Global Voices Advocacy is dedicated to building a network of bloggers and other online folks dedicated to freedom of expression and fighting censorship. Visit http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/
One of their recent projects was aimed at the United Arab Emirates’ recent attempt to block web sites it deems “morally harmful and offensive.” Censorship is a tricky and complex issue, however, and I’m not clear myself on what—if anything—should be restricted and by whom. Somehow, I doubt I would agree with what the UAE deems harmful and offensive and therefore stopping the UAE from censorship is on my “good” list. However, I’m not against all censorship. For example, web sites for pedophiles and violence toward women and children I believe should also be censored, as should hate groups.
It keeps getting trickier. When does freedom of expression, art, and innovation start (good) and the worthy-of-censorship (bad) end? For example, many of Jack London's books were banned in Italy and Yugoslavia between World Wars I and II. In the U.S., a school district in Missouri blithely banned Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World in 1980, while J.D. Salinger’s Catcher in the Rye was banned in certain schools in six states in the 1970s and 80s. Do I even need to mention that I totally disagree with the banning of these books?
Government is not necessarily the best arbitrator—the UAE is a good example of a government that I believe should not be allowed to decide. Closer to home, there was that whole episode when Bush’s original Attorney General John Ashcroft (remember him?) decided a statue of Justice was offensive and the taxpayers had to spend $8,000 to cover it. Again, this was NOT an example of when the government’s censorship was acceptable. On the other hand, I don't really believe that censorship should be based on what the average citizen thinks, either. I have no answers to the question of censorship. This issue, which has been around almost as long as humanity, will continue to be one that has no pat answers.
One of their recent projects was aimed at the United Arab Emirates’ recent attempt to block web sites it deems “morally harmful and offensive.” Censorship is a tricky and complex issue, however, and I’m not clear myself on what—if anything—should be restricted and by whom. Somehow, I doubt I would agree with what the UAE deems harmful and offensive and therefore stopping the UAE from censorship is on my “good” list. However, I’m not against all censorship. For example, web sites for pedophiles and violence toward women and children I believe should also be censored, as should hate groups.
It keeps getting trickier. When does freedom of expression, art, and innovation start (good) and the worthy-of-censorship (bad) end? For example, many of Jack London's books were banned in Italy and Yugoslavia between World Wars I and II. In the U.S., a school district in Missouri blithely banned Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World in 1980, while J.D. Salinger’s Catcher in the Rye was banned in certain schools in six states in the 1970s and 80s. Do I even need to mention that I totally disagree with the banning of these books?
Government is not necessarily the best arbitrator—the UAE is a good example of a government that I believe should not be allowed to decide. Closer to home, there was that whole episode when Bush’s original Attorney General John Ashcroft (remember him?) decided a statue of Justice was offensive and the taxpayers had to spend $8,000 to cover it. Again, this was NOT an example of when the government’s censorship was acceptable. On the other hand, I don't really believe that censorship should be based on what the average citizen thinks, either. I have no answers to the question of censorship. This issue, which has been around almost as long as humanity, will continue to be one that has no pat answers.
No comments:
Post a Comment