![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
gaudiorContext: So Wiscon has rescinded Elizabeth Moon's Guest of Honor invitation.* People reacted in the comments thread, many of them accusing the Wiscon committee of "fascism" and "censorship."
So let's discuss some definitions.
Censorship is the suppression of speech, usually by a governing body. It involves editing out or removing parts of someone's speech/writing, taking legal action to prevent that speech/writing from being published or disseminated, destroying written materials, legally prosecuting people for their speech/writing, outlawing the sale of said speech/writing, etc.
Here are some things which are not censorship:
*criticizing someone for what they said if you disagree with it
*refusing to give someone your money in exchange for them saying or writing things you disagree with
*refusing to give someone special honors and rewards for saying or writing things you disagree with
I believe very strongly in freedom of speech and expression. People should be able to say and write anything and everything they want.*** Not only should Elizabeth Moon have the right to say that American Muslims are bad citizens for, for example, requesting police protection for mosques after the September 11th attacks, she should also have the right to write scathing and vicious attacks on all Muslims everywhere. A person should, in fact, have the right to write an obscenity- and hate-filled novel about how Muslims are The Most Evil Things Evar and want to destroy the earth. I stand behind anyone's right to write that, and I stand behind their right to try to publish it.
But I also believe, more or less, in capitalism.**** I believe strongly that people have the right to vote with their wallets, to support people they, personally, agree with, and to not give money to people they don't. I support the right of any publisher to refuse to buy Teh Evil Muslim Conspiracy, either because the publisher doesn't want to spread hate or because the publisher doesn't think it will sell. And if someone does publish it, I support the right of any reader to not buy it, either because they don't want to support hate or because they don't think it's a good book. And I feel that critics and readers and reviewers have the right to write anything they want about what a terrible book it is, and how nobody should buy it.
None of those things are censorship. Disagreeing with someone, not supporting them, and not using your resources to promulgate their message are not censorship. They are not things you are doing to the person. They are things you are not doing for the person. That's different.
If a convention chooses someone to honor for her writing, and then discovers that the person has written something they have no interest in honoring, I support their right not to pay to bring the person to their convention, give the person money, and ask the person to make a speech. Wiscon would be practicing censorship against Moon if they were a governing body which could prevent her books from being published. They aren't; they can't. They didn't even try to prevent her from expressing her views-- they did not forbid her from the convention, and if she had come, I doubt they would have forbid her from being on panels or speaking. That's not censorship. That's just an explicitly political con, one which has been working on improving the experience of its participants of color, choosing not to honor someone who has written things which explicitly contradict the con's goals.
There are all sorts of things which can be debated about this situation. But yelling at sf3 for "censorship" is not a useful one.
--R
*Further context: Elizabeth Moon (writer and invited Guest of Honor at the upcoming WisCon) made a livejournal post about the non-Ground Zero non-Mosque** saying basically that Muslims should have expected this project would lead to trouble, and therefore were not being good citizens by proposing it. Although she did acknowledge that this has historically been problematic and still is, she said that some assimilation by new groups is necessary for multiculturalism to work, and that after the September 11th attacks, Muslims in America should have been careful to "avoid doing those things likely to cause offence." [sic] She went on to speak about "the long, long chain of Islamic hostility" and how problematic it is that non-Muslims "lean over backwards to put up with these things, to let Muslims believe stuff that unfits them for citizenship, on the grounds of their personal freedom." And how she doesn't want anyone persecuted, but she wishes Muslims would realize how forbearing everyone else is being in putting up with them going around asking for rights and respect and things.
There ensued about 300 posts in the comments section in which people pointed out many ways in which what she had said was problematic. After engaging with them for a while, Moon deleted the comments and announced that everything had been said and answered, repeatedly, so there would be no further discussion.
There ensued, perhaps not unpredictably, discussion.
**Thanks to K. Tempest Bradford for the phrase! Source here.
***Within a few specific guidelines. Namely, according to the law, if you lie and it causes someone damage, it's illegal. There's nothing wrong with shouting "fire" in a crowded theater if there's actually a fire; libel and slander are both illegal because they misrepresent someone in what claims to be a factual manner. Neither stating opinion nor repeating accurately what the person said publicly are illegal, and neither should, in my opinion, be censored.
****I would really like to have a kind of capitalism where the market is free and where legislators made laws to protect workers and the environment and things like that.
So let's discuss some definitions.
Censorship is the suppression of speech, usually by a governing body. It involves editing out or removing parts of someone's speech/writing, taking legal action to prevent that speech/writing from being published or disseminated, destroying written materials, legally prosecuting people for their speech/writing, outlawing the sale of said speech/writing, etc.
Here are some things which are not censorship:
*criticizing someone for what they said if you disagree with it
*refusing to give someone your money in exchange for them saying or writing things you disagree with
*refusing to give someone special honors and rewards for saying or writing things you disagree with
I believe very strongly in freedom of speech and expression. People should be able to say and write anything and everything they want.*** Not only should Elizabeth Moon have the right to say that American Muslims are bad citizens for, for example, requesting police protection for mosques after the September 11th attacks, she should also have the right to write scathing and vicious attacks on all Muslims everywhere. A person should, in fact, have the right to write an obscenity- and hate-filled novel about how Muslims are The Most Evil Things Evar and want to destroy the earth. I stand behind anyone's right to write that, and I stand behind their right to try to publish it.
But I also believe, more or less, in capitalism.**** I believe strongly that people have the right to vote with their wallets, to support people they, personally, agree with, and to not give money to people they don't. I support the right of any publisher to refuse to buy Teh Evil Muslim Conspiracy, either because the publisher doesn't want to spread hate or because the publisher doesn't think it will sell. And if someone does publish it, I support the right of any reader to not buy it, either because they don't want to support hate or because they don't think it's a good book. And I feel that critics and readers and reviewers have the right to write anything they want about what a terrible book it is, and how nobody should buy it.
None of those things are censorship. Disagreeing with someone, not supporting them, and not using your resources to promulgate their message are not censorship. They are not things you are doing to the person. They are things you are not doing for the person. That's different.
If a convention chooses someone to honor for her writing, and then discovers that the person has written something they have no interest in honoring, I support their right not to pay to bring the person to their convention, give the person money, and ask the person to make a speech. Wiscon would be practicing censorship against Moon if they were a governing body which could prevent her books from being published. They aren't; they can't. They didn't even try to prevent her from expressing her views-- they did not forbid her from the convention, and if she had come, I doubt they would have forbid her from being on panels or speaking. That's not censorship. That's just an explicitly political con, one which has been working on improving the experience of its participants of color, choosing not to honor someone who has written things which explicitly contradict the con's goals.
There are all sorts of things which can be debated about this situation. But yelling at sf3 for "censorship" is not a useful one.
--R
*Further context: Elizabeth Moon (writer and invited Guest of Honor at the upcoming WisCon) made a livejournal post about the non-Ground Zero non-Mosque** saying basically that Muslims should have expected this project would lead to trouble, and therefore were not being good citizens by proposing it. Although she did acknowledge that this has historically been problematic and still is, she said that some assimilation by new groups is necessary for multiculturalism to work, and that after the September 11th attacks, Muslims in America should have been careful to "avoid doing those things likely to cause offence." [sic] She went on to speak about "the long, long chain of Islamic hostility" and how problematic it is that non-Muslims "lean over backwards to put up with these things, to let Muslims believe stuff that unfits them for citizenship, on the grounds of their personal freedom." And how she doesn't want anyone persecuted, but she wishes Muslims would realize how forbearing everyone else is being in putting up with them going around asking for rights and respect and things.
There ensued about 300 posts in the comments section in which people pointed out many ways in which what she had said was problematic. After engaging with them for a while, Moon deleted the comments and announced that everything had been said and answered, repeatedly, so there would be no further discussion.
There ensued, perhaps not unpredictably, discussion.
**Thanks to K. Tempest Bradford for the phrase! Source here.
***Within a few specific guidelines. Namely, according to the law, if you lie and it causes someone damage, it's illegal. There's nothing wrong with shouting "fire" in a crowded theater if there's actually a fire; libel and slander are both illegal because they misrepresent someone in what claims to be a factual manner. Neither stating opinion nor repeating accurately what the person said publicly are illegal, and neither should, in my opinion, be censored.
****I would really like to have a kind of capitalism where the market is free and where legislators made laws to protect workers and the environment and things like that.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
A slightly tangential question of censorship
Date: 2010-10-22 05:18 am (UTC)Re: A slightly tangential question of censorship
Date: 2010-10-22 06:56 am (UTC)Re: A slightly tangential question of censorship
Date: 2010-10-22 03:18 pm (UTC)Thank you! But I think I should clarify. I didn't mean just "is this just disruptive behavior" vs "an honest expression of opinion?" I think that can be subjective-- the Westboro Baptists would probably be quick to explain that they are just honestly expressing their opinion, and plenty of people would have called, for example, the sit-ins of the American Civil Rights Movement "just disruptive behavior."
I was going more for "is this preventing the person from expressing themself" vs "is this just not encouraging the person to express themself?" Are you actively working to make it impossible for the person to write those words, or are you just not providing them with an audience?
Re: A slightly tangential question of censorship
Date: 2010-10-22 03:08 pm (UTC)Good question. My line is where (as I understand it) the law puts it: you don't have the right to lie about someone in a way which will harm them, and you don't have the right to explicitly threaten someone. Beyond that, anything goes.
So, yes, I believe that the Westboro Baptists do have the right to protest at funerals. I believe that it's cruel and tacky and unfeeling and insane of them to do it, and I never would in a zillion years, but I believe they have the right to.
Here's a trickier question: what constitutes threats that will cause harm? Take a queer kid who's harassed on FaceBook, and commits suicide-- if everything the other kids said was actually true, and none of it was an explicit threat, should they be held accountable for murder? I lean towards no (suicide is a person's own choice, even if others strongly influenced them towards it), but I'm not sure, and need to think about it more.
Re: A slightly tangential question of censorship
Date: 2010-10-22 04:16 pm (UTC)Which honestly covers about ninety percent of the Westboro protests. A lot of the suits around them depend on the question of where private property stops, whether they can stand on the driveway outside a cemetery, for example. And a lot of the counterprotests center around, and this is questionably legal but it depends on how one does it, trying to get them angry enough to do something or other illegal for a public protest. My reaction to this is that as they're known to be public nuisances it's reasonable to spend a lot of time making sure they follow the exact letter of the law.
And hey, if the exact letter of the law turns out to put them three blocks away from the cemetery with a guy standing there with a decibel meter to make sure they don't go over the noise regulations, awesome.
Re: A slightly tangential question of censorship
Date: 2010-10-22 05:54 pm (UTC)Oh, good point. Defense of free speech is very much about what happens in public spaces-- I don't have the right to go into someone's house and tell them my opinion, because that's trespassing. It doesn't matter what I'm saying, the point is that I'm not allowed to say it there.
Re: A slightly tangential question of censorship
Date: 2010-10-23 03:05 am (UTC)One of the issues with the funerals in specific is the question of the contract with the place doing the funeral. Most of the time, I believe a funeral essentially includes a rental of the space - making it a private space and not available for public protest, in the same way that protesting on my doorstep isn't legal without my consent.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-10-22 11:10 am (UTC)She has a right to speak, but being honoured isn't a right.
What I think it's like is a marriage proposal. Somebody loves you and wants to marry you, and you say yes, and then you say some awful thing and refuse to apologize and they say "The wedding's off!"
(no subject)
Date: 2010-10-22 03:20 pm (UTC)She has a right to speak, but being honoured isn't a right.
This, yes! A lot of people seem to be taking it as "since she was asked, being GoH is something which Moon is owed." I think your example of the engagement is a very useful one.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-10-22 02:04 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-10-22 03:21 pm (UTC)Moon's actual piece.
Date: 2010-10-22 04:32 pm (UTC)Re: Moon's actual piece.
Date: 2010-10-22 05:50 pm (UTC)Once I have something to call you, I will be very glad to answer your comment!
(no subject)
Date: 2010-10-22 06:56 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-10-22 08:58 pm (UTC)Oh, that is spot-on. I think there might be more to be said about honor, here, and whose honor we're talking about. Specifically:
- Inviting someone to speak to you is an honor for the audience, because the audience considers it a privilege to hear what you have to say.
- Being invited to speak is an honor for the speaker because you consider it a privilege to have the audience want to listen to what you have to say.
Moon's a storyteller: it's always a privilege when other people want to listen to what you have to say. People are not obligated to like what you say. When they don't like what you say, they will either tell you about it (if they like you) or choose to listen to someone else (if they don't). If you keep saying things that piss off your audience, eventually you will not have much of an audience.
Wiscon, it seems to me, is saying, "You said some things that angered your own audience and additionally went directly against our con's mission. We didn't like what you had to say. As an organization, we are telling you that we didn't like it in the strongest way we can. The majority of your/our audience no longer respects what you have to say, and so does not consider it a privilege or honor to listen to you any longer. Therefore, we are rescinding the invitation."
I think rescinding the invitation was the only ethical choice. If the invitation had gone forward as planned, the audience might feel obligated to listen--but if you feel obligated to listen to someone, hearing them speak isn't much of an honor.
And speaking to an audience that doesn't want to hear you isn't much of an honor either.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-10-23 03:01 am (UTC)The First Amendment to the Constitution is one of the most important documents (or partial documents, if you want to consider it primarily as part of either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights rather than taking it on its own, either of which is a valid methodology for engaging with it), in the history of our country. It bothers me when people cite it in situations where it doesn't apply, when they haven't bothered to do the proper research/read the thing carefully through utter lack of effort (note: I see this as different than someone who has tried but doesn't understand the document, or tried but encountered faulty sources, or whatnot).
It is not a violation of anyone's First Amendment rights - which is what make government-sponsored censorship illegal in most cases - to rescind an honor.