Comments for BANNED IN THE USA - Censorship Part 2 »
Posted By Radiofreeeuropa 1 year, 8 months ago in Arts & EntertainmentConsiderable Sounds takes a look at censorship in 1970s and 1980s. Part 2 of a trilogy of articles about censorship, free speech, it's defenders, and it's opponents. History and commentary.
Read Full Story at dulyconsider.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 67 of 82 Comments
-
Neutral
Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Many have asked about this, the 1st story was quite popular. I hope you enjoy this installment as well. Censorship is alive and well. It has mutated, but it has not gone away. A bit on the lengthy side, but worth the time invested I believe. The 70s and 80s were full of controversy too.
You can read part 1 here.
http://dulyconsider.blogspot.com/2007/12/consid...
Reply-
newbie0420Comment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Great article, radio--researching all of this must have kept you busy for a while.
It never fails to surprise me that those who would censor miss the point that their reasons for censoring are no different than others over the years; the reasons are always based on the ever-changing contextual standards. What would have been acceptable 100 or even 50 years ago isn't seen that way today, and similarly, what might have been considered obscene then is often laughable today.
The obvious problem with censorship is that those who decide what is and is not acceptable can never be entirely objective.
But there's a more insidious issue: the most dangerous ideas are the ones that are kept underground, where they can never be kept from spreading but can't be openly debated.
Reply-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned6 Replies
-
-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom has been fighting censorship of all kinds for over 40 years. Anyone who'd like to challenge attempts to ban books or other forms of expression will find the OIF a valuable resource:
http://ala.org/ala/oif/basics/Default2272.cfm
That page also includes links to pages giving help to those challenging censorship.
Reply -
-
Neutral
Francisca1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thank you RFE for this huge work!! and all the details...
I am not sure people even know that writers like George Orwell, Mark Twain, Lewis Carroll, Confucius etc...etc...have been condemned in the old days! It would be risible today! And however it has changed the perception of how to see the World...
The proof is here: we must never stop to say what we think, never stop to write what is disturbing. More the people are aware and better it is for everyone! Obscurantism is an archaic way...( has always been)
Reply-
Neutral
Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So true Francisca! I'd rather suffer a thousand words I found offensive than be deprived a single word from Orwell or Twain!
Free speech is easy to defend if you agree with the message, it's only when the message is troubling that we are put to the test.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Stephen King seems to have been targeted for censorship quite a bit on that first list! A shame, the three books listed are all quite good. Don Quixote, I can see that being censored in Europe a couple of hundred years ago, good book though. When will we ever learn that censorship is not the way to go, no matter how offensive something may be to you?
Reply -
-
Neutral
Fangarius1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's strange how 'Fahrenheit 451' was banned due to coarse language, though it's a tale about book burning and censorship. Ray Bradbury also penned a precursor to this tale in the Martian Chronicles (another banned book, btw), because in 'April 2005: Usher II,' Bradbury takes a satirical look with censorship.
In this case, it's how an actor and author get revenge on the 'Moral Climates' by luring them into a revamped version of the House of Usher, and murdered by 'offensive' mythical creatures.
What I find funny about censorship is how it doesn't really protect anyone, but instead exemplifies our stupidity. In the 70s with comics and kid shows, one could have a gun, but not use it to shoot anyone. Unless it was a 'laser ray' gun, and it did something other than killing you. If you watch Mission: Magic, you'll note how no one gets killed or physically harmed in the show.
Even more disturbing, I doubt the show would make it today.
(cont.)
Reply-
Neutral
Fangarius1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Not because of the wild adventures the group went on, but the fact Miss Tickle implements 'magic' for solving problems. Funny thing is, when you start censoring every little item, what do you have left to enjoy.
Because as Berkeley Breathed pointed out once in Bloom County, life, in general, is offensive, no matter how one looks at it, and rather than censoring it, we should instead learn about respecting others rights than controlling it.
Reply-
-
Neutral
dunkirk1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I can remeber reading Fahrenheit 451 in HS. It was a good book and the fact it is banned in some states as material for high schoolers is mind boggling. it is amazing how people can sit in judgement of works and then claim to be open minded.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
One resource I think is a boon to us all is the Public Library of Science.
I remember shortly after Bush's first inauguration, the material on condoms and abortion went "under construction" on all government websites. I don't think it's much better now.
In all fairness, most if not all presidents shelve information that doesn't support their agenda: Reagan stopped a report he'd initiated from being published when it suggested abortion is exponentially safer for a woman than carrying a pregnancy to term, and Clinton ignored reports that suggested the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban would not reduce crime, saying "don't tell me this bill won't make a difference" (it didn't).
And those were two presidents who had some attributes I strongly admired.
Reply -
Neutral
Spadecaller1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thanks RFE!
The alleged source to much of the censorship today comes in the guise of "protecting young people."
The one group whose oppression we seem blind to is that of young people. Unless you are have worked in the field, most people don't even know the term, "adultism" which, I believe is the source to much of the censorship issues that continue to plague us.
(IN fact, the term adultism, has been coined by several authors since the 70's, but it has been "rejected" or "censored" -- primarily because of its powerful message.)
It's the one oppression that hits all of us early and hard and keeps on hitting us until we cross into adulthood and begin to oppress the younger ones behind us. Several commonly held adultist beliefs stem from the false notion that we know best -- that our skills and virtues are superior, and that the world around us are our children who need our protection.
(continued)
Reply-
Neutral
Spadecaller1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We are taught to believe we are incapable of autonomy and lack the skills necessary to think for ourselves. Have you ever heard statments like these:
"You're so smart for fifteen!"
"When are you going to grow up?"
"As long as you are in my house, you'll
do it!"
"You're being childish."
"Yo u're so stupid (or clumsy, inconsidera t e,
etc.)!"
"Go to your room!"
"You cannot possible understand what I know.."
"You are too old for that!"
"You're not
old enough!"
"Oh, it's only puppy love."
"What do you know? You haven't
experienced anything!"
"It's just a stage. You'll outgrow it."
The tyranny of believing that others need our protection from themselves translates into censorship. It is the internalized oppression of adultism that makes one person think that he/she is qualified to think for the rest of us.
Reply-
Neutral
Charlson1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I still remember the "Catcher in the Rye" controversy in my youth. It was banned in many schools around the country. It is a portrayal of a young man's sexuality and teenage angst with a liberal use of profanity which was considered so threatening to youths of America. Of course it only encouraged me to read it even more.
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
skeptic2711 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's all well and good to say one is opposed to censorship but how much censorship do we accept and even support?
Censorship of photos of soldier's coffins
Self censorship by the networks of the horrors of war.
Censorship of bad words on radio, television and newspapers.
Censorship of nudity by television and newspapers.
Even the movie rating system is form of censorship.
Censorship of pornography.
Reply-
Neutral
gamahuche1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"It's all well and good to say one is opposed to censorship but how much censorship do we accept and even support?"
I don't know we from wee.
Speaking for one, none.
[Great piece, RFE! Fantastic research! I missed the first one but am going to have a look in the archives..]
Reply-
-
Neutral
Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I would say the act of "creating" child porn is quite illegal . But who decides? Is "Lolita" porn? Who decides? Pat Robertson? Decide for yourself I say. Many of the banned books in the article were required reading where I attended school.
Efforts to control and protect ultimately make someone in charge of what is or is not permissible. As Mark Twain suggested... should steak be outlawed because a baby can't chew it? Certainly I believe some of the censored material is not of value, but should I decide for you? I would rather suffer through 1,000 bad ideas that I found offensive than have a single word from a Vonnegut novel censored. Censorship is not effective anyway. Even the "rating" of content has 2 negative effects- (cont)
Reply-
-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If creating child porn should be illegal then so should be owning it. Otherwise the creators get to reap the rewards while claiming they are just selling it.
Restricting things from those who should not come in contact with it seems perfectly acceptable. If adults want anything legal then that is a different story.
Reply-
Neutral
skeptic2711 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is exactly my point. We generally support censorship of things that are offensive to us and oppose it for that which we don't find offensive. How can you criticize those who would censor one book or another that they find offensive when you yourself would censor that which you find offensive. Whether something is legal or not only depends on whether lawmakers found it sufficiently offensive to go to the trouble to pass a law.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ML2007Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
OnionHeadComment removed: Retracted by user
-
Neutral
crespi1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Fantastic post RFE and all solid comments.
I am fanatically against most censorship but as a volunteer disc jockey at a public Radio station I actually appreciate the parental warning so I won't play a "f*ck" on the air and get the station fined or closed down by the FCC.
Now this IN ITSELF is an arguable form of censorship (that we should probably argue about) but here's the thing-
Some of the mid 1990's "gangsta rap" DID get a little harsh...guys aggressively chanting "Cop kill the ni*ger kill the cop kill the cop kill the ni*ger" or With my gat in your ear you got something to fear. Cut the ho if she don't go" might have its reasons for existence but I don't know if 7 year old children (who ARE impressionable) should be exposed to any super-aggressive-violent or misogynistic stuff too much...
Their is always a natural ceiling for freedom...it's kind of weird that way...
Reply -
Neutral
Fangarius1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oh, I meant to say kudos to your article RFE as well. Skeptic, you're right also on one major dilemma behind censorship in general: what as we, the public determine is acceptable and unacceptable in society?
Ironically, it's quite the double-edge sword because on the one hand, as you pointed out, we do censor language when it comes to our mass media, like television, newspapers and radio. Or as George Carlin said, "7 words you cannot say on national television (as opposed to cable television)."
Yet, during our censoring of items we determine might 'harm' our impressionable youths, we end up doing more damage than good. Because as Charslon indicated, the banning of "Catcher in The Rye" just fueled his/her desire for reading it rather than encourage advoidance of it.
(cont.)
Reply-
Neutral
Fangarius1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Before you groan with this citation, another good example about how censorship doesn't always effectively work was from a Brady Bunch episode. The one where Bobby inadvertently idolizes Jesse James because he read somewhere the infamous outlaw considered himself "The Robin Hood of the West."
In one scene, Mike and Carol decide on allowing Bobby to watch a prime-time movie about Jesse James (remember in the 70s, prime-time wasn't always for kids). Regrettably, because network censors ended up extracting the violent scenes where James killed people and terrorized them, the altered version fuels Bobby's admiration for the outlaw.
Whereas in relation to this, Spade has also proven as well, another problem with Censorship is the double-standard, where we utilize the guise of 'protecting' our youth, but in reality, we tend to stifle the skills for us thinking for ourselves and making proper choices on what's appropriate and inappropriate in our society.
(cont.)
Reply-
Neutral
Fangarius1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Returning back to Skeptic, you're right about the movie ratings system, and all ratings systems in general. They are a form of censorship, but in a Bizarro sort of way.
Originally, ratings were developed in helping parents and others determine what could and could not be shown to certain audiences. Regrettably, nowadays, the media has utilized this system as a means for 'anything goes' than genuinely using it for it's true design.
For instance, when Showtime first came out as the first pay-movie channel, the purpose was showing unedited, uncut films in your home. Now Showtime was responsible when they first came out, their schedule allowed them to show certain movies (and later shows) at certain times. Morning - classic movies (G - Rated); Prime Time - normal movies (G & PG); Night - After Hours programming (R). Due to the fact Showtime was their own network and one had to pay for it, the FCC didn't regulate it.
(cont. sorry, character limitations)
Reply-
Neutral
Fangarius1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So naturally, the Adult Industry immediately took notice. As long as your audience paid for the access, you didn't worry somuch with censorship. Meaning they started making their own cable channels as well, and the argument here was, if somehow a child did gain access to their channels, it wasn't their fault, because the parent "allowed" it to happen. (Sort of falling back on the old, 'Dirty Magazine' policy).
In relation to this, whenever a warning label or rating is issued, the media believes rather than it serve as a censor warning, it's like a golden ticket for them to say, do or act, regardless of the consequence.
As a result, we subtly become desensitized rather than discretionary over what we read, interact and discuss with others. Therefore, it's odd with every decade on what we consider is acceptable and not with our society. Because eventually, there will come a day where we'll censor ourselves right out of existence, if we're not careful.
Reply-
-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
How many children do you have? When a parent wants to take them to a good show how are we to know what is in it. That is what ratings are for. Cat in the Hat was a shock for parents taking their children to see a harmless Dr. Seuss story. I left glad that my kids didn't understand a lot of it. I bet that DVD sales tanked for a reason.
Children NEED to be protected from different kinds of material. Why should they be subjected to things before they have a need to know. Or are you one that thinks porn and filthy talk is a good thing for little kids.
Reply-
Neutral
Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have 2 children. I stayed very involved in their choices regarding consumption of pop culture well into their teens. I never had to say no, because if they wanted a film, a game, music or a book and I was not familiar with it, they had to explain why they wanted it, what it was about, etc. and we listened-read-watched together. Though a handful of uncomfortable moments arose, they led to discussions of why something was valuable, or not. My daughter is now a brilliant physicist and my son is still a teen, with a good sense of what is of value to him and what is not. The most uncomfortable stuff was always television- particularly news since the 90s- obsession with issues I felt were inappropriate to discuss with children (Particularly those Gingrich republicans who insisted on talking endlessly on the oral details of Bill Clinton's sex life 24-7. That was the worst of it. I didn't see Cat in the Hat but Mike Myers humor is not really appropriate for young children in my opinion.
Reply -
Neutral
smithichie1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't understand how somebody with a computer could be "shocked" by not knowing the general content of a movie these days. Didn't you read anything about the movie or ask someone who had seen it before having to walk out of a movie with your kids? You point out the ratings but didn't you read them? According to IMDB, "The Cat in the Hat" is,"Rated PG for mild crude humor and some double-entendres". That sounds to me ample warning that it's not the harmless Dr. Seuss story we all loved. Ratings in place, children protected.
I do agree with your reasoning on why it flopped. They should have stuck with the audience Dr. Seuss intended his story for. If they had done it right they would have also appealed to us parents who grew up with it, but they got greedy and went for the bottomless pockets of the male teenager.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
amazed1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This was quite interesting, but not much new. From the headline, I was expecting instances of the gov't censoring thing from the general public == kind of like the censoring of the public airways that goes on continually -- you know, no nudity, no seven words, etc.
Almost without exception, the censorship you have listed here (except Lady Chatterly's Lover) is either 1. in the distant past, 2. in a distant country or, 3. banned from school boards, but not the general public.
It is school boards mandate (no matter how misguided they may be) to try to protect our little one's young, malleable and fragile minds (yeah, that's sarcastic).
It is the general banning of expression that I find much more alarming -- TV censorship, politically correct speech and, like that. I really can't get too worked up about a school district taking (or not ordering) books from the school library or taking them off some list.
Reply-
Neutral
amazed1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
C'mon, now, be honest -- how often did you ever actually read any of the books you were supposed to WHEN you were supposed to.
And, be honest again, didn't you REALLY go out of your way to get your hands on those books that you knew were banned?
My son had to read "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings" BEFORE his freshman year in high school. I gotta tell you, he REALLY wasn't ready for it, it did nothing good for him and he still lists it (he's a senior in college, now) as the worst book he ever read. Maybe if he was older, it wouldn't have bothered him so badly (although it still haunts me -- and I read it at the same time).
Do I think it should have been banned from the high school? No, but I would have been quite upset if it had been recommended reading for my middle schooler (although it was close the way it was assigned) or my grammar school kid.
Reply-
Neutral
Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm sorry if you were disappointed, Considerable Sounds focus is really the music aspect of the story, which is in 3 parts. Part one covered up to and including the 1960s. This installment covers 1970 through the 80s. The next installment will cover the 90s until the present (you may find this one more interesting). The background info about book bans is simply that...background. What I think matters here is the change in the methodology of censorship. With the exception of the PMRC, censorship is being conducted through new means that often can not be blamed on government.
Part 1 can be found here:
http://music.propeller.com/story/2007/12/05/con...
Reply-
Neutral
Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
(The 3rd installment about contemporary issues is not yet published... but will be soon.) I do sympathize with your experience regarding "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings" as whether or not a pre-high school student would be a good candidate for reading that one is certainly debatable. Though banning and not making something required reading are different issues entirely.
Reply-
Neutral
amazed1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree that there is a huge difference between not banning something and requiring it to be read. I don't agree that removing stuff from school libraries is the same or even close to actually "banning" a book from, say, the public library or from being sold in your town or county or state-- such as Boston was known for doing up to and including the 1970's. Growing up in Connecticut, as kids, we couldn't believe that it was more than just a slogan.
As far as the other stuff, I guess I have to go back and look at the article again-- I didn't see any of that stuff ,. but I agree that, in many cases, it is the media and the proponents of political correctness that is far more stifling than the government.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.