![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Ther is a long and large difference
Feb. 16th, 2015 10:40 am... to adapt a quote from Chaucer, between "censoring" something and "not providing a platform" for it, which is why this Guardian headline is inaccurate and mischief-making. The article complains of "a worrying pattern of intimidation and silencing of individuals whose views are deemed 'transphobic'". It cites the fact that Julie Bindel (whose views no one needs to "deem" transphobic, because her rabid hatred shines through them) "has been “no-platformed” by the National Union of Students for several years."
Well now, I have never been invited to the Cheltenham Festival of Literature, but that is hardly censorship, just them choosing what kind of speaker they want to host. If you object "yes, but that isn't a blanket ban, such as the NUS has put on Bindel", I will counter that I'm pretty sure there are indeed some writers who would be dismissed out of hand by many a festival, either because their quality is deemed too low or because they write in a genre or style that does not appeal to that festival's audience (not every audience can take the f-word every second sentence). That still isn't censorship.
In fact the list of things which are not censorship, but are often called so, is a long one. If I write a letter to a newspaper and they choose not to publish it, that is not censorship. If I delete a comment by someone else on my blog or Facebook page because I don't like the tone, that is not censorship. If a publisher turns down a writer's work, that is not censorship. I have seen them all called so, but in no case is the writer being told he can't publish his views; he is just being told to go and publish them elsewhere. If he publishes them on his own blog and the government closes it down, or via his own press and the copies are seized and burned, or sets up a meeting which is raided by the authorities, THAT is censorship (which may or may not be justified depending on whether or not he is inciting folk to violence or libelling someone).
If a lawful meeting is broken up by protesters, that too would be censorship, and also illegal. But what if it is merely howled down by them? Well, they have a right to express their views, too. In a democracy I would prefer they listened to their opponents and then argued with them, but we can't have it both ways: if one person has a right to express a view, another has a right to express his annoyance at it. And a venue that doesn't wish to see such scenes, or give a platform to particular views, has a right not to host them in the first place. I daresay the Women's Institute "no-platforms" a great many potential speakers who are not to their taste, and why should they not? One would hope a university would be generally receptive to debate, but again if they choose not to provide space for all and sundry to say what they please, that is not censorship.
What's odd about this debate is that never in human history has it been harder to "silence" someone in the way the signatories of this letter claim to have been silenced. Every Tom, Dick and Harry has a website and as long as they stay within the law they can put what they like on it. Google any of these signatories - Campbell, for example - and far from silence you will find them and their views ubiquitous. It seems, therefore, a trifle disingenuous, and over-wrought, to claim they have been silenced simply by being denied a particular platform.
But I'm not that surprised, because I recall the kerfuffle years ago among Ioan Gruffudd's online fans... For anyone whom it passed by, there was a tribute site, set up and run by his fans, which he funded. All was sweetness and light, until he got engaged, and catty remarks about his fiancee started appearing on its forums. He remonstrated about this, to no effect, and then did what he had warned he would do, and what any man would have done in the circumstances: he stopped financing the site. He didn't prevent anyone else doing so, nor try to get it taken down; he simply didn't see why he should personally facilitate and fund people who wanted to insult his future wife. Believe it or not, there were immediate cries of "censorship!" I thought at the time that the complainants were a set of nutcases whose unreasonableness could not possibly have a parallel in the world. But there you are, there's always another one...
Well now, I have never been invited to the Cheltenham Festival of Literature, but that is hardly censorship, just them choosing what kind of speaker they want to host. If you object "yes, but that isn't a blanket ban, such as the NUS has put on Bindel", I will counter that I'm pretty sure there are indeed some writers who would be dismissed out of hand by many a festival, either because their quality is deemed too low or because they write in a genre or style that does not appeal to that festival's audience (not every audience can take the f-word every second sentence). That still isn't censorship.
In fact the list of things which are not censorship, but are often called so, is a long one. If I write a letter to a newspaper and they choose not to publish it, that is not censorship. If I delete a comment by someone else on my blog or Facebook page because I don't like the tone, that is not censorship. If a publisher turns down a writer's work, that is not censorship. I have seen them all called so, but in no case is the writer being told he can't publish his views; he is just being told to go and publish them elsewhere. If he publishes them on his own blog and the government closes it down, or via his own press and the copies are seized and burned, or sets up a meeting which is raided by the authorities, THAT is censorship (which may or may not be justified depending on whether or not he is inciting folk to violence or libelling someone).
If a lawful meeting is broken up by protesters, that too would be censorship, and also illegal. But what if it is merely howled down by them? Well, they have a right to express their views, too. In a democracy I would prefer they listened to their opponents and then argued with them, but we can't have it both ways: if one person has a right to express a view, another has a right to express his annoyance at it. And a venue that doesn't wish to see such scenes, or give a platform to particular views, has a right not to host them in the first place. I daresay the Women's Institute "no-platforms" a great many potential speakers who are not to their taste, and why should they not? One would hope a university would be generally receptive to debate, but again if they choose not to provide space for all and sundry to say what they please, that is not censorship.
What's odd about this debate is that never in human history has it been harder to "silence" someone in the way the signatories of this letter claim to have been silenced. Every Tom, Dick and Harry has a website and as long as they stay within the law they can put what they like on it. Google any of these signatories - Campbell, for example - and far from silence you will find them and their views ubiquitous. It seems, therefore, a trifle disingenuous, and over-wrought, to claim they have been silenced simply by being denied a particular platform.
But I'm not that surprised, because I recall the kerfuffle years ago among Ioan Gruffudd's online fans... For anyone whom it passed by, there was a tribute site, set up and run by his fans, which he funded. All was sweetness and light, until he got engaged, and catty remarks about his fiancee started appearing on its forums. He remonstrated about this, to no effect, and then did what he had warned he would do, and what any man would have done in the circumstances: he stopped financing the site. He didn't prevent anyone else doing so, nor try to get it taken down; he simply didn't see why he should personally facilitate and fund people who wanted to insult his future wife. Believe it or not, there were immediate cries of "censorship!" I thought at the time that the complainants were a set of nutcases whose unreasonableness could not possibly have a parallel in the world. But there you are, there's always another one...
