editing and censoring, cont. (122)

Willard McCarty (MCCARTY@VM.EPAS.UTORONTO.CA)
Mon, 20 Mar 89 21:06:56 EST


Humanist Mailing List, Vol. 2, No. 746. Monday, 20 Mar 1989.


(1) Date: Mon, 20 Mar 89 00:17:10 CST (15 lines)
From: Mark Olsen <mark@gide.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Jokes and censorship

(2) Date: Mon, 20 Mar 89 08:00 EST (40 lines)
From: "Tom Benson 814-238-5277" <T3B@PSUVM>
Subject: censorship and principles

(3) Date: Mon, 20 Mar 89 10:59 EDT (25 lines)
From: Peter D. Junger <JUNGER@CWRU>
Subject: censorship and editorial control

(4) Date: Mon, 20 Mar 89 14:59:22 GMT (13 lines)
From: AYI004@IBM.SOUTHAMPTON.AC.UK

(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 89 00:17:10 CST
From: Mark Olsen <mark@gide.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Jokes and censorship


May I suggest that we store all material "censored" from HUMANIST in
a file on the server? Truly objectional material could be packaged with
morally uplifting citations, since we cannot supply the 'presence of
the Archbishop of Canterbury and two other trustees' until recently
required by the British Museum for consultations of material like
certain manuscripts by M de Sade. A dispensation perhaps?

Mark


(2) --------------------------------------------------------------43----
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 89 08:00 EST
From: "Tom Benson 814-238-5277" <T3B@PSUVM>
Subject: censorship and principles


In HUMANIST 2:741 (19 March 1989), Willard McCarty, defending
the exercise of editorial prerogative that had the same result
as what, in the setting of the Stanford BBS, amounted to censorship,
writes:

> . . . Is it
>not true that all of us censor our remarks every day, figuring
>that to speak the "truth" may not be worth the consequences --
>which may include obscuring a greater truth?

No, I don't think so, Willard. We may exercise restraint
in our remarks, but it is censorship when some OTHER person
imposes that restraint upon us. I think, with respect, that
your use of "censor" in this sentence equivocates.

>Let someone show that the areopagitic Milton is not in principle
>a good example for us all to follow.

Milton's "principles" are what we should be following; not
his sometimes regrettable "example." Many of the stoutest
defenders of liberty have, in practice, sometimes failed to
live up to the principles they advocated. It is for us to
do the best we can to apply those principles with courage and
evenhandedness.

I have very seldom written to HUMANIST, and I hesitate to
send something that may seem critical of our respected editor,
whose services to the community have been so great. In this
case (though admittedly I have not seen the offending joke),
it seems to me that the presumption ought to favor publication,
followed perhaps by condemnation of the joke--but not condemnation
of its publication.

Tom Benson
Penn State University
(3) --------------------------------------------------------------29----
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 89 10:59 EDT
From: Peter D. Junger <JUNGER@CWRU>
Subject: censorship and editorial control

One reason that there has been so little reaction to the
Stanford censorship issue is that this is--for many of us--a busy time
of the year. Another reason for the lack of silence is the fact that
this issue was fairly extensively discussed on other lists, such as
ETHICS-L.
The major reason for the absence of discussion is probably, however,
the fact that Stanford seems to have banned the joke, or the list
containing the joke, almost by accident. From what I have read on the
other lists, it appears the the computer science faculty roundly
denounced the ban and, as I recall, the Stanford faculty senate also
denounced it. The joke remained available from listservers, it (or the
bulletin board that contained it) was no longer given a physical home
on a Stanford machine.
On balance, it appears that free speach is alive and well in
Palo Alto. Since the academic community at Stanford has behaved so well
in this matter, there is little reason for anyone to get upset.
I think that we should, however, be grateful to the Stanford
computer science department for their vigilance in the defense of our
liberties.

Peter D. Junger--CWRU Law School--Cleveland, OH--bitnet: JUNGER@CWRU
(4) --------------------------------------------------------------17----
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 89 14:59:22 GMT
From: AYI004@IBM.SOUTHAMPTON.AC.UK

Censorship - An Open? Letter to Humanists

You give us fine words about editorial responsibility, Willard, but I wonder
if other Humanists know that you have blocked all comment on the Rushdie
affair because of your opinion that it is not relevant to Humanists. To
conduct this small-minded censorship in secrecy is shameful. The least we can
expect from you is a mature statement of principle on what is indeed a painful
and dangerous issue.

Brian Molyneaux