Think [the box] ing discussion

The recent clampdown by China in Tibet, prohibiting foreign and independent journalism and banning or blocking access to the internet has led me to wonder what differences an authoritarian force of rule there is to any other nation that employs censorship.

"Censorship and the Anaemic State of Political Discourse in America

When I lived in China in the early 1990s, there were things that you could not discuss. One was Tibet. Another was Taiwan, "referred to in my daughter's public elementary school in Shanghai as "China's largest island." Another was the 1989 massacre of students and workers in Beijing. I used to be grateful at the time that I was an American and that back home, we could talk about anything.

Except that in a way we can't. Not in public discourse, anyhow."

That is the start of this article written a couple of days ago, not by someone in what many would say is an oppressive regime, but by an American.

Censorship is something that i detest. I think it attacks the very bones of truths and liberty.

Is there a case for a government ever censoring its citizens or indeed its own actions or inactions?

Is censorship something which you are seeing more of or not? How does this make you feel?

Do you make use of Freedom of Information Requests? Do you fear doing so in case your name gets added to "the list"?

I'm half way through the book "The End of America - A letter of Warning to a Young Patriot", and there seems indeed to be a "fascist shift" happening, in the US and indeed the UK. Often it is the case that when one "democratic" nation can get away with something, others will follow. I think these are dangerous times and that we should be concerned about censorship amongst other things.

Is this something that i am being unjustly paranoid about?

Is this something that i am being unjustly paranoid about?

Not at all.

is there a case for it?

Never.

Is censorship something which you are seeing more of or not?
Hard to say, since it's always been there. Censorship is yet another way of dividing people up into "important" people and "unimportant" people - people who need to know and people who don't need to know.

It's also a way of saying that we are too immature, too stupid and too far beyond so-and-so's control to handle said information. It's harder to control the masses when they have more info - ironically enough, it's easier to control the masses when they have lots of info, but the wrong kind. Make them feel like they know the conspiracy, when really the conspiracy is that the "conspiracy" is to distract you from what's really happening. Make sense? Doubtful.

Makes a lot of sense to me Shannon :)

I agree that there never should be a case of censorship in adult life, not from the government and not from each other. I wonder if the same principal holds true for children..? I wonder what the wisdom is in censoring or not for children?

Imagine for a moment that we on earth are not the only lifeforms in the universe. Imagine that an extraterrestrial lifeform had already made contact with our world. Imagine that our governments and military hid this fact from us. Imagine that the UN met to discuss what best way there was to reveal to the world that extraterrestrial life exists and has been known about for decades. That would be a whopper of a censorship of a huge "conspiracy" :)

Have you ever seen Manufacturing Consent – the film about a year in the life of Chomsky? I think it was subtitled ‘mind control in a free society’ – something like that anyway. His main point was that there is no need for a conspiracy – private ownership of much of the media helps determine which truths are told and which are not fit to print.

There does need to be some censorship in society – I don’t want to live in a society where images of child pornography, for example, are freely available. That said, I think it is important that there be a debate about what gets banned. I also hold the contradictory view that any suppression of ideas only encourages them. So this whole thing is a vexed issue.

China’s main mistake is in blocking information coming into the country – it would be better to use our methods of mind control: ‘reality’ television, pornography, celebrity, sport, shopping, and the endless drivel of pop music. I recently heard that most ‘young people’ get most of their information about the world (what an older generation might have called News) from comedy shows. China is just making outside information seem ‘sexy’. Much better to breed an anti-intellectual culture in the first place, where people can only discuss issues of any importance in life with a certain sense of embarrassment and shame, like we do here in the West.

A very dear friend of mine says that the most depressing thing he hears said, if he starts to discuss religion or politics or any subject not related to the weather in Australia is: “That’s a bit deep, isn’t it?” Censorship is a very blunt tool, there are much better ways.

Im about to watch it :)
Very good points Trevor.

Hidden in plain sight.

I agree with your friend, in fact the reason i made this group in the first place was mostly because of that sort of attitude. It is difficult to find others who are prepared to discuss things unless it is about such and such a celebrity, in which case im not interested. I was hoping that out of the many people who use this site, who clearly already have an interest in reading, we could find some who would desire to share and discuss more weightier topics than the latest showbiz diet. Im glad to see that there are some folks here already.

That dumbing down of the nation concept is as scary as it is true. Yesterday in our work lunch room (i am the only male there and there are normally about 10 women) the girls were talking about someone in the news who had died. The topic turned to heaven and i then asked a few questions about their concept of Heaven and the desire for looking ahead to such a life beyond this one and potential reasons for this, linked in with Sin, Salvation and God. Instantly there was a mixed vibe in the room, there was a sudden interest in a "meaningful" conversation but there was also a fear in that same current. Several of the girls would call themselves Christians but they found it most difficult to engage because when i asked some basic questions about their faith related to heaven they didn't really know what to say. As in they hadn't considered it before themselves, rather just taking the "party line" so to speak. I only even get that far because after a year they are getting used to the fact that "Tim thinks too much dont he", when the reality which i wont mention is that they tend to simply think less.

As ye say there are better tools than censorship, which is a cudgel. Disinformation is effective. Throwing a fake story or two out there to give plausibility to a theory, then call them conspiracies if anyone dares mention something akin to the reality.

"Much better to breed an anti-intellectual culture in the first place, where people can only discuss issues of any importance in life with a certain sense of embarrassment and shame, like we do here in the West. "

Great insightful truth Trevor. I may have to quote ye on that!

re my comment earlier about nothing should be censored, would be with the caveat of 'as long as it doesn't harm others', so i would agree with banning child porn. To censor is a bit different though no? Censoring to me implies getting it out of sight. I would think something which is harmful should be in plain sight so that people can deal with it more clearly.

Trevor said: There does need to be some censorship in society – I don’t want to live in a society where images of child pornography, for example, are freely available. That said, I think it is important that there be a debate about what gets banned. I also hold the contradictory view that any suppression of ideas only encourages them. So this whole thing is a vexed issue.

There are many different levels of censorship to be considered; however, the most commonly associated form is government mandated banning. IMO complete bans are counter productive and should not happen; however, it is perfectly acceptable to control the venue and access to certain types of material. For example ... there is no inherent right to broadcast content over public medium when a majority of the public would find such objectionable. Freedom of expression does not guarantee an audience. On the other hand, you should be able to broadcast whatever content you want if you actually own the medium in question. Media owners (including the public in the case of public media) have the right to determine what, where and how content is accessible.

Censorship only truly exists when an outside entity, typically government, attempts to control content selection instead of the actual owner. In a democracy the government, as the representative of the people, has the mandate to act on behalf of the public to determine which content is appropriate for public media ... thus a board of library trustees can identity a list of books which are ‘banned’ from the library without engaging in censorship because it is their established duty to govern that entity’s resources and content. It becomes censorship when the state attempts to control such lists (assuming the state is not a majority owner). Similarly, it is not censorship for a publisher to decide not to publish a particular book for any reason they deem appropriate ... it becomes censorship when the government tells the publisher that they can’t publish it.

There are a few caveats here ... we should always be accountable for what we do (express), so there are a few words games we play to illustrate how this is not actually censorship (and this is where the debate should rage). The classic example is yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre ... you are prohibited from doing so because of the anticipated consequences of such an act, and the charge is actually reckless endangerment. Likewise we control a minor’s access to content (such a pornography) because of the established research illustrating a disproportionate impact on their development and a presumed duty of society to protect them. Once they reach the specific age when this presumption is lifted (generally 18 in the US), we should also remove these constraints to access. Actions which circumvent this process are prosecuted because of the anticipated damage to the minor and not a complete prohibition on specific content. Looking at your specific example of child pornography ... possession of such is actually to receive a material component/evidence [it can’t exist without the commission] of a crime (exploitation of a minor). The fact that such is actually media is no more significant then if somebody knowingly received stolen items from a thief ... they are prosecuted all the same ... as a participant in the original crime.

To answer the original question ... while I do see an increasing prevalence toward avoidance public discourse about certain topics in American, I do not equate this is censorship. In addition, I have not been much impacted by the increased secrecy and intimidation tactics of the current administration (some of which borders on censorship if nothing else) ... although I am certainly dismayed to know that such is occurring and would greatly welcome a change in said administration (hopefully to one that is more open and honesty with the American public). I do not think that it is paranoid at all to mistrust the power we give our elected official and I am very concerned that a large segment of our citizens do not critically examine the known facts and demand greater accountability.

Wow, I never thought of it like that. But I do think, in a bit of a small-minded way, that censorship is largely to protect us. Let me project a scenario, I'm stealing yours Tim.

So, UN comes together to discuss the landing of aliens on earth. Everyone in that small group knows about it, but outside of them, aliens are still a topic for sci-fi. If they expose the aliens, there is a chance for unease in the public. Separate entities they've never met, who knows how the public will react? If they censor it well, no one ever has to know. If they let it slip at a party, conspiracy is in the air. If they tell everyone, the aliens may be prosecuted, become a subject for debate, and distract everyone from the issues here on earth. What would you choose?