Censorship and cancel culture

[DuesToTheDirt]

There has been so much cancelling and censorship over women's rights, and it's not over yet - NLS and Kate Forbes just in the last couple of days.

Obviously none of the FWR crowd believe that The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht should be banned from a library display, nor that Kate Forbes should be cancelled, but it's got me thinking - is there anything that we think should be censored? Let's say for adults, because I guess most of us would agree with censorship of pornography for children, for instance. I suppose we could also agree readily that anything in which people or animals are harmed or potentially harmed should be banned, so that would include torture videos or instructions for building a bomb.

But what else? Is there any opinion or belief that is so outrageous we think it should be banned?

You can’t really ban beliefs, no matter how abhorrent, only actions/speech. How would you even go about banning people’s thoughts.

@Inks, it's not thoughts I'm talking about, sorry if I wasn't clear. You can't see into people's heads and you can't control what they think. I'm talking about expression of those beliefs - books, plays, stand-up comedy, films, interviews, political parties.

I believe absolutely in equality of the sexes, but if a book claiming that women were inferior (not just e.g. physically weaker, which is objectively true, but morally or intellectually inferior) I would dislike it and disagree with it, but I wouldn't want to ban it. We can argue against it.

Not yet.

i think this is really interesting. Eg I’m not sure how I’d feel if there were demonstrations in support of honour killings, or indeed demonstrations against women’s rights eg to leave the house as per Afghanistan. Free speech has to be the way to go, but only if you trust that most people are going to be (whatever you regard as) reasonable?

Once you accept the principle of censorship, then you have to accept you can - and will - be censored. Because - as the adage goes - then you are just arguing over the price. One of the reasons I am wary to the extent of not really supporting it. By all means classify and stratify. But quis custodiet ipsos custodes as Juvenal would have said, were he a MNetter.

Who would you trust to be censor ?

I have been thinking about this. I think it is partly a tricky area because there is a slippery slope between the right to express views, to protest about those views and its extension into encouragement/incitement of action. It is also culture and historically contextual - we may (as per OP) agree that pornography of children is wrong, but that would definitely not always have been the case, nor perhaps in all places now. Cultural norms are slippery things and I think how much freedom of expression is allowed is therefore necessarily messy.

On the whole, I don't like censorship and I am worried about loss of freedom to protest or speak out. But I think the edges of that are always going to be uncomfortable.

I think for me it is context dependent. What might be acceptable for someone to say in academic or political debate for e.g., I think I would wish to censor if it was being screamed at a family out having a meal.
Similarly, what might be acceptable in the abstract during a time of calm, I wouldn't find acceptable if it escalated problems during a time of violence and disorder.
I do support the equality act, which you could argue limits free speech/thought because it limits peoples scope to choose their own customers or employees. I think the positive effects for the groups it protects outweigh the negatives for freedom in that case.
I support laws against libel and defamation, they also limit free speech.
So I couldn't claim to be a free speech absolutist, nor do I do so. I think free speech is a good thing, but it has to be balanced against other freedoms and good things i'd want to protect, and the outcome of that is probably that some censorship needs to exist.

Free speech yes. Even for stuff we don't like.

Harassment, threats, public nuisance involving potential risks to others nope.

Censorship has it's limitations unfortunately and it has to be used very sparingly indeed otherwise you end up with unintended consequences to that where people think things are being suppressed (sometimes they are) or they are somehow being silenced and victimised themselves (not always without good reason).

I've always had something of an awkward attitude to censorship tbh. I want it for certain things but I'm very very mindful of handing that power to anyone because it can be abused so easily and because it causes backlashes. I have to remind myself of every right thing that was censored has an equal and opposite thing that was censored which harms the public. This I have to take the line that transparency is the best option wherever possible.

Making it clear what harassment is - and what is and isn't acceptable, what constitutes a threat and when a public protest becomes a public nuisance and risks the well being and safety of others is crucial to this.

Women here probably understand harassment better than most. The same goes for threats.

The public protest one is the most contentious of the three as we've seen with Extinction Rebellion and Palestine Action. However both have carried out acts which clearly put the public at risk. Preventing traffic from moving stopped ambulances is a clear risk. Breaking into a military base really is attacking the security of the state. It is terrorism (that's not to say that terrorism doesn't get things done whether we want to admit this or not, but you do have draw a line somewhere and acknowledge the state does have a legitimate responsibility to protect it's citizens from harm from terrorists to take things to that level).

The starting point should be no censorship, and then work backwards from that.

We already have laws that control the bounds of "free speech" - generally being where they cause another loss or distress. However there really is a need to remember that there is no inalienable right not to be offended or distressed.

It may be an idea to review the concept of "public" given how access to the internet can make something not intended for wider dissemination a focal point for the eternally professionally offended.

I think when most people really think about it, they want no censorship for their own views and things they think are benign, and tons of censorship for views they think are abhorrent such as (to my mind) pro-FGM attitudes. When I clicked on the thread I was thinking "down with cancel culture and censorship" but when I really consider it, I obviously don't want absolute censorship (who would ever agree on what to censor) but I am also not sure total free speech is a great idea either.

Free speech always comes with caveats that make it acceptable to the culture and society it resides in. For example, I don't think it's ok for people to openly push FGM. I don't think it's ok for people to protest veterans' funerals in the USA with signs saying "God hates f*gs". In other cultures, those things might be acceptable.

Whether those limits on free speech should be enforced by government laws or whether they can be managed with social rules is also something to consider. We've tended towards using social rules as a society to manage most instances of unpalatable views and beliefs, but now we're seeing a divergence in what people think are acceptable and unacceptable beliefs, which is leading to most of the conflict we're seeing between groups and their beliefs.

I think for the most part the UK gets it right but sometimes it goes spectacularly wrong. An interesting point I saw about something unrelated was "what would a bad government do with this power/law" which I think is another thing to think about with regards to censorship.

I've thought about this a lot and my answer is No, there is nothing we should not be able to talk about publicly. Some ideas are toxic, but banning their discussion will not prevent people from holding those beliefs. Sunlight is a disinfectant. Once we admit the principle that there are certain beliefs which can't be aired, we are on the slippery slope to No Debate, and we saw where that led us.

Whether those limits on free speech should be enforced by government laws or whether they can be managed with social rules is also something to consider. We've tended towards using social rules as a society to manage most instances of unpalatable views and beliefs, but now we're seeing a divergence in what people think are acceptable and unacceptable beliefs, which is leading to most of the conflict we're seeing between groups and their beliefs.

There used to be a quasi threat about "If you can't sort it out, the government will", which came with the expectation that when that happens you are pretty much guaranteed the worst of all worlds.

The bad government line was the way I was taught to think about it.

Its really important. Even if you want censorship think about the power that censorship creates and who might have that power and what might happen if it gets into the wrong hands

And whether it can be used against you.

You pretty quickly become fairly minimalist about censorship.

What would Nicola Sturgeon do with it if she had the chance is one I've asked myself.

I suppose one of the tricky things in my mind is whether the people I disagree with have any influence. If Fred down the road is a misogynist it doesn't impact many people, but Andrew Tate does.

How strong is the link between thought and action, whether your action or other people's? If you say, "I think it's fine for women in Afghanistan to be confined to their houses and unable to get an education," is that merely an opinion or are you encouraging other people to do this? Even if you don't actively encourage action, are you a part of a movement that enables it?

Then there is the difficulty in defining "harmful" - which to me means physical harm, or severe psychological harm, but to some people evidently means the same as "a bit upsetting because someone has disagreed with me".

Hmm.

I would censor all pornography. It is damaging to those who are employed in making it and to those who watch it and to society generally. I do not consider banning videos of violent sex, kinks, BDSM etc censorship.
Other than that, say what you like just do not shout 'fire' in a crowded place (not even if there is one, as such a shout induces panic and delays evacuation).

@Grammarnut I was on a train once, in a queue for the refreshments. It wasn't moving and I could see smoke up ahead, so I asked everyone to sit down again. They all ignored me of course, until I said it looked like there might be fire up ahead, at which point everyone already sitting down got up and tried to move, blocking all the aisles...

Speaking of censorship, where have we got to when this is engineered by authors?

Boyne, who describes himself as a Terf – the acronym for trans-exclusionary radical feminist – said that if the writers did re-enter the list, he would ask the judges not to consider Earth for the shortlist.

In social media posts on X and Bluesky, Boyne wrote: “I came very close to the edge this week because of endless harassment at the hands of both strangers and fellow writers.”

Boyne, who is best known for his 2006 novel The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas, added: “I remained silent throughout but there’s been a few moments where I thought it would be easier not to go on. There’s really only so much abuse one person can take. However, I’m still here. Because I have too many books in me that I still want to write.”

Nominated writers boycotting the prize over Boyne’s inclusion included the Guardian journalist Jason Okundaye, whose Revolutionary Acts was nominated for the first book prize longlist and Andrew McMillan, the author of Pity, which was longlisted for the overall Polari prize for a non-debut book.

Alice Oseman, the author of Heartstopper, along with the writers Nikesh Shukla, Julia Armfield, Naoise Dolan, Seán Hewitt and Kirsty Logan are among the hundreds to have signed the statement against Boyne’s inclusion on the list.

He is going to withdraw in order to be publishable in the future (not blaming him for that). Eight hundred authors are calling for open censorship… that is chilling.

I don't know what the principle is called, but it's to do with the warning "just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it."

Censorship equals power and control. All of the power is in the hands of the person or people doing the censoring. The person or people who are being censored have no recourse to argue their case. Social media pile-ons are frequent, the mob rules, the psychology of a group is that everyone wants to be part of it and will sacrifice their own thoughts, ideas and normal behaviour in order to fit into the group. One person shouts "shame!" then another joins in and before we know where we are there's been a beheading.

No thanks.

Who gets to decide ?

I would censor all pornography.

OK. Now define it.

Anyone remember Mary Whitehouse?

OK, I will. Videos, books, comics etc that show humiliation, infliction of pain, kinks (BDSM, strangulation, anal sex etc), and which exploit women as things to do acts upon (whether those acts are what people call 'vanilla' and which most of the world calls normal, consensual sex) as though they were things. Which damage, which hurt, which people watch for pleasure in the humiliation and the pain. That lot is pornography and it wants censoring because it is damaging to those who perform (apparently many of the women involved need surgery to fix what was done e.g. anal tears), those who watch, who need more and more extreme events to stimulate them; society which is damaged by the view of women put forth as things for use, as objects without volition or emotion. When watched by young men it skews their attitudes to sex and women, so that they expect a pornified experience performed by the girls/women they have relationships with, and which expect particularly young women to dress and behave in the pornified manner young men think is normal because they watch pornography.

I’ve been thinking we need to bring her back 😝