How do you define censorship?

[netmouse]

Someone commented in another journal the idea that censorship is something only governments can do.

I had defined it as something people with power do to people (publications, performances, etc) they have power over.

ETA: by power I meant institutionally-based authority, not merely physical force. "Institution" can include social institutions, such as clubs, churches, or families.

How do you define censorship?

Comments

[dd-b.livejournal.com]

Well, first amendment protections only extend to government actions.

Other than the government, is censorship possible? It's not the same thing as "suppressing information", is it? If I want to say something, maybe Tor won't buy the book, but there's always Lulu. The only way to stop me is to invoke government power, or to kill me.

[supergee.livejournal.com]

Use of force: governments, religious leaders putting out fatwas, etc.

[lizdmg.livejournal.com]

I believe it's something the government can do. I remember having discussions about that in journalism classes. As mentioned above, if the government isn't stopping you, then who has that power? If one publisher or theatre refuses to present certain works, the party wanting it presented has the right to have it put on somewhere else. Or to create his or her own forum for it. If it's being censored, then the government's saying you don't have the right to present that.

Having put in my two cents, I'll now look at the definition linked above.

[skzbrust.livejournal.com]

It seems to me it has to do with the supressing of information backed by the force of law, which is in turn backed by the State. I don't think even the violent supression of information by gangs, armed or otherwise, is what is talked about when referring to "censorship."

[jvowles.livejournal.com]

Tough one.

There ought to be a different word for each of these concepts:

1. State censorship -- where the government actively suppresses certain materials

versus

2. Organizational or market censorship -- where those who control access to certain markets (including stuff like "the scientific community" of respected peer-reviewed journals) deny access to certain ideas.

The difference is important because the state is backed by the force of law and leaves fewer options for working around/under/through the restrictions. It's the difference between "if you say that again, you'll go to jail or suffer other penalties" and "nobody will publish my crackpot conspiracy theories!"

The rule of law in the US (at least theoretically) should promote diversity of ideas -- they're good for democracy as well as for an open market. Unfortunately, monopolies thwart those inbuilt controls rather effectively.

[the-leewit.livejournal.com]

I take a longer, etymological view--- yes, I know you are shocked. Totally unlike me to bring in etymology or outdated word meanings. The original censors, of old Rome, were the men who decided, quite literally, whose vote would count-- the takers of the census. They controlled the budgets for public buildings and works and were also the guardians of the public morals--- not only who should be allowed to show what kind of skin (grin), but censuring those who, for instance, allowed their lands to go fallow in a manner that endangered one's neighbor's fields (in such a manner that pests were encouraged, for instance), were excessively cruel or indulgent to their wives or children, or generally made themselves a nuisance-from-within to Roman society.

I quite agree with you that it does not necessarily have to stem from government authority. There is, for example, self-censorship that stems from, "Is it responsible to run the Abu Ghraib photographs, where children, who are maybe not prepared to see images of sexually-charged psychological torture are likely to see them?" rather than, "We'll get in trouble with the government if we run this story or show nudity in this context!" And what do you call, for example, the actions of an editor who sends a script back requesting that be made compliant with the Comics Code, even though the CCA is not a government authority?

For me, I suppose, the classification of omitting information as "censorship" comes from the motivation--- it has to be viewed by the censor, whether rightly or wrongly, for the public good. The convenient thing about my definition is that it covers the almighty hand of the FCC pressing the bloop button when George Carlin broadcasts stand up routins as well as the WWII PFC scanning mail to make certain soldiers were not chancing inadvertently advertising the movement of their units, in case the mail should fall into enemy hands.

I don't think all censorship is bad, either--- but it's a very slippery slope.

[rmeidaking.livejournal.com]

I define censorship as suppressing any paper, book, artwork, or other item because of ideological, political, personal or ethical reasons.

I censor my kids all the time: They can't swear, they have to be polite, they can't walk around naked, etc.

Various churches issue lists of censored materials all the time. Lots of good Christians are not even supposed to read about other religions, or about any sort of behavior that's not officially accepted by that church (e.g. a paper in support of birth control, or in favor of abortion, or about the practice of Hinduism).

They censor movies by giving them official ratings. That's done by a board which is supposed to be independent of both the film industry and the government - yeah, right.

Censorship should not be confused with editing, as in only picking out the best stories to put in one's magazine, or only displaying the best books in one's bookstore.

Censorship is something that can be - and is - done by most people at one time or another.

[the-leewit.livejournal.com]

Neat question, btw!

[sethb.livejournal.com]

I define censorship as A preventing B communicating something to C, when B and C are willing participants in the communication.

A saying "I'm not going to help you communicate" isn't censorship.

Therefore, censorship requires some sort of force or power. It can be done by a gang just as by a government (what's the difference?)

[cannibal.livejournal.com]

Okay, it isn't just governments, although one might argue that The Church in the 13th century was the biggest government. Idealogical groups can do it too.

It isn't just something people with power do, an editor exercising his power to maintain his vision for a particular publication isn't censoring. John Campbell certainly taught authors to write stories according to his vision, and wouldn't buy them otherwise.

An idealogical organization certainly has the right to choose what they publish. It wouldn't be censorship for the Catholic Monthly to refuse to print "How to be a Wiccan".

On the other hand, if an organization has no part in the creation, publication, or transmission of a given work, and their only role is to limit what can be published or transmitted, that is censorship. They must needs have the power to control that publication or transmission. Groups like the Moral Majority can censor - one idiot writing a letter complaining that you shouldn't make movies where a black man has sex with a white woman is just whining, a thousand of them organized together are trying to impose effective censorship. Comstock's Society for the Suppression of Vice was not a part of the government, but they burned books and put pressure on the government to pass the Comstock Obscenity Laws.

[rmeidaking.livejournal.com]

The Emmy show last night had a couple of moments of serious censorship - most notably cutting to a weird overhead shot while having *no* sound during Sally Field's acceptance speech; she was apparently in the middle of saying that if Mothers were in charge, there would be no war. We'll never know, because Fox cut the feed.

This is the purest censorship: Oops, we don't want you to hear that!