Censorship revisited

So, I have just read ‘Letter to Europeans’ by George Mangakis, and I have a tear in my eye. If this is what censorship is about, then it is an abomination before humanity. The humility with which he deals with his incarceration is astounding, the objective of which is to humiliate him and break his spirit; or in his own words to ‘annihilate’ him.

He speaks of his incarceration as just, as he is truly committed to his cause. What is unjust, he goes on to say, is the fact that his prison exists at all. This, considering the circumstances, is an extremely pragmatic view. He expresses no anger toward his torturers, only pity. He is humiliated; however he is not forced to abandon his own sense of humanity in order to humiliate others.

Fear is one of our most powerful instincts, a survival tactic which predates our so called ‘sensibilities’. It is fear that drives dictatorship to such abominable acts of torture. As  Foucault  would have it, knowledge is intrinsically linked to power and discourse. Without information, one can have no knowledge and therefore no power. Fear of losing power and control is apparently a very dangerous thing, if it will drive human beings to such blindness, to cause such suffering to those who merely want for freedom and to speak their minds.

…they strut around in their uniforms… intoxicated with the power in their hands. Their intoxication is nothing other than the degradation of humanity.

George Mangakis 1972

This is a strange form of procrastination, considering I put today aside to start my essay

Identity tourism

I have been asked to choose an identity which is alien to me and write a short piece from that perspective. As a confirmed atheist, I thought it would be interesting to write from the point of view of someone with fundamental religious views. I have chosen the Southern Baptist convention and their stance on homosexuality:

The foundational beliefs of the Southern Baptist Convention are based around the Holy Bible. We believe that it was written by men who were divinely inspired and it is through the bible that God reveals himself to man. The scripture is totally true and trust worthy. Through the Holy Bible, God has revealed the principles by which man will be judged, and set the standards by which all human conduct and religious opinion should be tried.

Homosexuality is denounced by the bible; therefore it is sinful. Sexual orientation is a matter of choice and can therefore be overcome. It is not caused by hormonal imbalance or genetic factors, but through an unhealthy relationship with ones parents. As set out in the scriptures, the family unit is comprised of those related through marriage, blood or adoption. Marriage is the sacred union between man and women in covenant commitment for life. It is this union that provides the foundations for the procreation of the species. To condone homosexuality through the legalization of same sex marriage conveys societal approval; this poses a danger not only to the individuals involved but to society as a whole. Homosexuality is a reflection of a general moral decline in America; this can only be exacerbated by a social acceptance of homosexual marriage, as future generations will grow up without proper family values.

With all of these factors in mind, discrimination against homosexuals will be deemed proper in the interests of protecting the heterosexual family. The Southern Baptist Convention will continue to stand against homosexual marriages. We will however, demonstrate our love for those practicing homosexuality through prayer. That they may be shown the forgiving and transforming power of the gospel and receive ultimate salvation.

midnight academic ponderings – censorship

So, I should be asleep, but no dice. I have been taking a great deal of interest in the subject of censorship and free speech, mainly because every time I think about it I challenge my own opinions. On one hand, we have to allow individuals to express their opinions, if they are not able to do so, it doesn’t mean they change their values, it just means the majority do not get to hear them. Surely it must be beneficial for an adult to be exposed to a complete picture of their own and other’s culture. In hearing opinion, one can either choose to accept or reject certain ideologies; it is after all how we build our identities within society. However, one could also argue that what is socially acceptable is a cultural issue, and people have every right to hold their own values. Is it therefore tyrannical to expect people to accept that they could be offended on a daily basis? Is censorship nothing more than a means of showing tolerance to your fellow human beings? This raises the question of course, who draws the line, and what authority do they have to do so. The pragmatist in me believes that there are reasonably common ideologies within a certain society, and we need to be democratic about it. However, ideologies change constantly so ‘the line’ needs to be monitored and moved.

Being that ideologies are constantly changing, does this mean that high exposure to ‘shocking’ material erodes cultural taboos? Apparently in ancient Greece, it was acceptable for men to have sex with 13 year old boys (thanks Joe, more research needed). Bearing this in mind, does this mean that what is culturally acceptable is in constant flux, regardless of humanitarian ‘core values’, if so, what is the catalyst for change? This leads me in to a whole debate surrounding audience dominated by media vs media dominated by audience which I will censor my brain from considering just now J

There is of course the issue of minors, they are after all impressionable, I for one wouldn’t want to hear my children (should I have any) swearing, even though I often say f**k like some people say umm. I also wouldn’t like them watching anything pornographic or overly violent. Bearing internet use in mind, I would be happier that there was software available so that I could censor them myself, this would give them the freedom to roam without constant supervision.

There’s a great deal more I need to consider re this, but it’s getting very late. In conclusion to what I have said, I do believe that a certain amount of censorship within public spaces is necessary, for the sake of those traversing those spaces. However, I do feel that there should be places where one can voice ones opinion, even if they have a ‘come here if you dare’ style warning .