Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Why the Right is allowed free speech but not the Left

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • PsychicWarVeteran
    PsychicWarVeteran
    Flesh Bag of Mostly Water
    PsychicWarVeteran
    Flesh Bag of Mostly Water
    • Mar 2004
    • 2554

    #16
    Yeah, I'm in advertising for a living (I design ads for a computer reselling company), so I know all about the psychology of advertising. It's pretty shady, a lot of it.

    As a leftie -- and this is certainly not meant as bragging -- I try to make my ads as honest as possible. I battle the option to mislead the customer because I feel it only hurts things in the end. I don't want customers to feel they've been duped by our ads, so I keep it real. I promote what's good about the product rather than hide what's bad.

    Being in the advertising industry, however, has not made it easier for me to palate corruption and unethical behavior.

    I cannot speak for how being in the ad industry would affect a right-winger. I suspect, in that case, you'd be right.
    "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
    --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

    Comment

    • devilchicken
      devilchicken
      We'll get to that later
      devilchicken
      We'll get to that later
      • Nov 2004
      • 2814

      #17
      Very sad that our country is made up of simpletons who need a rhetoric and pithy catch-phrases in order to be able to formulate an opinion, much less a moral understanding of humanity.
      I've noticed that in the US. Certain buzz words seem to enter popular usage and people trot them out quite uncritically. Almost as though they need the arguments defined for them rather than having to think for themselves. Debate by repitition rather than educated, informed critical analysis.

      I'm reminded of the 'flip flop' allegations against Kerry. I heard a lot of regular people labelling the guy a 'flip-flopper' because of his alleged voting record (as revealed by the 'impartial' opposition). Now I'm sure if they looked beneath the surface they'd find that those sorts of allegations can probably be applied to almost everyone in the senate.

      There's also the anti liberal rhetoric which has been so prevalent in recent years - an attempt I think by the parties in power to distract people from the real issues that they should (rightly) be discussing. I can't help but laugh when I hear broadcasters like Rush Limbaugh who seem to be of the opinion that whenever a story breaks that casts negativity of the actions of GWB et al, that it is some sort of conspiracy of 'liberal' media. Of course it doesn't enter into the equation that people like Mr Limbaugh ARE the media...

      These days it seems a lot of people are perfectly happy to accept the "we're spreading freedom and liberty around the world" rhetoric from the powers that be, without really asking themselves what those values really mean, and how they are being pursued. I guess many are people happy with a diet of spoon fed politics, and not asking the questions that they should (rightly) be asking.
      Batman: It's a low neighborhood, full of rumpots. They're used to curious sights, which they attribute to alcoholic delusions.

      Robin: Gosh, drink is sure a filthy thing, isn't it? I'd rather be dead than unable to trust my own eyes!

      Comment

      • PsychicWarVeteran
        PsychicWarVeteran
        Flesh Bag of Mostly Water
        PsychicWarVeteran
        Flesh Bag of Mostly Water
        • Mar 2004
        • 2554

        #18
        Originally posted by devilchicken
        Debate by repitition rather than educated, informed critical analysis.
        Awesome, devilchicken. The next Republican Paradigm?

        Originally posted by devilchicken
        I'm reminded of the 'flip flop' allegations against Kerry.
        Ha, yeah. The same people who held thong sandals on their hands and shouted "Flip! Flop!" repeatedly at the RNC conveniently ignored Bush's flip-flops:

        ▪ Bush is against campaign finance reform; then he's for it.
        ▪ Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it.
        ▪ Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it.
        ▪ Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against them again.
        ▪ Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, then he is for changing the constitution.

        And on and on and on...

        Originally posted by devilchicken
        I guess many are people happy with a diet of spoon fed politics, and not asking the questions that they should (rightly) be asking.
        Or, indeed, answering the ones they should be answering!
        "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
        --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

        Comment

        • devilchicken
          devilchicken
          We'll get to that later
          devilchicken
          We'll get to that later
          • Nov 2004
          • 2814

          #19
          I think its a form of mob mentality - people are used to relying on the so called primary definers (politicians, the media, the church, big business etc) to tell them how to think, rather than them taking the effort to go out and find out about it themselves.

          For example, how many people are anti-abortion because either God or the Church tell them so?
          Batman: It's a low neighborhood, full of rumpots. They're used to curious sights, which they attribute to alcoholic delusions.

          Robin: Gosh, drink is sure a filthy thing, isn't it? I'd rather be dead than unable to trust my own eyes!

          Comment

          • PsychicWarVeteran
            PsychicWarVeteran
            Flesh Bag of Mostly Water
            PsychicWarVeteran
            Flesh Bag of Mostly Water
            • Mar 2004
            • 2554

            #20
            Originally posted by devilchicken
            For example, how many people are anti-abortion because either God or the Church tell them so?
            Or anti-gay?
            Or anti-Muslim?
            Or anti-Buddhist?
            Or anti-SpongeBob (Oh wait, that's the gay thing again.)
            Or, ironically, pro-death penalty!

            Some of the dumbest and vilest things are done in the name of God.
            "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
            --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

            Comment

            • devilchicken
              devilchicken
              We'll get to that later
              devilchicken
              We'll get to that later
              • Nov 2004
              • 2814

              #21
              Indeed - but its not only the Church. In the US (perhaps more so in the UK) I've noticed that whenever a news story breaks - the networks make a concerted effort to simplify the issues, making interpretation of that story a matter of black and white.

              For example, I recently read about a booklet that had been produced (I think by the mexican government) intended for distribution to mexicans seeking to enter the US illegally. The booklet was essentially a survival guide to getting through the desert, to reduce the numbers of people dying in transit. The media picked up on this a few weeks later with the rather predictible interpretation that the booklet was telling people how to flout US immigration laws and bring more illegals into the country. An attempt to whip up anger as much as frame the story objectively...

              I've also noticed that the choice of stories chosen to air is questionable. Just last night I was channel flicking and ended up on CBS2. The 'breaking news' was about North Koreas 'alarming' nuclear weapons declaration. The story immediately preceding it was about a car crash on the 405. The subsequent story was about a black kid who got shot by police while driving a stolen car.

              Its tabloid news of course so I'm not really surprised - just a little worried by how many people rely on that sort of news to get an idea of what's going on in the world. I am so used to BBC news that I constantly find myself watching the streaming bulletins on the web, just so I can find out about what's happening.
              Batman: It's a low neighborhood, full of rumpots. They're used to curious sights, which they attribute to alcoholic delusions.

              Robin: Gosh, drink is sure a filthy thing, isn't it? I'd rather be dead than unable to trust my own eyes!

              Comment

              • Doc
                Doc
                Eternal Champion
                Doc
                Eternal Champion
                • Jan 2004
                • 3630

                #22
                Originally posted by devilchicken
                Very sad that our country is made up of simpletons who need a rhetoric and pithy catch-phrases in order to be able to formulate an opinion, much less a moral understanding of humanity.
                I've noticed that in the US. Certain buzz words seem to enter popular usage and people trot them out quite uncritically. Almost as though they need the arguments defined for them rather than having to think for themselves. Debate by repitition rather than educated, informed critical analysis.

                I'm reminded of the 'flip flop' allegations against Kerry. I heard a lot of regular people labelling the guy a 'flip-flopper' because of his alleged voting record (as revealed by the 'impartial' opposition). Now I'm sure if they looked beneath the surface they'd find that those sorts of allegations can probably be applied to almost everyone in the senate.

                There's also the anti liberal rhetoric which has been so prevalent in recent years - an attempt I think by the parties in power to distract people from the real issues that they should (rightly) be discussing. I can't help but laugh when I hear broadcasters like Rush Limbaugh who seem to be of the opinion that whenever a story breaks that casts negativity of the actions of GWB et al, that it is some sort of conspiracy of 'liberal' media. Of course it doesn't enter into the equation that people like Mr Limbaugh ARE the media...

                These days it seems a lot of people are perfectly happy to accept the "we're spreading freedom and liberty around the world" rhetoric from the powers that be, without really asking themselves what those values really mean, and how they are being pursued. I guess many are people happy with a diet of spoon fed politics, and not asking the questions that they should (rightly) be asking.
                So much to address in response to two fantastic posts...

                First, I couldn't agree more with both devilchicken and PWV on using catch phrases instead of information. I have to disagree with PWV a little, because some of the words just aren't that pithy :)

                Second, people like Limbaugh (or most of talk radio, for that matter) always crack me up when they seem to forget that they dominate some forms of media. For all his claims about being the "king of all media," Howard Stern's ratings are dwarfed by Rush's.

                On the "spreading freedom and liberty" rhetoric (and other feel-good sloganism)--

                I was listening to a guy on talk radio driving home from work last night (I have no idea who he is :oops: ). He was trying to denounce the entire university system in the US because of what is happening at the University of Colorado (the professor who had some pretty unpopular ideas about 9/11). The hosts argument against the professor's position was: What about the invasion of a sovereign nation? What about torture camps? What about the limits on free speech?

                Two things struck me: First, he added to the popular misconception that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. More importantly, he could have easily been describing W, not Saddam, but "spreading freedom and liberty" is different than "invading a soveriegn nation."

                And paternalism is different than policy. Oh wait, no it isn't.

                Comment

                • Kitsune
                  Kitsune
                  Guardian of the Grail
                  Kitsune
                  Guardian of the Grail
                  • Aug 2004
                  • 415

                  #23
                  Originally posted by devilchicken
                  For example, I recently read about a booklet that had been produced (I think by the mexican government) intended for distribution to mexicans seeking to enter the US illegally. The booklet was essentially a survival guide to getting through the desert, to reduce the numbers of people dying in transit. The media picked up on this a few weeks later with the rather predictible interpretation that the booklet was telling people how to flout US immigration laws and bring more illegals into the country. An attempt to whip up anger as much as frame the story objectively...
                  The book you are speaking of also gives advice on how to avoid getting caught by immigration, so it's not quite as simple as you make it out to be either. I belive a lot of that advice is common sense "don't stay out and party " and "don't get involved in fist fights" but still.

                  Comment

                  • devilchicken
                    devilchicken
                    We'll get to that later
                    devilchicken
                    We'll get to that later
                    • Nov 2004
                    • 2814

                    #24
                    Of course, once you experience US immigration policy first hand - you realise why there is such a huge problem with illegal immigration in the first place. The legal system is a mess.

                    I didn't think that the booklet actually tells people how to evade immigration. From what I've read it starts off with a warning not to take the illegal route but acknowledges the inevitable fact that many will choose not to listen.... The fact that this booklet is also being handed out at US consulates suggests there is nothing in it which contravenes immigration law - again if you have had experience with these people you will know that they take nothing lightly...

                    The whole hooha about this booklet is really just another storm in a teacup - for the networks to make something out of nothing, because illegal immigration is such a topical issue in the US.

                    Here is some information on the booklet from various sources. You decide:

                    http://www.zonaeuropa.com/02240.htm
                    Batman: It's a low neighborhood, full of rumpots. They're used to curious sights, which they attribute to alcoholic delusions.

                    Robin: Gosh, drink is sure a filthy thing, isn't it? I'd rather be dead than unable to trust my own eyes!

                    Comment

                    • Michael Moorcock
                      Michael Moorcock
                      Site Host
                      Michael Moorcock
                      Site Host
                      • Dec 2003
                      • 14278

                      #25
                      Is this a further sign of the times. Incidentally, wasn't it John Malkovitch who said he would shoot John Pilger for publishing his views on Iraq. As the recipient of death threats myself, I'm inclined to think of the threateners as marginalised loonies. But how do we treat a well-known public figure when they make such attacks ?
                      Anyway, here's the latest (which I posted on the Q&A, too, since I regard it as an important issue) --
                      Restrictions bar publishing dissident writers from abroad
                      Regulations affect nations under U.S. sanction

                      By Scott Martelle
                      Los Angeles Times

                      February 13, 2005

                      In the summer of 1956, Russian poet Boris Pasternak - a favorite of
                      the recently deceased Josef Stalin - delivered his epic Doctor Zhivago
                      manuscript to a Soviet publishing house, hoping for a warm reception
                      and a fast track to readers who had shared Russia's torturous
                      half-century of revolution and war, oppression and terror.

                      Instead, Pasternak received one of the all-time classic rejection
                      letters: a 10,000-word missive that stopped just short of accusing him
                      of treason. It was left to foreign publishers to give his smuggled
                      manuscript life, offering the West a peek into the soul of the Cold
                      War enemy, winning Pasternak the 1958 Nobel prize in literature and
                      providing Hollywood with an epic film.

                      These days, Pasternak might not have fared so well.

                      In an apparent reversal of decades of U.S. practice, recent federal
                      Office of Foreign Assets Control regulations bar American companies
                      from publishing works by dissident writers in countries under sanction
                      unless they first obtain U.S. government approval.

                      The restriction, condemned by critics as a violation of the First
                      Amendment, means that books and other works banned by some
                      totalitarian regimes cannot be published freely in the United States,
                      a country that prides itself as the international beacon of free
                      expression.

                      "It strikes me as very odd," said Douglas Kmiec, a constitutional law
                      professor at Pepperdine University and former constitutional legal
                      counsel to former Presidents Reagan and Bush. "I think the government
                      has an uphill struggle to justify this constitutionally."

                      Lawsuit filed

                      Several groups, led by the PEN American Center and including Arcade
                      Publishing, have filed suit in U.S. District Court in New York seeking
                      to overturn the regulations, which cover writers in Iran, Sudan, Cuba,
                      North Korea and, until recently, Iraq.

                      Violations carry severe reprisals - publishing houses can be fined $1
                      million, and individual violators face up to 10 years in prison and a
                      $250,000 fine.

                      "Historically, the United States has served as a megaphone for
                      dissidents from other countries," said Ed Davis of New York, a lawyer
                      leading the PEN legal challenge. "Now we're not able to hear from
                      dissidents."

                      Yet more than dissident voices are affected.

                      The regulations have led publishers to scrap plans for volumes on
                      Cuban architecture and birds, and publishers complain that the rules
                      threaten the intellectual breadth and independence of academic
                      journals.

                      Shirin Ebadi, the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize winner, has joined the
                      lawsuit, arguing that the rules preclude American publishers from
                      helping craft her memoirs of surviving Iran's Islamic Revolution and
                      her efforts to defend human rights in Iranian courts.

                      In a further wrinkle, even if publishers obtain a license for a book -
                      something they are loath to do - they believe the regulations bar them
                      from advertising it, forcing readers to find the dissident works on
                      their own.

                      "It's absolutely against the First Amendment," said Arcade editor
                      Richard Seaver, who hopes to publish an anthology of Iranian short
                      stories. "We're not going to ask permission [to publish]. That reeks
                      of censorship. And censorship is a word that gets my hackles up very
                      quickly."

                      Defense of rules

                      Officials from the U.S. Treasury Department, which oversees OFAC,
                      declined to comment on the lawsuit, but spokeswoman Molly Millerwise
                      described the sanctions as ''a very important part of our overall
                      national security."

                      "These are countries that pose serious threats to the United States,
                      to our economy and security, and our well-being around the globe,"
                      Millerwise said, adding that publishers can still bring dissident
                      writers to American readers as long as they first apply for a license.

                      "The licensing is a very important part of the sanctions policy
                      because it allows people to engage with these countries," Millerwise
                      said. "Anyone is free to apply to OFAC for a license."

                      Critics say they shouldn't have to.

                      "We have a long tradition of not accepting prior restraint," said
                      Wendy Strothman of Boston, who hopes to serve as Ebadi's literary
                      agent should the regulations be struck down. "The notion of getting a
                      license seems to me to be completely counter to the spirit of the
                      First Amendment. ... It's really, for me, mostly about the notion of
                      freedom of expression."

                      The literature that might be lost to American readers is impossible to
                      measure, but in recent months the best-seller lists have been
                      dominated by Azar Nafisi's Reading Lolita in Tehran, a memoir she
                      wrote in exile. And Marjane Satrapi's memoir in the form of a graphic
                      novel, Persepolis: The Story of a Childhood, written and published
                      after her family left Iran for France, has found an international
                      audience.

                      Tom Miller, author of Trading With the Enemy: A Yankee Travels Through
                      Castro's Cuba, said the regulations not only "nullify the First
                      Amendment," but also would dampen the hopes of censored Cuban writers.

                      "It would be all the more depressing," said Miller, who travels to
                      Cuba several times a year under U.S. licenses for journalistic,
                      academic or cultural purposes. "There are two places Cubans get
                      published outside of Cuba - Spain and the States. To cut that short
                      list in half is devastating. In the U.S., it means less artistic and
                      literary infusion from overseas."

                      'Violation of ... rights'

                      Curt Goering, deputy executive director for the Amnesty International
                      human rights monitoring group, criticized the regulations as "a
                      violation of some fundamental human rights."

                      Goering said international covenants recognize the right of people to
                      receive and distribute information regardless of political boundaries.
                      "It's yet another example of the hypocrisy of this administration on
                      human rights," Goering said, adding that while the United States
                      defends its role in Iraq as a defense of liberty at home it is
                      "blocking" publication of dissident voices.

                      Kmiec, who is not part of the legal challenge, said the First
                      Amendment - and subsequent court rulings - generally preclude the
                      government from restricting publications before they are made.

                      "It does allow for limitations where there are clear and present
                      dangers, and compelling foreign policy or other interests that can be
                      tangibly and authentically demonstrated," Kmiec said. "But short of
                      that special application and very rare circumstance, government
                      censorship is properly off-limits. These efforts to restrain in
                      advance are almost sure to fail."

                      The dispute centers on a Treasury Department interpretation this year
                      of regulations rooted in the 1917 Trading With the Enemy Act, which
                      allows the president to bar transactions with people or businesses in
                      nations during times of war or national emergency. A 1988 amendment by
                      Rep. Howard Berman, a California Democrat, relaxed the act to
                      effectively give publishers an exemption while maintaining
                      restrictions on general trade.

                      In April, OFAC regulators amended an earlier interpretation to advise
                      academic publishers that they can make minor changes to works
                      published in sanctioned countries and reissue them.

                      But the regulators said editors cannot provide broader services
                      considered basic to publishing, such as commissioning works, making
                      "substantive" changes to texts or adding illustrations.

                      The regulations seem shaded by Joseph Heller's classic novel Catch-22.

                      American publishers are allowed to reissue, for example, Cuban
                      communist propaganda or officially approved books but not original
                      works by writers whom the Cuban government has stifled.

                      In a letter to Treasury officials this past spring, Berman described
                      the regulations as "patently absurd" and said they form a "narrow and
                      misguided interpretation of the law."

                      "It is in our national interest to support the dissemination of
                      American ideas and values, especially in nations with oppressive
                      regimes," Berman said. "At the same time, [the Berman amendment] is
                      intended to ensure the right of American citizens to have access to a
                      wide range of information and satisfy their curiosity about the world
                      around them."

                      Copyright آ© 2005, The Baltimore Sun

                      Pre-order or Buy my latest titles in Europe:
                      The Whispering Swarm: Book One of the Sanctuary of the White Friars - The Laughter of Carthage - Byzantium Endures - London Peculiar and Other Nonfiction
                      Doctor Who: The Coming of the Terraphiles - Kizuna: Fiction for Japan - Modem Times 2.0 - The Sunday Books - The Sundered Worlds


                      Pre-order or Buy my latest titles in the USA:
                      The Laughter of Carthage - Byzantium Endures - London Peculiar and Other Nonfiction - The Sunday Books - Doctor Who: The Coming of the Terraphiles
                      Kizuna: Fiction for Japan - The Sundered Worlds - The Winds of Limbo - Modem Times 2.0 - Elric: Swords and Roses

                      Comment

                      • PsychicWarVeteran
                        PsychicWarVeteran
                        Flesh Bag of Mostly Water
                        PsychicWarVeteran
                        Flesh Bag of Mostly Water
                        • Mar 2004
                        • 2554

                        #26
                        Originally posted by Michael Moorcock
                        As the recipient of death threats myself...
                        8O I assumed you'd been censored plenty of times, but death threats!? Wow. I guess you really know you're shaking things up when people want you dead. Scary as hell, though, I'm sure.

                        Regarding the LA Times article, this strikes me as another prime example of the current US push towards anti-intellectualism. Smart, educated people are dangerous to a facist regime, such as the one our government is apparently trying very hard to establish.

                        Every medium by which we can learn what's going on in the world around us is slowly and methodically being deconstructed. And every day I meet people who don't seem to care because, to them, it's a good day if they read two paragraphs of anything.
                        "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
                        --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

                        Comment

                        • Krimson
                          Krimson
                          Eternal Companion
                          Krimson
                          Eternal Companion
                          • Nov 2004
                          • 624

                          #27
                          In the years before 911, I had been on or had organized mailing lists connecting activists and dissidents, and for the most part was dismissed as a conspiracy theorist. It was easy to dismiss ideas of the government extending its powers to slowly wear away human rights as being a fancy up there with David Icke's reptilians. My mother's partner even mocked me when I warned about the US and the corporations that influence it like Halluburton and Lockheed Martin.

                          I recall reading in one of Henry Kissengers book of memoirs how he mentioned that during the Nixon/Ford administrations, that Donald Rumsfeld had his eyes on the Presidency, and Cheney was mentioned as his protoge. Now he has better than that, he has a Puppet administration which is working in the interests of the Department of Defense. I am thoroughly convinced that Bush and his cabinet are not actually in charge inasmuch as the DoD. They use tools such as fear mongering in order to rally people under Bush's ragged war banner, chanting their hymns and saying their prayers and doing whatever it takes to feel safe and secure against the threat of "terrorism" and avoiding any kind of rational sense whatsoever. After all, in order to think rationally, you have to confront your fear.

                          Post 911, these ideas aren't as cracked up as they seem. No surprise there. So, the neocons and the christian "right" figure that such scrutiny of their own government can't be laughed away anymore. Rush Limbaugh is no longer the effective tool he used to be, so he got sedated and filed away. So now they have to play hardball. If you can't make your detractors look like nutcases, then villify them. Remind the people that, "If you're not with us, you're against us", and lump in the liberals with the terrorists. Heck, throw in the homosexuals for good measure.

                          That's the real curse of fascism, and one which can only lead to disaster. The neocons and defense people can throw up curtains and diversions, but sooner or later people start to see through it. So those people have to be silenced. So they become witches/communists/terrorists/gays and the commonfolk (peasantry with TV) looks on them with disfavor.

                          I am beginning to wonder if Bush's administration and its actions, as well as the popularity of so-called reality TV are merely coincidence. Marx called religion the opiate of the masses, but Marx never watched Survivor, The Apprentice or Fear Factor. I think this phenomenon has aided in the overall stupification of the public. And worse, its not just americans that get drawn in.

                          And yet, there are still a few people who are taken in by the wars, the naysaying and the smoke and mirrors put up to draw attention away from what's happening at home. And those people are the "dangerous" ones, the ones who have the ability to wake people up from their slumber. So laws are put in place to prevent subversives from publishing. And who's going to notice? If someone is paying attention to putting another fascist law, have Janet Jackson pop her boob out so they look the other way.

                          Meanwhile the corporate machine marches on...
                          Yuki says, "Krimson used to be known as Kommando, but he rarely uses that name anymore. Sometimes he appears as Krimson Gray as well. Do not be confused, he still loves cats and bagels."

                          Comment

                          • Mikey_C
                            Mikey_C
                            Champion of the Balance
                            Mikey_C
                            Champion of the Balance
                            • May 2004
                            • 1511

                            #28
                            Originally posted by TheAdlerian
                            However, I get the feeling that the regulations are there to prevent propaganda from getting published over here. I’m sure that a crafty writer could easily invent some pro-Mullah superhero that fights depravity or some very sympathetic account of why women need to be oppressed.
                            The irony is that the pornographers who do just this defend themselves with the First Amendment. Hard to see how it even counts as 'speech'.

                            Is the US government really so scared of words? I understand that the PATRIOT act allows the state to monitor an individual's library loans and bookshop purchases. This type of fear seems to link in with the 'dumbing down' of society. I mean when a president is elected who's favourite read is "The Very Hungry Caterpillar" (which apparently was published when he was at college!)

                            What exactly is 'propaganda', by the way? It's basic meaning is any material produced to promote a political viewpoint - which of course is an essential part of democracy; it seems to have acquired negative connotations during WW2 - probably due to associations with totalitarianism and the state - with the implied meaning of something untrue; "that's just propaganda". In this sense literature produced by dissident writers can't possibly be 'propaganda' (although material issued with aid from a hostile power may be construed as 'propaganda' - this explains the Cuban hostility to US-financed 'dissidents').

                            At the end of the day I guess it's just political advertising (which raises suspicions in itself!) The decision whether a book is propaganda or not is ultimately a literary-critical one which canonly be made to readers. I wouldn't even discount the possibility that something may be both literature and propaganda - I'm thinking now of Saki's "When William Came" or Machen's "The Bowmen".

                            Anyway the point is that the US government should not be banning these books. It's a bit like our government's proposal to put people under house arrest without trial - by doing these things we lose all moral authority. I read a lot of views by left-wing people in the UK who supported the Iraq war because they saw it as the defeat of fascism - this sort of thing undermines their arguments entirely.
                            \"...an ape reft of his tail, and grown rusty at climbing, who yet feels himself to be a symbol and the frail representative of Omnipotence in a place that is not home.\" James Branch Cabell

                            Comment

                            • PsychicWarVeteran
                              PsychicWarVeteran
                              Flesh Bag of Mostly Water
                              PsychicWarVeteran
                              Flesh Bag of Mostly Water
                              • Mar 2004
                              • 2554

                              #29
                              So, basically, you've just explained why censorship in any form is a bad thing.

                              Afterall, who do we leave to determine what is 'good' propaganda and what is 'bad' propaganda? I submit we leave it up to each individual to read and think for themselves. Freedom, Liberty and all that.

                              As it stands now, Bush and his cronies get to make that determination, and I'm not convinced any of them are worthy to think for me.

                              Originally posted by TheAdlerian
                              Also, I have heard that it is necessary to kill family members to protect family unity.
                              Like mother rats who eat their babies in order to protect them, eh? :twisted: It's messed up, yeah, but I resent that Bush and Co. feel the need to protect me from such things.
                              "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
                              --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

                              Comment

                              • PsychicWarVeteran
                                PsychicWarVeteran
                                Flesh Bag of Mostly Water
                                PsychicWarVeteran
                                Flesh Bag of Mostly Water
                                • Mar 2004
                                • 2554

                                #30
                                We seem to be eye-to-eye on this one, Adlerian. Pornography through exploitation is one of the only valid reasons for censorship. I guess my thoughts on the matter are similar to the old Wiccan rule: "Do what you will, but harm no one."

                                ('No one' includes the self, by the way. A lot of people seem to forget that.)
                                "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
                                --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X