Passion | Residents | Home | GamesWeb | The Twins

Censorship? Just say "No!"

by Avedon Carol



For me, the question of censorship was simplified a long time ago when I noticed that pro-civil rights activists were being censored in the United States on the grounds of "obscenity". Given the complex sexual mythology that has always haunted American racial relations, it struck me as a sneaky trick to make part of the back-room ideology of racism impossible to confront in a public forum.

It wasn't new, of course. The first uses of the obscenity laws in America had been blatantly political, and the blues had been banned in Memphis as part of the suppression of black culture.

But the problem became increasingly obvious as the women's liberation movement in the late 1960s and early '70s was subjected to one anti-obscenity campaign after another. The primary targets seemed to be traditional - as always, pro-censorship forces were quick to go after material dealing specifically with women's health and reproductive issues. But everything from lesbianism to orgasm was up for discussion in the women's movement - all had been mythologised, and all played a role in the difficult relationships between men and women - and repressive politicians wanted to make sure we couldn't talk about those very things. The excuse was that those things weren't really "political" - they were "obscene".

Obviously, people want to talk about sex, think about sex, play with sex and understand sex. Not just the mechanics of reproductive acts, either - we're after the whole nine yards. In the 1960s, the people who most wanted to talk about these things were teenagers and young adults, and our parents really didn't want us to. A lot has been said about how baby-boomers "think they invented sex", but the truth is that in a culture that never really talked about the subject in any substantive terms, our generation really did have to start from scratch in many ways. We're still inventing sex as a subject for public discussion.

Sex continues to be the first and most compelling point of attack for moral rightists and career repressives. But as they found they couldn't evoke the pavlovian fear response to mere mentions of sex anymore, they stepped up the rhetoric to smear sexual media with charges of violence and abuse of children. It's no longer sex, but "sex-&-violence"; no longer sexual acts, but "torture"; no longer porn, but "child porn".

It's a phoney dodge.

When feminists first brought up the subject of domestic violence and abuse, the American moral right was adamantly opposed to any movement to stamp these things out. Violence, they said, was a matter for families, not the state. Yet they are eager to see the state, control non-abusive, consensual behaviour.


British moral rightists now unabashedly assert on national television (Newsnight, BBC2), that if people practice sado masochistic (SM) sex they become child abusers. Merely "looking at explicit erotic media" (pornography), they say, turns men into abusers. Embarrassingly, our media presenters are too ignorant to question those claims.

In a highly-politicised debate where one side gets to control the discourse by censoring the subject at hand, they can say anything they want. If people never really get to see pornography, they won't know that it is less violent than other media, so the moral right can get away with claiming pornography is more violent. In this climate, it becomes difficult to point out that half a century of research and accumulated data conclusively proves that sexual openness and explicit media are not the problem. Question the moral right's position and they call you a child abuser.


If you look at the backgrounds of serial killers and child molesters, you rarely find that their parents were free love-practising hippies or porn-reading SM fans. They aren't gay rights activists or free speech advocates. The material they quote from isn't pornography or The Blade....It's the Bible.

Sex and sexuality are fundamentals of the relationships - and confusions - between men and women. But it's only one example of a subject where problems have been made intractable by suppression of one side of the discourse. A closer look at problems related to crime and drugs shows that in most cases the sensible options have been discarded before the public debate is even permitted to take place. Our educational methodology has slipped where creative solutions have been thrown out. Our approaches to racial issues and economic policies are stagnant to the point of self-destruction because some things just cannot be said. We no longer feel free to question the received wisdom.

The beauty of the internet, for me, is that it creates a place to express - and expose - all those suppressed views and ideas. It's a resource where students can examine a multiplicity of positions and arguments and sort them out for themselves. It invites you to think.

Ironically, however, the academic servers in Britain were the first to succumb to the fear of such debate and to impose censorship on Usenet groups. It won't surprise me if similar controls end up being imposed on web searches. It will be a true victory for the most powerful and repressive forces if this tool, with all its potential, is crippled for those who want and need it most.

But then, keeping people from thinking is exactly what censorship is really for.

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's no longer sex, but
"sex-&-violence"; no longer sexual acts, but "torture"; no longer porn, but "child porn".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question the moral right's position and they call you a child abuser.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The material they quote from isn't pornography or The Blade....It's the Bible