CENSORSHIP... moi?!

Great Debates
1

COULD I (and my “staff”) BE ACCUSED OF CENSORSHIP?

I was considering placing this in “General Questions” but I’d end up feeling pretty silly if it had to be moved to GD very soon anyway. So I’ll save the mods a step, most likely.

I am a “client” at a program that is one of the IPRTs * in town. We now have our own newsletter (for the first time in about 3 years, anyway). A workshop had at long last been scheduled with all participants in this particular class being, in theory, the newsletter staff.

Guess which fool volunteered to be Editor-in-Chief? :rolleyes:

Now, recently, the program had a special monthly meeting to discuss whether or not we celebrate Halloween, as we “always” have.

You, know, the Devil’s Holiday.

The original compainant is reported to have said something like, “If we as a group celebrate that, why can’t we have Baby Jesus in a crib as well for Christians?”

It didn’t go terribly well.

(The discussion was actually rather slow-going at first because the practitioner/spokesman decided to speak very generally of holidays as an issue, and threw in concerns about issues of religious and political devisiveness, including sexual orientation issues.)

But there was plenty of heat generated eventually, including considerable interrupting despite a hand-out sheet advising against it, distributed at the opening.

My problem is this:

I have already said to two individuals that, after the issue being put together the day each first spoke to me, they could submit opinion-oriented articles for the following issue.

One of the two folks is, not surprising, a very vocal woman who raised the Halloween issue, either alone or with a few others. The other is a gay man, who later told me that he had a piece on tolerance only in mind. He had approached me immediately after the heated discussion.

I’m thinking that we as a “community” (?) are not yet ready for it to be ideal for “guest editorials” in the newsletter. At this point it would tend to fan the flames, in my not-all-that-humble opinion.

I brought it up to the class yesterday morning at the scheduled class, just before charging the group off to put out the current issue (#2). The consensus I had hoped for was there. (The practitioner has been having me lately run all the classes, being present only for things like verifying attendance. This practice is probably a first at this IPRT, but not at a downtown cousin program. I have had the dubious privilege of teaching an intro computer class, along with two other clients. I thought THAT was hard.)

But one guy present gently voiced the same concern that I had in mind. “CENSORSHIP!” Or, at least, that’s what we (and I in particular) might be accused of.

Just before leaving yesterday afternoon I casually mentioned it to another practitioner, an Art Therapy teacher, and she warmly enough expressed the same concern.

Before I go rambling on too much more (as if I haven’t already), I have a question regarding a statement I intend to post prominently around here, and no doubt will have in an upcoming
issue.

Can I say with confidence that it is simply NOT “censorship” because that’s only what governments and other very powerful entities do? That every media unit has the right to exclude all controversy if they so choose? (And even perhaps select only their own and compatible voices to “air” for that matter?)

(I will also be offering that the policy will be subject to change, especially at the end of my own selF-suggested “term limit” of six months.)

( My term limit… SMART MOVE! :wink: )

And also that my policy will be “fair” all around, as would having everybody vent their spleens. But I would carefully explain the problems of the latter.)

True Blue Jack

  • IPRTs are “Intensive Psychiatric Rehabilitation Treatment” programs. A rather scary title for programs that require participants to have a fairly high level of stability to enter and remain in.
2

Any exercise of power to remove or suppress expression (in a given medium) is censorship. Where it becomes onerous is when it is imposed from the outside, particularly by a government trying to cover its ass. However, even an editor’s decision to suppress an Op-Ed piece can be considered censorship if the intention is to avoid “objectionable” material. (Removing a badly written piece that makes the paper and author look stupid is just an editor doing his job.)

The issue, if we remove the word “censorship” is one of a violation of Constitutional rights (at least in the U.S.). The First Amendment states that the Government cannot interfere in the publication of a free press. Of course, the publisher always has the opportunity (and responsibility) to control what is published.

You can probably spend hundreds of hours (and this thread might go to hundreds of posts), arguing over the application of the word censorship. Rather than getting mired in that discussion, I would suggest that you take a different approach: accept opinion pieces beginning on a future date when the publication has gotten itself established. This is not the suppression of speech, but simply a specific action to avoid implosion before you can get the thing running. (Once you’ve picked a date, stick with it.)

Regarding your specific situation, I am confused as to whether you are an adjunct governmental organization or private. What does “celebrate” mean in the context of a publication?

(Beyond that, in the interest of the Straight Dope®, you should probably point out that Hallowe’en has nothing to do with the devil, the connection to Celtic Samhain is an error, and it has been a purely secular holiday for well over 100 years.
What is the history of “Trick or treat” as a custom in the US?
And, more pertinently, Origins of Hallowe’en

Are you actually looking for a good working definition of censorship (in which case you’re probably in the right Forum, or are you looking for a practical solution to your problem, (in which case I will probably move this to IMHO)?

3

Let me see if I get this…

You’re putting out a newsletter & soliciting participation from your schizzies and bipolarites and so forth. A couple of them have contributed articles. You find the articles disturbing and controversial (?) and would like to leave them out of either the first issue (?) to be published perhaps in the second issue instead (?) or not at all (?).

Never mind the vocabulary lesson. I don’t care if you want to call it “censorship” or not. Calling it something else doesn’t make it better. (I do think you have sufficient administrative authority in this setting to do so, I just think it’s a piss-poor idea).

I think you should include the pieces. It’s not nice, empowering, or therapeutic to invite mental patients to participate in something and then snip out their participation if it has the possibility of ruffling someone’s feathers.

4

Oh oh. First, let me admit that I should have been more careful when paraphrasing what someone very religious had said.

I could have used another “roll-eyes” – this time directed at her, rather than at myself. That, however, might not have been very appropriate for GD, even though she is unnnamed. I’m rather “gunshy” after having my ad hominem pointed out in the “hellfire” thread.

Perhaps the best thing to have done would be to put it in quotes, to show that this was another’s opinion.

Sorry about that.

True Blue Jack

5

The former. I originally tried Wikipedia for a definition, but it left unanswered questions in my mind.

Presenting the policy as a moratorium on opinion pieces strikes me as a helpful suggestion. Thank you.

True Blue Jack