Censorship and the arts.

[HomerPindar]

Last weekend I discovered that the Digichat here at Lit censors, in particular it didn't allow me to use the word rape. Never mind why I might want to, it bothered me that it didn't let me ~ it auto replaced it with some silly nonsense obviously meant not to upset folks.

I logged off. I PM Laurel to ask her about this. She's yet to answer. I looked up Digichat software myself. No mention on a censorship function. Then I remembered that Digichat still can't save my settings or bio information. Obviously there's still a couple of bugs to work out there. I checked out some ICQ, IRC and even MUD's (hey, I like communicating to people online). These too have their own, to variable degrees, censorships. (Oh, take me back to the days of private BBS's and dialups)

To what degree do we, as poets and wordsmiths, accept censorship? If I consent to use a website, do I then endorse its policies? Even if they include censorship? Does working within a system default as a consent of the system, or can a system be changed from within?

Ultimately I decided I simply like you folks too much to not to keep in touch and to keep writing poetry. And I figured I'd value your opinions on all of this. Besides, where else will I find a collection of talent, brains and good looks?

HomerPindar

 

[WickedEve]

I'm not sure about the chat. I know the word rape is used in stories at lit. If a site makes it known that they will not accept certain content, and you choose to use that site, then you need play by the rules. On my site I feel free to do as I please. I do censor my own work, though. There are places I'm not willing to go with my writing simply because I choose not to and because I really do try to be sensitive to other's feelings.

 

[HomerPindar]

I'm not sure about the chat. I know the word rape is used in stories at lit. If a site makes it known that they will not accept certain content, and you choose to use that site, then you need play by the rules. On my site I feel free to do as I please. I do censor my own work, though. There are places I'm not willing to go with my writing simply because I choose not to and because I really do try to be sensitive to other's feelings.

Understandable on all points. One of the things that particularly irked me about the Digichat censor is the banners at the top of the forums. Censorship and I don't mix, but hypocracy and I REALLY don't get along (no matter how much of a hypocrite I am ).

A major problem with the media today is self-censorship. Journalist "A" submits a story. Editor decides the story will piss of so-and-so who the editor decides cannot be pissed off (or on for that matter) so he kills the story. Repeat. Repeat...until journalist "A" is sitting as his desk and thinks to himself, "This will never get past my editor, so there's no sense in trying."

This comes in conflict with privatly owned web-sites, such as this one. Laurel basically has the right to do with her site as she sees fit. I don't like it, I can always leave. Laurel, with editoral control, can dictate the art of writing as she sees fit at this site. But, this does fly in the face of free speach (although anyone who wants to argue the very existance of free speach is free to pay my internet connection bill the next time it comes up).

In this era of right wing - shoot first-make up some answers to possible questions later - era I just tend to feel the need to fight for every inch, or word as the case maybe. Even if I have no interest in using said words myself.

HomerPindar

 

[WickedEve]

So you're saying, "I don't plan to use it but it's my right to use it, so I want it." I can understand that.

It's not fun censoring myself, but I feel in some cases a person should. I do try to keep it to a minimum though. I do know that I'll never cross certain lines. I had unpleasant situation on another board where the content of one of my poems stirred up some heated words that eventually became ugly. I didn't think what I wrote should have really been that major of a problem, but I understand now why it was for some people. So this incident has made me much more aware of the power of words. I want to be responsible but not to the point of walking on egg shells.

 

[HomerPindar]

So you're saying, "I don't plan to use it but it's my right to use it, so I want it." I can understand that.

It's as much to say that I fear that if I don't argue for my right to use it, it will be assumed that I have concented to my rights being withdrawn from it's use. Much the same way that by using this site I've concented to the rules here... If I don't continue to test those bounds, am I agreeing to give up rights I dont fight for?

It's not fun censoring myself, but I feel in some cases a person should. I do try to keep it to a minimum though. I do know that I'll never cross certain lines. I had unpleasant situation on another board where the content of one of my poems stirred up some heated words that eventually became ugly. I didn't think what I wrote should have really been that major of a problem, but I understand now why it was for some people. So this incident has made me much more aware of the power of words. I want to be responsible but not to the point of walking on egg shells.

Are you responsable for how your words are taken by others?

Are rock stars responsable for poeple following messages they find in the music?

HomerPindar

 

[WickedEve]

Are you responsable for how your words are taken by others?

Are rock stars responsable for poeple following messages they find in the music?

HomerPindar

I think you have to have some responsibility and you need to use your common sense. You mentioned the word rape. I'm sure you wouldn't share a "I'm a guy and I like the idea of rape" poem on a board where rape victims discuss their trauma. I know that's an extreme example, but I think people should consider the consequences of their words.
If a heavy metal band has song lyrics about how great suicide is for teens and a teen kills himself, is the band responsible? They can say that the parents should have been responsible for what the child listened to and that there must have been something wrong in the teen's life to start with.
Even though we should all take responsibility for our words, we can't make everyone happy. We will write controversial, rude, indecent words, at least, ones that are perceived that way by someone.

 

[HomerPindar]

I think you have to have some responsibility and you need to use your common sense. You mentioned the word rape. I'm sure you wouldn't share a "I'm a guy and I like the idea of rape" poem on a board where rape victims discuss their trauma. I know that's an extreme example, but I think people should consider the consequences of their words.

A fine and fair example...only, this is lit, and rape fantasies are part and parcel to erotic writings. And perhaps subject for chats too. Which word is was shouldn't matter in a place advertising Free Speach Coalition and Anti-Censorship banners, should it?

Your example would be the equivilant of yelling fire in a theater, you're attacking the reader where they go to feel safe. Not my intent, readers and chatters at Lit come looking for what they get.

If a heavy metal band has song lyrics about how great suicide is for teens and a teen kills himself, is the band responsible? They can say that the parents should have been responsible for what the child listened to and that there must have been something wrong in the teen's life to start with.
Even though we should all take responsibility for our words, we can't make everyone happy. We will write controversial, rude, indecent words, at least, ones that are perceived that way by someone.

I see this heading towards a debate over American's love for fierce individualism, where everyone is responsible for thier own lifes in its extreme fashion. I am not blaming Laurel for my word choice, but of the hypocracy of having censorship of sex related topics in a sex related chat.

Are there times for certain places and certain words? Sure, it's called social conformity. I don't go spouting erotic poetry at work. I don't talk about role-playing games in my History class (although, I did get to sing "Every sperm is sacred" is my English class...and it was on topic! ). But, niether of these cases are censoring my poetry, or my games. It's simply not the social context to talk about those things in those places.

Literotica is different, they are inviting folks to write, prose and poetry, and to chat with readers and writers alike. This is more along the lines of the Maplethorpe photos, does the gallery bend to the pressure to censore the photos, or fight for the artistic right to piss people off who paid for the showing with their own tax money? Is Lit bending to a pressure? If so, please let me know, cause I'll fight tooth and nail for it's rights to web-publish anything it damn well pleases. And, if it is bending, where do I go to target the pressure, instead of the ones being pressured. (I don't want Laurel thinking I am a problem when I'd rather be an resource)

HomerPindar

 

[WickedEve]

Oh sure, if you're talking literotica, then most anything should be allowed. I know there's no child porn here (thankfully) and I'm not sure what else is taboo, but people do have rape fantasies and write about it here, so the word shouldn't be taboo in chat. And what guy wouldn't love to have a girl approach him in chat and say, "You're making me so fucking horny that I could rip your pants off and rape you." Some may not like it but...

 

[Angeline]

Homer I'm Glad You Decided to Stay....

you bring alot to this "community" and not just poems--although when we chatted last night in that room full of lunatics, I was beginning to wonder why any of us are here, lol.

I despise censorship in principle because I believe that chipping away at freedom of speech, even a little, is the beginning of a walk down a road that ultimately ultimately leads to a world where societies like those in 1984 or Farenheit 451 become possible--I guess some people would argue we're kinda there now.

This is also why I am passionate--probably to the point of obnoxious--about literacy. The less you read, the less you think and question in my opinion, and the more likely you are to accept whatever information is handed you. And people have ALL kinds of motivations for wanting you to have whatever information they want to hand you.

Having said that though I kinda feel about some censorship the way I do about the ACLU defending the KKK. It's a necessary evil, like supporting the right for places like this to publish writing about nonconsensual sex--particularly the violent stuff and especially that involving minors. I'll defend its freedom to exist, but frankly some of it sickens me.

 

[HomerPindar]

Oh sure, if you're talking literotica, then most anything should be allowed. I know there's no child porn here (thankfully) and I'm not sure what else is taboo, but people do have rape fantasies and write about it here, so the word shouldn't be taboo in chat. And what guy wouldn't love to have a girl approach him in chat and say, "You're making me so fucking horny that I could rip your pants off and rape you." Some may not like it but...

The child porn is a good point, for it targets what is an unhealthy relationship to sex. In affect, its like yelling fire in the porn-book-shop. For someone with a healthy BSDM fetish doesn't want to see something that intrudes upon thier fantasy. Hurting children would do just that. So, in affect, that doesn't belong in a sex-fantasy-site, it would disturb the fantasy.

Since this site is about fantasy and not about dealing with the issue it would not fit. And again, it doesn't restrict the art of writing, poetry or prose.

HomerPindar

 

[HomerPindar]

Re: Homer I'm Glad You Decided to Stay....

you bring alot to this "community" and not just poems--although when we chatted last night in that room full of lunatics, I was beginning to wonder why any of us are here, lol.

Why, because I'm the center of the looney-verse, of course!

I despise censorship in principle because I believe that chipping away at freedom of speech, even a little, is the beginning of a walk down a road that ultimately ultimately leads to a world where societies like those in 1984 or Farenheit 451 become possible--I guess some people would argue we're kinda there now.

This is also why I am passionate--probably to the point of obnoxious--about literacy. The less you read, the less you think and question in my opinion, and the more likely you are to accept whatever information is handed you. And people have ALL kinds of motivations for wanting you to have whatever information they want to hand you.

Having said that though I kinda feel about some censorship the way I do about the ACLU defending the KKK. It's a necessary evil, like supporting the right for places like this to publish writing about nonconsensual sex--particularly the violent stuff and especially that involving minors. I'll defend its freedom to exist, but frankly some of it sickens me.

Well, the US is well on it's way to a fascist police state (Beware the Homeland Security). And while I whole heartedly agree on the literacy, I dare say not enough americans get a viared enough source of information.

Something confounds me here though. I always thought that the ACLU defended the KKK in order to defend free speach, in this case speach I disagree with, but none the less... As such, I'm not sure I get the feeling about censorship. I'm not, for any reason, supporting censorship among equals (a word choice that harkens back to other points in this thread). Between artist and art fans there should be a certain amount of equality. One makes it, the other either takes it or leaves it.

HomerPindar

 

[Angeline]

Art and Censorship

Between artist and art fans there should be a certain amount of equality. One makes it, the other either takes it or leaves it.

Well free speech and freedom of choice as far as what constitutes art are closely related, I think. We both live close enough to NYC, Homer, to know Howard Stern all too well--years ago I was a listener and sometimes he cracked me up; other times he made me want to throttle him. But he has always maintained that if you don't like him, go elsewhere. That works for me. Unfortunately if the ACLU defends the Klan's right to parade through my town, it's harder to avoid, but if I don't support their right to do so, at least in principle, who knows what art or right we lose next.

I recently made this argument elsewhere about Robert Mapplethorpe. I find some of his stuff repugnant, but if somebody else feels enriched by their exposure to his "art," it's not only none of ny business who likes whom, but I'll go a step further and say I'm happy for anyone who can find some enrichment from art as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.

 

[HomerPindar]

Re: Art and Censorship

Between artist and art fans there should be a certain amount of equality. One makes it, the other either takes it or leaves it.

Well free speech and freedom of choice as far as what constitutes art are closely related, I think. We both live close enough to NYC, Homer, to know Howard Stern all too well--years ago I was a listener and sometimes he cracked me up; other times he made me want to throttle him. But he has always maintained that if you don't like him, go elsewhere. That works for me. Unfortunately if the ACLU defends the Klan's right to parade through my town, it's harder to avoid, but if I don't support their right to do so, at least in principle, who knows what art or right we lose next.

I actually lived in a town where the klan had gotten the right to march. Some folks said not showing up is the best response. I argued that I prefer to know my enemy, even if they are too ignorant to see my pacifism as an enemy.

I recently made this argument elsewhere about Robert Mapplethorpe. I find some of his stuff repugnant, but if somebody else feels enriched by their exposure to his "art," it's not only none of ny business who likes whom, but I'll go a step further and say I'm happy for anyone who can find some enrichment from art as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.

Ah, but it's in the definition of hurt that some folks argued for his, and other, censorship. It hurt them emotionally, or intelectually, or economically (as the gallery was funded by the NEA ~ but Mapplethorpe wasn't) to have this photo work shown. But, the recovery from pain is a great motivator towards the arts, or society. Being "hurt" is a tricky thing, and that's not even getting into masochism. I think it was Leo Bascillia (sp?) who said, given a choice between pain and numbness, he'd take pain every time...

HomerPindar