Commentary

Speech codes and fandom

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged censorship fandom on by

The Mastodon site fandom.ink came to my attention because it hosts the account for Pemmi-Con, the 2023 North American Science Fiction Convention. I looked at it a bit to see what other interesting accounts it might have and examined its terms of service. Most of the points are the usual attempts to maintain civil discussion, but one item is disturbing, and it’s part of a trend toward speech policing which I’ve mentioned in other connections.

Item #2 under “Inappropriate Behaviour” is: “expressing or defending derogatory, harmful, and/or contemptuous views of marginalized persons or groups, including in the context of playing ‘devil’s advocate’ (‘it’s not really racist because…’).” (Boldface added, italics as in the original.) This constitutes a prohibition on defending people against some types of accusations. Letting accused people have their say and letting others speak in their defense is a bedrock principle of a liberal society, but it’s one which some people on the political left dislike. In an especially notorious example, Harvard booted professor Ron Sullivan from a position as faculty dean of an undergraduate house because he’d provided legal defense services for Harvey Weinstein. Users on fandom.ink can make groundless accusations without worrying that someone will challenge them. If they get accused in return, then I suppose both are presumed guilty.
(more…)

Ignorance is not strength

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged books censorship education Stanford on by

“Protected Identity Harm” sounds like revealing that Clark Kent is Superman. At Stanford, it means anything that offends somebody. An associate dean and another person filed a report of “Protected Identity Harm,” the harmful incident being a Snapchat picture of a student reading Mein Kampf. In making their complaint, they urged students to turn in others whom they see engaging in similar “harm.”

It’s not clear whether the supposed harm came from reading the book or from showing it being read on a social media site. Fortunately, Stanford did not punish anyone. A Stanford spokesperson said, “At the request of the student organization, we have been engaged in conversation with a number of students, seeking to provide support and foster communication. However, there has been no requirement that any student meet with or report to a university official to discuss the matter.” It could have been worse, but the university’s response still was not good. It should have just told the complainers to get a life and not given any of them “support.” The biggest share of the blame goes to the dean who decided it was fun to make life a little more unpleasant for a student.
(more…)

The pointlessness of trigger warnings 3

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged education ethics on by

There’s a widespread notion that warning people about impending discussions of distressing topics is a necessary and desirable way of saving them from being “triggered.” Recently, for example, the Student Assembly at Cornell University passed a resolution urging the university to require trigger warnings on a broad range of “traumatic content” in teaching materials. The university quite appropriately rejected this recommendation.

Do these warnings do more good than harm? What kind of “triggering” are they supposed to present? What will their effect be? More and more people are agreeing that on the whole, these warnings aren’t helpful. They can lead to the suppression of discussion of important topics.
(more…)

Religious authoritarianism at San Francisco State

This entry was posted in Commentary News and tagged censorship education religion on by

It’s not just Hamline University. A professor at San Francisco State University is being investigated for failing to comply with the rules of some conservative branches of Islam. The Office of Equity Programs and Compliance has launched an investigation of him. 14th century Islamic art showing Muhammad receiving Quranic revelation from the angel Gabriel

San Francisco State University is, as the name implies, a government-run institution. It has no business requiring its faculty to comply with religious rules. Maybe the investigators think they can require compliance with a Muslim law because the professor was born in Tehran. It doesn’t work that way. The First Amendment protects him in the United States regardless of what country he came from or what ethnic group he belongs to.
(more…)

R. L. Stine: Bowdlerization without consent

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged bowdlerization publishing on by

While I’m on a roll with articles on recent bowdlerization, let’s take a look at R. L. Stine. I’d heard that his publisher had made changes to improve supposedly offensive passages in his Goosebumps series but assumed that he had made them himself or at least consented to them. According to Stine, he wasn’t even informed of the changes till after the fact.

Book contracts almost always let the publisher edit the book, and the language is vague on how much they can change. The publisher, Scholastic, was probably within its legal rights, especially since I haven’t seen Stine say otherwise. Past reissues have included minor changes in wording that didn’t affect the meaning. Still, making significant changes to a book by a living author after it’s been in print for a long time, without telling the author, is unusual and arrogant.
(more…)

The latest bowdlerization target: Agatha Christie

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged bowdlerization publishing on by

The bowdlerizers won’t stop. The latest is HarperCollins, which has cut words like “black” and “native” out of Hercule Poirot and Miss Marple novels because they offend a mysterious group they call “modern audiences.” The majority of today’s readers aren’t “modern audiences” by that measure. Agatha Christie

If it were only a matter of replacing words that have come to be considered offensive with other words, it wouldn’t be so much of an issue. Old books are sometimes modernized to replace obsolescent words with more understandable ones, and this wouldn’t be much different. But at least part of the goal seems to be to eliminate any nastiness in the characters. HarperCollins has said, “Sections of dialogue uttered by often unsympathetic characters within the mysteries have also been cut.” The article mentions the updating of some lines by Mrs. Allerton in Death on the Nile. In the original, she says, “they come back and stare, and stare, and their eyes are simply disgusting, and so are their noses, and I don’t believe I really like children.” In the expurgated edition, she says only, “They come back and stare, and stare. And I don’t believe I really like children.” That’s not a matter of offensive words, but an offensive character.

Are HarperCollins’ sensitivity readers aware that every Agatha Christie mystery novel includes at least one murderer in its characters? Murder mysteries necessarily include nasty characters, and there need to be nasty ones besides the murderer in order to keep the reader guessing. In the first half of the twentieth century, it wasn’t unusual to judge people by their eyes and noses. Pretending otherwise does no good.
(more…)

“Hate speech”: an anti-concept

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged language writing on by

The first time I ran into the term “hate speech” was on a mainstream political site that assured the reader that it was not advocating censorship but linked prominently to a site whose title was “Hate speech is not free speech.” From its beginning, “hate speech” has been what Ayn Rand called an “anti-concept,” a term that doesn’t define a category with specific characteristics but serves to obscure the speaker’s intent. The term is and has always been a call for censorship.

Hatred is an emotion and can be good or bad. Hating tyranny and deadly diseases is good. Hating people for their sexual preferences or skin tones is bad. Either way, it isn’t really the emotion that matters; it’s what people do and say. What’s actually wrong is spreading falsehoods, uttering gratuitous insults, using appearance as a proxy for character, making threats, and suppressing people with discriminatory laws and violence.

“Hate speech” doesn’t mean speech expressing hatred. In practice, it means “speech I hate” or “speech I want banned.” Saying “I hate spinach” or even “Fuck J.K. Rowling” isn’t considered hate speech. Grossly insulting everyone who registers Republican isn’t hate speech. However, I’ve seen claims that drawing a picture of Muhammad and saying “there are no atheists in foxholes” are hate speech.
(more…)

Bowdlerizers on the march

This entry was posted in Commentary News and tagged bowdlerization publishing on by

As I noted last week, Penguin Random House partially backed off on sanitizing Roald Dahl’s books, promising authentic editions in addition to the expurgated ones. But it isn’t just kids’ books that are getting this treatment. The Spectre of bowdlerization is now haunting Ian Fleming’s James Bond novels. Ian Fleming Publications has announced a new edition of the Bond novels that remove any suggestions that Bond was ever prejudiced against black people. If the Telegraph article is to be trusted, his prejudices against every other group, including East Asians, women, and gays, have been allowed to stand. In some cases, black people have just been erased. “Detail is also removed from Goldfinger, where the race of the drivers in the Second World War logistics unit, the Red Ball Express – which had many black servicemen – is not mentioned, instead referring only to ‘ex-drivers’.”

A disclaimer to be included in the books says, “A number of updates have been made in this edition, while keeping as close as possible to the original text and the period in which it is set.” That’s nonsense. Keeping as close as possible to the original text means using the original text.
(more…)

Florida bill seeks to intimidate bloggers

This entry was posted in Commentary News and tagged censorship Florida law on by

Politicians don’t like critical articles about them. Mike Masnick writes that Jason Brodeur, a Florida state senator, has introduced a bill to force bloggers to register if they write about DeSantis or other elected Florida officials and get any payment for it. They would then be ordered to file monthly reports on their blogging.

As Masnick notes, the bill is a blatant violation of the First Amendment. Its purpose is obviously to scare bloggers out of writing about DeSantis. The bill text is available on the Florida Senate’s website.
(more…)

The Chengdu Worldcon’s speech code

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

The China Worldcon finally released a progress report, much later in the cycle than normal. The prospect of heavy Western attendance at the con is dead, but I’d like to focus here on the Code of Conduct, and in particular on the speech-related rules. The PR says:

Discrimination (based on but not limited to, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, age, sexual orientation,
gender identity, neuro-diversity, physical appearance, body size, or physical/mental disability) will
not be tolerated. Racism and politicization are where discrimination prevails.
 

Any acts of aggression, contempt, indifference or offensive words and abusive behavior are
unacceptable, such as judging people of color as less knowledgeable about fannish topics, or
provoking unrelated political topics to attack people of different beliefs. [Emphasis added]

The list of prohibited behaviors includes “comments that belittle or demean others” and “Costumes/Cosplay that are historically or otherwise offensive.”
(more…)