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.

[LastMangoInParis]

Also, following LRD's and messy's last posts (both of which I agree with), I think that bearing in mind that censorship in various forms has always existed, will always exist, etc., and bearing in mind that we do have power, we're not useless pawns or cyphers, or whatever, we should be able to help shape the 'speech' landscape by influencing what and whose are the loudest, clearest and most mainstream/normative voicest - and therefore what is the 'free-est' speech.
Which is why it always annoys me when 'feminists' say they will defend misogyny, racism, abuse etc. in the name of 'free speech'. I actually think 'feminists' making these arguments probably haven't seen enough porn to know what they're talking about.

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

whatme, do you know there's a difference between cause and effect?

[solidgoldbrass]

Legislation that is asked for by feminists to get rid of pornography gets used by antifeminists to suppress women. The problem of pornography that needs addressing is the mistreatment of some performers, but the way to deal with that is not censorship, it's increasing the legal protection available to performers.

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

I'm not sure I agree, SGB, but I do see the risks of censorship, and I think it's far from the ideal solution to pornography.

[LastMangoInParis]

Yep, couldn't agree more, SGB.

[Xenia]

We seem to be in agreement.

[solidgoldbrass]

Because, while the wellbeing of performers in porn needs to be protected more strongly than it is now, this business about the 'messages' of porn and the 'offensiveness' of it as a justification for censorship is bullshit and totally legally unworkable. No matter how you try to frame a law to only ban stuff that nice people are offended by, the definitions will be subjective enough to be used by nasty people. They did actually bring in a version of the Dworkin-Mackinnon ludicrous law in Canada or somewhere, and the authorities promptly used it to bust lesbian, gay and feminist bookshops.

[messyisthenewtidy]

"that nice people are offended by"

But it's not as luxurious as that. It's about people creating, with their words and images, environments that are harmful to others.

This <a class="break-all" href="http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=the+problem+we+all+live+with+by+norman+rockwell&num=10&hl=en&biw=1280&bih=709&tbm=isch&tbnid=Roc8iKkeMbbjpM:&imgrefurl=detroit.about.com/od/museums/ss/Norman_Rockwell_3.htm&docid=4JtMkjIGNRKqHM&imgurl=0.tqn.com/d/detroit/1/0/T/8/-/-/The-Problem-We-All-Live-With-8x5.jpg&w=2400&h=1481&ei=HhEuUODxKaLB0gXE-oHgDA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=189&vpy=174&dur=2440&hovh=176&hovw=286&tx=150&ty=115&sig=115454801663774122934&page=1&tbnh=138&tbnw=224&start=0&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0,i:73" rel="nofollow noindex" target="_blank"> picture is an illustration of what I'm trying to get at, a painting of a real event that happened not long ago.

Do we leave the writing on the wall because it is "free speech" and it hasn't physically harmed the schoolgirl, or do we think of what is going on in the schoolgirl's mind as she walks past it, and the realisation (which will stay with her a long time) that there are so many people who hate her and want her gone? Who is "freedom of speech" protecting here?

[solidgoldbrass]

Messy, I thought for a moment you were arguing against the painting.
But you've supplied your own answer, the painting is a powerful riposte to the graffiti, and the answer to 'speech (words, pictures, writing or music) that we dislike is not censorship but counterspeech. Removing one piece of graffit - or a thousand pieces - does not stop people holding racist attitudes; educating them is more likely to do so.

[messyisthenewtidy]

No, not the painting! The painting is lovely, and yes of course is a good way of using freedom of speech to counteract intolerance. But it wasn't much good at the time.

And yes, I agree, educating people wrt harmful attitudes is more powerful, but laws and the debate surrounding the fairness of such laws are part of that education because they raise consciousness of the issue at hand

To me, it's about whether a particular censorship law is fair or not, not whether censorship as a principle is fair.

[LastMangoInParis]

solid it would be lovely if counterspeech really was effective and adequate in protecting people against abusive 'speech', but by itself it's not.

[NameGames]

I'm with SGB and Xenia in a general sense in not supporting criminal laws against "abusive" speech. And a good example of why is the recent Pussy Riot prosecution.

According to the judge who sentenced them today, despite the fact the Russian constitution demands equality between the sexes, telling a religion that says women should be subservient that they are wrong is inciting religious hatred. Quote on the Guardian blog

Not that this is porn and I don't entirely buy in to the slippery slope arguments with speech. But I don't think criminal censorship of porn (rather than other ways to stop it being ubiquitous in our culture, or harmful to the actors etc.) is a good way to change our culture for the better. It just cuts down too much in the way of letting people think about and explore their sexuality.

[Xenia]

I agree. Abusive speech depends on the recipient. Some are hurt if someone says their hair looks bad today. We have to be robust. Feminists need to train women not to break down in tears when someone dares to challenge their view point but make them adore that they can have cut and thrust debates, not protect women like some kind of delicate weak flower as the latter just engrains the sexism. I was censored on the other JA thread and I don't think that's particularly good for debating issues although I accept that websites need to keep their members and they can do as they like and that that is part of their own freedom to operate.

[LastMangoInParis]

But who are all these pathetic women you're so keen to retrain, Xenia?
I don't think any 'hate-speech'-specific law would protect anyone from comments on their having a bad hair day, but from what you're saying, there must in fact be tons of such cases. Please do enlighten us with the facts.

The only example I can think of where someone successfully sued in similar circumstances was Steven Berkoff's kicking off at Julie Burchill after she said he was hideously ugly. I believe that that was a defamation case (how English!), nothing to do with 'hate speech', and I'm fairly certain that Berkoff was and is a man. So who are all these frightful little women who need to toughen up?

[TheDoctrineOfEnnis]

You weren't censored, Xenia. You broke MN's Talk Guidelines wrt rape myths. You could have made your point without doing so.

[TeamGBsometimes]

I don't think this country does lead the world in freedom of speech and expression. If so, why is it that the naked rambler has been kept in prison, much of the time in solitary confinement for six years?

I assume that he is imprisoned for public decency offences. Is he a dangerous sex offender, a Britsh eccentric or a man with mental health problems?

[TheDoctrineOfEnnis]

He is a man who refuses to put clothes on as a point of principle even when he leaves prison. He is arrested over and over for committing the same offence over and over. If he had mental health problems thatade it difficult for him to realise hr was naked or something, then I believe he would have been treated. He is making a decision each and every time to breach the laws of the UK in full knowledge of those laws.

[solidgoldbrass]

And I think he has a valid point: why should he wear clothes if he doesn't want to? I have met him (some years ago) and he is utterly unthreatening and harmless, he's just naked.

[Xenia]

I don't understand that at all. It might help things if someone explained. I cannot even remember my post but I imagine it was along the lines that it is very very dangerous and wrong to equate what JA is accused of doing with rape just as I think to call men who shout at your abusers muddies the waters between illegal physical violence which is abuse. People can hold different views on those matters.

[NameGames]

"He is making a decision each and every time to breach the laws of the UK in full knowledge of those laws." well that's the point isn't it - our laws (well Scotland's, it's not illegal in England) take the position that we must hide our bodies and lock people up when they simply refuse to conform to a presentation of self that denies that their natural state is inherently offensive or dangerous. I think that is anti-free speech.

[TheDoctrineOfEnnis]

I'm not surpirsed, SGB, he's always come across as harmless (if very stubborn ) in interviews.

I'd never have thought of nudity as a form of free speech. Would you be fine for everyone to walk around naked, NameGames? Hygeine sitting on public transport might be a concern...

Do other countries not have laws against public nudity? Can't really google as I'm at work!

[TheDoctrineOfEnnis]

Xenia, it's the Swedish police who have decided that JA's alleged actions require investigation on the count of rape as well as other counts of sexual molestation. No-one on MN was responsible for "equating" it, as you put it.

I'm sure MNHQ can clarify to you which part of your post referenced rape myths.

[NameGames]

Yes I'd be fine with everyone walking around naked if they were happy to walk around naked. As I understand it, you can be naked in public in England without being a criminal (though few people are), it hasn't caused a break down in society. I don't think there's anything wrong or threatening about the human body. I don't see how being naked is, by itself, any more harmful to others than wearing any particular set of clothing.

If someone was concerned about hygiene on public transport they could take a cloth to sit on or something. If there were real public health concerns (I have no idea if there's a significant chance of spreading disease by sharing seats) then barriers could be required. Seems like a bizarre reason to criminalize people who are naked elsewhere.

[TheDoctrineOfEnnis]

This is really interesting. Did he go to Scotland to highlight the disparity in the law with England, does anyone know?

[NameGames]

Ennis I don't think the disparity between English/Scottish law was his original intention, though he definitely seems to be a bit of an activist about nudity. The Wikipedia article lays out much of what he's done.