censorship

Amazon employees demand book banning

This entry was posted in Commentary News and tagged Amazon books censorship on by

Some employees of a huge corporation demanded it should decide which books are acceptable for customers. They engaged in what’s called a “die-in,” which consists of lying on the ground while issuing demands. They demanded that Amazon decide which books it approves of and not make others available to customers.

This is small stuff, but it’s weird that anyone would demand that a mega-corporation which is the world’s largest bookseller should have an Index of Prohibited Books that it won’t sell. The protesters fantasize that they’ll get to call the shots. They imagine that they’ll decide what’s on the Index; probably they all think they’ll be promoted to the new position that compiles the Index.
(more…)

SFWA, Mercedes Lackey, and taboo words 3

This entry was posted in Commentary News and tagged censorship fandom language science fiction on by

Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America (SFWA) named Mercedes Lackey a Grand Master at the Nebula Awards ceremony, then almost immediately turned around and removed her from the Nebula Conference. The stated reason was that she “used a racial slur” while on a panel.

English has long had taboo words. At one time, the strongest ones dealt with religion. Later on, ones relating to bodily functions headed the list. It’s still illegal to tell people on broadcast television what the Supreme Court’s seven dirty words are. How do you avoid breaking the law when you can’t be told what the law forbids?

The Lackey situation is similar. The File 770 article doesn’t tell us what the alleged racial slur was. Readers are likely to imagine the worst words possible (which I won’t mention, since they may lower my search engine visibility). In fact, the word she used was “colored.” If that’s a slur, then the NAACP commits it every time it gives its full name, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
(more…)

Chinese writers get it from both sides

This entry was posted in Censorship Commentary and tagged censorship China on by

Chinese writers have to reckon not only with their own government but with the US government. This post deals with events from 2020, but they relate to the issues of the upcoming Chengdu Worldcon and its guest of honor.

In 2020, Netflix announced plans for a series based on Cixin Liu’s The Three-Body Problem and its sequels. As far as I can tell (my Netflix subscription is currently inactive), it’s still in the works. Earlier, five U.S. senators pressured Netflix to drop it. Their reason was some remarks which the author had made in a New Yorker interview. When asked about the Chinese government’s treatment of the Uyghurs, he said, “If anything, the government is helping their economy and trying to lift them out of poverty. If you were to loosen up the country a bit, the consequences would be terrifying.”Cover, The Three-Body Problem

The notion of “lifting people out of poverty” by putting them into brutal concentration camps is, of course, outrageous. We have to consider Cixin’s position, though. If he had spoken against the Chinese government’s treatment of the Uyghurs, his writing career would have promptly ended, and he might have suffered worse consequences. The Chinese government’s recent threats against anyone who criticizes it at the Olympics have reminded us of that. Also, he’s doubtless been fed steady misinformation by the censored Chinese media.
(more…)

Writers threatened with $300K fines

This entry was posted in Commentary News and tagged censorship liberty Russia on by

According to an article by Natylie Baldwin on antiwar.com, the United States Treasury Department has threatened writers with fines of more than $300,000 if they write for the Strategic Culture Foundation, a Russia-based online journal.

The writers, Daniel Lazare and Michael Averko, reportedly got letters from the Treasury Department, delivered by the FBI, claiming they were in violation of sanctions against SCF and could be subject to a “civil monetary penalty of up to the greater of $311,562 or twice the value of the underlying transaction.” They say that other writers have received similar letters.
(more…)