PDA

View Full Version : Censorship in general...


shaad
December 4, 2007, 12:17 AM
We have seen several instances of censorship in Bangladesh, that of fiction such as Rusdhie's Satanic Verses or Taslima's Lajja, and of articles, e.g. in certain issues of Time or Newsweek that led to those particular issues being banned. And from some recent posts (for instance, in the Taslima Nasreen thread), I get the impression that some posters think that censorship is not necessarily a bad idea. So let's hear your views; do you think there are some statements which, for whatever reason (hurting your religious sentiments, being obscene, etc.) should be censored?

Now, personally, I am opposed to censorship, and here's why. Frankly, I don't think I am overly stupid, and can thus make up my own mind about what I would like to read, hear or see. If something does offend me, well then, I can easily choose not to read, hear, or see it; I don't need someone to preemptively make this decision on my behalf. And by the same token, I don't think I am so much smarter than or superior to my peers that I can prescribe what they should read, see or listen to either.

Kabir
December 4, 2007, 12:52 AM
The 2nd paragraph pretty much summarizes my feeling too.

Religious censorship is like saying "my way, or highway". The Almighty has asked us to be open to others' views...and whether we like it or not, there are different views in the world. Rushdie and Taslima Nasreen's cases are laughable...it's like saying "pagol re shako naraite kois na". It just shows that we haven't yet learnt how to accommodate certain types of OTHERS among us. We don't need to like them...neither do we need to go nutts over things that someone has said. Like you said, just avoid reading it if you don't like it. Simple.

I do, however, believe in age-based censorship.

tonoy
December 4, 2007, 02:45 AM
Very good thread Shaad. Personally, I am in favor of open minded views. Yet, I cannot help but sometimes have emotional outbursts when there is an derogatory mark about our religion. I can sometimes correlate with those who have used rash methods(the overzealous and the uneducated ones), when it comes to handling such matters. I mean you do have to realize that when you attack the core of nearly a billion people's way of life by humiliating it, you shouldn't expect to be greeted with warm hugs and kisses. Im all up for different views, but I do expect some rationalism from the initial point. And in both cases, I have not seens rationalistic approach from the beginning but I have seen these two then later expect sympathy for an action they have well known about it and chosen. My simple message, If you want to put your hand in a fire, then atleast have your hand wet and not fill it up with kerosine.

PoorFan
December 4, 2007, 04:06 AM
... I mean you do have to realize that when you attack the core of nearly a billion people's way of life by humiliating it, you shouldn't expect to be greeted with warm hugs and kisses.
...
My simple message, If you want to put your hand in a fire, then atleast have your hand wet and not fill it up with kerosine.
<!--StartFragment -->The problem is NOT that expecting "warm hugs and kisses" from anyone, rather problem IS some people start to "call for head" and march with "sword in hand". And they claim to be our representative, as well getting out-numbered day by day.

<!--StartFragment -->Putting hands in fire logic doesn't require SECOND perty's action to get burnt, alas we see ( most of the cases ) fire get set up with 'kerosene' by some people, and then wait surrounding to watch.:-p

ammark
December 4, 2007, 04:52 AM
I agree with shaad bhai, however there are some issues on which some restraint on expression may need to be considered. For instance, in Canada, no one has the right to incite or express hatred of others. Hate-speech could be censored.

There should be absolute freedom to analyse, evaluate and criticise on some sound logical, rational basis.... not criticism for its sake, or based on shallow pretentions but some rational foundation. It irritates me intensely in Bangladesh that many people are quick to make reactionary judgements without a bit of introspection or reasoning.

p.s: Overheard some men on the street remarking in a condescending tone about a girl riding a new red Italian scooter - "Show-er jonno kinse!"

shaad
December 4, 2007, 09:31 AM
tonoy, if comments by certain writers don't affect your belief in your particular faith, then responding emotionally to such serves no actual purpose other than garnering undue publicity to such writers. There is a certain vested interest among some in the West (e.g Samuel Huntington) to portray the current state of affairs as a "clash of civilizations" between the "enlightened" West and "barbaric" Islam. Since the media, in general, tends to focus on sensational news items, over-the-top emotional outbursts and acts (e.g. fatwas against writers, calls for their death, actual killings like that of Theo van Gogh) simply provide ammunition for this view.

ammark, you raise a good point: should hate-speech be censored, as it is in Canada? I personally think it should not. That does not mean that you, or I, or the government is obliged to supply someone with a platform to present his hate-speech (freedom of expression also means I can decide what platform I can support); but banning any form of speech outright is, I feel, a start down a slippery slope. For instance, in US political and academic circles, it is anathema to make any comments that could be construed as anti-semitic (being critical of Jewish people). Now there's nothing wrong with that, in isolation. However, this "censorship" against making any negative comments about Jewish people has expanded to the point where even criticism against Israeli foreign and state policy is considered taboo. Breaking the taboo results in academics being denied tenureship, politicians not getting re-elected, etc. And that's not even including the observation that allowing no criticism of one particular group, while allowing unbridled rhetoric deriding another group, Muslims, brings about a lopsided state of affairs in the public perception.

And finally, I do agree with one version of censorship, that espoused by Kabir, age-appropriate censorship.

Ajfar
December 4, 2007, 05:31 PM
this is exactly what we r talking about in my english class noww..we watched a great episode of south park..where they try to get family guy off the air..

goru
December 4, 2007, 05:35 PM
this is exactly what we r talking about in my english class noww..we watched a great episode of south park..where they try to get family guy off the air..

Cartoon Wars (both parts) is one of my favorites! :floor:

Carte Blanche
December 4, 2007, 05:47 PM
this is exactly what we r talking about in my english class noww..we watched a great episode of south park..where they try to get family guy off the air..

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f3/Sp1101watjj.jpg/200px-Sp1101watjj.jpg

Orpheus
December 4, 2007, 06:29 PM
CB's pic:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MtTRShLm_cM&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MtTRShLm_cM&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Bancan
December 4, 2007, 06:51 PM
South Park hardly has any boundaries. From the death of Steve Irwin to Scientology, they have not left any stone untouched. Love the cartoon wars episodes.

I think no one has problems with age-appropriate censorship except horny teenagers.

For anything that might offend you, like shaad said, ignore it if you dont like it.

al Furqaan
December 6, 2007, 04:11 PM
i don't know about censorship, but i do know provocative stupidity.

if you know that there is a powderkeg in the vicinity yet you still toss matches around with callous regard for the consequences, i have disdain for both the keg and match thrower. but shouldn't the match thrower be treated more harshly because generally they are the "enlightened" idiots with the degrees and education?

and hate speech should absolutely be banned. hate has a way of inciting people into becoming dangerous machines.

but such comments (whether right or wrong) are not "hate speech" per se and should not be banned at all:

1) all terrorists are muslims (however the statment that all muslims are terrorists is hate speech)
2) jews control the world
3) white people are superior to non-whites

AsifTheManRahman
December 7, 2007, 02:28 PM
Without censorship, I'd be unemployed in the virtual world.

Let free speech be damned, I say!

Fazal
December 7, 2007, 02:57 PM
Without censorship, I'd be unemployed in the virtual world.


Does it matter? Because magna chakreer Daam ki?

AsifTheManRahman
December 7, 2007, 02:58 PM
Who said anything about magna?

Fazal
December 7, 2007, 03:01 PM
We know... we know....we know every thing ... we know what you do... what you say... what you eat... where you go.... we are watching you.