The very word conjures up visions of Big Brother, of
somebody leaning over your shoulder, ready to snatch the latest book or movie
or song or whatever out of your hands. The mind turns to dictatorships or
communism or any other form of totalitarian state and I, for one, shudder.
That interpretation is far too shallow, though. Forms of
censorship have been around forever in all societies. When I was about to
attend university (a few years ago, yes, but well within living memory) the
Kama Sutra was banned, as was D.H. Lawrence's “Lady Chatterley's Lover” and
“Portnoy's Complaint”. To mention just three rather innocuous titles. Perth in
those times and later was noted for the prudishness of the city fathers. The
women in a Zulu group from South Africa performing their native dances were
required to wear brassieres on stage; a performer – I can't remember if it was
Billy Connolly, Kevin Bloody Wilson or Rodney Rude – was arrested or banned
from using the F word on stage. You couldn't get a drink on a Sunday less than thirty
kilometres from town.
They're all forms of censorship, somebody else telling us
what we can and cannot see or hear. So often the arbiter is the church, or an
appointee of Government. The very notion raises my hackles. What right does
anybody else have to determine what I, as an adult, can and cannot see? What
makes them better, purer, less likely to be stained than me? I will decide for
myself if I wish to see gratuitous sex or violence or horror or hear a comedian
say a swear word or watch dancers perform nude.
That's the self-righteous bit over with. It's never so
simple though, is it? Now we get into the murkier waters of when is it
censorship and when is it not? I don't object in any way to the grading system
for movies and other material (R, M, MA PGR
etc). That's to advise and inform. I do have to wonder why sex between
consenting adults is seen as so much more prurient than graphic violence, but
that's another story. I'm a supporter of freedom of speech – within reason (is
reason not a form of censorship)? I don't have the right to denigrate another
person or their belief systems in public and that's fine by me. People are also
not allowed to say the Holocaust didn't happen.
Personally, I think there is
plenty of hard evidence to prove it did; I put Holocaust nay-sayers in the same
box as the idiots who say we didn't land on the Moon – yet one group is
permitted to spruik its stuff while the other is not.
One of the most interesting cases of censorship I've seen is
the recent battle over a book available on Amazon which was a sort of 'how to'
manual for paedophiles. Many of you will remember it. Under the weight of
outraged public opinion, Amazon was forced to withdraw the book. I was one of
those who was horrified that such a book could be bought. Pull it off the
virtual shelves! It's wrong! Paedophilia is disgusting – and I don't say that
lightly, believe me.
Then I noticed a discussion on a writer's group I belong to.
One woman decried the writer of the book and Amazon for allowing people to buy
it, very much a mother defending her children (and others) from monstrous acts.
Another person, a man, presented a different argument. Note that the discussion
was conducted strenuously but amicably and the two people actually knew each
other. I lurked, reading both sides of the discussion with interest. The man
pointed out that there are books available on how to build a bomb, mix poisons,
carry out terrorist attacks and that such books can be purchased by people like
writers for no other purpose than research.
Yes, paedophilia is disgusting and
depraved and such people should not be encouraged, he said. But is there not
some value in knowing what techniques these people use to lure their prey?
Moreover (said the correspondent) where does it end? This censorship? If the
weight of public opinion rails against the koran or the bible, should these be
withdrawn?
At the end I was convinced the male person in this
discussion was right. “Censorship” is another word for removal of freedoms.
Apple at this time has its own form of silent censorship because you cannot buy
items it deems as unsuitable (such as erotica) from its online store. You might
say it has the right to limit what it has available to the public – but can you
then say Amazon does not have the right to sell what it wants?
Judgement is based on knowledge. Censorship ultimately leads
to ignorance. I'll end with Voltaire.
“I do not agree with what you have to
say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.”
Greta van der Rol loves writing science fiction with a large
dollop of good old, healthy romance. She lives not far from the coast in
Queensland, Australia and enjoys photography and cooking when she isn't bent
over the computer. She has a degree in history and a background in building
information systems, both of which go a long way toward helping her in her
writing endeavours.
The Iron Admiral: Deception is coming soon!
Die
a Dry Death is available
from Book
Depository Amazon
US Amazon
UK The e-book's title is To Die a Dry Death
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please leave a comment/review on any of the stories/poems contributed.