinds of things the government can stop you from saying or printing are extremely limited by the constitution. This is a Good Thing. The constitution is your friend. Be nice to it, and it will be nice to you.

When expression is suppressed beyond the commonly-agreed-to limits that apply to copyright, libel, etc., we call that censorship.

What is Censorship?

 So how, exactly, do we define "censorship"? I think a succinct definition would be:
The use of power to suppress ideas or expression.
That is, when someone wants to control what you read, write, say, or hear, and has the power to enforce their will on you.

Some people (pro-censorship advocates, mainly) prefer to define censorship much more narrowly: When you need government permission to print anything. This is called "prior restraint". It was the kind of censorship Shakespeare faced when he had to submit his plays to a censorship board for approval before performing them.[2] It's the kind of censorship the press faced in South Africa under apartheid. In Canada, the press was prohibited from covering the Homolka-Teale trial.[3] It goes on all over the world.

Prior Restraint censorship is fairly rare in the United States, as it is very clearly banned by the constitution. In 1971 the government attempted to prevent the New York Times from publishing the "Pentagon Papers", but the Supremes voted 6-3 in the NYT's favor.[4]

It does happen, however. The underground comix artist Mike Diana is now prohibited from publishing "Boiled Angel" because of the offensiveness of some of the drawings it contained. Diana is not even permitted to draw pictures in the privacy of his own home, for his own amusement.[5] President Ortega of Nicaragua was forbidden to speak English in public while in the United States, for fear that he would get his message out to too many people. Two Canadian films on the environment ("If You Love This Planet" and I forget the other one) were labeled propaganda and allowed into the country only under strict controls.[15]

Narrowly defining censorship as meaning prior-restraint by the government is very popular with pro-censorship advocates, as they then get to turn around and insist that what they're trying to do isn't censorship because it isn't prior restraint.

However, defining "censorship" solely as meaning prior restraint is ludicrous in this context. Censorship is the restriction of ideas by those in power, and this is accomplished in many more ways than simple prior restraint. The method employed isn't important, it's the results that count.

Another form of censorship is when those in power say "You can go ahead and print that, but we'll punish you afterwords". This may not be prior restraint, but the end results are the same.

Another, perhaps more insidious, form is when those in power say "If you print something we don't like, we'll punish you afterwords". This leaves publishers guessing what they can and cannot print, and they often wind up censoring themselves out of fear. It's a lovely scheme for those in power, as they rarely get held accountable for specific acts of censorship. "Hey, don't look at us, we didn't tell anybody not to print that."

This latter form of censorship is how the FCC keeps radio stations clean and pure. The radio industry has been badgering the FCC for decades to lay down some guidelines of what they can't air so they can get on with business, but the FCC refuses. "We can't make a list like that, that would be prior restraint. You'll know when you've crossed the line -- we'll fine you then."

Economic pressure is also used to censor. National Lampoon's "Radio Dinner" album was suppressed because there was a track on it that was potentially insulting to Richard Nixon, and the corporation (I think it was GE) that owned the record company (I think it was RCA) that produced the record didn't want to risk any of its big defense contracts.[6]

What censorship isn't

Censorship is not a function of the methods those in power use to suppress. Prior restraint, jail terms, fines, or civil penalties; the result is the same.

Censorship is not really a function of who does it either. I doubt that Mike Diana really cares whether it's the state of Florida or the federal government that forbids him to draw pictures.

I doubt that Hugh Hefner (or the Feminist Anti-Censorship Taskforce for that matter) would care if it was the government collecting fines, or Andrea Dworkin collecting damages.

I doubt that the dissenting feminists at the 1992 University of Michigan Law School symposium on prostitution cared that it was Catherine MacKinnon's students and not the government who had their exhibit branded as pornography and removed. [7], [8], [9] [14]

If someone holds enough power over you to stop you from expressing yourself, that's censorship.

What limitations on expression are ok?

So this brings us to the question of what kind of censorship do I think is ok? And what kind of censorship do I actually think is good?

First of all, I support copyright and libel laws. Simply because these are cases where real actual harm is caused by the theft of an artist's work, and by libel. Note that copyright laws do not suppress free expression, they merely ensure that artists retain control over the fruits of their labor. Your copyright on your work doesn't stop me from expressing my ideas. Libel laws do not stop you from speaking the truth.

I also support the limitations on those laws -- to prevent the kind of abuses we're seeing by the Scientologists, for instance.

I support third-party cancels of spam and other net abuse, provided that the very strict conventions on accountability are adhered to. Spam cancellations don't stop you from having your say, they just force you to keep your voice down to a reasonable volume. I absolutely oppose the use of such cancels to suppress ideas.

I support the right of private entities to censor internally as they see fit. Compu$erve is perfectly free to decide that they want to be a "family" operation and ban newsgroups as they see fit -- just as I am free to take my business elsewhere if I find censorship offensive. My boss is free to tell me to stop reading the net with company computers if they wish.

The issue here is freedom of choice. It's ok if a few internet providers want to clean up their act, provided there is somewhere else I can go. There must be a place for those who abhor censorship, just as there must be a place for those who don't care to hear what I have to say.

Again, however, even private censorship must have its limits. A shopping mall may be private property, but once it opens itself to the public, it becomes a public place and must allow free expression within. Someone who owns a lecture hall may refuse to rent it to me if they disagree with my ideas because I can go elsewhere; but if one entity owns every public place in town, we have a problem.

As for porn, I support the ban on child pornography where actual children are abused to make it. If a child is abused to make a dirty picture, that abuse itself is a crime, and IMHO, distributing that picture is furtherance of the same crime.

But if someone draws a picture of, say a Priest buggering a small boy (this is what the government used to get Mike Diana), so what?

If someone is tricked or forced to perform in a film against their will, or similarly abused in its making, that should be grounds for preventing the distribution of that film. Linda Marchiano should have been able to stop "Deep Throat" from being distributed. Note that this is not an issue specific to pornography -- think in terms of property rights to an image. E.g., you can't even distribute photographs of the Lone Cyprus in Carmel without permission of the tree's owners.

I support keeping hard-core pornography from children -- they lack the context and experience to judge it properly. This is somewhat of a non-issue as far as censorship is concerned, as eventually they will be old enough to see what they want.

Have I left anything out? What else, specifically, does anybody here think should be banned?

The Dworkin/MacKinnon Ordinance

 The "Dworkin/MacKinnon Ordinance" is a model ordinance presented for the use of governments for inclusion into civil rights laws, intended to extend the civil rights of women. The basic idea is to allow women harmed by pornography to sue the pornographers for damages.

On the surface, and as promoted by anti-porn feminists, it sounds very reasonable. It states that pornography is the "systematic practice of exploitation and subordination based on sex...". It makes it a crime to force women to perform in pornography without their consent or to force pornography on unwilling women.

However, as the saying goes: What the large print giveth, the small print taketh away. The devil is in the details:

The definition of "pornography" is extremely broad and uses highly subjective terms. In particular, the parts about women being shown in postures of submission, or as whores by nature, or so on, could be interpreted to mean anything the plaintiffs and court could want.

In the Massachusetts version of the law, it is illegal to show a woman in postures of display (section (1).(e), line 18). In other words, a simple image of a woman posing in the nude would be actionable.

The mere production, exhibition or distribution of pornography is, in itself, illegal. No woman need be harmed. (Section (l))

Liability extends to sellers and distributors. For example, the 7-11 that sells Playboy runs the risk of being found legally liable for what's printed therein. The effect of this should be obvious -- the 7-11 doesn't dare carry Playboy any more. Thus, Playboy is forced off the shelves without a lawsuit having ever been filed.

Any woman may sue on behalf of all women, whether or not she personally was affected. (Section (l).(3))

Under the section on coercing a woman into performing for pornography, the ordinance goes on to say, in round-about terms, that women are incapable of giving consent. In particular, the fact that a woman consented cannot be used as evidence of consent. (section (m).(2).(viii,ix,x,xi)) Likewise the facts that the woman signed a contract, expressed willingness and/or showed no resistance cannot be taken as evidence of consent.

The law was passed in Minneapolis (this is the version referenced here) but vetoed by the Mayor. The law was then passed in Indianapolis, where it was signed into law but overturned by the courts.* Part of the law was adopted by the Canadian Supreme Court in the case Butler v. The Queen in which the old "morals" definition of pornography was replaced by the Dworkin/MacKinnon "harm to women" definition.

For a more complete history, see Catharine A. MacKinnon: The Rise of a Feminist Censor, 1983-1993, by Christopher M. Finan and Anne F. Castro

S.A. Hanna has written a paper covering the hypothetical effects of a Dworkin-MacKinnon style law. It's about 150K in length, but well worth reading.

Eye of the Beholder

 There's an old joke about a man in a psychiatrist's office that goes something like this:
A man goes to a psychiatrist's office, and the psychiatrist decides to give the man a Rorschach test. He shows the man the first ink blot, and asks the man what he sees.

"That's a couple of lesbians doing '69'."

The psychiatrist is a bit surprised, but he says nothing and goes on to the next ink blot.

"That's a guy fucking a dog."

Again, the psychiatrist is a bit taken aback, but presses on with another ink blot.

"That looks like a midget giving a blow-job to a horse."

At this point, the psychiatrist, throws his ink-blots down on the desk and says "Mr. Smith, you have the dirtiest mind I have ever seen in this office!"

"Hey, don't look at me doc; you're the one with a bunch of filthy pictures!"

So, what does this all mean? When I look at a photograph or a painting, and see complex symbolism, or subliminal messages, who put those things there, the artist or me?

If you look at a photograph of a young nude woman or a couple making love, do you see a gorgeous babe or (as Nikki Craft puts it) a disposable cunt?[10]

When Nikki Craft sees a disposable cunt, is this what the photographer presents, or what Nikki Craft sees? Does this tell us more about the photographer's view of women, or of Nikki Craft's?

To best understand Andrea Dworkin's views on pornography and sex you need to read her books, Pornography: Men Possessing Women and Intercourse.

Questions and Issues
Perhaps you feel that there is nothing wrong with the portrayals of women in some porn is all right. ...
-- Elizabeth Frantes <franel00@usfca.edu>, netnews article
I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that censorship is worse.

My take on this whole censorship thing is basically this:

That could have a lot to do with the fact that you are not a woman. ...
I was unaware that being male made me ineligible to oppose censorship, or that being female automatically made one in favor of it.
I have heard many people attack the D/M ordinance on the basis of censorship. You mention that on the surface it doesn't seem so bad and that was my impression on reading it last year. ...
-- Patti Jean Hannah, netnews article 4d3h6e$phs@agate.berkeley.edu

Oh, it's censorship, make no mistake about it. It's deliberately written to look harmless at first glance, but all bad laws are written that way. As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the law includes a few key phrases that can be interpreted to mean anything the court wants it to mean. This law is a blanket ban on all erotica, and a whole lot more.

I guess that I don't tend to have the same sorts of fears as far as application goes that I hear others voice, however, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but don't we as Americans generally accept censorship as a good thing in certain cases?

Yes, they do. In very specific cases, as limited by the constitution. The Dworkin/MacKinnon ordinance is far too broad.

For instance, child porn. Isn't it illegal, and therefore "censored".

Yes it is. The reasoning being that actual children are abused in its making.

... And I believe that since WWII any Nazi propaganda in Germany is censored (quite actively). Do you think this is a good thing?

I have mixed feelings about this. I suppose that one could argue that what happened during WWII was so horrible that the Germans lost their right to free speech as a consequence. Note that Nazi propaganda is still legal in the United States.

My partner tells me after heated debates between us on this issue that he would rather see the porn no matter how horrifying it is then see the censorship. He paints it as a censorship issue for him. But I think that attitude is sort of based on this notion that censorship is gone and that we must be diligent to keep it away and also obviously that censorship is inherently bad.

I've seen some pretty horrifying porn myself. Go see the film Not A Love Story for numerous examples -- various anti-porn organizations show it from time to time. Or simply visit some of the fetish binaries newsgroups on the net and start downloading.

However, I agree with your partner. I've seen some pretty horrifying stuff, but none of it was bad enough to justify censorship on the scale that Dworkin & MacKinnon want.

And always remember: censorship is a weapon that can AND WILL be used against women and minorities. Remember the Comstock laws. Think of Margaret Sanger sitting in prison for telling women how to control their own bodies. Think of the Canadian government using the Butler decision to raid gay/lesbian bookstores. Think of a documentary about prostitution being labeled pornographic and banned from a conference on prostitution. [13]

As someone whose name I really wish I could remember once said:

We must allow Larry Flynt to publish his scratch-n-sniff centerfolds, so that we may continue to publish _Our Bodies Ourselves_.

Quotes
"... I am finally ceasing to see myself as a victim, which is the only way out of all this."

Is Tori suggesting that feminists such as Andrea Dworkin are, therefore, 'victims' because they perceive all acts of intercourse between men and women as rape?

"As women we are simply shaming men by saying 'all men are rapists' and I don't believe in shame. That's just Christianity in another guise, shame as a form of disease, a poison. As a woman I refuse to buy into that any more. So when Andrea Dworkin says that any form of intercourse between men and women is, by it's very nature, rape she is being a victim, yes. And, by extension, she's also saying that all women are powerless, which, of course, I don't believe. Women have got to see beyond those easy labels too, and men. Besides that kind of talk is just the language of violence, which is not, now, how I choose to communicate."

Tori Amos, discussing her album Under the Pink in interview with Joe Jackson, usenet article <48ie7p$d10@zippy.cais.net>

We know censorship is harmful. You cannot say the same about pornography.
Avedon Carol, Feminists Against Censorship, <avedon@cix.compulink.co.uk>,
Opposition to their activities is called "slander," and "hate campaigns"; we are charged with being manipulated by "pimps," with being mouthpieces of pornographers. We are accused of being indifferent to violence against women, the Uncle Toms of patriarchy. It is apparently unthinkable that one might care about women and therefore oppose censorship.
Leanne Katz, executive director of the National Coalition Against Censorship.

To suppress free speech in the name of protecting women is dangerous and wrong.
Betty Friedan

Your average S&M porn is as unrealistic and stylized as your average opera. And the former no more encourages real rape and violence than the latter encourages stabbing people with swords and singing about it afterward.
Carole Ashmore

I never had to take back the night, because I never gave it up.
Lisa Kerr

Any sufficiently advanced political correctness is indistinguishable from irony.
Jane Hawkins
If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought--not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.
Oliver Wendel Holmes, 1928
This law unconstitutionally diminishes our fundamental freedoms, and would open the way for legislation prohibiting other sorts of expression offensive to other groups.
Judge Sarah Evans Barker, in her opinion overturning the Dworkin/MacKinnon ordinance in Indianapolis
. . . much as alteration [of sociological patterns] may be necessary and desirable, free speech, rather than the enemy, is a long-tested and worthy ally. To deny free speech in order to engineer social change . . . erodes the freedoms of all and threatens tyranny and injustice . . .
U.S. District Court Judge Carolyn Dimmick, in her opinion overturning a similar ordinance in Washington state

What motivates the censors? "Fear," said columnist and best-selling author Molly Ivins. In consummate Texas style she told the tale of two boys so spooked by a chicken snake in the henhouse that they lit out simultaneously, "doing considerable damage to themselves and the henhouse door." One of the boys, reminded by his friend's Ma that "You know damn well a chicken snake cant hurt you," responded, "Yes, Ma'am, but some things can scare you so much that you'll hurt yourself."
Molly Ivins

I'm not really hard into pornography -- I've seen some I like and some that made me a bit queasy -- but lots of things can make me queasy, like Ferris wheels and Senate hearings. But they go on and so they should.
Caryn Brooks http://www.teleport.com/~bluesock/s_bright.html

When witch hunters couldn't find real witches, they burned innocent eccentrics as witches. When Red hunters couldn't find real Communists, they went after people with "subversive" political beliefs. And now, during the great kiddie-porn panic, law enforcement agents (unable to find any real pornographers) go after law-abiding people, many for photographing their own kids. The case of Toni Marie Angeli is by no means unique.
Robert Chatelle, Boston Coalition for Freedom of Expression http://world.std.com/~kip/yellotie.html

Nikki, as long as you keep pretending that it is only "boys" who object to Dworkin's analysis and fear the consequences of her activities, you are being dishonest. You know perfectly well that many long-time feminists also find Dworkin's views repugnant and anti-feminist - and harmful to women. You know perfectly well that many, many women are horrified at the fact that Dworkin has helped the moral right take on new credibility and use it to create and enforce new laws that further their repressive agenda.

It certainly isn't just "boys" who are angry that the Dworkin-MacKinnon philosophy has led to the suppression of lesbian materials in the English-speaking world. It's not just "boys" who are reacting against the fact that, thanks to people like you and Andrea Dworkin, the hysteria over pornography has now led to federal legislation that will suppress birth control and abortion information on the internet. And it's not just "boys" who recognize that women's interests are being harmed, and not furthered, by the efforts of Dworkin, MacKinnon, Russell, and you.

Not all of Dworkin's detractors are boys, Nikki.

Avedon Carol, Feminists Against Censorship, <avedon@cix.compulink.co.uk>, netnews article <DMFAHw.6Lt@cix.compulink.co.uk>

With regard to porn, the ironic thing is that in every single X-rated film I've ever seen, women are taking charge and getting off like crazy. This is bad?
Raquel B. Starace, <rockystr@nyc.pipeline.com>, netnews article <4feipr$rep@pipe1.nyc.pipeline.com>

Its red hot, mate. I hate to think of this sort of book getting in the wrong hands. As soon as Ive finished this, I shall recommend they ban it
Tony Hancock (1924-68), British comedian. The Missing Page, on Hancocks Half-Hour, BBC broadcast, 26 Feb. 1960

Essays

Resources

Books:

"Caught Looking" is especially good, as it concentrates on shattering many of the anti-pornography myths.

On the net:

Notes

 [1]Once, during a fire alarm, I saw a guy running around shouting "Theater! Theater!" But that's another story.

[2]Fileroom: http://www.thefileroom.org/documents/dyn/DisplayCase.cfm/id/76
See also: Banned Books 387 B.C. to 1978 A.D., by Anne Lyon Haight, and Chandler B. Grannis, R.R. Bowker Co, 1978

[3]Fileroom: http://www.thefileroom.org/documents/dyn/DisplayCase.cfm/id/144

[4] http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itdhr/0297/ijde/goodsb1.htm See also: Banned Books 387 B.C. to 1978 A.D., by Anne Lyon Haight, and Chandler B. Grannis, R.R. Bowker Co, 1978

[5]See http://www.thefileroom.org/documents/dyn/DisplayCase.cfm/id/142

[6]Source: radio interview with album's producer. If anybody can remember which companies these were, please let me know.

[7]Nadine Strossen, "Defending Pornography", p.211

[8]Censorship News, A Newsletter of the National Coalition Against Censorship, Issue 46, 11/5/92

[9] http://www.thefileroom.org/FileRoom/documents/Cases/118pornImAge.html

[10]Nikki Craft, netnews article rereDn9E3A.F9L@netcom.com

[11]Nadine Strossen, "Defending Pornography", p.???

[12]Nadine Strossen, "Defending Pornography", p.???

[13]See http://insight.mcmaster.ca/org/efc/pages/chronicle/customs.html for a list of works banned under the Butler act.

[14]Carol Leigh's account of the 1992 incident can be found at http://research.umbc.edu/~korenman/wmst/leigh_response.html

[15] Democracy NOW! Headlines. and Montreal Oscar stories

Page maintained by Ed Falk