Censoring comic stip Doonsberry..

[WTF]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I bring it up mainly to stop those idiots from saying "You're trying to censor me!" I can't censor anyone. But I can try to shout louder, or make you uncomfortable with your speech by asking questions you can't answer. But censor? Nope.

Then why don't you do it when they are crying about Rush being censored? Why just one side COG?

Why don't you shout loud enough to drowned out partisan hack. Cause that is sure how you post.

[CuteOldGuy]

Why do I have to defend Rush? Why are you telling me what I should and shouldn't do? The same thing applies to Rush. No one is forced to listen to him, or to not listen. Advertisers don't have to advertise on his program, they can pull out anytime for any reason.

I didn't start this thread. I'm not going to jump up and down every time someone misuses a word. I simply wanted people to know that a newspaper does not have print everything, and it is not censorship. It is that simple.

I rarely listen to Rush. He's boring and predictable. I like Doonesbury. Any more questions?

And I am a hack, just not a partisan one. I will stand up for liberty whenever I can. Deal with it.

You done now?

[MC]

This definition of Censorship seems to reflect my own viewpoint on the subject:

"Censorship is a word of many meanings. In its broadest sense it refers to suppression of information, ideas, or artistic expression by anyone, whether government officials, church authorities, private pressure groups, or speakers, writers, and artists themselves. It may take place at any point in time, whether before an utterance occurs, prior to its widespread circulation, or by punishment of communicators after dissemination of their messages, so as to deter others from like expression. In its narrower, more legalistic sense, censorship means only the prevention by official government action of the circulation of messages already produced. Thus writers who "censor" themselves before putting words on paper, for fear of failing to sell their work, are not engaging in censorship in this narrower sense, nor are those who boycott sponsors of disliked television shows."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/cultureshock...finitions.html

According to another site, the quote comes from Franklin S. Haiman:

http://msupress.msu.edu/authorbio.php?authorID=1716

Unfortunately, I can't seem to find any documents which confirm that Haiman actually said it. Another site claims that the quote came from a transcript of of "The Censorship Conference of the National Ad Hoc Committee Against Censorship" which took place in New York City in 1975. However, I can't seem to find any information regarding this conference.

So, long story short, while I can't confirm the origin of this quote, it seems to me to be a reasonable definition of censorship.

[CuteOldGuy]

Your definition is fine, but it is not true. Only government can censor. It's a legal term of art. But generically, your definition will work, as long as people understand that real censorship can only come from government.

[MC]

I think the main point of disagreement between us is that you deem government censorship to be real censorship whereas I see it as merely a narrower form. I think you were right before when you said it's splitting hairs. What you see as the enforcement of standards by the Film industry and the newspaper in the OP, I see as forms of censorship. Another, more obvious example would be the Comics Code Authority that was implemented by the Comics Magazine Association of America or CMAA. As with the Hayes Code, the CCA was created out of fear of possible government legislation (In this case, inspired by the Senate Subcommittee Hearings on Juvenile Delinquency). The creation of the CCA essentially if not officially led to a widespread ban of Horror Comics. Specifically, the stipulations of the code in regards to Horror comics are as follows:

"No comic magazine shall use the word horror or terror in its title. All scenes of horror, excessive bloodshed, gory or gruesome crimes, depravity, lust, sadism, masochism shall not be permitted. All lurid, unsavory, gruesome illustrations shall be eliminated…Scenes dealing with, or instruments associated with the walking dead, torture, vampires and vampirism, ghouls, cannibalism and werewolfism are prohibited"

Clearly this was a suppression of the artistic expression of ideas, a suppression which caused several comic book publishers to go out of business because distributors would not carry titles that did not have the CCA "Seal of Approval". To me, this is a classic case of censorship.

[JD Barleycorn]

I don't know how to say except to say it; only government can "censor" something. That is the legal definition and not the every day definition. The constitution was all about the legal defintion and not like Bill Cosby said that you censor yourself when you have children. No court is going to do anything to you if you hold back a "shit" or "damn". No, we are talking about the government threatening or taking action against a person, paper, or organization to stop them from saying or printing something. So this IS NOT censorship. This is the decision by local editors to avoid controversy.

This is like the famous Hollywood Black List during the 50s and 60s. There was no government involvement in that list. It was all Hollywood just like the Hayes Commission. For more talking points look up the Creel Committee. Interesting reading.

I like the fact that Skylar admits that it is a child when she said that a woman doesn't want to carry a child to term. Many on the left won't even admit that because they are so afraid that someone will attach constitutional rights to that child.

Finally, do I agree with the law? You know, it doesn't really matter because I don't live in Texas and I have no legal say in their laws. Philosophically I think a women should be aware of her responsibilities but I have to disagree with a vaginal probe. It does meet the definition of rape.

We have to wait until the first woman says, "I will not comply."

[MC]

Again, I feel that people are only looking at censorship in the narrowest of terms. I mean, there's a reason there's a such a thing as "Banned Books Week". It's to draw attention to the fact that at one time or another libraries and school districts have targeted and suppressed books because private groups (religious, NAACP, etc.) objected to the ideas within said books.

http://www.adlerbooks.com/banned.html

http://www.banned-books.com/bblista-i.html

Censoring isn't just about government interference, at it's most basic, it's about what you put or allow into discourse for further cultivation and/or what you actively prevent or simply leave behind to not enter discourse.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by MC

Again, I feel that people are only looking at censorship in the narrowest of terms. I mean, there's a reason there's a such a thing as "Banned Books Week". It's to draw attention to the fact that at one time or another libraries and school districts have targeted and suppressed books because private groups (religious, NAACP, etc.) objected to the ideas within said books.

http://www.adlerbooks.com/banned.html

http://www.banned-books.com/bblista-i.html

Censoring isn't just about government interference, at it's most basic, it's about what you put or allow into discourse for further cultivation and/or what you actively prevent or simply leave behind to not enter discourse.

'Public' schools and libraries are controlled by the local (city and/or county and/or state) government.

[timpage]

I dunno about any of that.....but, Maureen O'Sullivan was scalding hot!

[Jackie S]

+1

[CuteOldGuy]

Timmy, you finally got one right! Congratulations!

[Jackie S]

I would think that when speaking of censorship, you would take into account the fact that only one entity has the right, by law, to either fine you, to throw your ass in Jail.

And that is the government.