In conjunction with World Press Freedom Day today, let us consider the many salient points raised here by Erica Jong in her speech on FREE SPEECH delivered at ACLU Biennial Conference New York City - June 22, 1995.
FREE SPEECH
You know, I want to speak to you today about the creative imagination and censorship and why censorship is such a dire threat to creative people. But first I want to define some terms. I think that one of the reasons that we are embroiled in this tremendous argument about censorship and where we are vis-a-vis censorship, the so-called Communications Decency Act that is being floated in the Congress of the United States, is because we live in a time when we have a very diverse population.
And interesting enough, calls for censorship always increase when the population is extremely diverse and different standards prevail. This is almost a given: When you have an elitist or traditional society in which everybody agrees about who gets access to stuff, you don't have calls for censorship. They only occur in a society in which there are many different groups struggling for a place and trying to figure out whose word goes.
So it's very interesting. It's almost a product of the diversity of our society that we have these new calls for censorship. And I think, although it seems very depressing some days to open the paper and see so many of the things that we've fought for going down the drain, it's in a way a symbol of how much we have reached people, that there should be a worry about pornography on the internet, too free an expression of ideas and so on. So maybe there is a little bit of hope here.
Forty years ago Margaret Mead, who wrote beautifully about so many things that were not in her anthropological purview, supposedly said that censorship would always increase in a pluralistic democracy as each group warred with the other, trying to figure out who had the right to be on top and who had the right to say what other people could speak about.
I think we live in a time where the freedom to publish sexually oriented material is increasingly coming under attack. Large publishing conglomerates increasingly control all means of communication and the forces of cultural reaction are becoming extremely well organized. The brief cultural glasnost that we enjoyed in the sixties is already beginning to seem quaint. And when you think about this century and you think that it's the century that started with The Wasteland, with Prufrock, with Ulysses, and with great fights to liberate literature, which came to fruition just about 1962 when the Supreme Court liberated Tropic of Cancer.
And then, in the sixties, a time that we all remember, probably well, there was a moment when literature all over the world was changed by the release of Tropic of Cancer. Suddenly authors didn't have to shut the bedroom door when they wrote about sexuality. Suddenly, the tremendous force and passion of sexuality inspired the whole culture and created a kind of exuberance that went to other areas as well.
But that period of time was extremely narrow. I would say 20 years, 25 years. And then there was a tremendous desire for censorship again. And we come to the end of the century, and we seem to be back in 1895. It seems that we have made a complete circle.
And now the calls for censorship are coming not just from the right, but also from the left. They are coming distressingly from feminists, members of my own movement, who believe, some of them, like Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon, that there is no danger in their joining forces with the forces of reaction. For example, Andrea Dworkin and Kitty McKinnon joined the Meese Commission in 1986, which was very strange.
So there are feminists who are saying: We don't care about the First Amendment; the First Amendment is sentimental; the First Amendment is foolish; the First Amendment is romantic and Rousseauish. We don't need that, a higher good is protecting women and protecting women against rape and protecting women against being denigrated in print, in pictures, on the internet and so on.
Well, let's look at that and what that has really accomplished in the last few years. Basically what it has accomplished, is it has given guys like Dole, like Gramm, a new vocabulary. And it's given people like Pat Robertson a new vocabulary. Instead of having to say now they are for censorship, because they want to keep all women barefoot and pregnant in Christ, they can now say: We are protecting women against denigration and abuse. And the reason that we want the Communications Decency Act is in order to protect women.
In other words, they have taken the vocabulary that Dworkin and McKinnon have given them and they've used it to drape their old barefoot and pregnant ideas. So they've become very much harder to counter. All those same old farts, the alter kockers in the Congress who sat there when Anita Hill was being pilloried and tormented, and who didn't understand anything, who didn't get it, they are getting up and saying: We are protecting women against denigration and abuse.
So basically, what Dworkin and McKinnon have done for the evangelical right, is that they've given them a new dialect that they can use to cloak their very, very ancient ideas. And that's even more terrifying, I think, than anything else that they've done and they seem not to understand that they've done this.
I'm not so interested in talking to you about why it's important to have free sexual expression in society, because I think probably many of us here agree with that. But I want to talk about why people are so interested in censoring expression when there are so many other problems in our society that need addressing.
I think tha people become hysterical aboutt expression when they feel out of control: They cannot stop rape. Children are raised in a way that they are not parented, they are not educated, they are not given values, there are too many of them, they are too poor, they are too ill, they are too hungry. Instead of addressing these problems in society, problems that come from overpopulation, problems that come from the breakdown of the family, problems that come from the severe inequity of financial access between races, between rich and poor, instead of addressing these questions, which are the real questions, it's easier to address expression and censorship. It's easier to get up and rave about how our society is being corrupted by pornographic images on the internet. Much easier to talk about that than it is to talk about the fact that there is inequality economically and that because there is inequality economically, we have people who are not socialized to be part of our society, and we don't know what to do about that problem, so let's talk about censorship and expression.
It is absolutely a red herring. It is total bullshit. It is like arresting prostitutes instead of Johns.
Do you remember last year there was a mayor, I believe it was in Miami, who decided that she was going to have the names of the Johns who frequented prostitutes read on television and printed in the newspaper? And I thought, what a sensible idea. Rather than arresting these women whose financial lack of access has put them in this profession, which is the only way they can make money, instead, expose the guys who are using the prostitutes. Don't criminalize these poor women.
It never lasted very long. It spread to a couple of other cities, but basically it didn't last very long. And we have a perfectly analogous situation, for example, in the whole debate about pornography. If criminal acts are perpetrated when pornography is made, if a child is injured, if a woman is drugged and raped during the making of a pornographic film, why not arrest these guys for rape or for child molestation. We have plenty of laws on the books that protect against rape and child molestation.
But, no, that would mean that we were going to come down on organized crime, which basically profits from pornography, and that's too hard. Perhaps it's too hard because organized crime basically contributes to the PAC funds of the people in the Congress. Who knows why? Maybe it's too hard to do that. Better to jump on expression and say that free expression is causing these problems.
So look at the underside of the problem. Look at this great debate that we've been having about censorship, free expression, the internet. It's not really about that. It's not really about whether it's good or bad to have Tropic of Cancer out there so people can read it. It is not really about any of the things that it claims to be about.
What it is really about is that people do not know how to stop the Mafia from selling pornography in which children are abused, or they don't want to do it because they profit in some way from it.
And so instead of going to the root of the problem, instead of exposing the Johns, basically it's much much easier to beat up on a bunch of fuzzy minded liberals who want to make little distinctions about what is right and what is wrong, i.e. us.
And we play right into their tendency to smokescreen the real problems, because as members of the left we're more interested in fighting each other than in fighting our real enemies. We love to fight each other. We love to make subtle distinctions and argue with each other.
And I think that we better really look at what's going on in our culture and we better look at who profits from pornography. And we better look at the laws that we already have and which ones are enforced and which ones aren't. And we better stop letting them make it an issue of censorship versus free speech, because really it's not about that. It's about economics at the bottom. It's about the fact that women and children are the lowest priority in this society. It's about the fact that women and children's rights are cut first. It's about the fact that our teenage daughters can't walk on the streets without danger of being raped. It's about a total social breakdown and it has absolutely nothing to do with expression, that is a smokescreen.
And suddenly, after having these endless conversations on TV with all kinds of people from Phyllis Schafley to Claire Short -- the shadow minister of labor, in England, who is calling for censorship of pornography because it's a wonderful way for her to get elected -- it suddenly occurred to me that this is not the issue at all. And I would ask you, as my colleagues, to please address the basic issue.
Rather than arguing with the people who would censor, about whether or not this is censorship. I would look at the root causes. I would look at the root causes of why people participate in pornography. I would look at the inequalities, the economic inequalities that underlie the system and I would address those and not be jollied into this whole argument about censorship. Because the truth is that anybody's political agenda,
if it is not your own, is obscene.
And basically censorship, once it gets on the books, is always used in that way, to politically harass the dissenter. The reason I remain a First Amendment fundamentalist, is because I understand as a feminist, as a Jew, as a woman, as a woman who has been battered for expressing herself freely in all her books, I understand the First Amendment protects the minority, protects the dissenter, protects the woman, protects the witch.
Basically, I understand that unless you have a government of laws, rather than a government of people, you cannot protect dissent. And I understand, as a woman who probably would have been burned in the marketplace for witchcraft only about 200 years ago, that I need the First Amendment more than anybody does. And that even if I am repelled by child pornography or Bob Guccione's productions, that I have to protect those things, because essentially it's in my self-interest to do so.
So those are the terms of the debate, the way I would define it now, and I would really invite your questions.
Extracted from THIS LINK.
33 comments to CAN FREE SPEECH EXIST?
-
Ckw Freedom of speech? Of course we have it in Malaysia! You can say anything you want in your speech. It is your freedom after your speech that is in question!
-
Anonymous If free speech cannot exist, then how may it become possible to describe/debunk the virulent tacist/fascist spews by Ibrahim Ali as pure bullshit?
~wits0~
-
Justice Do you think that the Internal Security Act, which allows indefinite detention without charge or trial, has succeeded in silencing the rakyat who disagree with the authority?
-
Anonymous We have a constitution which guarantees freedom of speech. Nonetheless, we also have a litany of laws that allow the government to impose restrictions.
The reason is simple, isn't it?
-
Anonymous WRT his book, 'Malaysian Maverick', Barry Wain made this very astute and succinct comment that underscores the hopeless and deplorable state of the complicit Media in Bolehland that befuddles its denizens.
"I hope the book will make Malaysians more familiar with their recent political history as recounted by an independent analyst. Too much of what Malaysians read is a barren, polarised debate between government-owned and -controlled media and unrelentingly hostile bloggers.
I recognise there are constructive voices in the middle grappling with nuance and complexity, but they are often drowned by strident and partisan views."
http://fwd4.me/MOn
IOW, the MSM is also an audacious sin industry here!
Press freedom at all time low, says global index
http://fwd4.me/MOp
~wits0~
-
Anonymous I deserve to be a senator, says Ezam.
Well said! But, ...........
-
Anonymous Malaysia moved up two notches to 141 on the annual Freedom House press freedom ranking of 196 countries, but remains in the bottom 32 percent of countries which fall under “not free” category.
Malaysia shares its placing with Algeria and Zambia.
~~ Malaysiakini
-
Unknown Dear Very Sad
What can we do but to watch in silence?
Most saddening.
-
Unknown Dear CKW
Very true indeed! Vultures are ready to swoop down on innocent ones...
-
Unknown Dear ~wits0~
It does not fully exist in the way it is meant to where it matters - in the press...in other areas, it is there is varying degrees but then the audience is a limited one...
-
Unknown Dear Justice
It has, in reality, had the opposite effect - much to the horror of its advocates.
-
Unknown Dear Anon @ 11.38am
Ironically, it is true and the reasons are obvious.
Thanks for your sharp and thought-provoking comment.
Cheers
-
Unknown Dear ~wits0~
I am reading the book at the moment and have to say that it is very well-researched, well documented with references etc and it is a book that every one MUST read.
It can be downloaded fr the net...
The quote you shared here portrays a very real problem.
Take care and thanks for sharing.
Cheers
-
Unknown Dear Anon @ 5.38pm
Some have the audacity to proclaim their self-seeking tendencies.
Sighs.
Where is their conscience?
I am really puzzled.
Take care and thanks for sharing.
Cheers
-
Unknown Dear Anon @ 6.05pm
I wrote a post about that...Do check it out.
Thanks for sharing the information.
Take care and have a pleasant evening.
Cheers
-
Anonymous Free Speech does not exist here but Entitlement Mentality certainly does:
"I deserve to be senator, says Ezam"
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/130811
~wits0~
-
Unknown Dear ~wits0~
I feel geli even to read the extract let alone the whole report...worse still to hear him saying it in a radio/tv broacdcast and then to have his voice resounding in my ear...
Eeeew!
Most embarassing....
-
Anonymous Free speech?
Looks to me like Malaysians are speech free about what's going on.
StraightTalking
-
Julian Real Part 2 of 2:
I just don't accept so much of what you put forth as "the way things are". Why do you think we live in an authentically democratic society? Why don't you acknowledge that we live in racist, misogynist plutocracy, whereby only white wealthy men have the power and privileges to speak without negative consequences (without having their words be distorted and contorted in the press, as Dworkin's work has been)?
Corporate pimps speak freely, and make billions using women's bodies to do so.
The Dworkin-MacKinnon antipornography ordinance was a Civil Rights law, not a Criminal law. It didn't empower the State to commit "censorship" and it never was written to do so. Had it ever become a functioning law in the US, had it been allowed to be used in court, it would have empowered the women--very silenced women--harmed in the pornography industry by pimps, and by the men in women's lives outside the industry.
So there was no censorship effort going on in their work, which should be abundantly clear: pimp's "speech" earns billions annually, and Dworkin and MacKinnon's speech, well, doesn't.
If that doesn't tell you who does and does not have the power to censor and silence others, what does?
You are perpetuating gross myths and distortions of what a human rights activist did. Dworkin's work deserves, at the very least, to be understood. She wrote books and she spoke out.
For more on this, see here:
http://radicalprofeminist.blogspot.com/2010/05/history-vs-herstory-who-frames-issues.html
and
http://radicalprofeminist.blogspot.com/2010/04/what-time-wont-tell-tthe-magazine-names.html
That shows you who controls speech. It's not radical feminists. Malalai Joya wasn't even allowed to speak out on CNN in the US. You can see this for yourself in the clips provided.
Have you read Dworkin's piece on what Censorship is and how it functions in a white male supremacist State? Why don't you cite it?
"Against the Male Flood: Censorship, Pornography and Equality", Dworkin.
She presented the actual history and contemporary problems of how and what censorship is in Western Societies; she notes the history of who the Censors in society are, and are not. Your piece really confuses the whole matter, imo.
Radical feminists have never had the power to censor anyone. To say so, to allude that Dworkin and MacKinnon sought to work with the White Right do censor pimps' speech, is really inaccurate and spurious. It grossly distorts their human rights work and how speech in society operates.
I'm open to debating this with you.
-
Julian Real Part 1 of 2:
I'll try and highlight a couple of things that I find deeply problematic in what you state above.
First, Western societies are generally set up to be plutocracies, not democracies. This is extremely true in the US and UK. But it is more the case in the US, where poor people have the least access to speech, and the rich control the media, which is a huge source of social speech, discourse, and "truth-telling", or spinning history to suit the needs of the powerful: in the US this is and always has been white men, not women of any color, nor men of color. The entire society is founded on abuses of people of color, on rape and racism. Genocide was protected in our "democracy" and still is. To speak out about the genocide that is on-going gets you where? Heard? No. Silenced? Yes.
That tells you who has free speech and who doesn't.
We don't live in a democracy, we live in an illusion of democracy. See Noam Chomsky: the Manufacturing of Consent, DVD.
Speech has always been purchased. Only the rich have ever had what might be termed "free speech". I can speak and be sued by a rich person's lawyers, silenced, be put in jail if I say certain things.
The rich will never see jail time, no matter how many lies they tell.
To not detail that in your piece is to miss a whole lot.
Next, on feminists and Christian fundamentalists.
The work Dworkin and MacKinnon reframed the whole issue of what pornography is and does to reflect what was actually happening to women in it.
The Right has never cared at all about what happens to women, with regard to women being liberated from a patriarchal society.
Radical feminists have and continue to fight for women's liberation from all forms of male domination.
The Right cannot "appropriate" that work. They can pretend to. The media can sell Coca-cola and other products as "the route to freedom", right? But that doesn't mean freedom fighters did something wrong.
MacKinnon still does human rights work for women around the world; what she is doing is radically different than anything the Religious Right is interested in promoting.
Dominants in society will always try and appropriate the language of liberation, to water it down to mean nothing at all.
The myth of Dworkin and MacKinnon working with Right has been mistold for decades, and a few books, still in print, continue the lies.
When any activist works on the level of the City Council, to promote an ordinance, one is going to work with both racist-sexist liberals and racist-sexist conservatives. The option of working with people who are neither racist or sexist isn't an option. So let's please be clear about that, and stop pretending that Liberalism has an agenda to free any women or men of color. It doesn't, and never has. It is white male supremacist, and protects and promotes white male supremacy in many ways. White liberals and white conservatives have the power to speak, in the US. Radical feminists do not.
-
Unknown Dear StraightTalking
I would say many are speech free but thanks to the internet, more and more are coming out to voice their sentiments, concerns and feelings. Although much of this may be from digital personalities, it s a good start. In reality, I am more worried about the ones who do not have net access and also remain silent.
How then will they know what is going on and to learn of the prevailing mood?
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Take care and have a lovely evening.
Cheers
-
Unknown Dear Julian Real
Many thanks for your brilliantly spirited and passionate response to this post and for the many recommendations and observations you have recorded here.
I did not write this post (as stated at the beginning of the post). It was written by Erica Jong in her speech on FREE SPEECH delivered at ACLU Biennial Conference New York City - June 22, 1995.
I agree with what you have written but unfortunately, things are different in my country.
You can see my writings on democracy HERE:
http://masterwordsmith-unplugged.blogspot.com/search/label/Democracy
Thanks so much for visiting my blog and for sharing so openly. I am awed that one as erudite as you chose to share your thoughts here.
I will check out Dworkin and MacKinnon as recommended by you.
Take care and have a lovely week. Do stay in touch.
Cheers
-
Julian Real @masterwordsmith,
First, sorry about ranting on about Jong's work as if it were yours! You didn't deserve that at all. :(
Second, GREAT blog!!!! I've checked it out more, looked over your profile, knew you'd have "To Kill A Mockingbird" on your list of books!! ;) (It's one of my favorites too!)
But you've GOT to see the movie also! It's one of the best book/movie combos, in my opinion: both are so well done, each in their own medium.
I'm going to link your blog to mine. I want other people to see what you're writing here.
And of course "freedoms" are so relative. In my country we are far freer than in many, but not as free as we tell everyone we are. That film by Noam Chomsky will really shed light on what I mean. Wait... here are links to it...
At Google Video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5631882395226827730#
and at YouTube (in several parts):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJuqoDvyXOk
And on hulu:
http://www.hulu.com/search?query=manufacturing+consent&st=1
I hope at least one of those works.
The basic premise is this: in societies/States where tyranny is not used overtly, with military force against the masses of citizens, another means must achieve similar goals of controlling what the populace knows, and what history it learns as "truth". So in allegedly "democratic" societies, the way to accomplish this social control is through control of media and news reporting. Chomsky makes a powerful and compelling case for this, with lots of "secret" information kept from the U.S. people about U.S. government activities and what the function is of the U.S. government.
I'm so glad to have found your blog!!! And I hope the "insomnia" isn't really too much of a problem.
-
Masterwordsmith Dear Julian
No worries at all! I am so glad we met this way :-). I love your blog too and your writings are simply awesome!
I have written about To Kill A Mockingbird, Lolita and also I Know why the caged bird sings.
One of my blog readers has bought the dvd of TKAM as a gift for me but I have yet to receive it via a relative. I had been searching high and low for that movie for ages.
Thanks for your kind comments re my blog/writings and for linking it to mine. I am just so awed to have bumped into you!
I only started reading Chomsky recently. Thanks a bunch for the links and recommendations.
Take care and please stay in touch.
God bless you.
Cheers
-
Anonymous I eagerly watched in fearfful silence as two mighty female titans seemed to be on a collision course of galactic scale.
But alas! the caged birds sing no more (Sigh) :-)
StraightTalking
-
Unknown Dear StraightTalking
You are a real riot!!! Love your comment and wit. Take care and please stay in touch!
Cheers
-
Julian Real I can' wait to read your review of TKAM: the movie!! I'm so excited for you that it's en route and will be seen by you hopefully soon.
I wish I could come over and watch it with you, just so we could talk about it afterward.
But... the blog-connection will have to suffice! :)
-
Anonymous Dear Aunty Paula,
I did a read on the article “What TIME won’t tell” by a Radical Pro-feminist, and I gave a little bit of my innocent thoughts on the matter. Thought I’d share it with you.
Little Corgi
Here it is…
I am violently opposed to BOTH feminists and their male anti-thesis. Both may be described as racist of a different kind. To me our physical and biological attributes are the ONLY differences between man and woman. Everything else should be the same with no one owning the trophy. Instead of respecting each other as we should as humans, these two seemed hell-bent on subjugating and/or breaking each other's spirit and psyche.
While I can appreciate your anger and frustration about certain inequalities/injustices and free speech available to women, but to put the blame squarely on the shoulder of men (or white American men) is not a balanced reflection about the truth of the matter. The result could very well be the same if the corridors of power are graced by women.
There are fine men (almost exclusively) out there, right now, trying to save the lives of all humans from harm's way, sometimes in very hostile environments, across the globe so that we can sleep in peace. These nameless men too, are the unsung heroes, deserving of the same respect and honor bestowed on Joya. They too, do not see their finest moments in glossy mags.
Just like the men, not EVERY Mother Teresa gets the media attention that she rightfully deserves. Some will live and die as decorated heroes/martyrs while others will die as unknown soldiers.
Putting a bullet through the heads of man, and man alone - is not something I will just sit back, watch and yield.
Another Voice
-
Unknown Hi Julian
Ah - I wish I could watch the movie too...am waiting patiently for the dvd.
In the mean time, do check out this post I wrote on TKAM and the Malaysian scenario...
http://masterwordsmith-unplugged.blogspot.com/2010/02/dont-kill-that-mockingbird.html
Would love to hear your views about TKAM.
Take care and do keep in touch!
Have a lovely week.
Cheers
-
Unknown Dear Little Corgi
We cannot generalize and assume the world's problems are caused by one or two causal factors because we live in such an intricate web whereby our lives and many other factors are inextricably linked.
Either way, I surmise that the middle road is the best...where we acknowledge what is good, shove away what is bad and above all else, learn to respect each other for who are are and what we can be...
Life is so short and our time on earth is insufficient to complete all we wish to do...May we do our best to leave footprints on the hearts of those who matter...
Take care and thanks for being a very fair-minded person who loves justice.
God bless you...woof woof!
Cheers
-
HotDogg Hi Aunty Paula,
Your little corgi had innocently but cautiously wandered off into the unfamiliar volcanic planet of PF to sniff out its inhabitants. Whoa! It is truly a scary yet magnificent place to visit.
And the chief resident there loves me and has returned me back to Corgi Land unscathed, after some initial reprimands of course, and even gave me some tummy tickles too.
Phew! It was a great experience and I liked it.
Woof! Woof! Woof!
-
Unknown Dear Little Corgi
Congratulations! I see you have a tag now :-). Finally, your master got you a doggy licence LOL!!!
And that is because you are an adorable and brave little corgi!!
Well done, my canine friend. Your nosing around has given you a new-found friend :-).
Take care and enjoy the rest of the evening!
Cheers
Very Sad Very sadly, in this Bolehland, we have two sets of laws!