Skip to content

Censorship Is Rarely If Ever Justified Essay

No writer ever really wants to talk about censorship. Writers want to talk about creation, and censorship is anti-creation, negative energy, uncreation, the bringing into being of non-being, or, to use Tom Stoppard’s description of death, “the absence of presence.” Censorship is the thing that stops you doing what you want to do, and what writers want to talk about is what they do, not what stops them doing it. And writers want to talk about how much they get paid, and they want to gossip about other writers and how much they get paid, and they want to complain about critics and publishers, and gripe about politicians, and they want to talk about what they love, the writers they love, the stories and even sentences that have meant something to them, and, finally, they want to talk about their own ideas and their own stories. Their things. The British humorist Paul Jennings, in his brilliant essay on Resistentialism, a spoof of Existentialism, proposed that the world was divided into two categories, “Thing” and “No-Thing,” and suggested that between these two is waged a never-ending war. If writing is Thing, then censorship is No-Thing, and, as King Lear told Cordelia, “Nothing will came of nothing,” or, as Mr. Jennings would have revised Shakespeare, “No-Thing will come of No-Thing. Think again.”

Consider, if you will, the air. Here it is, all around us, plentiful, freely available, and broadly breathable. And yes, I know, it’s not perfectly clean or perfectly pure, but here it nevertheless is, plenty of it, enough for all of us and lots to spare. When breathable air is available so freely and in such quantity, it would be redundant to demand that breathable air be freely provided to all, in sufficient quantity for the needs of all. What you have, you can easily take for granted, and ignore. There’s just no need to make a fuss about it. You breathe the freely available, broadly breathable air, and you get on with your day. The air is not a subject. It is not something that most of us want to discuss.

Imagine, now, that somewhere up there you might find a giant set of faucets, and that the air we breathe flows from those faucets, hot air and cold air and tepid air from some celestial mixer-unit. And imagine that an entity up there, not known to us, or perhaps even known to us, begins on a certain day to turn off the faucets one by one, so that slowly we begin to notice that the available air, still breathable, still free, is thinning. The time comes when we find that we are breathing more heavily, perhaps even gasping for air. By this time, many of us would have begun to protest, to condemn the reduction in the air supply, and to argue loudly for the right to freely available, broadly breathable air. Scarcity, you could say, creates demand.

Liberty is the air we breathe, and we live in a part of the world where, imperfect as the supply is, it is, nevertheless, freely available, at least to those of us who aren’t black youngsters wearing hoodies in Miami, and broadly breathable, unless, of course, we’re women in red states trying to make free choices about our own bodies. Imperfectly free, imperfectly breathable, but when it is breathable and free we don’t need to make a song and dance about it. We take it for granted and get on with our day. And at night, as we fall asleep, we assume we will be free tomorrow, because we were free today.

The creative act requires not only freedom but also this assumption of freedom. If the creative artist worries if he will still be free tomorrow, then he will not be free today. If he is afraid of the consequences of his choice of subject or of his manner of treatment of it, then his choices will not be determined by his talent, but by fear. If we are not confident of our freedom, then we are not free.

And, even worse than that, when censorship intrudes on art, it becomes the subject; the art becomes “censored art,” and that is how the world sees and understands it. The censor labels the work immoral, or blasphemous, or pornographic, or controversial, and those words are forever hung like albatrosses around the necks of those cursed mariners, the censored works. The attack on the work does more than define the work; in a sense, for the general public, it becomes the work. For every reader of “Lady Chatterley’s Lover” or “Tropic of Capricorn,” every viewer of “Last Tango in Paris” or “A Clockwork Orange,” there will be ten, a hundred, a thousand people who “know” those works as excessively filthy, or excessively violent, or both.

The assumption of guilt replaces the assumption of innocence. Why did that Indian Muslim artist have to paint that Hindu goddess in the nude? Couldn’t he have respected her modesty? Why did that Russian writer have his hero fall in love with a nymphet? Couldn’t he have chosen a legally acceptable age? Why did that British playwright depict a sexual assault in a Sikh temple, a gurdwara? Couldn’t the same assault have been removed from holy ground? Why are artists so troublesome? Can’t they just offer us beauty, morality, and a damn good story? Why do artists think, if they behave in this way, that we should be on their side? “And the people all said sit down, sit down you’re rocking the boat / And the devil will drag you under, with a soul so heavy you’ll never float / Sit down, sit down, sit down, sit down, sit down / You’re rocking the boat.”

At its most effective, the censor’s lie actually succeeds in replacing the artist’s truth. That which is censored is thought to have deserved censorship. Boat-rocking is deplored.

Nor is this only so in the world of art. The Ministry of Truth in present-day China has successfully persuaded a very large part of the Chinese public that the heroes of Tiananmen Square were actually villains bent on the destruction of the nation. This is the final victory of the censor: When people, even people who know they are routinely lied to, cease to be able to imagine what is really the case.

Sometimes great, banned works defy the censor’s description and impose themselves on the world—“Ulysses,” “Lolita,” the “Arabian Nights.” Sometimes great and brave artists defy the censors to create marvellous literature underground, as in the case of the samizdat literature of the Soviet Union, or to make subtle films that dodge the edge of the censor’s knife, as in the case of much contemporary Iranian and some Chinese cinema. You will even find people who will give you the argument that censorship is good for artists because it challenges their imagination. This is like arguing that if you cut a man’s arms off you can praise him for learning to write with a pen held between his teeth. Censorship is not good for art, and it is even worse for artists themselves. The work of Ai Weiwei survives; the artist himself has an increasingly difficult life. The poet Ovid was banished to the Black Sea by a displeased Augustus Caesar, and spent the rest of his life in a little hellhole called Tomis, but the poetry of Ovid has outlived the Roman Empire. The poet Mandelstam died in one of Stalin’s labor camps, but the poetry of Mandelstam has outlived the Soviet Union. The poet Lorca was murdered in Spain, by Generalissimo Franco’s goons, but the poetry of Lorca has outlived the fascistic Falange. So perhaps we can argue that art is stronger than the censor, and perhaps it often is. Artists, however, are vulnerable.

In England last week, English PEN protested that the London Book Fair had invited only a bunch of “official,” State-approved writers from China while the voices of at least thirty-five writers jailed by the regime, including Nobel laureate Liu Xiaobo and the political dissident and poet Zhu Yufu, remained silent and ignored. In the United States, every year, religious zealots try to ban writers as disparate as Kurt Vonnegut and J. K. Rowling, an obvious advocate of sorcery and the black arts; to say nothing of poor, God-bothered Charles Darwin, against whom the advocates of intelligent design continue to march. I once wrote, and it still feels true, that the attacks on the theory of evolution in parts of the United States themselves go some way to disproving the theory, demonstrating that natural selection doesn’t always work, or at least not in the Kansas area, and that human beings are capable of evolving backward, too, towards the Missing Link.

Even more serious is the growing acceptance of the don’t-rock-the-boat response to those artists who do rock it, the growing agreement that censorship can be justified when certain interest groups, or genders, or faiths declare themselves affronted by a piece of work. Great art, or, let’s just say, more modestly, original art is never created in the safe middle ground, but always at the edge. Originality is dangerous. It challenges, questions, overturns assumptions, unsettles moral codes, disrespects sacred cows or other such entities. It can be shocking, or ugly, or, to use the catch-all term so beloved of the tabloid press, controversial. And if we believe in liberty, if we want the air we breathe to remain plentiful and breathable, this is the art whose right to exist we must not only defend, but celebrate. Art is not entertainment. At its very best, it’s a revolution.

_

This piece is drawn from the Arthur Miller Freedom to Write Lecture given by Rushdie, on May 6th, as part of the PEN World Voices Festival.

Illustration by Matthew Hollister.

Is Censorship Justifiable? Essay

The freedom to express is essential to the democratic way of life. Today, that freedom is under attack. Both private groups and public authorities everywhere are working to remove various forms of media; newspapers, films, music, and books from public reach, thus silencing these forms of expression. Liberalism is under attack when censorship is put into place, yet, it is understandable why these measures have to be put into place when considering some of the radicals that rebel just for the sake of rebelling.

Censorship, in fact, is not a new process in this world. It has been around for centuries in different forms and applications. Ancient rulers used the rules of censorship to prevent knowledge from getting to their subjects. The ancient roman emperor Augustus - (27 BC - 14 AD) led his subjects by an iron hand, ordering all opposition to be squashed claiming that the loss of liberty was a small price to pay for peace. Education materials are also censored to ensure the people only learn what is good for the ruler. Another example, in a more modern setting, is Hitler, who would go kill anyone who did not censor their thoughts appropriately and showed any hint of being anti-Hitler. Even religious establishments engaged in censorships, to keep their knowledge to themselves so as to keep themselves and their teachings in high demand.

What exactly, then is censorship? It is the practice of suppressing or deleting anything that is considered undesirable. This leaves a very wide scope, subjecting anyone to the act of censoring. Government authorities who ban a certain book due to its questionable material, would be enforcing censorship, and in the same way, a mother who confiscates a magazine from her teenage son would also be censoring.

Motives for censorship differ across the board. In my opinion, what makes censorship justifiable is really the motive behind it, and how the reduced material available would then affect the people the censorship was meant for.

To some extent, censorship is justifiable. It is the backbone behind peace in the country. Without censorship, a lot of opposition would exist, raking up unnecessary feelings of rebellion and even causing civil wars. There are many forms of censorship. Entertainment- movies, plays, and music- are controlled by governments to make sure that their people are not exposed to undesirable influences. The Japanese do not let movies pertaining to the horrifics of World War II in South East Asia to be aired. Books are also censored. News items are released only when the government is ready and only as worded by the government. The theory behind censorship is that people cannot always decide what is good for themselves or for the country.

In almost every country there is a...

Loading: Checking Spelling

0%

Read more

Censorship Essay - No Need to Censor Pornography

1370 words - 5 pages No Need to Censor Pornography       Pornography is often considered an ugly word and possibly an ugly act. The pictures and words of pornography can be vulgar and degrading to many of us, but is it the evil of all things? Is it, and it alone, responsible for sexism, rape, racism, battery, and child abuse? No! The media is loaded with many sexist, racist, violent material, and most of it is not considered pornography. The issue of violence...

The Great Wall of Censorship in the People's Republic of China

2217 words - 9 pages The People's Republic of China has commonly been regarded as a nation that has censored its media very heavily and has enforced this harshly. China is the largest country in the world, and also has the one of the fastest expanding media. Additionally, China has been enjoying explosive pecuniary expansion for the better part of the last few decades and as a consequence, the living standards of most Chinese citizens has increased drastically in...

Is The Golden Compass pointed in the wrong direction?

676 words - 3 pages Every single day books are challenged and banned by schools and parent organizations. These organizations and schools are taking away children’s intellectual freedom. The American Library Association defines intellectual freedom as “the right of every individual to both seek and receive information from all points of view without restriction” (Ross, Caplan 1). When schools restrict their student’s intellectual freedom that is censorship, ALA...

Freedom of speech

5194 words - 21 pages IntroductionIt is said that censorship never dies, it changes its form. Debates about politically acceptable ideas and books continue in current debates about extremism on the Internet. Issues of human rights preoccupy us today, just as they have in prior centuries. We are interested in what ideas and media circulate in society, concerned about what impact they are...

The Dangers of Ignorance Exposed in Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451

2425 words - 10 pages Most people have a sense of what obedience is towards an established authority. Many may fail to see the significance of its application in their society because they do not think about it. Thus its likely is that the very citizens that constitute the society are the reason that a method of control, like censorship, even exists. In Fahrenheit 451, by Ray Bradbury, the protagonist Guy Montag is a fireman who sets fires in a futuristic American...

Political Correctness Has Gone Too Far

1115 words - 4 pages Political Correctness has Gone Too Far The “Politically Correct” movement’s purpose is to bring historically condescending terms, offensive music and art, and controversial educational content to an end and replace them with more positive and less-offending references. Offensive and demoralizing efforts are wrong, but the censorship and deletion of words and phrases that do not contain the intention to demoralize are taking political...

The Right to Freedom of Expression: R. v. Keegstra

3315 words - 13 pages Introduction Entrenched within the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms lies the fundamental rights that Canadian citizens share. The primary freedoms recognized within Section 2 of the Charter, such as the freedom of speech and expression, are necessary for a free and democratic society. Yet, a crucial conflict of rights exists within the system when the freedom of expression is used to perpetuate willful hatred against a certain...

Media Violence

1854 words - 7 pages Does entertainment influence society's attitude towards violent behavior? In order to fully answer this question we must first understand what violence is. Violence is the use of one's powers to inflict mental or physical injury upon another; examples of this would be rape or murder. Violence in entertainment reaches the public by way of television, movies, plays, music, and novels. Through the course of this essay it will be proven that...

The Ethics of Internet Filtering in China

3677 words - 15 pages The Ethics of Internet Filtering in China The internet boom that began in the mid-1990s was popular because of the enormous possibility of endless free flowing information. It was built upon the engineering principle of “end-to-end neutrality, an engineering rule of thumb calling for smarts at edge of the network rather than in the middle”1 said Jonathan Zittrain, an associate professor at Harvard. However, web filtering by governments...

Vladimir Nabokov’s Controversial Novel Lolita

2795 words - 11 pages Vladimir Nabokov?s controversial novel Lolita has...

The Canadian Human Rights Act: Controversial or Not?

1747 words - 7 pages Thanks to Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) and passionate advocates of unsanctioned freedom of speech, Internet blogger Marc Lemire now stands at the apex of a remarkably heated controversy in human rights law. Anti-Racist Canada (2012) recalled that five months after the launch of his Freedom-Site on the Internet in January 1996, Lemire used his website to promote his CD-ROM, via a Stormfront mailing list, that was, “filled to...