Censorship

[LostinaPaperCup]

Could someone with more knowledge than me on this topic, give me some examples of censorship and its negative effects on women? Real ones rather than speculative.

I can see how a lack of censorship in certain areas affects women; misogynistic porn everywhere etc. but am not sure of how the censoring of, for eg, hate speech has set a precedent that is negative for women.

The subject of censorship often brings out the thoughts of female pornographers, but I'm really not interested in those because there is an obvious financial incentive.

Thanks.

By 'harmful' speech, I don't mean speech that some over sensitive people (women, in your post, Xenia - ) find 'offensive'. I mean 'speech' that really is profoundly misogynistic/racist and is likely to incite violence/abuse, without having any merit whatsoever.
I understand that you are white and socially and economically priveleged, Xenia, and I therefore doubt that this speech has much of an effect on you - but please do correct me if I'm wrong about this.

Why do you feel that women should be prepared to die to protect the rights of those whose views they abhor? (I doubt that the favour would be returned, FWIW...) Why the belief that women should sacrifice themselves to defend misogyny?

FWIW I do work for myself but I'm happy to say that I can still see beyond the end of my nose but like you, Xenia I come from a priveleged background...

If you want different porn write it

Perhaps I haven't made my point clear:
My point is that where entertainment industries tend to be market led and there is evidence that women's work has been subject to stricter censorship than men's work (see post on Despentes and Breillat, above), it is not so simple as women being able to 'transform' cultural landscapes by producing new material. In fact your post, which implies that you believe that things really are that simple (and that you imagine that the market is not awash with quality erotica by and for women for the simple reason that it hasn't been created) - as well as your rather bizarre reference to women as 'pathetic moaners' actually shows how damaging industrial/cultural censorship of women's work has been, by demonstrating how little some people consequently think of women, how willing people are to blame women for this. (I could go on...)

Not 'moaning', BTW, just pointing out shortfalls of your arguments, Xenia

Not exactly women-specific, but there was a recent documentary on bullying in schools in the US that got rated R (over 17s only) due to swearwords, hence its target audience could no longer watch it. After a long campaign started by Katy Butler, a 17-year-old who'd been affected by bullying, the decision was changed.

A famous, much older example relevant to women's sexuality was the censorship of The Well of Loneliness by Radclyffe Hall, an early book about lesbianism calling for more acceptance.

privileged background - still can't spell, though

"I want women to be prepared to die to protect the right of othes whose views they abhor to express them. That is how important freedom of speech is even if it's hate speech. I accept I am at one extreme end of the press freedom line of views of course." Interesting views Xenia. Why do you feel that freedom of speech is so important, compared to the right of minority groups to use public spaces, online and offline, without experiencing harassment?

Also, Xenia, if you don't mind me asking (and I think you may be able to provide an answer...) why is it that women who fear that they may be (perceived as) 'sexually boring and conservative' think that a stringent and unthinking defence of free speech will protect them from this?
If this is how you feel, shouldn't you be getting therapy (or at least a more interesting and fullfilling sex/social-life)? Why take your fear of being seen as a prude out on women who refuse to defend misogynists?

x-posts with MMM.
Didn't want you to feel bullied, Xenia (although if you do, you're being over-sensitive, apparently...)

Oops - one more thing, Xenia...
You may be right that a campaign to repeal 'possession' sections of CJIA 2008 (which I think you wre referring to?) might not rouse the MN troops, I suspect that the reason is that as group we're not that bothered about the rights of consumers of violent/abusive pornography as they go in the grand scheme of things, but I'm sure someone will come along and correct me if I'm wrong about this...

If you were to start a campaign to try and develop the rights of Chinese and Saudi women, though, then I should think that you'd garner a great deal of support of MN.

Which one of the above is really more important to you?

(Apologies, all, for multiple posts...)

I suppose my point isd that it is how people (humans) treat those whose views they disagree with is what really counts in life. It is dead easy to support the rights of those whose views you agree with but it is how we treat those we disagree with which really shows our true colours. I think that issue of being human and how we are as humans is so very important it transcends and in a sense supercedes issues of sexism. I can see few agree on the thread.

I think it is appalling how weak and pathetic loads of womemn seem to be. If they don't like a business form their own. Don't just say - woe is me, I'm female and could never achieve anything. They need a kick to get on with stuff not just whinge about it. Real feminists like I am act, rather than moan. hose consumers LMIP will be women as much as men but I don't want to get into that here. If a man opr woman gets off on masturbating over a photograph of a goat or thinking about having sex with lamp posts that's great - we don't want a dull world. Let them go for it.

The wonderful thing about the UK is we are prepared to tolerate those with many views. It is something we need to fight very hard to preserve and I would say it trumps other causes. As without that freedom we cannot express our own views. So if a Mullah wants to say women are useless or the death to Christians I really would not stop that kind of thing just as much as I would not stop women saying most Mullah's are old fashioned and very wrong.

I didn't quite follow the prude point.

On Chinese women actually they are doing great as they have so many entrepreurs - they are get up and go and hard working. Good for them. Of course many are murdeed in utero purely on grounds of their sex and yes I am sure we all campaign against that. However I want the UK to be a place where you can Holocaust deny and/or you can show pictures of the death camos, where you can say Tianaman Sq never happened and you can show pictures of it. Luckily largely we remain able to do so but I get very frustrated with the many women who have one fixed view and want to ensure others whose views differ are not even allowed to voice it.

Xenia I think the OP in this thread was talking/asking about pornography, rather than opinions. But if you wanted to discuss free speech and opinions, why talk about CJIA 2008?

I know that you're preoccupied with your belief that many women are weak and pathetic, but, again, I'm not sure why you've decided to bring that into a thread about censorship. And if you want to kick people or know that they're getting a good kicking, again, those are your own issues, why not deal with them elsewhere than on a thread about censorship?

The idea that that the UK is the land of tolerance and free speech is a view supported and experienced by a limited and privileged group. Historically, free speech of 'outsider' groups has not been well supported or tolerated in the UK, and English laws such as defamation law make a mockery of free speech. As do quasi-legal censorship traditions in the UK.

But yeah, yeah, the idea that 'free speech' 'trumps' privacy, human dignity etc. is an old chestnut trooted out by English judges who eventually conflated 'public interest' with 'of interest to the public'. And even you must know that even English courts have now accepted for some time that free speech does not trump other rights, nor should it.

You may understand 'the prude point' if you read this thread again, but if you really can't then I'll try and explain it to you.

I'm not sure that Xinran would agree with your point that Chinese women are, on the whole, 'doing fine'. Please would you tell me how you're campaigning aganst the murder of Chinese girls and the abuse of the women or would or do give birth to them?

As I pointed out above, the OP started this thread to ask about how censorship of pornography impacts negatively against women, but since you want to talk about political speech instead, I shall ask you this: why do you want the UK to be a place where Holocaust deniers can have free reign?

Oh and Xenia - if it's an eyeful of post-frotting that you're after, there are plenty of pole dancing clubs out there...
Can't help with the goat thing, though, I think there may be a few animal rights issues involved. The Great British UK tends to be quite keen on those too, you know...

I am being quoted selectively. I said both - I am delighted the UK has not made it a criminal offence to deny the holocaust and also that we are free of course to remind people of the atrocity.

You can't have sex with a goat. There was a Sexual Offences Act of 2003 and one of the things it says is no penetrative sex with an animal (if it's alive) and no sex with a human corpse.

Are people really saying they want to censor what offends them? That's a very dangerous path down which to go.You might share an office with a someone who goes hunting and an anti hunting person. They should be free to look at their own material at lunch time. We need to be tolerant of difference and yes I think a lot tougher skins are needed in this country. We have become weak and pathetic. We need to make strong strong women who do not go bursting into tears because someone says they are fat or useless.

Are people really saying that they want to censor what offends them?

I don't see anyone saying anything of the sort on this thread, Xenia, although it seems that organisations like the MPAA are in fact doing exactly that.

If you read the OP and the start fo this thread, then you'll see it was about censorship of films, pornography, etc. - not about conversations in offices.

You still haven't explained why you are so delighted that Holocaust denial has not been criminalised in the UK...

And you haven't explained who are these women who get so upset about being told their fat? And why are you so fixated on them? And what have they and your obsession got to do with censorsip of film and pornography?

Oh, I should also point out that educating people about the Holocaust and denying the Holocaust are not 'equal' forms of 'expression'. Educating/disseminating information about the Holocaust involves exploring and discussing history. Denying the Holocaust consists of lying and is invariably a symptom of profound anti-semitism and/or racism.
These forms of expression may be interchangeable to you, Xenia, but to many people they are very, very different, for many reasons.

The reason I do not want people to be criminalised for denyin ghte holocaust, satying the royal family are lizards, arguing the US athorities were behind 9/11 or that women/gays/blacks are mad, bad or horrible is that as soon as you start banning things people support them even more and I want free thought. I want Harvard professors to research into whether women have weaker or different brains without worrying about PC people trying to stifle debate and of course I am also just as happy for people to express views which accord with my own too. It's a freedom point.

I have no problems with on line lying, racism or any other views people wan tto expect. ILf people are hurt by worsd they needs to get therapy and toughen up. I do not want to live in an England where we say poor little you, wipe away those tears and we will stop those nasty people saying things which hurt your feelings. Thankfully i live in syuch an England. Those who love censorship need to take themselves off to China and Saudi where they might feel more comfortable.

I think I agree with you that debate of opinions should always be allowed Xenia, however disgusting the opinion. But what about all of the instances where there is no constructive debate at all, like the sickening homophobic, sexist or racist tweets that are sent to people. Those don't open debate up - they close it down, by driving minorities away from public spaces because it becomes too unpleasant to use them. Do you think that the law should allow verbal harassment?

as soon as you start banning things people want them even more
Really?
So you think that anti-discrimination legislation of the 1970s has led to more harassment of women and minority groups?
You think then, that women's working lives have become worse as a result of anti-discrimination legislation? You think that more discrimination is now taking place?

I largely agree with Xenia - those who want censorship should try living in countries where it exists in spades. They will quickly find that along with a loss of freedom of speech goes a whole lot of other freedoms too.

As Burke said, The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing, and the best way to ensure nothings is done is to ensure no one knows. The best way to prevent evil is to shine a light on it.

I think I agree with you that debate of opinions should always be allowed Xenia, however disgusting the opinion. But what about all of the instances where there is no constructive debate at all, like the sickening homophobic, sexist or racist tweets that are sent to people. Those don't open debate up - they close it down, by driving minorities away from public spaces because it becomes too unpleasant to use them. Do you think that the law should allow verbal harassment?

I think UK law has it about right for hate-speech, but its libel alws are far too strong. We should be very careful about restricting Free Speech

To quote Burke again, the true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts. And history shows us that free speech is always an early casualty.

I think you knew I was referring to censorship when I said banning things, not legislation.
Another example I would not ban the burkha or high heels even though they both oppress women. Instead I would allow the freedom of people to say - silly stupid you for wearing the burkha or high heels and I would want the Mullahs to be free to come back saying damn you to hell for showing your breasts or whatever.

Governments take away liberties - Labour did it all the time including the supposed anti terrorist extradition treaty used virtually always for alternative purposes - by saying it is to stop something most people hate - like child abuse. Then they remove that freedom on that supposed just ground (like soldiers and the state who say woudl you rather be dead from a terrorist or have your liquids checked or be subject to many spot checks on the streets) and use the rules on all kinds of other grounds.

Women as much as men need to watch this carefully as women seem more often than men to think of propaganda from the state- think of the children, your children will not be safe unless we ban XYZ (although the main risk to children is from a parent in reality)

Censorship exists in this country already. We're all quite used to it, I'm sure, but pretending cenorship leads to Saudi Arabian style government is a bit naive, to say the least.

Show me any civilization that hasn't had censorship? No? Then maybe we should assume other things - like the desire to repress and control women - are actually at play in SA too.

The fact is, we don't know what 'free speech' looks like, because no such thing exists.

Totally agree WRT libel law, worry.

Xenia - state sponsored censorship is likely to be the result of legislation, no?
And the anti-discrimination laws I talked about above curtail freedom of expression, which is why I mentioned them. (I think they also facilitate freedom of expression for many of those people who without them would have been harassed, discrminated against and abused in the name of 'freedom of expression', but hey...)

Yes, oppressive legislation is likely to have some ill effects - I doubt that anyone would dispute that, and we all know that there has been a great deal of discussion about anti-terrorist laws being misused, but where, in the example that you give, does this relate to censorship?

Xenia - your main point seems to be that on the whole you don't much like state intervention of any sort... OK, fine. But slightly naive. It's worth considering that in countries like the US and UK where 'free speech' is fetishised (if not genuinely protected), and there's long been an inward-looking belief that 'we' are champions of free speech, because traditionally there's been little legislation that defines or circumscribes 'speech', censorship tends to be enforced by pressure groups, industrial organisations, etc. - often with very great powers and to huge effect (consider BBFC and MPAA), but conversely, without much opportunity for any real redress.

Xenia, are you saying that women are more susceptible to believe propaganda from the state? (That would seem quite a strange thing to say, I think, but I can't make much sense of your last paragraph. (Apologies.))

LRD totally agree!

I don't think you can have a blanket view on censorship, saying that it's all good or all bad. It depends on the individual case and what's being censored and how it's applied. Is it something that's actually harmful to other people? And is it applied equally across race, gender and different social groups?

I think freedom of speech is of course a basic right but there is a line. In some cases you may not be hurting someone directly with your words, but indirectly you are, because you are creating an environment that impacts negatively on others. The violence in porn is one of those things, IMO.

Agree almost completely, messy, though I think censorship of porn is so very, very complex. TBH what worries me most about 'violent' porn is the welfare of performers in it. I don't think that that's a censorship issue, as such, although I do think that if arguments about pornography centred much more around how it's made, and there was much more attention paid to wokers' rights and welfare, then there'd be a lot less violent/abusive porn around. (No brainer, really, but I think this is where we should be focussing our attention, rather than on censorship as main focus.)

I agree about that messy.

In the context of this thread, I'd say there's a big difference between approving of censorship of pornography (but not of pornography itself), approving of censorship of pornography (as a poor second because you don't approve of the pornography that being made at the moment), and disapproving of censorship of pornography because you worry it might lead to further censorship of other things.

Censorship exists in this country already. We're all quite used to it, I'm sure, but pretending cenorship leads to Saudi Arabian style government is a bit naive, to say the least

Actually, it's more naive to think the opposite. A good test of any slide into bad government is the increasing restriction in free speech, which tends to happen very early on. (Conversely, a good sign of an impending demise of a Bad Regime is a rise in free speech)

The fact is, we don't know what 'free speech' looks like, because no such thing exists

....so the obvious solution must be to have less than we have now, eh?