Following last month’s excellent discussion on the consequences and contradictions of Artificial Intelligence led passionately by Brenda, it was decided that our next meeting would focus on the issue of whether censorship of what we think and do is on the rise. Boldly Jane Roberts took up the challenge of providing us with material upon which to ponder. And what a great job she has done. Find below her challenging notes and questions. A note of frustration I’ve downloaded images and links to enhance Jane’s notes and failed. Perhaps I’m paranoid!

Notes on Censorship

Censorship by Foreign Governments
We’re all familiar with the idea that governments which censor free speech are usually
undemocratic and often dictatorships. Many governments, e.g. China and Russia, have a reputation
for shutting down anyone who disagrees with them, sometimes violently through imprisonment or
death. There probably won’t be much of a debate if we stick to this type of censorship.

Censorship by UK and Western Governments
There are examples of less drastic government censorship too. Democratic governments certainly
are not immune to censorship. For example, the 1960’s witnessed the Oz trials in the UK and
Australia. Here is Wikipedia’s summary of those trials:
Oz was an independently published, alternative/underground magazine associated with the
international counterculture of the 1960s. While it was first published in Sydney in 1963, a
parallel version of Oz was published in London from 1967. The Australian magazine was
published until 1969 and the British version until 1973.
The central editor, throughout the magazine’s life in both countries, was Richard Neville. Co-
editors of the Sydney version were Richard Walsh and Martin Sharp. Co-editors of the London
version were Jim Anderson and, later, Felix Dennis, and then Roger Hutchinson. [1]
In both Australia and the UK, the creators of Oz were prosecuted on charges of obscenity. A
1963 charge was dealt with expeditiously when, upon the advice of a solicitor, the three
editors pleaded guilty. In two later trials, one in Australia in 1964 and the other in the UK in
1971, the magazine’s editors were acquitted on appeal, after initially being found guilty and
sentenced to harsh jail terms.
At the time that the Oz trials took place, many people might well have agreed that Oz was obscene
and should be banned. Others might simply have thought it unsuitable for younger readers. (I was a
teenager – and just wanted to get hold of a copy!)

USA – “Are you now or have you ever been, a member of a communist party?”

This was a question devised by McCarthy’s committee in the USA back in the late 1940s. US fear of
communism was very high after the second world war. The question was asked of various suspected
communists, including many in the Hollywood film industry. Thousands lost their jobs and a few
hundred went to prison for refusing to answer. American libraries were told to burn books about
communism – although they were allowed to retain books which decried communism!
The US famously asked every visitor to the country this question back in the 80s when I went to stay
there for a business trip of a few weeks. Needless to say, we were all briefed that the right answer
was “No”. The US government regard this as a matter of national security – not as an invasion of
privacy, despite the lack of subtlety in the approach which must mean they prevent very few threats
through asking it. Communists and members of totalitarian political parties are still banned from
entry to the US, so for example, members of the Chinese Communist Party cannot enter the US.

Citizen’s Censorship – Activists
But censorship is not always carried out by the government. We’re all of an age to remember Mary
Whitehouse. A middle-aged art teacher, a Christian evangelist and social activist who tirelessly
campaigned against most of the emerging “permissive society” and became a huge enemy of the
BBC, because she wanted to censor their output in order to put a halt to “moral decline” in an age
where society changed very rapidly.
Here the arguments become a bit more nuanced. Whilst she was in direct conflict with advocates of
the sexual revolution and gay rights groups and also at odds with most of the aspirations of the
feminist movement she did argue for censorship of pornography. In this respect, she was on the
same page as feminist campaigners. Both wanted pornography banned.

Today’s Equal Rights Movements
Fast forward to a 21st century Western world and society is moving towards embracing diversity. We
have the Black Lives Matter movement which is very active in the US and strong in the UK too. We
have the LGBTQ+ movement. There are others – but these are very vocal movements with many
activists so it’s interesting to consider their impact on censorship.
And we have an increased awareness that what we say can cause hurt to individuals. So “we” don’t
use either of the “N” words when we refer to black people now – although I’ve heard black people
themselves use both quite freely. The Eskimos of my childhood are now Inuits. And at the moment
it’s OK to refer to someone as “Queer” – although 40 years ago this was seen as a pejorative term
and erased. So there is also constant change in society as to which terms are seen as pejorative.

“Triggering”
This is a term defined on one internet page as:
(especially of something read, seen, or heard) causing someone emotional distress, typically
as a result of arousing feelings or memories associated with a traumatic experience.
e.g. “this book could be very triggering for victims of sexual assault”
So when writing we are advised to insert “trigger warnings” – or sometimes we’re simply compelled
to censor what we say. More on this later.

VOTE 1: Censorship by private industry and by society
It was an article in The Economist, sent to me by a friend, apologies for the quality of the
photograph, that prompted me to suggest this debate. Bagehot talks about publisher Puffin’s recent
censorship of Roald Dahl’s books, which caused such a storm of debate that Puffin have had to
backtrack and publish two editions of each book. As a result of this controversy there is now both a
redacted edition which for example replaces references to “fatness”, “oompah-lumpahs” and
“ugliness”, and then there is the original edition, still containing all these potentially triggering or
offensive terms.

This is not the first time publishers have censored novels. Enid Blyton’s golliwogs are gone. And it
happens to books for adults too – Agatha Christie’s “Ten Little Niggers” is now “Ten Little Indians”.
Secondly, Bagehot goes on to make a convincing argument firstly that publishers effectively censor
new works, that might incur society’s disapproval by simply not publishing them. Secondly that we
censor are censored by each other / society all the time. There are things we daren’t say because
we don’t want to be ostracised, thought badly of or “cancelled” by society. He argues that this form
of censorship is highly prevalent and very effective, also citing a historian who argued that such peer
pressure had a larger influence on political conformity in creating the Soviet Empire in Europe than
state coercion. (and this was long before the internet and its “echo chamber” effect on social views)

What do you think?
A. Should Roald Dahl have censored his own work if he was writing the books today?
B. Should Puffin have censored Roald Dahl’s books?
C. Should Puffin have eventually compromised and published two editions?
D. Should the books simply be banned?

VOTE 2: Edward Colston Statue in Bristol
Edward Colston (2 November 1636 – 11 October 1721) was an English merchant, slave trader,
philanthropist, and Member of Parliament.
He gave the city many philanthropic gifts for the community, including “Colston Hall” – a major
venue used for arts and culture. However, he was also a senior leader in a company that traded
slaves – responsible for 84,000 slaves being transported. This is where the money came from.
There were calls to remove Edward Colston’s statue from central Bristol. In June 2020 Black Lives
Matter protesters were protesting at the death of African American George Floyd, who was
suffocated by a US policeman. They tore down the statue and threw it into the harbour waters.
Four young white people, known as the Colston Four were charged with criminal damage. They
admitted to helping crowds to pull down the statue, but the judge directed the jury to consider
whether a conviction would be a “proportionate interference with the defendants’ right to freedom
of expression, thought and conscience”. This resulted in a “not guilty” verdict.
The statue – which for many is a symbol of Britain’s colonial legacy – is now displayed at the M Shed
museum, alongside placards from the protest and a timeline of events. The figure is lying down on
its back, on a specially crafted wooden structure and still bears the red paint thrown at it during the
protests. According to museum authorities, the new, temporary display is intended to “start a
conversation about the statue’s future.”
The M Shed website reads: “This is an opportunity to have your say about how we move forward
together.”

Following this, last year Colston Hall it was renamed “Bristol Beacon” because:
“Our former name, Colston Hall, acted as a memorial to the slave trader Edward Colston, and meant
that not everyone felt welcome or that they belong in their city’s music venue.”

Many other statues in Britain and the US are undergoing similar debates.

What do you think?
A. Are the statues part of our heritage, so should be left where they are, celebrating the
good side of the people they depict, perhaps with a revised description explaining where
the money came from?
B. Or should they be defaced and redisplayed, as a reminder of what we now see as past
sins?
C. Or should they simply be removed and destroyed altogether?

VOTE 3: Is J K Rowling posting transphobic hate speech?
Harry Potter series author J.K. Rowling came under fire in early June 2020 for controversial tweets
she posted about the transgender community. Her stance has caused fans and stars Daniel Radcliffe,
Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, and Eddie Redmayne to speak out against the author.
What did J.K. Rowling say, exactly?:
She retweeted an op-ed piece that discussed “people who menstruate,” apparently taking issue with
the fact that the story did not use the word women. “‘People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used
to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?” she wrote.
She went onto clarify herself, but dug a deeper hole:
“If sex isn’t real, there’s no same-sex attraction. If sex isn’t real, the lived reality of women globally is
erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to
meaningfully discuss their lives. It isn’t hate to speak the truth,” she tweeted. “The idea that women
like me, who’ve been empathetic to trans people for decades, feeling kinship because they’re
vulnerable in the same way as women—i.e., to male violence—‘hate’ trans people because they
think sex is real and has lived consequences—is a nonsense.”
She continued, “I respect every trans person’s right to live any way that feels authentic and
comfortable to them. I’d march with you if you were discriminated against on the basis of being
trans. At the same time, my life has been shaped by being female. I do not believe it’s hateful to say
so.”
There followed a very strong backlash against her – she has been cancelled by many but has
continued to stick to her beliefs and to speak out
She went onto to step into the debate about the use of hormone therapy to initiate sex changes in
young people, saying: “The long-term health risks of cross-sex hormones have been now been
tracked over a lengthy period,” she tweeted. “These side-effects are often minimised or denied by
trans activists…. None of that may trouble you or disturb your belief in your own righteousness. But
if so, I can’t pretend I care much about your bad opinion of me.”
She has also posted tweets saying that trans women should not be allowed in women’s public
toilets, because this is unsafe for other women.
The controversy continues and she has now been labelled a TERF (Trans Exclusionary Radical
Feminist) by the trans community. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TERF
Link to more detail on JK Rowling story: https://www.glamour.com/story/a-complete-breakdown-
of-the-jk-rowling-transgender-comments-controversy and https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-
rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/

What do you think:
A. Should JK Rowling continue to speak her mind, despite the enormously triggering
consequences?
B. Is she transphobic or a TERF?
C. If not, should more of her friends and colleagues support her instead of decrying her?
D. Should Trans women be permitted to use women’s public toilets?

VOTE 4: Free speech at University – is there a crisis of self-censorship?
The material used at Universities has in general been reviewed and trigger warnings incorporated to
warn of any upcoming “isms”. This has affected much of classic literature e.g. Shakespeare’s
Merchant of Venice and Scott Fitzgerald’s Great Gatsby.
See https://www.britannica.com/story/trigger-warnings-on-campus
There is however some concern that trigger warnings may themselves be triggering, see
https://theconversation.com/proceed-with-caution-the-trouble-with-trigger-warnings-192598
However students have always been vocal activists, and being young they’re especially sure that
they’re right too – so a hot debate has raged about what should and should not be said or taught on
campus. What kind of speech should be allowed? A recent US survey found that 2/3rds think
shouting down is OK and nearly a quarter think violence is justified when the “wrong” speech
occurred – so there is considerable pressure on Universities NOT to say some things. See
https://reports.collegepulse.com/college-free-speech-rankings-2021
A UK Civitas Report carried out an analysis of over three years of campus censorship (2017-2020),
examining the policies and actions of all 137 registered UK universities to provide a detailed
understanding of the state of free speech across UK academia. Key Findings were:-
 MOST FRIENDLY: 19 of the universities (14%) have allowed some restrictions to free speech
in its actions and regular policies but not at the level which might warrant external
intervention.
 MODERATELY RESTRICTIVE: 70 of the universities (51%) are not performing as well as they
should and the Office for Students (OfS) should tell the university how it could improve.
 MOST RESTRICTIVE: 48 of the universities (35%) – including the three highest ranked UK
universities – are performing badly on free speech and the government should take some
action to resolve the issues by a change of policy and legislation.
See https://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/Academic-Freedom-in-Our-Universities.pdf
This led to an Act of Parliament in the UK to compel Universities to support Free Speech:
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_Education_(Freedom_of_Speech)_Act_2023

What do you think?
A. Is “shouting down” ever acceptable?
B. Should the UK have resorted to a specific Act of Parliament?
C. Will it make a difference that they have?

VOTE 5 – if we get time we could also talk about:
Censorship by internet businesses
Society and government are now demanding that publishers censor the content that appears. Some
would say that traditional publishers like Puffin may have taken that to an extreme – rewriting Roald
Dahls’ books. But we are outraged when Facebook and the other big internet platforms fail to
censor what we believe should be censored.
Even for “hate speech”, which most of us would like to see censored it’s not an easy task for them to
be judge and jury on what speech is too extreme.
Bullying, fascism, sexism, sexual harassment, homophobia and fake news all happen in life and on
internet platforms. As a result of this, there are frequent calls for the big internet platforms to be
much tougher censors.
What do you think?
A. Should we be actively calling for this censorship?
B. Should the large private companies involved be the ones to provide it?

Our next CC meeting will take place on Wednesday, August 2nd at – Γάιδαρος ΚοινΣΕπ in Vamos – from 10.30 a.m to noon.