censorship

Why Hong Kong Is Clamping Down On Creative Writing

by

This post by Madeleine Thien originally appeared on The Guardian on 5/18/15.

The decision to close City University’s MFA programme is plainly intended to limit free expression – showing just how vital it is

Last month, City University of Hong Kong abruptly shut down its MFA programme in creative writing. During Occupy Central – the campaign of mass civil disobedience that disrupted Hong Kong universities and brought part of the territory to a standstill for nearly three months last year – a number of our students had published essays in support of the demonstrations.

One of the most prominent was by lawyer Keane Shum, who wrote in Atlantic of his fears for Hong Kong in the face of increasing political interference from China. He said: “I choose words of protest. Others can bet against the march of democracy, but I still go with the better odds. I am a student no longer, but a dreamer, and a Hong Konger, always.”

For many in my generation, the images of class boycotts, calls for face-to-face meetings with senior leaders, and the decision by students to put their bodies in the way of police lines, brought back memories of the Tiananmen demonstrations of 1989. For writers, literature is a carrier of history. In Chinese, the word remembrance, jì yì, is a pun that can be heard two ways, 记忆 (to recall, record) and 技艺 (art). In the aftermath of Occupy Central, a chilling effect has taken root in Hong Kong’s academic institutions, most palpably in the territory’s top institution, Hong Kong University, described two weeks ago by media as “a campus on edge”.

 

Read the full post on The Guardian.

 

Fuck You, Clean Reader: Authorial Consent Matters

by

This post by Chuck Wendig originally appeared on his terribleminds site on 3/25/15. Note that it contains a lot of strong language, but as strong language and authorial consent are at the heart of this post we have not censored any of it in the title or excerpt here.

There exists a new app called Clean Reader.

The function of Clean Reader is to scrub the profanity from e-books.

Their tagline: “Read books. Not profanity.“

You can dial in how much of the profanity you want gone from the books.

Author Joanne Harris has roundly (and to my mind, correctly) condemned the app, and I would recommend you read about her and condemnation. I would further suggest you go on and read the email she received from the Clean Reader people and, more importantly, her response to that email. (Oh, also: check her tweets, too: @JoanneChocolat.)

I am an author where much of my work utilizes profanity. Because fuck yeah, profanity. Profanity is a circus of language. It’s a drunken trapeze act. It’s clowns on fire. And let’s be clear up front: profanity is not separate from language. It is not lazy language. It is language. Just another part of it. Vulgarity has merit. It is expressive. It is emotive. It is metaphor.

So, as someone with a whole pig wagon full of fucks at stake, let be be clear:

Fuck you, Clean Reader.

*cups hand to mouth*

Fuuuuuuck. Yoooooooou.

*fuckecho through the canyon of fucks*

Please let me condemn your app in whatever obscene gesture you find most obscene.

Let me unpack this a little.

When I write a book, I write it a certain way. I paint with words. Those words are chosen. They do not happen randomly. The words and sentences and paragraphs are the threads of the story, and when you pluck one thread from the sweater, the whole thing threatens to unravel — or, at least, becomes damaged. You may say, Well, Mister Wendig, surely your books do not require the profanity, to which I say, fuck you for thinking that they don’t. If I chose it, and the editor and I agree to keep it, then damn right it’s required. It’s no less required than a line of dialogue, or a scene of action, or a description of a goddamn motherfucking lamp. Sure, my book could exist without that dialogue, that action, that goddamn motherfucking lamp.

But I don’t want it to. That’s your book, not my book.

 

Read the full post on terribleminds.

 

Oxford University Press Bans Mention of Pork and Pigs in Books to 'Avoid Offending Muslims or Jews'

by

This post by Ewan Palmer originally appeared on International Business Times on 1/14/15.

One of the biggest education publishers in the world has warned its authors not to mention pigs or sausages in their books to avoid causing offence.

Oxford University Press (OUP) said all books must take into consideration other cultures if they hope to sell copies in countries across the world.

As a result, the academic publisher has issued guidance advising writers to avoid mentioning pigs or “anything else which could be perceived as pork” so as not to offend Muslim or Jewish people.

The move was revealed during a discussion on free speech during BBC Radio 4’s Today programme in the wake of the attack on French satirical magazine Charlie Hedbo and its decision to use an image of the Prophet Mohammed on the cover of its latest issue.

 

Read the full post on International Business Times.

 

Why Defend Freedom Of Icky Speech?

by

This post by Neil Gaiman originally appeared on his Neil Gaiman’s Journal on 12/1/08.

This is a bit long. Apologies. I’d meant to talk about other things, but I started writing a reply this morning to the letter that follows and I got a bit carried away.

– – – – –
I have questions about the Handley case. What makes lolicon something worth defending? Yaoi, as I understand it, isn’t necessarily child porn, but the lolicon stuff is all about sexualizing prepubescent girls, yes? And haven’t there been lots of credible psych studies saying that if you find a support community for a fetish, belief or behavior, you’re more likely to indulge in it? That’s why social movements are so important for oppressed or non-mainstream groups (meaning everything from the fetish community to free-market libertarianism) -and why NAMBLA is so very, very scary (they are, essentially, a support group for baby-rapists.)

The question, for me, is even if we only save ONE child from rape or attempted rape, or even just lots of uncomfortable hugs from Creepy Uncle Dave, is that not worth leaving a couple naked bodies out of a comic? It is, after all, more than possible to imply and discuss these issues (ex. if someone loses their virginity at 14, and chooses to write a comic about it) without having a big ol’ pic of 14 yr. old poon being penetrated as the graphic. I also think there’s a world of difference between the Sandman story-which depicts child rape as the horrific thing it is (and, I believe, also ends with a horrific death for the pervert, doesn’t it?) and depicting child rape as a sexy and titillating thing. I think there is also a difference between acknowledging children’s sexuality, and pornography about children that is created for adults. Where on this spectrum does something like lolicon fall? And, again, why do you, personally, think that it should be defended?

Thanks for reading my ramble, and for being accessible to us, and engaged in things like CBLDF. Mostly, they are a fantastic org., but I’m really on the fence with this case…

Jess
– – – – –

Let me see if I can push you off the fence, a little, Jess. I’m afraid it’s going to be a long, and probably a bit rambly answer — a credo, and how I arrived at that.

If you accept — and I do — that freedom of speech is important, then you are going to have to defend the indefensible. That means you are going to be defending the right of people to read, or to write, or to say, what you don’t say or like or want said.

The Law is a huge blunt weapon that does not and will not make distinctions between what you find acceptable and what you don’t. This is how the Law is made.

People making art find out where the limits of free expression are by going beyond them and getting into trouble.

 

Read the full post on Neil Gaiman’s Journal.

 

Charlie Hebdo Offends — And We Must Defend Its Right To Do So

by

This post by Bill Durodie originally appeared on The Week on 1/7/15.

The motive behind the tragic shootings at the headquarters of satirical weekly magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris has not yet been confirmed but it seems clear that there is a link between the publication’s stance on controversial content and the decision by several masked gunmen to launch such a murderous attack against the staff.

The perpetrators of the attack, in which 12 were killed and several more critically wounded, must be apprehended — but, more broadly, we also need to reaffirm the importance of absolute freedom of expression in an open society — regardless of how offensive it might be to some and, on occasion, how puerile it may become. The solution to bad ideas — as the enlightenment philosopher John Stuart Mill noted — is not censorship but more speech with which to counter them.

By all accounts Charlie Hebdo has certainly been scurrilous and provocative in the past and hasn’t relented in its approach since 2006, when it republished controversial cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad, or since 2011 when its offices were fire bombed. Recent front covers have poked fun not just at the Muslim prophet, but the pope, Jesus, Jews, various world leaders, and celebrities. Infantile as some of this may seem, it is also a reaction to an increasingly censorious society.

 

Read the full post on The Week.

 

Artists and Personal Responsibility, Or Why There's Nothing "Terrifying" Nor Even Surprising About Sony Pulling 'The Interview'

by

This post by Publetariat founder and Editor in Chief April L. Hamilton originally appeared on her Indie Author blog on 12/18/14 and is reprinted here in its entirety with her permission.

RE: The Interview, here’s a comment I posted in reply to Chuck Wendig’s blog post Art Held Hostage: Why Sony Not Releasing “The Interview” Is Scary. This is my response to those who say Sony’s decision to pull the Seth Rogen / James Franco comedy film The Interview, in which two hapless celebrity interviewers get an interview with Kim Jong Un and are pressed into service by the U.S. government to use their access to assassinate Un, is “terrifying”, “horrifying”, “scary” and lots of other hyperbolic adjectives:

– – – – –

Y’know, the go-to solution to this problem has always been not to name specific names. It’s one thing to make a film about a group of CIA operatives trying to take down “a Russian official” who’s made to look and sound like Putin but is given a totally different name (such that the audience knows exactly who’s being portrayed, even if it’s not explicitly stated), but it’s a horse of a different color when that same film is made and DOES have an actor portraying the REAL Putin. Naming ANY specific, real-life individual, especially the real-world leader of a sovereign nation, in a story that mocks that individual or lays out an assassination plot against that individual (that’s backed by the U.S. government) is asking for trouble. This is why the Roman A Clef has a long and celebrated history.

Sure, in a perfect world any artist should be able to make whatever art he or she wants so long as it doesn’t break actual laws or harm actual people. But there’s ‘a perfect world’ and the world we actually live in, which is populated by plenty of crazy and heavily-armed people, and when there’s a very simple alternative that can accomplish the same artistic ends *without* putting anyone’s data or lives at risk, why not just go with the alternative? Would you rather compromise a little and still get your art and message out there, or dig in your heels and see your art wielded as a tool to do gross injury to innocent people?

— END COMMENT —
–BEGIN COMMENTARY–

Whither the artist’s personal responsibility and common sense? Does the right to make a statement of some sort trump all other concerns, including the safety and security of innocent people?

A photo-realistic painting of hundreds of actual rape victims’ hospital ID bands would make a powerful statement about the numbers of girls and women who are victimized in such a way, but it would also be an irresponsible thing to put on display because it would make the victims’ identities public. And the artist should know that.

A performance art piece in which someone dressed as a police officer pretends to choke a black child to death in the middle of a town square, in plain view of passersby, while others dressed as police stand with their backs turned, would make a powerful statement about the de-facto police state that exists in many parts of this country. But it would also put everyone who’s participating at risk from people who don’t know it’s a performance art piece, and might step in to try and assist the “victim”. In this age of cell phones everywhere, it would also likely become an internet sensation of false reporting by well-meaning people who’d post their images and videos online with statements about ongoing police brutality, which in turn would foment more anger and hostility toward police in general. And the artist should know that.

My point is this: art is not “being held hostage” in this case. This is a case about a breathtaking lack of judgment on the part of Sony execs who greenlit this project without a thought about the entirely predictable fallout. It would’ve been a simple matter to tell Rogen and Franco their script could only be produced if the “dear leader” character were given a different name and and were put in charge of a fictional regime in a fictional country.

Before anyone cries, “CENSORSHIP!” stop and think it through. Would the substance of the film be altered to any significant degree? Would the jokes still work? Would the central message still be there for any who cared to hear it?

Now ask yourself: if that were the film Sony made, would thousands of innocent Sony employees still have their social security numbers and medical records leaked to the public? Would Sony’s servers still be wiped? Would we be hearing threats of terrorist acts against innocent moviegoers? I think not.

This is the juncture at which the Stand On Principle types usually chime in to say that forcing artists to consider the possible threats of hackers and terrorists when art is created effectively stifles the statements those artists want to make. But it doesn’t, as centuries of Roman A Clef novels have proven over and again: you can make your point and get your statement across without putting any innocents in harm’s way.

If you feel so strongly about whatever it is you want to say as an artist that you’re willing to be martyred for it, by all means go right ahead. If your statement puts others in harm’s way however, you better think pretty damned long and hard before making it. Who are you to decide for everyone else that your precious artistic integrity is worth the potential harm to others?

If there’s a way to make that same statement without bringing harm to other people and you still choose the route that makes sacrificial lambs of others—people you don’t even know—, I don’t care if you’re an artist or not, and I don’t care how important your statement may be: in my opinion, you’re just being selfish and irresponsible, and any harm that comes to others as a result of reactions to your art is your fault.

 

Censorship: Who Decides, and How?

by

This post by Dani Greer originally appeared on the Little Pickle Press blog on 6/25/14.

Yesterday, I wrote a bit about book banning and censorship, and posed the question: who should be the censor?

When I was growing up, it was my mother, who was German and not particularly well-read. I grew up with books like Struwwelpeter which in my not-so-humble opinion should be banned from the planet. But my mother, who has a quite common German sense of humor (i.e. different from American humor), adores this book and continues to buy it – now for her great-grandchildren. We have argued the point, and she will never understand my view that the book is violent and offensive, even as I can’t understand where she sees any humor in the collection of stories.

Now multiply that scenario by many books, and countless families, within many community schools and libraries and you can see the challenges of finding acceptable middle ground. Because, yes, a compromise must be reached in any arena in which funding is supplied by the general public. When taxpayers are involved, the greatest number of people must be pleased by their joint expenditures. It’s perhaps an impossibility in actuality, but my point is, that should be the goal of government. I know this stance will offend many small groups on the extreme right and left of an issue, but stick with me for a moment and pretend you agree that the best way to handle censorship is by pleasing the bell curve.

 

Click here to read the full post on the Little Pickle Press blog.

 

Writer Hopscotch

by

This post by Karin Cox originally appeared on Indie Chicks Café on 10/18/13. In it, she addresses the controversy surrounding Kobo’s decision to pull all indie titles submitted via Draft to Digital last fall.

It’s one step forward, and a jump to the left for self-publishing.

Two years ago, I decided to take my writing life in my hands and self-publish. At the time, I worked in the trade publishing industry and I saw the free-fall trade publishers were going into (either that or burying their heads in the sand) when it came to digitising titles. I also know how difficult and slow a process it was seeking out an agent and a contract and going through the mill. Frankly, I didn’t have the patience, and I saw the success others who had self-published were achieving.

Back then, in 2011, there was no Bookbub, Draft to Digitial, or Kobo writing life, and most international authors, like myself, were disadvantaged—receiving payment by cheque (or carrier pigeon) and unable to upload to some platforms. Since then, I’ve paddled through rivers of advice, both good and bad, trying to keep my self-publishing canoe afloat. Sometimes, I have found myself up the proverbial creek without a paddle. But one thing I have found is that, like most businesses, self-publishing is never static. It is very often a strange dance, or a game of hopscotch, leaping here and there in an effort to jump on the latest craze or publicity opportunity, or to avoid the pitfalls placed in your way.

Some of the advice I have received is purely commercial:

”Write in popular genres so you can make money and afford to write other books (like literary fiction or fantasy).”

“Upload directly so you get a better cut of the money.”

Some is more inspirational:

“Write what you love and the success will follow.”

“Don’t forget to live.”

And some is technical or logical: “Use smarturl and affiliate links to promote your books.”

“Ask for reviews in the back of your books”

“Change categories often using a list of popular keywords at http://www.keywordtooldominator.com/k/amazon-keyword-tool/”

“Price pulse to get on bestseller category lists.”

However, no matter whether you follow the advice or not, as a self-publisher you’re still at the mercy of the system, as many publishers of erotica and romance, and just novels in general, found out over on Kobo this week. In a knee-jerk reaction to some extremely questionable content published by a few unscrupulous authors, Kobo pulled all self-published titles that had been uploaded through the aggregator Draft to Digital—a simple-to-use and more efficient site for uploading as a one-stop shop to Apple, B&N and Kobo.

 

Click here to read the full post on Indie Chicks Café.