This week, September 30 - October 6, 2012, is Banned Books Week, so what better time to take a look at books that have been banned over the years in various countries? I'll select a few examples, and discuss a bit about why they were banned. Should be not only fun, but hopefully insightful.
Several classic science fiction novels have been banned in various countries, including some of the most iconic examples of the genre: Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm, both by George Orwell; Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley; and Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley. Those are some pretty heavy hitters, and books that are now on many educational reading lists. But why were they banned?
Brave New World was supposedly banned in Ireland for "references of sexual promiscuity," and in fact many books in many different countries were banned for similar reasons, including Frankenstein. Obscenity seems to be a common theme for those pushing to ban certain books, and one does not have to look very far to find examples of books banned for obscenity as recently as this year.
I get the obscenity angle, the push to keep society (and children, of course) as Puritan as possible. Many countries, the United Kingdom and America especially, have been quite prudish regarding this sort of thing. But while it's understandable to shield those not mature enough to handle certain situations from them, it's another altogether to push an agenda of morality on a country's citizenry. Banning something on moral grounds indicates not only mistrust in people to make rational decisions based on the content for themselves, but also behavior that stifles the ability to learn rational decision-making. After all, if one is shielded from anything deemed inappropriate, how can they learn the process of identifying it as such for themselves? "Because I said so" works well with toddlers. They have limited experience with making sound decisions. But once a person matures to the point where they are supposed to make decisions on their own, that is no longer a viable reason.
George Orwell's works have been banned for much more obvious reasons: they are outright political satire, and were banned because of their criticism of communism and corruption in government. Stalin knew Nineteen Eighty-Four was a clear jab at him and his leadership, and enacted a ban on the book throughout the U.S.S.R that continued through 1990, when it was edited and re-released.
These are clear cases of the suppression of free speech, and key indicators of those governments' stances toward that basic human right. Interestingly, communist-led countries were not the only ones to ban Orwell's books. Allied forces banned Animal Farm during parts of World War II because of its critical look at the U.S.S.R., and was deemed too "controversial" to print during wartime.
Many other books have been banned for any number of reasons, with "subversive material," "hate literature," "insulting material," and "unflattering portrayal" of individuals, religions, governments, or populations cited as reasons. Books as old as the Bible and as innocuous as dictionaries have been banned. Generally, it appears that if a book contains anything someone somewhere would find objectionable, it's going to get banned.
And that's a shame. A book may not be tasteful or politically correct. It may be lewd, inappropriate, or offensive. It may even be downright vile or provocative. And none of that matters. It's still just a book. Words. Nothing in any book should exempt the actions of a human being, capable of making conscious choice to commit those actions.
We've seen this tested recently, with the terror attacks in Benghazi, supposedly linked to outrage over an amateur movie. We've seen calls to limit offensive or provocative speech. Will common sense prevail, or as Fahrenheit 451 alluded to, will they one day come for our books in an effort to suppress dissent, quell unrest, or create the illusion of peace and prosperity?
Showing posts with label Censorship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Censorship. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
The Blackout Day
This site is not blacking out in protest. It could have looked like this today:
It's not that I condone or support piracy, it's that I condone and support the United States Constitution and the freedom of speech. This is not about theft; it's about censorship. And until they figure out the right way to do it, I cannot in good conscience support it.
There would be little point of me going dark, other than a meaningless gesture of defiance, so I'm sharing my own take on the subject as well as links to a few other blog posts I've found that discuss the dangers of SOPA and PIPA. I've written about this before, but it's an important subject, one everyone should understand.
I'm not the only one who has an opinion on this. Author Chuck Wendig shares his awesome take on it over on his blog, Terrible Minds. John Scalzi weighs in on it. Chris Heald has another solid write-up on it. Just Google it if you want to find more. They're not completely blacked out, but they do not support the bill. I'd tell you to use Wikipedia, but they're blacked out, which is what they'd be like if SOPA and PIPA pass. Experts have weighed in on this subject. And if you'd like to contribute your two cents on the subject, here is a good place to start.
And my thoughts on it? I talked about the following points elsewhere, and thought I'd share here. I've taken these points from the various experts speaking out against the bill and put them into my own words. Feel free to use this information when writing to your government representative(s) or passing along information about the subject.
SOPA will cause serious additional problems, including the following:
1. It would negatively impact U.S. and global cybersecurity. This means it would cause more security breaches and less effective security, possibly at the expense of national defense and U.S. business and commercial interests. Military and corporate espionage is already a problem that negatively impacts the U.S. and our way of life. This would exacerbate that problem.
2. It would negatively impact Internet functionality by eroding DNS structure, which is the opposite of the way technology is supposed to work. This is counter-intuitive to basic progress.
3. It would delay the full adoption of DNSSEC and its security improvements over DNS, which is what Internet folks have been trying to do to improve virtual security. This would create a less secure Internet environment in the future, less secure than the one we now have security issues with.
4. It would assign liability to site owners for everything users post, without consideration for whether or not the user posted without permission. Site owners could face jail time or heavy fines, and DNS blacklisting. This would probably shut down a site like Seahawks.NET, or at the very least, make it very inhospitable and undesirable to visit, killing any real amount of traffic to the site.
5. It would require web services like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter to monitor and aggressively filter everything all users upload, equating to a ton of extra manpower and energy, and tremendously reduced/filtered/censored content. This completely violates the constitutional right of the freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is not limited to any particular topics, agendas, or subjects, and is guaranteed. Copyright protection, which is supposedly the issue here is an entirely different subject than piracy, and abiding by copyright laws do not violate one's freedom of speech.
6. It would deny site owners due process of law, by initiating a DNS blacklisting based solely on a good faith assertion by an individual copyright or intellectual property owner. This completely violates due process of an individual as guaranteed by our judicial process.
7. It would give the U.S. government the power to selectively censor the web using techniques similar to those used in China, Malaysia and Iran. This is an Orwellian concept we as a nation have long stood against, and have spoken out against these practices with extreme vigor. Doing this would also cripple the U.S. as a viable destination for new online business, as it would make the establishment of one very undesirable, similar to how the online environments of China, Malaysia and Iran are currently.
A few of the options that would work to combat piracy:
1. Release products such as movies simultaneously worldwide. It costs nothing more to do this, and completely undermines the reasons people put pirated copies up in the first place. This would greatly cut back on the onslaught of pirated cam/DVD rips that make the products available where they are not yet legally released. This cuts back on piracy caused by people's inability to wait for a product's release, such as a highly anticipated movie debut.
2. Do away with DRM restrictions. They don't work at all, and only frustrate legitimate paid customers, encouraging them to pirate themselves. This would allow customers the ability to back up their purchased items. They should also not have to buy back their entire library/collection if a device becomes inoperable or they switch to a different platform. This cuts back on hoarding pirated copies of items a consumer wishes not to lose, even if they bought the product legally.
3. Release quality beta/test issues for products such as video games, allowing full previews of the product and enticing people to buy the item instead of illegally procuring it to see whether it's worth spending $60 bucks for. This cuts back tremendously on the "exploratory" type of piracy.
4. Provide quality updates and additional material and support for legally purchased products. This already has a proven track record for sales as products like AVG anti-virus software packages have shown. This does away with the need to pirate in the first place, as most of the product typically needed for the casual user is available at zero cost anyway.
5. Stop crippling content so that it only works on one device, or only works if the reader is given permission by a retailer or publisher to open the file. This again cuts back on piracy for ease of use or the sake of convenience.
6. Release quality digital works for those products that don't have them, such as movies and books. This would prevent piracy of those products to create a product where a vacuum or sub-standard product exists.
None of those options require legislation. Money (2.5+ million so far) spent lobbying for this draconian legislation would be better spent implementing these options. We live in a digital world. It's time business practices adapted to reflect that. The argument has been made that the onus for this should not be on the owners of the copyrighted material to protect it, as the pirates are the ones in the wrong, but this isn't the case. Physical store owners/proprietors assume the costs for any protection of their store from vandalism and theft, such as locks, surveillance equipment, physical security, and electronic anti-theft measures. Virtual proprietors can and are already held to the same standards and have the same laws governing property and copyright protection as physical ones.
And this is on top of the fact that this draconian legislation won't even work. At least not as it's advertised. Its effectiveness already has work-arounds. There is already a "DeSopa" download that circumvents what they're trying to do to catch those sites and make them inaccessible. There will always be a workaround. This means that those sites will still be available, while legitimate sites like this one will be under constant threat, subject to censor, and/or shut down.
It's not that I condone or support piracy, it's that I condone and support the United States Constitution and the freedom of speech. This is not about theft; it's about censorship. And until they figure out the right way to do it, I cannot in good conscience support it.
There would be little point of me going dark, other than a meaningless gesture of defiance, so I'm sharing my own take on the subject as well as links to a few other blog posts I've found that discuss the dangers of SOPA and PIPA. I've written about this before, but it's an important subject, one everyone should understand.
I'm not the only one who has an opinion on this. Author Chuck Wendig shares his awesome take on it over on his blog, Terrible Minds. John Scalzi weighs in on it. Chris Heald has another solid write-up on it. Just Google it if you want to find more. They're not completely blacked out, but they do not support the bill. I'd tell you to use Wikipedia, but they're blacked out, which is what they'd be like if SOPA and PIPA pass. Experts have weighed in on this subject. And if you'd like to contribute your two cents on the subject, here is a good place to start.
And my thoughts on it? I talked about the following points elsewhere, and thought I'd share here. I've taken these points from the various experts speaking out against the bill and put them into my own words. Feel free to use this information when writing to your government representative(s) or passing along information about the subject.
SOPA will cause serious additional problems, including the following:
1. It would negatively impact U.S. and global cybersecurity. This means it would cause more security breaches and less effective security, possibly at the expense of national defense and U.S. business and commercial interests. Military and corporate espionage is already a problem that negatively impacts the U.S. and our way of life. This would exacerbate that problem.
2. It would negatively impact Internet functionality by eroding DNS structure, which is the opposite of the way technology is supposed to work. This is counter-intuitive to basic progress.
3. It would delay the full adoption of DNSSEC and its security improvements over DNS, which is what Internet folks have been trying to do to improve virtual security. This would create a less secure Internet environment in the future, less secure than the one we now have security issues with.
4. It would assign liability to site owners for everything users post, without consideration for whether or not the user posted without permission. Site owners could face jail time or heavy fines, and DNS blacklisting. This would probably shut down a site like Seahawks.NET, or at the very least, make it very inhospitable and undesirable to visit, killing any real amount of traffic to the site.
5. It would require web services like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter to monitor and aggressively filter everything all users upload, equating to a ton of extra manpower and energy, and tremendously reduced/filtered/censored content. This completely violates the constitutional right of the freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is not limited to any particular topics, agendas, or subjects, and is guaranteed. Copyright protection, which is supposedly the issue here is an entirely different subject than piracy, and abiding by copyright laws do not violate one's freedom of speech.
6. It would deny site owners due process of law, by initiating a DNS blacklisting based solely on a good faith assertion by an individual copyright or intellectual property owner. This completely violates due process of an individual as guaranteed by our judicial process.
7. It would give the U.S. government the power to selectively censor the web using techniques similar to those used in China, Malaysia and Iran. This is an Orwellian concept we as a nation have long stood against, and have spoken out against these practices with extreme vigor. Doing this would also cripple the U.S. as a viable destination for new online business, as it would make the establishment of one very undesirable, similar to how the online environments of China, Malaysia and Iran are currently.
A few of the options that would work to combat piracy:
1. Release products such as movies simultaneously worldwide. It costs nothing more to do this, and completely undermines the reasons people put pirated copies up in the first place. This would greatly cut back on the onslaught of pirated cam/DVD rips that make the products available where they are not yet legally released. This cuts back on piracy caused by people's inability to wait for a product's release, such as a highly anticipated movie debut.
2. Do away with DRM restrictions. They don't work at all, and only frustrate legitimate paid customers, encouraging them to pirate themselves. This would allow customers the ability to back up their purchased items. They should also not have to buy back their entire library/collection if a device becomes inoperable or they switch to a different platform. This cuts back on hoarding pirated copies of items a consumer wishes not to lose, even if they bought the product legally.
3. Release quality beta/test issues for products such as video games, allowing full previews of the product and enticing people to buy the item instead of illegally procuring it to see whether it's worth spending $60 bucks for. This cuts back tremendously on the "exploratory" type of piracy.
4. Provide quality updates and additional material and support for legally purchased products. This already has a proven track record for sales as products like AVG anti-virus software packages have shown. This does away with the need to pirate in the first place, as most of the product typically needed for the casual user is available at zero cost anyway.
5. Stop crippling content so that it only works on one device, or only works if the reader is given permission by a retailer or publisher to open the file. This again cuts back on piracy for ease of use or the sake of convenience.
6. Release quality digital works for those products that don't have them, such as movies and books. This would prevent piracy of those products to create a product where a vacuum or sub-standard product exists.
None of those options require legislation. Money (2.5+ million so far) spent lobbying for this draconian legislation would be better spent implementing these options. We live in a digital world. It's time business practices adapted to reflect that. The argument has been made that the onus for this should not be on the owners of the copyrighted material to protect it, as the pirates are the ones in the wrong, but this isn't the case. Physical store owners/proprietors assume the costs for any protection of their store from vandalism and theft, such as locks, surveillance equipment, physical security, and electronic anti-theft measures. Virtual proprietors can and are already held to the same standards and have the same laws governing property and copyright protection as physical ones.
And this is on top of the fact that this draconian legislation won't even work. At least not as it's advertised. Its effectiveness already has work-arounds. There is already a "DeSopa" download that circumvents what they're trying to do to catch those sites and make them inaccessible. There will always be a workaround. This means that those sites will still be available, while legitimate sites like this one will be under constant threat, subject to censor, and/or shut down.
This should be obvious to anyone at least somewhat educated on the subject, and especially to lawmakers. Which means either they're dumb as posts and truly believe it will work, or they are doing this only for increased Internet censorship ability and the silver coin lining their pockets from the Judas-like betrayal of the media conglomerates against the constitution.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Book Review: 1984
Even some of the works of the last couple of decades appear outdated with the advances in technology we've seen. Technological discoveries have increased exponentially over the last century, and even more so over the last few years.
This means a work of science fiction has a far greater chance of becoming dated even sooner than before. So how is it that some are able to stand the test of time to become classics, still viable after years? Let's take a look at a great example of one that has.
George Orwell's dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four has been a classic for many years, and still stands as cutting social commentary in today's world. Not only this, many of the unique words or phrases he used in the novel are a part of today's vernacular. We use the terms "thought police", "doublespeak", "groupthink", and "Big Brother" nowadays without hardly a thought as to their origins. In fact, even the author's name in the adjectival "Orwellian", has come to mean that of a totalitarian agenda, referring to revisionist history and manipulation of perception. The book itself conveys thoughts of nationalism, surveillance, privacy, and censorship, topics which are very much at the forefront of today's headlines. If anything, it becomes more and more valid as time goes by. Not bad for a novel first published in 1949.
So how did he do it? How did Orwell create such a masterpiece, that rings true and current even today and well into the future? How did he create a work of science fiction that does not seem to age much at all, even with the relatively recent explosion of new technology?
He used themes which are at the core of every civilization, and which strike chords close to everyone on an individual level. He made humanity the core element of his plot, with themes anyone can relate with. He did not rely solely on technology to drive the plot. And while technology does move the plot, with cameras and two-way television screens, the main force is of a very real human nature. The real focus of the book was the nature of the relationship between a government and its civilians, and even more compelling, the way the government turned each and every one of its citizens into spies against the rest.
The bad guy as it turns out in the book is much more than the ubiquitous Big Brother. While government entities under sanction of Big Brother are hard at work monitoring, censoring, and revising history, its very citizens are spying on each other. Everyone is a willing participant in the persecution they themselves are subject to, because although they never really know who's watching, someone is always watching. Whether it's an undercover agent of the Thought Police or a next door neighbor, when one is turned in for unacceptable behavior, it really doesn't matter who it was that turned them in. This perpetuates the cycle, and ingrains it into the children of the society who are taught warped ideals and beliefs from an early age.
Nineteen Eighty-Four is a fascinating tale that strikes to the core of our sense of values, morals and humanity. It gives us a horribly chilling view of a terrifying society at one extreme end of the spectrum, while offering a glimpse at the core of real humanity on a very personal level.
They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and George Orwell's masterpiece is a prime example of this. The book has been adapted a number of times in film, television, stage, radio, and many other media forms. It's seen countless derivatives spring up over the years, and has been the inspiration behind huge numbers of creative works. It's been a tremendous inspiration to me in my own writing, and I'm certain many other authors can say the same.
All in all, it's one of the best pieces of literature to come from the last century, and is something everyone should have on their bookshelf or in their e-reader.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)