I unfortunately tend to be generally apathetic on issues such as censorship and freedom of speech, simply because it seems so unsolvable to me. The benefits of censorship to those censoring are a sense of order and "healthy" limitations (by their own standards), which I can understand and relate to. However, I can also relate to those being unfairly censored. It doesn't seem right that ideas can't be thrown around, when ideas is what promotes progress - especially in the academic setting. Thus, I don't think that censorship in itself is a problem. I think the situations in which censorship is applied is when problems arise. Who gets to do it, and what is the premise? Should we hang on to freedom of speech in all circumstances in order to preserve the right; are we eating away at that right slowly through the use of censorship? Where is the line?
There have been two instances in my stay at Lipscomb when I have encountered unfair censorship. One being an article a friend of mine wrote for the Babbler about a new church our Campus Minister has started. She was so passionate about the subject and spent a great deal of time on the article only to be told that it would not be published because the church did not abide by "traditional Church of Christ doctrine" (although the church is a Church of Christ). Secondly, another instance was with the literary and arts journal Lipscomb used to publish called Exordium. Last year after submissions were in and the journal was ready for print, the university censored out the majority of the contents on flimsy grounds and the journal was left with naked pages and was not printed until the students raised enough money to unaffiliate it with Lipscomb. It still remains that way this year.
Areopagitica brought to mind so many issues that are still so prevalent today, and it's frustrating that we still haven't come to a decision on the matter. Obviously, opinions will always differ and a "decision" will never be made... but it is interesting to read a take on the issue from a historically different standpoint.
One last note - I think it's interesting that we have a "Fighting Words" doctrine (you can be arrested simply for saying offensive or lude things to police officers, basically) in the US, but we fight so strongly for our right to free speech. I understand the premise for the fighting words law, but it seems that if our constitution wants to provide protection for the right to free speech in ALL circumstances, that this law would directly contradict that. But on the contrary, the Supreme Court has upheld the fighting words doctrine since its existance from the Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire case. And here we come full circle: If you want free speech, it's all or nothing. Otherwise, where does the censorship end? When is it right and when is it wrong? Who gets to decide what gets censored?
I'm telling you: unsolvable.
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13718
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I completely agree! However, just to make things interesting, I propose this.
ReplyDeleteAs Christians, there are certain aspects of this world that we should have no part of, online pornography for example. At Lipscomb, this type of "speech" has been censored for a good reason, to keep members of the Lipscomb family (to use Dr. Lowry's terminology) from so easily accessing material that I believe is safe to deem sinful.
Now, I am sure that it is possible, at least in theory, for someone, perhaps an asexual Lipscomb Christian online pornographic statistic researcher, to view pornography without falling into the sin of lust. Does this mean for the sake of this one's man research, that all pornography should be permitted on the Lipscomb network? This is an extreme, nay absurd, example but I believe it serves to illustrate my point. As Christians, should those who are stronger (the asexual Lipscomb Christian online pornographic statistic researcher) give up certain "rights" (his right to do this work on the Lipscomb campus) to protect the weaker Christians? In essence, should we as Christians accept certain rules that we might deem too stringent for the protection they might provide others?
1 Corinthians 8-9 is a basis for this...
I agree wholeheartedly with Alex. People who don't struggle with certain things should be mature enough to give up some of their freedoms out of respect for their fellow people.
ReplyDeleteAnd I definitely agree with Jill in that I don't think we will ever reach any kind of sustainable decision on the free speech matter.
I think the problem is that no one is willing to give up their freedom in order to protect others. For example, I'm somewhat of a nerd, as I suppose a lot of us are, and I'm also a bit of a pyromaniac. As such, I have wanted to make large fires, etc. before--just for the science of it. I'm not a fire-bomber, though, I promise. I'm too nice. Anyway, I would gladly give up the right to research that sort of stuff if it's gonna keep crazy people from looking it up.
And if we ever did reach a point where we can say, "This is the line. Stuff on this side is okay, but stuff on the other side is censored," it might last a short time, but eventually people are going to want to know the forbidden information. There's no way to suppress everyone's curiosity.
At some point, the only successful concession that could be made is for a group of people to decide to give up their rights in order that a certain level of freedom can be maintained.
Also, Alex, good scripture reference. Muy pertinente.
As far as Lipsocmb's internet practices go I think they can censor as much as they like because we are paying them to do that for us. If however, I was being forced to use censored internet at all times I would be pissed. To use a horrible metaphor, censorship is a slippery slope. There is no line we can agree on. Ask the Westboro Baptist Church and they will tell you that pretty much anything and everything you say should be censored to prevent us from sinning. Galileo who I think we all can agree was a brilliant and important guy was censored for something he proved was correct beacause it was supposedly sinful! First of all to censor we have to determine who is our authority on morality and as US citizens that just wont work. We have freedom of religion because we dont want our ideas controled. We dont want to be told what is right and wrong. And really isnt it people's choice what they see and read? Part of freedom of speech is also freedom FROM speech and we get to choose. Along with censorship always comes state supported propaganda so we both lose our rights of and from speech.
ReplyDeleteThe old hippie in me bristles when I read these comments. I come from a generation which trumpeted free speech, a movement which started on the U Cal Berkeley campus in 1963. I watched TV censors pull The Smothers Brothers show off television because they violated the speech codes. George Carlin did his famous monologue, "Seven Words You Can't Say on Television." From WW I on, people were pressured and sometimes arrested if they expressed pacifist sentiments. Perhaps our opinions differ so much because of the extremes to which speech was pushed. After all of the "politically correct language" debates, I think people grew weary of the free speech issues. Perhaps we have become accustomed to so much electronic surveillance (cookies, cameras in public places, Kroger Plus cards) that we find these questions moot.
ReplyDeleteI agree prof paul! Unfortunately, I am one who has become too accustomed to surveillance. When I take the time to think about the amount of surveillance I am under, I get really angry! I know that I should be outraged by the amount of my personal information that is collected by various organizations, political and commercial. However, I tend to just ignore it because I feel like there is so much information that is being collected that I am powerless to stop it. But enough about that!
ReplyDeleteCensorship! I get pretty angry about censorship. When we're under the age of 18, I believe that parents/ schools/ etc. have the right to censor information because minors don't necessarily have the ability to "censor" themselves. However, adults should know their limits. If someone knows that a particular bit of information holds a weakness for that person, then they should have the ability to limit that information. No one has the right to tell us, as adults, that information is not appropriate for us. Now personally, I set very high moral standards for the kind of information I consume, especially the entertainment I enjoy. But that was my own decision, as it should be. No one determined that standard for me, except for the influence my parents had as I was growing up. Now I can understand the filter on the internet for Lipscomb students, since that filter pertains to the other Lipscomb campuses.
I believe in voluntary censorship. I knew ahead of time that Lipscomb will block porn sites and other non- Christian stuff. So should I get mad from this censorship? Is this impeding any of my rights? yes, but when i decided to go to this school i gave up those rights. I also understand why it would be illegal to cuss at a cop. Cussing in the current culture can be seen as a threat to especially high strung police officers. Cops have rights to, and i believe self preservation is one of them. My final thought is the belief that freedom of speech is a God given right to all men, women, and children. To give children a correct understanding of the culture is not bad parenting, but to stifle a 16 year old during his own time and place is irreverent to people's own rights. I would explain more, but i'm lazy.
ReplyDeleteFreedom of Speech is a clear line for me. On a campus such as ours, it's assumable that some things will be blocked. It's a private school, meaning we're paying for certain things to be blocked from us. Though I believe no speech should be censored on television, newspapers, etc. Speech is just the product of someone's mouth (or hand if written). You can't censor a product unless it is harmful to someone, and in this case unless it is harmful to someone's character as well. I don't believe cursing at an officer should be grounds for being arrested , but I do believe in "fighting words." If someone is running at me yelling "I'm gonna rip your head off." I'm NOT waiting for them to throw the first punch.
ReplyDeleteI believe the government should lose the right to censor and give it back to the parents.
this whole freedom stuff is ridiculous to me to begin with. what freedom do we actually have? literally? we are constantly bound by one law or another--one set of restrictions or another--be it the governmetn or the laws of society or the laws of nature. i have the freedom to fly--i cant. i have the freedom to kill--i cant, i will be punished. i have the freedom to landbast and accuse, and lie--i cant, society will out cast me. so i guess my idea of freedom is that i can do anything i want without being punished. if freedom of speech says i can say anything i want without being punished, then there is no freedom of speech, and there never was or can be. but if we want to change the definition of freedom to the ability to do something reguardless of reaction, then we may still be limited, but it sure does change the scope of "freedom" all around.
ReplyDelete