?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
17 May 2010 @ 09:23 am
Writer's Block: This material has been censored  
Do you think the government should have the right to censor the media? If you're generally against censorship, are there any circumstances under which you feel it might be warranted?


Do you think the government should have the right to censor the media? If you're generally against censorship, are there any circumstances under which you feel it might be warranted?

Unca Bob had this one down:

When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, "This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know," the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything—you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him.

—Robert Anson Heinlein, "If This Goes On—" (1940)



That, by the way, is from a short novel about a Fundamentalist takeover of the United States after a "backwoods preacher" is elected President in 2012.1

Heinlein also said, "The whole principle is wrong; it's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't eat steak."

Now, Unca Bob, especially in the second quote, was talking about what Wikipedia calls moral censorship2, the suppression of speech that some individuals might find offensive or immoral; that is, in my estimation, subtly different from military censorship.

It is the opinion of Your Obedient Serpent that both "moral" and "military" censorship are always wrong; however, there are instances when the latter might be less bad than the alternatives. A Fully Transparent Government would not have survived World War II, and the most likely replacement had even less regard to such niceties.

It's a key part of my ethical system, however, that being forced to do bad things to avoid worse consequences does not make them good things; when you allow yourself to frame the kind of secrecy and suppression practiced in WWII as "good", you take the first step on the slippery slope that justifies political censorship, and all the cover-ups and black projects that burden us today.

I also don't automatically equate industry ratings systems as "censorship", although the MPAA has certainly demonstrated that they can be arbitrary and putative, and big studios, finding that "General Audience" films are often ignored, often tack extra nude scenes or coarse language to get an otherwise-acceptable movie out of the "kiddie ghetto"—an ironic kind of anti-censorship. Marvel Comics has implemented an entirely functional ratings system for their comics, however; while most adult comic readers are wholly unaware that Marvel even has one, the discreet little letter codes in the UPC symbol box provide a useful guide to parents looking for suitable reading material for their children, and comic store workers attempting to assist them.

I could go on, but I expect these opinions to get thoroughly Disassembled in the comments. I haven't even touched on the idea of "hate crimes" yet.


1The same timeline has a well-established Lunar colony at this point; grumbling about only getting the crappy parts of future histories may now commence.

2Wikipedia distinguishes between "moral" and "religious" censorship; please pardon me if I consider that to be hair-splitting.

 
 
 
Darkwulfjdarkwulf on May 17th, 2010 04:54 pm (UTC)
I tend to agree with your assessment of military censorship being "less bad", though still not good. As easy as sharing information is these days, it is fairly vital that the enemy not know what you are doing, but it is even more crucial that your own people are always aware of what you have done.

Edited at 2010-05-17 04:54 pm (UTC)
Corsethgalis on May 17th, 2010 05:12 pm (UTC)
Agreement on the military censorship issue. The key is for the people involved to recognize and admit that it's happening, and recognize that it is not an ideal state of affairs.

"Unfortunately we cannot let you publish this information for interests of national security" is not the worst option. It acknowledges that it is being censored deliberately, so it keeps it 'available' in a sense. It needs to be remembered by those involved that this is a less than ideal solution to meet a current situation and when the situation changes the solution should be re-examined as well. Surprisingly little needs to fall in this category too; military/security plans, formations, supply, projects, etc usually have nothing to do with the mechanics and dealings of the government.

Any other kind of censorship to me is totally unacceptable. Sure, there are sometimes consequences for what you say and you have to own up to them, but threats of violence are not acceptable responses to a person's opinion or statements. Legal consequences should only occur for /deliberate/ falsehoods meant to cause immediate damage (IE, the classic 'yelling fire in a theater', slander/libel, etc), and we already have them covered by law.

Moral censorship is the worst because it has no easily defined boundaries. What counts as sufficiently offensive, and to whom? Details of nuclear weapon locations is a single compartmentalized bit of information, and slander/libel is a deliberate attempt to do damage to a specific person through falsehoods. 'Offensive' speech on the other hand, may be opinion, may be fact, and whether or not its offensive at all depends on the 'viewer'.
Leodrleo on May 17th, 2010 05:54 pm (UTC)
The thing about "military censorship" is that its effective window is short, and so that eventually whatever is suppressed should be brought to light, at which point the decision to censor in the first place can be examined in hindsight, and inform future policy decisions on such things -- and censure those who overstep. That's the theory, anyway. What bothers me is how "national security" has become this trump card to suppress things indefinitely.
silussa on May 17th, 2010 06:01 pm (UTC)
I've never quite figured out why doing something because you hate something or someone is worse then if you don't; it's still illegal. Besides, reading minds is an area that makes me queasy when the government tries to do it.

Heck, I have enough trouble reading emotions, and I have a lot more practice at it then almost any government bureaucrat, I'm sure.
Your Obedient Serpent: cronkiteathelind on May 17th, 2010 06:48 pm (UTC)
Reductio Ad Absurdium
I'm going to pick a deliberately extreme example, because I'm not trying to draw any firm lines in what has to be a fuzzy model: I'm just trying to establish the point that Motive Matters.

A truck plows through a red light, smashing through a busload of nuns and orphans, crippling the few who aren't killed outright.

Did the truck's brakes fail, or did the driver hate Catholics?

I say there's a big honking huge difference between those situations.

Nuns and orphans too much? Fine. There's also a difference between spray-painting "♥ Billy + Sally ♥" on the side of a 7-11 and painting "DIE JUDEN SCUM ☠☠☠☠" on the side of a Kosher deli.

Edited at 2010-05-17 06:49 pm (UTC)
Re: Reductio Ad Absurdium - kymri on May 17th, 2010 08:19 pm (UTC) (Expand)
Re: Reductio Ad Absurdium - notthebuddha on May 18th, 2010 03:25 am (UTC) (Expand)
lyttlebyrdlyttlebyrd on May 17th, 2010 08:07 pm (UTC)
*waves* hi! I'm jirris and mordena's friend... I added you a while back. Anyhow,

I like the second quote you use. It puts perfectly into words what I feel as well. Of course,Heinlein has a way with words ;)
Bobyourbob on May 17th, 2010 08:13 pm (UTC)
I think I'm with y'all on this. "Necessary" duration is the only censorship I can even begin to excuse.

An I agree that ratings are not censorship, except in the high end of the MPAA, perhaps it comes close (the potential X rating that only "special" theaters will allow). I realize they're not technically making it unavailable, the theater owners are.

Musing here: I wonder if there'd be a market for a "non-porn" X-rated or not-rated movie house. I know some art-houses do that, but I've not paid much attention to actual ratings since I turned 18. Once I get back to a blue state, maybe I'll look into that. Just as a matter of interest.
Kymrikymri on May 17th, 2010 08:33 pm (UTC)
Art-house films will often get NR or an NC-17 rating (since the MPAA doesn't issue an 'X' rating, partially in an effort to move away from the perception that any rating past R is pornography).

Films have, in the past, been made without the intent to be porn, and gotten NC-17 ratings. They almost never do even remotely as well as they might have otherwise; there's a huge restriction in market (that is not censorship) when that happens as most major theater chains and video rental stores have policies that won't let them carry NC-17 rated films. In addition, WalMart certainly won't carry it!

It's a multi-faceted issue without a clear cause or a simple solution: while it's likely that there is a market for non-pornographic NC-17 rated films, it would be very difficult to demonstrate or prove. A Clockwork Orange received an X rating (this was before the change to NC-17, obviously) in the mid 1970s.

Since most of the distribution channel for films won't touch something that's not rated R or below, most production companies won't make a film that doesn't get an MPAA rating of R or less. In fact, Warner Brothers digitally inserted additional figures into the orgy scene in Eyes Wide Shut to obscure some of what was going on in order to avoid an NC-17 rating.

The result is that while art-house theaters will often show films that are unrated or NC-17, those films are almost the exclusive realm of the independent or 'art' film productions, and almost never the result of something backed by a major studio in a major way, and so they suffer the double-whammy of a limited distribution channel and necessarily VASTLY smaller promotional budgets (often three or four orders of magnitude smaller than the budget that will be spent publicizing something like Avatar or Iron Man or The Dark Knight).

(Oh, and the less said about Showgirls, the better.)
Grauph. - yourbob on May 17th, 2010 08:52 pm (UTC) (Expand)
Grauph. - kymri on May 17th, 2010 08:58 pm (UTC) (Expand)
Christopher Bradleycpxbrex on May 17th, 2010 11:22 pm (UTC)
I think it's absolutely untested if a "fully transparent government" would have survived WWII. (And, y'know, Godwin's law, I should add.) I think that pretty much the same thing would have happened, regardless of our transparency. The Axis powers lost because they didn't have the personnel or resources to do what they were trying to do.

I also know that Nazi science was so incredibly dogmatic that even if they had been reading each and every paper written by Allied scientists they would not have been free to implement them - especially the stuff written by Jews. There are exhaustive examples of Nazi scientists not following productive lines of research because they were tainted wit Jewry. But beyond that, the Allied nations would have been doing scientific progress even faster without so much research being state secrets. It wouldn't have just been some guys in Berkeley and MIT and Oak Ridge working on the bomb - it would have been every physicist with an interest in kicking German ass. It would have been group-sourced to use modern vernacular. I think that the pace of technological invention during WWII (which actually fell off during the wartime period, contrary to popular opinion, largely because of the imposition of state secrecy on a bunch of stuff) would have been so much higher and faster than any other power that the fact the Axis powers would have had access to some Allied research would have been rendered irrelevant (and after a certain point, even having access to that research would have been irrelevant without the technological and educational infrastructure to do anything with it).

Of course, that's just an opinion. But so is the idea that a transparent government is somehow more vulnerable to tyrannical conquest. There is no proof, though it is clear that free societies generate technological advances much faster than tyrannical societies, even in those areas where information flows freely across borders (like with much of science). I can't think of a single tyrannical nation - even China - whose technology matches democratic republics with a lot of personal freedoms even in those areas where information travels freely. So I will say that I believe the evidence is to the contrary to the idea that military secrecy is necessary.

Or, really, any kind of secrecy at all. Secrecy does not work.
Corsethgalis on May 18th, 2010 01:43 am (UTC)
Much of World War 2 was won via code-breaking and deception. The pacific war was won primarily at Midway, and Normandy would not have been possible without secrets.

It is not worth the bloodbath that it would be to the soldiers who fight, to make military movements, supply and deployment public knowledge. There's very little domestic gain to that (what possible use against domestic tyranny would it have been had the US citizens known the date and target of the Normandy landing?) and very real risk to the troops.

Fortunately, this is a very compartmentalized area of knowledge. You don't need to share direct military matters, and military technology; these issues have almost no bearing on the sorts of domestic information control that can lead to tyranny. Now, not saying you're at war at ALL, that'd be different. But there are things that the public legitimately has no need to know in advance.
Grauph. - cpxbrex on May 18th, 2010 04:04 am (UTC) (Expand)
Grauph. - galis on May 18th, 2010 04:10 am (UTC) (Expand)
Grauph. - galis on May 18th, 2010 04:15 am (UTC) (Expand)
Grauph. - cpxbrex on May 18th, 2010 04:29 am (UTC) (Expand)
Grauph. - galis on May 18th, 2010 04:34 am (UTC) (Expand)
Grauph. - cpxbrex on May 18th, 2010 05:00 am (UTC) (Expand)
Grauph. - galis on May 18th, 2010 05:05 am (UTC) (Expand)
Grauph. - galis on May 18th, 2010 05:12 am (UTC) (Expand)
Grauph. - cpxbrex on May 18th, 2010 04:24 am (UTC) (Expand)
Grauph. - iridium_wolf on May 18th, 2010 01:44 pm (UTC) (Expand)
Grauph. - cpxbrex on May 19th, 2010 06:30 am (UTC) (Expand)
Grauph. - iridium_wolf on May 19th, 2010 11:13 am (UTC) (Expand)
Tombfyretombfyre on May 17th, 2010 11:25 pm (UTC)
Couldn't agree more there chief. :p We should all be wary of Nehemiah Scudder and his ilk.
Corsethgalis on May 18th, 2010 01:35 am (UTC)
Also yeah, ratings are not censorship. The material is still out there and still available just fine.

It does cause Hollywood to avoid some topics and push others, to get the ratings they want. This is still not a censorship issue, because Hollywood is a /business/ first. If people in my neighborhood buy more cookies than lemonade, I should open a cookie stand; it doesn't mean I /can't/ open a lemonade stand.

Ratings can be used for censorship though (Australia and Germany are somewhat notorious for this, where you can't sell unrated media, it has to have a rating, and if their board doesn't like something they refuse to rate it, thus prevent it from being legally sold). However the basic concept is fine.
Starblade Enkaistarblade_enkai on May 18th, 2010 04:05 am (UTC)
Quick question. Do you support Obama's decision to place Elena Kagan on the Supreme Court, even after she wrote to The University of Chicago Law Review? You know, the article that can be found here: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Private-Speech-Public-Purpose.pdf ?

It just goes to show that religion isn't free speech's only enemy.
Starblade Enkai: Dragonflystarblade_enkai on May 18th, 2010 07:15 am (UTC)
Religion AND military, I might add, to put it in the context of your article.
Iridium Wolfiridium_wolf on May 18th, 2010 05:22 pm (UTC)
I have been watching this discussion for a while, not sure what to say about it. My career has become intertwined with this issue, and I have now about ten years of professional experience with it. I work for a very large government agency, I am intimately familiar with Executive Order 12958, as amended, and I am experienced with the Freedom of Information Act. I even have some passing familarity with the Privacy Act.
Iridium Wolfiridium_wolf on May 18th, 2010 05:33 pm (UTC)
Hit reply too soon, my apologies.

Athelind knows me and my political leanings, and I am all for more government transparency and a freer flow of information. That said, there is some information that is classified for very good reasons and remains so for very good reasons. Not all information should be shared completely and freely. There is no reason the average person needs to know the technical specs of how to build a nuclear weapon, for example, or to know the encryption algoriths for military communications

Privacy information kept confidential is also a secret, with very good reason. Should the government freely disperse your tax information, your social security number, and anything else about to all comers? Or should that be kept secret?