babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » culture   » Theatre censorship in NYC

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Theatre censorship in NYC
FourteenRivers
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9863

posted 28 February 2006 09:53 PM      Profile for FourteenRivers        Edit/Delete Post
...from an email I received today from Theatres Against War:


News story today in The Guardian (UK) and NY Times.

Rickman slams 'censorship' of play about US Gaza activist

Julian Borger in Washington, Tuesday February 28, 2006, The Guardian

http://arts.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1719693,00.html

A New York theatre company has put off plans to stage a play about an American activist killed by an Israeli bulldozer in Gaza because of the current "political climate" - a decision the play's British director, Alan Rickman, denounced yesterday as "censorship". James Nicola, the artistic director of the New York Theatre Workshop, said it had never formally announced it would be staging the play, My Name is Rachel Corrie, but it had been considering staging it in March.


"In our pre-production planning and our talking around and listening in our communities in New York, what we heard was that after Ariel Sharon's illness and the election of Hamas, we had a very edgy situation," Mr Nicola said.

"We found that our plan to present a work of art would be seen as us taking a stand in a political conflict, that we didn't want to take."

He said he had suggested a postponement until next year.

Mr Rickman, best known for his film acting roles in Love, Actually and the Harry Potter series and who directed the play at London's Royal Court Theatre, denounced the decision.

"I can only guess at the pressures of funding an independent theatre company in New York, but calling this production "postponed" does not disguise the fact that it has been cancelled," Mr Rickman said in a statement.

"This is censorship born out of fear, and the New York Theatre Workshop, the Royal Court, New York audiences - all of us are the losers."

[...]

My Name is Rachel Corrie consists of her diary entries and emails home, edited by Mr Rickman and Katharine Viner, features editor of The Guardian. It won the best new play prize at this year's Theatregoers' Choice Awards in London.

NY Times Artivcle

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/theater/newsandfeatu res/28thea.html?ex=1141794000&en=6510458956b6ccfc&ei=5070&emc=eta1

February 28, 2006
Play About Demonstrator's Death Is Delayed
By JESSE McKINLEY
A potential Off Broadway production of "My Name Is Rachel Corrie," an acclaimed solo show about an American demonstrator killed by an Israeli bulldozer while trying to stop the destruction of a Palestinian home, has been postponed because of concerns about the show's political content.

The production, a hit at the Royal Court Theater in London last year, had been tentatively scheduled to start performances at the New York Theater Workshop in the East Village on March 22. But yesterday, James C. Nicola, the artistic director of the workshop, said he had decided to postpone the show after polling local Jewish religious and community leaders as to their feelings about the work.

"The uniform answer we got was that the fantasy that we could present the work of this writer simply as a work of art without appearing to take a position was just that, a fantasy," he said.

In particular, the recent electoral upset by Hamas, the militant Palestinian group, and the sickness of Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, had made "this community very defensive and very edgy," Mr. Nicola said, "and that seemed reasonable to me."

The play, which received strong reviews in London, follows the story of Rachel Corrie, an idealistic American demonstrator and Palestinian-rights activist who was crushed to death in March 2003 in the Gaza Strip.

The play was written by the actor Alan Rickman, who directed the piece, and Katherine Viner, a journalist at The Guardian newspaper in London, who pieced together snippets of Ms. Corrie's journals and e-mail messages to create the script. And while the show had not been formally announced, Ms. Viner said yesterday that she and Mr. Rickman had already bought plane tickets to see the production at the workshop.

"I was devastated and really surprised," Ms. Viner said in a telephone interview from London. "And in my view, I think they're misjudging the New York audience. It's a piece of art, not a piece of agitprop."

[...]

EDITED TO REMOVE PARAGRAPHS IN ACCORDANCE WITH COPYRIGHT "COMPLAINTS"

[ 28 February 2006: Message edited by: FourteenRivers ]


From: Quebec | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
kuri
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4202

posted 28 February 2006 09:56 PM      Profile for kuri   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wow! Two copyright violations in one!
From: an employer more progressive than rabble.ca | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
FourteenRivers
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9863

posted 28 February 2006 10:06 PM      Profile for FourteenRivers        Edit/Delete Post
Huh? I got it in an email. What's wrong with re-posting it? I'll go back and edit it to remove some paragraphs if that is what the problem is...In any case, here's more on the play.
From: Quebec | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
kuri
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4202

posted 28 February 2006 11:01 PM      Profile for kuri   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's just that if the entire article is reprinted, rabble.ca is legally vulnerable. Taking out a couple of paragraphs will probably make it fine.
From: an employer more progressive than rabble.ca | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
FourteenRivers
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9863

posted 01 March 2006 03:13 AM      Profile for FourteenRivers        Edit/Delete Post
OK - done! Now let's start this discussion. Is the cancellation of the play in NYC politically motivated, and what needs to be done next? Personally, I think the show should be invited to an alternate venue. I think the producers are chicken-sh*t to get this award-winning play onto the stgae. Someone has to take the risk, and I am glad organizations like THAW (Theatres Against War) and the iF exist to potentially allow thw play to play.

[ 01 March 2006: Message edited by: FourteenRivers ]


From: Quebec | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 01 March 2006 03:21 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think that is a great idea. So how do you propse to do it. Have them tour Canada? Let me know if I can assist, I have some experieince in these things. Perhaps a quick tour Montreal, Quebec C., Ottawa, Toronto, and Windsor.....
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
FourteenRivers
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9863

posted 01 March 2006 02:16 PM      Profile for FourteenRivers        Edit/Delete Post
Good idea cueball! At the moment there is a concerted response in the Big Apple:

quote:
I have asked NoPassport to save April 10 on their calendar for a town meeting/pen and swill at New Dramatists. I am waiting to a) hear back from ND if they have space in the bldg available that day (I should know in a few days), and b) from NYC NoPers if they can make it. I have a copy of MY NAME IS RACHEL CORRIE in hand, as I picked it up when I was in London last spring. Of course any airing need be reckoned with Alan Rickman and the Royal Court. I can contact Elyse Dodgson at the Royal Court about this but her domain is mainly International work, focusing on Germany, France and South American exchange. Diane Borger is the person we would need to go to. If there is a way, if we're keen, to e-mail Diane as a group body to ask her for permission to even read excerpts from the piece as part of the evening, that's be swell. Her e-mail is [email protected]
as I last have it on file. Let me know your thoughts.

Thanks
Caridad x

c/o New Dramatists
424 West 44th Street
NY, NY 10036 USA
212-886-1814
[email protected]

I'll get back to the board once I figure out how this is going to work. I certainly think a tour in Canada is a good idea.


From: Quebec | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
FourteenRivers
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9863

posted 01 March 2006 02:53 PM      Profile for FourteenRivers        Edit/Delete Post
This just in...

Diane Borger,
and ICM, London

I am writing as founder of NoPassport, a pan american theatre coalition devoted to expressions of diversity and difference against censorship in the US (and the world), and also as resident dramatist of New Dramatists in New York City, and editorial board member of Contemporary Theatre Review (Routldege/UK). Below is essay I have
submitted to NY Times and other wire services regarding the censorship of Mr. Rickman's My Name is Rachel Corrie by NYTW.

In addition I am organizing a town hall meeting/forum through NoPassport and Theatres Against War on the issue of self-censorship
and the silencing of voices in the US. Is there any way possible to even read excerpts from Mr. Rickman's beautiful, humane text as part of this evening in NYC on 10 April 2006? There would be no admission charge for the event. It would be strictly in the spirit of an evening of practitioners and arts advocates giving voice and space to the censored. Please let me know what is possible.

Many thanks for your time. Please give Elyse Dodgson my fond best.

Caridad Svich
resident playwright, New Dramatists, NYC
founder, NoPassport
editorial board, Contemporary Theatre Review (Routledge/UK)
[email protected]
www.caridadsvich.com

***************************************
The Censorship of MY NAME IS RACHEL CORRIE
by Caridad Svich

Alan Rickman's My Name is Rachel Corrie is an affecting, thoughtful, personal and highly considerate play about one woman's journey through activisim. It is a play of passions, contradictions, confusion, and the high price paid for sticking to your beliefs. On 28 Feb 2006, the Arts section of the NY Times reported on New York Theatre Workshop's postponement of possible production of My Name is Rachel Corrie this March. NYTW is a theatre that has supported and championed extraordinary artists from abroad and here in the US to do consistently challenging, sometimes radical artistic work. It is a company that has stood apart even through tough financial times by its commitment to daring work. At a time when a climate of fear is
insidiously embedded in our culture, it is deeply troubling to witness one of NYC's most adventurous and progressive theatres succumbing to this culture through the postponement of a play that examines the Palestinian side of the Middle East situation through Anglo eyes. Censorship and self-censorship has become embedded for some time in US discourse theatrical and not. It is increasingly of vital concern to
address and re-dress the issue of censorship as to the wider interrelated effects of funding, access (allowed and disallowed), and the sleeping channels at the helm of many of the wheels of
semi-commerce in our midst (good intentions or not).

What artists can do is make through their art work that stands apart and against what is allowed in a state of fear. If we can learn
anything from our sister countries who undergo more overt arts censorship, it is that the fight to resist is an urgent one, and one that occurs even at the risk of death. Reinforcing a language of terror or one that bows to terror in its many insidious and co-opted forms (including not letting certain voices to be heard for fear of
offending certain members of the audience and funding bodies) reinforces a weak culture. One of art's jobs is to look at society's ills and try to offer a possible diagnosis at the very least of where we are at and why. At best, art goes further than a diagnostic and actually offers the possibility of transformation. At a time when
privacy is being stolen from us and our public space is being sold to the highest bidder, does it not behoove out arts presenters to stand up for the multi-valent voice of the artist, and a text like Rickman's that simply, honestly and with compassion presents another view? Even at the risk of possible offense?

As artists and arts presenters, we have a stake in the future, and the society our children live in and their children will live in. if we teach our fellow citizens and future leaders that it is best to suppress a voice from the stage because it may appear as if we are taking a position by presenting it, then we are not only underestimating our audiences - our public - and their ability to glean from a work of arts its shared humanity, but we are abandoning (or certainly putting on dangerous hold) our essential moral responsibility as citizens and artists to tell stories and allow stories to be told, even if they hurt.


From: Quebec | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
FourteenRivers
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9863

posted 03 March 2006 01:50 PM      Profile for FourteenRivers        Edit/Delete Post
OK, here's what's going on:

quote:
The Coalition
We are coordinating a broad-based coalition of peace and justice groups, human rights groups, theatre groups, civil rights groups, and individuals to respond to this censorship of Rachel's words with a strong and unified approach. March 16, the third anniversary of Rachel's death, is a compelling date on which to do this. We are looking at a multi-pronged approach, encompassing both AN EVENT and A WORLD-WIDE ACTION.

The Event
A staged theatrical reading in New York City (on or near March 16th) of My Name is Rachel Corrie. We are inviting Megan Dodds and Alan Rickman, the actor and director of the Royal Court production to do the reading, but because they are mounting the show now at a theatre in London, it is unlikely that they will be able to come. In that case, we are working on finding high-profile actors in New York to do a reading of the play. If rights are not granted for the play itself, a highly publicized staged theatrical reading of Rachel's e-mails and writings can still take place. The NYTW claimed, among other reasons, that they didn't have enough time to put on the show. Let's prove them wrong. We are doing outreach so this event can be staged in multiple cities nationally and world-wide if the correct permissions are granted.

The World-Wide Action
Over a 24-hour period throughout March 16, the third anniversary of Rachel's death, activists in cities world-wide in a public space reading (with or without a loud-speaker or microphone) Rachel's e-mails and journal entries. Fliers can be distributed to passers-by encouraging them to ask the question for themselves: Why are people so frightened of Rachel Corrie's words? New York activists please note that March 16th coincides with the gala opening of the Made in Palestine exhibition (6-9PM), and the Free the P Hip-hop Slam & Party (show starts 9:30PM). Please plan accordingly so as not to overlap events.

What We Are Asking
Please endorse this initiative, and join this coalition. It's not meant to replace any plans that groups may already have for March 16th or individual responses to the cancellation of the play (expressing feelings to the NYTW, writing op-eds, etc.) but to support them. In fact, we are hoping that a unified action, world-wide, and with press coverage will ensure that Rachel's words are heard more widely than ever and, through her words, her message of human rights and justice will be heard as well. If you already have an event planned for March 16, perhaps reading from Rachel's e-mails can be incorporated into or before/after your event. Groups and individuals can sign on.



From: Quebec | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
FourteenRivers
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9863

posted 03 March 2006 03:16 PM      Profile for FourteenRivers        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
from Vanessa Redgrave,March 3 2006

I am urging the Royal Court Theatre to SUE the New York Theatre Workshop for the cancellation of the production of "My Name Is Rachel Corrie"Not because I donated money for this production,which the Royal Court have been fundraising for; a target of £50,000 pounds,underwritten by Alan Rickman.

This is censorship of the worst kind.More awful even than that.It is black-listing a dead girl and her diaries.A very brave and exceptional girl who all citizens,whatever their faith or nationality,should be proud and grateful for her existence.They could'nt silence her voice while she lived, so she was killed. Her voice began to speak again as Alan Rickman read her diaries, and Megan Dodds became Rachel Corrie.Now the New York Theatre Workshop have silenced that dear voice.I shall never forget the glimpse, at the close of Alan Rickman's production, of Rachel when 10 years old, shot on a little family movie camera, making her speech about world poverty and the urgent need to end the misery.The New York Theatre Workshop have silenced that little girl, as well as the girl who confronted the Israeli army Caterpillar bulldozer.

There has to be a court case on the sheer fact of the cancellation of this production.I suppose lawyers were consulted about the word"postponed",We in the theatre know however what cancelling a production means, whatever words are used.Megan Dodds, and a crew lose their jobs.The Royal Court Theatre lose a production,that was a few weeks from opening in New York City.
For the Royal Court Theatre were producing "Rachel Corrie", with the New York Theatre Workshop, and putting up a lot of money,$100,000 dollars.

I hope that all theatre artists,writers,designers,actors,directors,independent producers and artists' representatives will make their protests known publicly as well as directly to the NYTW management.I hope that American Actors Equity will be asked to take up and support the Royal Court Theatre producer ,Elyse Dodgson, the director,Alan Rickman, and the actress Megan Dodds.

If this cancellation is not transformed into a new production, somewhere in New York,immediately, we would be complicit,all of us,in a catastrophe that must not be allowed to take place.This play, is not about taking sides.It is about protecting human beings.In this case, Palestinian human beings who have no protection, for their families, their homes or their streets.Rachel Corrie gave her life to protect a family.She did'nt have or use a gun or bomb.She had her huge humanity, and she gave that to save lives.

Yours, Vanessa Redgrave

From: Quebec | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
FourteenRivers
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9863

posted 06 March 2006 02:30 PM      Profile for FourteenRivers        Edit/Delete Post
MARCH 5 UPDATE AND STATEMENT TO ENDORSE:

The “Rachel’s Words” initiative is intended to be a broad spectrum of groups and individuals who believe that Rachel’s words and her message of human rights and justice should be heard. We hope that Rachel’s Words will open the door for other equally important and silenced voices. We resist the pervasive climate of fear and challenge to free speech that is increasingly prevalent in our society. Rachel wrote about issues that concern us all. People must have the opportunity to hear her message and decide for themselves what they think. Nobody's agenda should stand in theway of that.

HOW TO ENDORSE THIS INITIATIVE:
Please write an e-mail to [email protected] and write ENDORSEMENT in the subject. Include the following information:

GROUP ENDORSEMENTS: the name of your group and the city and country in which you are located. If you are an international group, please indicate.

INDIVIDUAL ENDORSEMENTS: your first and last name, a group with which you are associated and position within that group, and the city and country of your residence. If you are not associated with a group, simply state your name, title (if desired) and city and country.

From: Quebec | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
mary123
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6125

posted 06 March 2006 08:30 PM      Profile for mary123     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Let's see all those bloated right wingers fevered egos defend this case of censorship.

Ah freedom of expression ... nothing like it, eh you right wing hypocrites.


From: ~~Canada - still God's greatest creation on the face of the earth~~ | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 06 March 2006 09:03 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by mary123:
Let's see all those bloated right wingers fevered egos defend this case of censorship.

Ah freedom of expression ... nothing like it, eh you right wing hypocrites.


What censorship?


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 06 March 2006 11:25 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
uh, the theatre's refusal to stage the play.

That can only be considered censorship, given the play's subject matter.


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 06 March 2006 11:56 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Censorship is traditionally the sole purvue of the state.

This is nothing more than a theater canceling a show, all the protests to the contrary notwithstanding.


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 07 March 2006 12:59 AM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If they cancelled the show because they feared the controversy the play's ideas and theme might cause, it IS censorship.

Censorship has never been the exclusive purview of the state. All sorts of institutions practice it. When CBS Television refused to allow Pete Seeger to sing "Waist Deep in The Big Muddy" on THE SMOTHERS BROTHERS SHOW, CBS was practicing censorship.

It was also censorship when MTV or Much Music refused to air videos because the material was controversial.

And it was censorship when Google agreed to voluntarily block access to websites discussing democracy, the Tienenman Square Massacre or Tibetan independence on its Chinese server.

Any time the dissemination of ideas is blocked or restricted it is cersorship.

[ 07 March 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 07 March 2006 09:57 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And likewise, when a newspaper doesn't print your letter to the editor, that's also censorship.

Right?

In this case, I can't help wondering whether maybe they just didn't really see a play about Rachel Corrie selling tickets. Sometimes theatres try to recoup their losses that way.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
lucas
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6446

posted 07 March 2006 10:09 AM      Profile for lucas     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"... If they cancelled the show because they feared the controversy the play's ideas and theme might cause, it IS censorship...."

Is this similar to not publishing cartoons for fear of controversy over possible offense being taken by some groups?

Just wondering.


From: Turner Valley | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
brebis noire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7136

posted 07 March 2006 10:32 AM      Profile for brebis noire     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
And likewise, when a newspaper doesn't print your letter to the editor, that's also censorship.

Right?


Cf faulty rhetoric list: bad analogy.

I love how you're quite the defender of stupid offensive, and needlessly provocative cartoons, but when it comes to thoughtful productions with real political and intellectual impact, you're totally out to lunch.

But keep it up, it's so paradoxically illuminating.


From: Quebec | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 07 March 2006 10:38 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How are those two opinions in any way contradictory? I support the right of the newspaper to print, or not print, cartoons, and I support the right of the theatre company to present, or not present, this play.

I also support the right of a newspaper to print, or not print, a letter to the editor. But if this (not presenting a play) is censorship, so is that.

ed'd to add: this was the working definition: "Any time the dissemination of ideas is blocked or restricted it is cersorship."

[ 07 March 2006: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 07 March 2006 11:03 AM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If they cancelled the show because they feared the controversy the play's ideas and theme might cause, it IS censorship.
Censorship has never been the exclusive purview of the state. All sorts of institutions practice it. When CBS Television refused to allow Pete Seeger to sing "Waist Deep in The Big Muddy" on THE SMOTHERS BROTHERS SHOW, CBS was practicing censorship.

It was also censorship when MTV or Much Music refused to air videos because the material was controversial.

And it was censorship when Google agreed to voluntarily block access to websites discussing democracy, the Tienenman Square Massacre or Tibetan independence on its Chinese server.


And, by that standard, it was censorship the last time some "recent-rabble-rouser" got his loser ass kicked off the board for gracing us all with "god made adam and eve, not adam and steve!"


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
brebis noire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7136

posted 07 March 2006 11:21 AM      Profile for brebis noire     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by voice of the damned:

And, by that standard, it was censorship the last time some "recent-rabble-rouser" got his loser ass kicked off the board for gracing us all with "god made adam and eve, not adam and steve!"



um, since when is rabble/babble 'the state'?


From: Quebec | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
brebis noire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7136

posted 07 March 2006 11:21 AM      Profile for brebis noire     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
dp

[ 07 March 2006: Message edited by: brebis noire ]


From: Quebec | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
F.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10725

posted 07 March 2006 11:24 AM      Profile for F.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
it was censorship the last time some "recent-rabble-rouser" got his loser ass kicked off the board

Usually the offending comment is left for other members to see. The comparison you are making would be more accurate if Audra read our contributions beforehand and refrained from posting the "loser" comments.


From: here | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 07 March 2006 11:25 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
um, since when is rabble/babble 'the state'?

It became "the state" at the same time that Jyllands-Posten, The Sheaf, and the New York Theatre Workshop did.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 07 March 2006 11:35 AM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by voice of the damned:

And, by that standard, it was censorship the last time some "recent-rabble-rouser" got his loser ass kicked off the board for gracing us all with "god made adam and eve, not adam and steve!"

um, since when is rabble/babble 'the state'?


I politely refer you to Ken Burch's new-fangled definition of censorship:

quote:
Censorship has never been the exclusive purview of the state.

I personally don't buy this definition for a second. I'm just saying that if you DO buy it, and if you accept all of Burch's other examples of "censorship", then kicking the latest Free Dominion refugee off of babble qualifies as well.


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 07 March 2006 11:40 AM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
quote:

votd wrote:
it was censorship the last time some "recent-rabble-rouser" got his loser ass kicked off the board

F wrote:

Usually the offending comment is left for other members to see. The comparison you are making would be more accurate if Audra read our contributions beforehand and refrained from posting the "loser" comments.


Okay, let me fine-tune my example. I submit a column to rabble, explaining how god made adam and eve not adam and steve and this should guide public policy in Canada today. Auntie decides not to run it on babble. According to Burch's definiton(see below), that is censorsip.

quote:
"Any time the dissemination of ideas is blocked or restricted it is cersorship."

[ 07 March 2006: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
brebis noire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7136

posted 07 March 2006 11:49 AM      Profile for brebis noire     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by voice of the damned:

I personally don't buy this definition for a second. I'm just saying that if you DO buy it, and if you accept all of Burch's other examples of "censorship", then kicking the latest Free Dominion refugee off of babble qualifies as well.


OK, I was misreading something there. I also think that the state has developed extremely subtle, effective and secretive ways of promoting censorship - ça s'opère dans les coulisses...and that most media outlets are in tune with these methods and are therefore highly sensitive to what may or may not pass. Or at least their lawyers are.


From: Quebec | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 07 March 2006 11:58 AM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
that most media outlets are in tune with these methods and are therefore highly sensitive to what may or may not pass. Or at least their lawyers are.

Yes, but it's also just possible that in New York, a city where I'm guessing a lot of people are pro-Israeli, the theatre might attract negative attention(protests, boycotts etc) by portraying Rachel Corrie in a positive light. And if THAT is the type of pressure they were giving into, that ISN'T censorhip at all. People have the right to picket or boycott a theatre, and the theatre has a right to plan its scedule so as to avoid picketting and boycott.

And IF the theatre's decision not to run a pro-Palestinian piece is evidence of subtle government censorship, how come similarly pro-Palestian pieces still run in The Nation, The Progressive, etc? Surely those magazines, which are circulated throughout the USA, have AT LEAST as wide an audience as one theatre in New York.


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
F.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10725

posted 07 March 2006 01:17 PM      Profile for F.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I personally don't buy this definition for a second.

No doubt you remember the chill effect created when Ed Meese wrote his nasty letters in the 1980's, describing publications that he alone felt were "pornographic", which resulted in various magazines like Rolling Stone being pulled from many American stores.

Taking Meese's lead, Jerry Falwell sent out similar letters to Walmart (among others) which resulted in the voluntary removal of such subversive material as Tiger Beat. I believe Falwell and Meese both referred to this unconstitutional form of censorship as "sending a message."


From: here | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 07 March 2006 01:24 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Uh, wasn't Ed Meese the Attorney General? That's a bit different, doncha think?

In this case, the best analogy would be the stores themselves choosing not to sell certain magazines. Is that "censorship" of those magazines??

If not, then a theatre choosing not to present a play isn't either.

If so, I guess my local variety store will be obligated to sell about 10,000 different magazines.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
FourteenRivers
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9863

posted 07 March 2006 02:21 PM      Profile for FourteenRivers        Edit/Delete Post
Press Release From the Royal Court:

We have been surprised to read recent assertions made by James Nicola, Artistic Director of the New York Theatre Workshop, surrounding the run of MY NAME IS RACHEL CORRIE which had been scheduled to play there in March, April and May 2006. There are many factual inaccuracies which we would like to address.

Plans for the production of MY NAME IS RACHEL CORRIE were definite. Representatives of the Royal Court met with NYTW in New York to finalise arrangements seven days before learning that Mr Nicola wished to postpone the run indefinitely. The production schedule had already been laid out by the NYTW on January 31st, with the first preview scheduled for March 22nd and closing night for May 14th; a budget had been set; a press release had been mutually agreed; flights had been booked and paid for, all with the knowledge of New York Theatre Workshop. Furthermore, ticket information was already listed on the site of the US ticketing agency Telecharge on February 23rd, 2006 with the correct information about dates, times, original creative team and casting.

Asking for a postponement at this stage in the planning can hardly be described as “a rather routine question, so we thought, of our colleagues” as Mr Nicola says in his statement on the NYTW website.

In the same statement, and in a letter to the LA Times of March 5, 2006, Mr. Nicola claims that “With a schedule largely driven by Alan Rickman’s pre-existing films commitments, we had less than two months to consider mounting the production.” In fact, Alan Rickman first visited the New York Theatre Workshop to discuss the possibility of staging MY NAME IS RACHEL CORRIE in November 2005. The dates of the production were determined by availability at the theatre, and Mr Rickman’s film schedule was to be ordered around this. He held back from making any film commitments until after the dates were offered and confirmed by NYTW.

In the New York Times on February 28th, 2006, in an article titled, ‘Play about Demonstrator’s Death is Delayed’, it is reported that Mr Nicola decided to postpone the work “after polling local Jewish religious and community leaders as to their feelings about the work.” This much he had explained to Diane Borger, General Manager of the Royal Court, during a phone conversation on February 17th, in which he asked to “postpone indefinitely” the production. In a later conversation, he said he would be willing to reassess the political climate in a year’s time and decide then if he could produce the piece with a companion work that would offer an alternative perspective. As explained to Mr. Nicola, this was not acceptable to the Royal Court, as he gave no commitment at this time to revised dates for the production at NYTW. The Royal Court and the Corrie Family have always believed that the play speaks for itself. In the words of Rachel’s father, Craig Corrie, “No one should have to take a poll to do this play; it is a work of art.”

A postponement at any time, but especially at this late stage, is not the action of an organisation committed to producing MY NAME IS RACHEL CORRIE. The Royal Court cannot be confident that the political climate will have changed in a year’s time, and we are deeply saddened that New York Theatre Workshop feels unable to let the play be seen now. However, the Royal Court remains committed to bringing MY NAME IS RACHEL CORRIE to a US audience at the earliest opportunity.


From: Quebec | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
FourteenRivers
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9863

posted 07 March 2006 02:26 PM      Profile for FourteenRivers        Edit/Delete Post
There is also a petition that you can sign if you like:

quote:
To: James C. Nicola, Artistic Director, New York Theatre Workshop
Dear Mr. Nicola,

We, the undersigned, write you in the spirit of friendship and collegiality regarding your recent decision to postpone New York Theater Workshop’s production of My Name is Rachel Corrie by Alan Rickman and Katharine Viner. We are heartened to hear of your continued commitment to the play and we urge you to continue with production as soon as possible.

As both you and we know, New York Theater Workshop has a history of supporting and championing extraordinary artists from abroad and here in the United States, and of producing consistently daring, sometimes radical art. Yours is a company that has stood apart, even during tough financial times, by your integrity and commitment to challenging artistic work. We would like to remind you that your decision to postpone comes at a time when a climate of fear has become embedded in our culture, when our shared commitment to free speech is being challenged from many sides, whether by government repression, private media outlets, or organized interest groups. While one might argue that it is unfair that your actions are being judged in this context, it is unfortunately the world in which we all now find ourselves. We understand that Israel and Palestine are in uncertain territory yet again, and that this is an issue that raises intense passions on all sides. However, we also feel that these realities are unlikely to change soon, and that the most viable alternative to the violence that roils the Middle East is not less speech, but more, and more constructive, speech.

We believe that, in many cases, art is inseparable from politics, and we respectfully ask that you continue in the tradition of courage that NYTW has established—and that you look to the examples of courageous theater artists like Henrik Ibsen, Paul Robeson, Arthur Miller, Lillian Hellman, Athol Fugard, Vaclav Havel, Peter Sellars, Larry Kramer, Tony Kushner, John Belluso, Kia Corthron—more artists than we could ever possibly include here—and find the strength to continue with My Name is Rachel Corrie. The price of not raising these issues is infinitely greater than the price of raising them. Despite any of our best intentions, your decision on this play will send a powerful signal to artists and arts institutions alike, both about the mission and integrity of your theater and about the acceptable boundaries of conversation on this or any topic.

Mr. Nicola, when you say that you are committed to My Name Is Rachel Corrie, we intend to take you at your word—and hold you to it. This includes seeking an answer about why you chose to consult with "local Jewish religious and community leaders" about the work. Such polling is deeply worrying to many of us who are your audience, donors, collaborators, and community. We will be watching to see what you do in the coming days and months. You have an opportunity to make an historic decision. We urge you to come down on the side of peace, justice, and open discussion.


Sincerely,

The Undersigned



From: Quebec | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 07 March 2006 02:44 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I love how you're quite the defender of stupid offensive, and needlessly provocative cartoons, but when it comes to thoughtful productions with real political and intellectual impact, you're totally out to lunch.

Could it be that what you consider a thoughtful production James C. Nicola considers needlessly provocative?

One man's science is another man's religion and all that.


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 07 March 2006 02:47 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, well we certainly don't need art that is provocative, needless or otherwise.

As for Magoo, it has nothing to do with free speech or artistic merit, he just can't help sucking up to the boss man.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
FourteenRivers
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9863

posted 07 March 2006 03:06 PM      Profile for FourteenRivers        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Could it be that what you consider a thoughtful production James C. Nicola considers needlessly provocative?

Then why did he decide to host the play in the first place? Here is his excuse, which is dealt with above by the RCT:

quote:
Regarding MY NAME IS RACHEL CORRIE

New York Theatre Workshop did not cancel or censor “My Name is Rachel Corrie” and we are saddened by these charges. With a schedule largely driven by director Alan Rickman’s pre-existing film commitments, we had less than two months to consider mounting the production. In even attempting this unusually short timeline, this theatre distinguished itself from most others.

When we found that there was a very strong possibility that a number of factions, on all sides of a political conflict, would use the play as a platform to promote their own agendas, we asked a rather routine question, or so we thought, to our London colleagues about altering the time frame. Our intent in asking for the postponement was to allow us enough time to contextualize the work so Rachel Corrie’s powerful voice could best be heard above the din of others shouting for their own purposes.
We were never for a second concerned about the response from people who actually sat in the theater and experienced the work. Our commitment to “My Name is Rachel Corrie” has never wavered.
To have our request for more time blown into a screed about censorship is quite stunning.

James Nicola
Artistic Director, New York Theatre Workshop



From: Quebec | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 07 March 2006 03:41 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by FourteenRivers:
When we found that there was a very strong possibility that a number of factions, on all sides of a political conflict, would use the play as a platform to promote their own agendas,

It sounds like this is another way of saying "needlessly provocative".

His reply seems perfectly reasonable.


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 07 March 2006 06:07 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:

It sounds like this is another way of saying "needlessly provocative".


It sounds like this is another way of saying "no way in hell will we stage this play while it still matters. We're gutless cowards and we don't care who knows it"

No one who says anything like Nicola did in the letter above has any business being in theatre.
They'll probably do something like "Abie's Irish Rose" in its place.

[ 07 March 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 07 March 2006 06:23 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So you're going on record as saying that in a year or two, Rachel Corrie's story won't matter? But it does now?

It's a play. And you're talking like it's the "Good News" that Christians are always rabbiting on and on about. Like our lives are just empty without it. Like the world will be plunged into a long, dark winter of the soul without this play to knock the scales from our collective eyes.

Can Rickman not find another stage somewhere? I would have thought a city the size of New York would have more than one.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
FourteenRivers
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9863

posted 07 March 2006 08:46 PM      Profile for FourteenRivers        Edit/Delete Post
It looks like some artists in MONTREAL are planning on playing the words on the 16th:

quote:
Hello anti-war theatre activists!

Firstly, thanks to those of you who endorsed or are planning to endorse the Rachel's Words Campaign. As per our discussion last night at the culture-jamming meeting, we are going to try and stage a reading of the words. Unfortunately, all we have now are words about the words (see attachment). We will continue seeking these important words of Rachel's, but in the meantime can consider the words about the words - lots of playable characters there which potentially shed light on the censorship in this case...

So, in a nutshell this is what we have agreed so far:

ROPES: Will continue seeking the words, and will link it into the international readings, Theatres Against War, etc.. Will also help dramaturge the final "script" and can provide some direction for players.

CASSANDRA: Will play Rachel Corrie, and will try to help find her words.

JC: Will look into venues TODAY and try to book something.

OTHERS: Let me know if you want to play a role, or help in any other matter.

What we need to do:

1) Script

2) Space booking

3) Media callout - preferably bilingual and by Thursday at the latest. (Nat?)

4) Other types of callout - internet, web, etc.

5) Figure out $ (I thought pay-what-you can, donated to some worthy cause)

BTW, here is the link to the official site, which will be updated:

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article4521.shtml

Thanks for those of you who have taken interest in this project. It is very important to get these words heard....


This performance was called for by the Rachel's Words organization:

quote:
MARCH 16th ACTIONS:
• On March 16th, the 3rd anniversary of Rachel Corrie’s death, we are asking groups and individuals world-wide to build an event around reading/performing Rachel’s words or incorporate her words into an already planned action.
• This action will, hopefully, happen in cities and communities all over the world; from New York to Los Angeles to Amsterdam to Rafah to Tel Aviv. Rachel’s words and her message, on March 16th, will be everywhere.
• Please document these actions so they can be folded into the event on the 22nd. (more info on that below)
• Selections from Rachel’s writings and possibly video materials will be made available. (more info on that below)
• Copies of the script of “My Name is Rachel Corrie” will be available for people to purchase (to read only; we do NOT have the rights to perform it!)
• We are asking that the New York Theatre Workshop is not targeted specifically in these actions but rather that we highlight Rachel’s words themselves and the larger questions of why and how voices such as Rachel’s are silenced.

If any other cities want to read the words, please get in touch with the Rachel's Words organization.

[ 07 March 2006: Message edited by: FourteenRivers ]


From: Quebec | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
abnormal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1245

posted 07 March 2006 09:07 PM      Profile for abnormal   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't see any benefit to anyone, the right included, in stopping the play from going forward. People either believe she's a heroine or a fool but I doubt the play will change anyone's mind. I did expect to find her name elsewhere but that was her choice.
From: far, far away | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 07 March 2006 09:22 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
So you're going on record as saying that in a year or two, Rachel Corrie's story won't matter? But it does now?

It won't be as worth doing if the moment is lost. If you wait until no one is angry about the play being staged, staging it can't be of value.

It would be about as meaningful as not staging any of Brecht's plays until 1989. You'd still see a great play, but it obviously wouldn't be nearly as important or meaningful. But hey, no one would be angered or offended, and isn't that what really matters, kiddies?

quote:

Can Rickman not find another stage somewhere? I would have thought a city the size of New York would have more than one.

Well, of course Rickman could probably find another stage. The point is, he shouldn't have had to.

BTW, why are you defending the cowards who stopped the staging? What makes you so sure they deserve the benefit of the doubt.

[ 07 March 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 07 March 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 07 March 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 07 March 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
FourteenRivers
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9863

posted 07 March 2006 09:40 PM      Profile for FourteenRivers        Edit/Delete Post
Does anyone think it's odd that there are so many words flying around about this, but as of yet we have not heard of any of Rachel's actual words? I am personally looking forward to reading and hearing them.
From: Quebec | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 07 March 2006 09:41 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"In a later conversation, he (Nicola) said he would be willing to reassess the political climate in a year’s time and decide then if he could produce the piece with a companion work that would offer an alternative perspective."


Gee, has somebody written a bouncy little musical called "That Meddling Peacenik Bitch Had It Coming"?

[ 07 March 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 07 March 2006 09:45 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But hey, no one would be angered or offended, and isn't that what really matters, kiddies?

That's an assumption. Perhaps the theatre is worried about offending someone (which I doubt) or perhaps it's just concerned about being at the centre of a shitstorm of competing protesters.

quote:
The point is, he shouldn't have had to.

Fair enough. But are we supposed to beat this dead horse until it becomes deader? Is Performance Anxiety ever going to let this go and move on?

Uh, I meant Fourteen Rivers. Fourteen Rivers.

quote:
BTW, why are you defending the cowards who stopped the staging? What makes you so sure they deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Well if anyone were sure, it wouldn't be a doubt.

But really, my position is that it's their theatre. Just as a newspaper isn't obligated to print my letter, neither is this theatre obligated to put on a play. Sure, I'm welcome to argue that the newspaper editors are all too cowardly to face the majesty of my ideas head on. Sure, I can say that it's "all political". But in the end, it's their paper, and it's their call. Same here. Regardless of how you may feel about the theatre making the choice they did, it's their choice, and this is not censorship.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
FourteenRivers
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9863

posted 07 March 2006 09:51 PM      Profile for FourteenRivers        Edit/Delete Post
Magoo, it is censorship according to the this anti-censorship site:

quote:
CENSORSHIP
Censorship is a word of many meanings. In its broadest sense it refers to suppression of information, ideas, or artistic expression by anyone, whether government officials, church authorities, private pressure groups, or speakers, writers, and artists themselves. It may take place at any point in time, whether before an utterance occurs, prior to its widespread circulation, or by punishment of commincators after dissemination of their messages, so as to deter others from like expression. In its narrower, more legalistic sense, censorship means only the prevention by official government action of the circulation of messages already produced. Thus writers who "censor" themselves before putting words on paper, for fear of failing to sell their work, are not engaging in censorship in this narrower sense, or are those who boycott sponsors of disliked television shows. Yet all of these restraints have the effect of limiting the diversity that would otherwise be available in the marketplace of ideas and so may be considered censorship in its broadest sense.

There are almost as many justifications offered for the suppression of communication as there are would-be censors, but at root the motivation is always the same. It is a fear that the expression, if not curtailed, will do harm to individuals in its audience, or to society as a whole. Thus so-called obscene material is attacked because of a fear that it will corrupt personal morality or perhaps even lead to deviant sexual acts. School textbooks and library materials are sought to be purged by groups who fear that they may inculcate subversive values in children. Information concerning national security is controlled by government, with particular severity in wartime, for fear that its revelation may aid an enemy. In the judicial system, pretrial publicity about a crime may jeopardize a fair trial. Publication of personal information by police (such as the names of rape victims) or by the press (such as one's sexual preferences) may seriously intrude on one's right to privacy. The fear of such consequences, real or imagined, is what drives the censorial impulse.

Censorship has been practiced in both the narrower and the broader senses as long as there have been organized cultures. Those societies which have been most confident of their principles and of the loyalty of their members have allowed the greatest freedom from censorship, for they have been the least fearful of the consequences of dissent. In societies whose values have not been fully accepted by their people or whose leadership rests on shaky foundations, the heaviest hand of censorship has fallen. The relative prevalence of censorship is one of the features that has most distinguished autocratic from democratic societies and is most obvious in the thorough going preventive censorship practiced today in nations such as Communist Albania. Nevertheless, even the freest of nations find some forms of censorship necessary.



From: Quebec | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 07 March 2006 10:04 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Then rabble censors people pretty much every week. Huh. They actually pay 3 different censors to monitor the board constantly for participants to censor. Who knew?

If you're against that, I trust you'll be taking your principles and leaving to find a board that doesn't censor people. Please don't disappoint us all by rolling over and selling out.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
FourteenRivers
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9863

posted 07 March 2006 10:07 PM      Profile for FourteenRivers        Edit/Delete Post
Hey Magoo, here's some famous quotes about censorship:

quote:
Censorship always protects and perpetuates every horror of the prevailing forms of oppression. With us, its subtle disguises increase its evils by creating delusions of safety, liberty and democracy. It precludes that intelligence which is necessary to hasten wholesome and natural social evolution.
Theodore Schroeder

All censorships exist to prevent any one from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions.
George Bernard Shaw


ps: They are actually discussing cenorship here on this thread. It's not all that uncommon you know.

[ 07 March 2006: Message edited by: FourteenRivers ]


From: Quebec | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 07 March 2006 11:03 PM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Then rabble censors people pretty much every week. Huh. They actually pay 3 different censors to monitor the board constantly for participants to censor. Who knew?

It's funny. The two most vocal proponents of this expanded definition of cesnsorship would seem to be...

A. Leftists complaining that private venues aren't publishing or staging their brilliant efforts, and...

B. ...right-wingers complaining that babble moderators won't let them toss around racial and sexual slurs on this forum.


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 07 March 2006 11:08 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It's not all that uncommon you know.

Indeed. Any time someone doesn't get the soapbox that they feel they're entitled to, it's "censorship". See VOD's post above.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
FourteenRivers
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9863

posted 07 March 2006 11:17 PM      Profile for FourteenRivers        Edit/Delete Post
The latest from the NYT:

quote:
The polemics and outrage in the theatrical community last week after the New York Theater Workshop postponed its production of "My Name Is Rachel Corrie" might have been as intense as the uproar the company feared had it actually presented the play. The postponement of this one-woman drama about a 23-year-old pro-Palestinian American activist killed by an Israeli bulldozer in the Gaza Strip in 2003 has been attacked as an act of censorship. One of the play's creators compared the decision to backing down in the face of a McCarthyite "witch hunt." Hundreds have sent e-mail messages accusing the theater's directors of everything from cowardice to being "Zionist pigs."

Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image

Royal Court Theater, via Reuters
Megan Dodds playing Rachel Corrie, the American activist killed in Gaza, in the London production.


Forum: Theater

Why do you think the production of "My Name Is Rachel Corrie" was postponed? Think of what might have happened had the theater actually presented the play later this month, fresh from its sold-out success at the Royal Court Theater in London. Then the controversy might have been over other forms of political blindness. There might have been assertions that the company was glorifying the mock-heroics of a naif who tried to block efforts to cut off terrorist weapon smuggling. Donors might have pulled away. And the New York Theater Workshop might have been accused of feeding the propagandistic maw of Hamas, just as it came into power in the Palestinian territories. Is it any wonder the company got jittery?


And the response from PMW:

quote:
PMWATCH - March 8, 2006 -- In his March 6, 2006, New York Times article, “Too Hot to Handle, Too Hot Not to Handle” (see below), New York Times cultural critic Edward Rothstein comments on the New York Theatre Workshop’s “postponement” of “My Name is Rachel Corrie”, a play about American activist Rachel Corrie who was crushed to death by an Israeli bulldozer while attempting to prevent the demolition of Palestinian homes in Rafah in the Gaza Strip on March 16, 2003.

Edward Rothstein hints that the New York Theater Workshop was naïve in not understanding that the play was politically charged, an obvious, but valid point.

Oddly, however, Mr. Rothstein then seems to turn around and blame the playwrights Alan Rickman and Katharine Viner, suggesting that they disguised the political content of the play. Rothstein suggests that the play “My Name is Rachel Corrie” is “disingenuous” and that the playwrights “elided phrases” “to camouflage Corrie's radicalism and broaden the play's appeal”.

But here, Rothstein himself is guilty of camouflaging the truth, or at least of naiveté. The primary example Rothstein cites of the play’s supposed “disingenuousness” is Rothstein’s assertion that in the play “there is no hint about why such demolitions” of Palestinian homes in Rafah were taking place. Rothstein then explains that “dozens of tunnels leading from Egypt under the border into homes in Gaza were being used to smuggle guns, rocket launchers and explosives to wield against Israel.”

Thus, Rothstein leaves open the possibility that Rachel Corrie herself may have been killed while preventing the demolition of a home hiding an arms smuggling tunnel, and that the Israeli military’s wholesale demolition of thousands of homes in Rafah was aimed only at destroying arms smuggling tunnels and preventing terrorism.

Rothstein is wrong on both these crucial points. Rachel Corrie died defending the home of a Palestinian family whom she knew well - Palestinian pharmacist, Samir Nasrallah, his wife and children. There was no tunnel in the Nasrallah home, and the Israeli army never asserted that there was a tunnel in the Nasrallah home. Nonetheless, the Nasrallah home, like thousands of others, was eventually demolished by the Israeli army. The international organizations Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE150532004?open&of=ENG-ISR , http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE150402004?open&of=ENG-ISR ), and the respected Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem (http://www.btselem.org/English/Razing/ ) have all documented that homes in Rafah were bulldozed as part of an Israeli government policy of systematically demolishing entire Palestinian neighborhoods, irregardless of any relationship to arms smuggling, in clear violation of international law.



From: Quebec | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
FourteenRivers
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9863

posted 08 March 2006 12:16 PM      Profile for FourteenRivers        Edit/Delete Post
This one if from The Observer:

quote:

For me, the most disturbing aspect of the craven postponement of the production of My Name Is Rachel Corrie isn’t that it happened, but that it was the adventurous downtown New York Theatre Workshop that did the postponing.

We have reached the unacceptable face of the New York arts scene when the theater that produced the original Rent—and, more to the point, the conscience plays of Tony Kushner and Caryl Churchill—should cave in like this to peculiar, unspecific pressure.

We’ve heard about unnamed Zionist pressure groups and anonymous theater donors who object to the telling of a humane story about a utopian 23-year-old American girl who was killed by an Israeli bulldozer in the Gaza Strip as she protested the destruction of a Palestinian’s home. We’ve heard the theater’s cornered artistic director, James Nicola, talk darkly about realizing suddenly that there existed “a very edgy situation” that had taken root in the city “after Ariel Sharon’s illness and the election of Hamas.” We’ve heard it all—including the whirring sound of the New York Theatre Workshop backpedaling all it can to rationalize its weird decisions.

From: Quebec | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 08 March 2006 12:54 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Five'll get you ten that half of these scathing indictments of the New York Theatre Workshop were written by Donovan King under various sock puppet pseudonyms.

The theatre made a decision. Feel free to hate them for it. Feel free to tell them they're dead to you. Feel free to never utter their shameful name again.

But honest to God, what is it you're trying to do here in this thread, besides masturbate every time some theatre ponce agrees with you that this is the greatest tragedy since the Titanic?

Of course some people are going to think that this is a bad thing. You don't actually need to track down each and every one of them and copy and paste their agreement to this thread.

You really need to learn to make peace with things that are over and done with. And it wouldn't hurt to learn to recognize when nobody gives a shit, so you can apply your energy elsewhere.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 08 March 2006 01:00 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Speak for yourself. Not everyone here shares your snarky, condescending attitude.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 08 March 2006 01:07 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry about that.

Donovan: Josh gives a shit.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 08 March 2006 01:18 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't see why you can't just ignore threads like this if you don't care about the subject, Magoo. I know, this theatre stuff is one of your pet peeves (Lord knows, it's one of mine too), but Fourteen Rivers hasn't done anything wrong here.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 08 March 2006 02:07 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Other than sock-puppetry. But OK.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 08 March 2006 02:09 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You don't know that it's him. There is more than one person in Canada who is interested in theatre, and this is a legitimate complaint.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 08 March 2006 02:19 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You mean I can't prove it is. Which I'll concede.

But seriously. There's supposed to be thousands of people who all talk like him, act like him, share exactly the same interests as him, and just magically find babble whenever there's some big "theatre" thing to spam about?

Whattya want to bet that Fourteen is from Montreal? Where they're all from.

Funny that. Huge co-inkiedink.

Anyway, I'll leave it, at least until the KKKorporate Fringe comes round again, when I'm sure we'll meet even more of these theatre-loving activists who certainly aren't anyone that babble banned or anything. From Montreal.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
FourteenRivers
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9863

posted 08 March 2006 06:55 PM      Profile for FourteenRivers        Edit/Delete Post
Montreal is a very theatrical city Magoo, and there are several of us who like to discuss things on babble, and read the activist news on rabble.ca

I think this controversy is important to discuss, as I think Rachel's words are important and need to be heard. The media reports themselves are very interesting, especially when we see big corporate papers like the New York Times bungling what is arguably the biggest theatre story of the year in the biggest theatre capital in the world.

On that note, I am very pleased to announce that some of Rachel's Words have been found. I have been reading her chilling accounts of a Kafkaesque land where nobody is safe. Here is her last email before being murdered:

quote:
Rachel's last email

Hi papa,

Thank you for your email. I feel like sometimes I spend all my time propogandizing mom, and assuming she'll pass stuff on to you, so you get neglected. Don't worry about me too much, right now I am most concerned that we are not being effective. I still don't feel particularly at risk. Rafah has seemed calmer lately, maybe because the military is preoccupied with incursions in the north - still shooting and house demolitions - one death this week that I know of, but not any larger incursions. Still can't say how this will change if and when war with Iraq comes.

Thanks also for stepping up your anti-war work. I know it is not easy to do, and probably much more difficult where you are than where I am. I am really interested in talking to the journalist in Charlotte - let me know what I can do to speed the process along. I am trying to figure out what I'm going to do when I leave here, and when I'm going to leave. Right now I think I could stay until June, financially. I really don't want to move back to Olympia, but do need to go back there to clean my stuff out of the garage and talk about my experiences here. On the other hand, now that I've crossed the ocean I'm feeling a strong desire to try to stay across the ocean for some time. Considering trying to get English teaching jobs - would like to really buckle down and learn Arabic.

Also got an invitation to visit Sweden on my way back - which I think I could do very cheaply. I would like to leave Rafah with a viable plan to return, too. One of the core members of our group has to leave tomorrow - and watching her say goodbye to people is making me realize how difficult it will be. People here can't leave, so that complicates things. They also are pretty matter-of-fact about the fact that they don't know if they will be alive when we come back here.

I really don't want to live with a lot of guilt about this place - being able to come and go so easily - and not going back. I think it is valuable to make commitments to places - so I would like to be able to plan on coming back here within a year or so. Of all of these possibilities I think it's most likely that I will at least go to Sweden for a few weeks on my way back - I can change tickets and get a plane to from Paris to Sweden and back for a total of around 150 bucks or so. I know I should really try to link up with the family in France - but I really think that I'm not going to do that. I think I would just be angry the whole time and not much fun to be around. It also seems like a transition into too much opulence right now - I would feel a lot of class guilt the whole time as well.

Let me know if you have any ideas about what I should do with the rest of my life. I love you very much. If you want you can write to me as if I was on vacation at a camp on the big island of Hawaii learning to weave. One thing I do to make things easier here is to utterly retreat into fantasies that I am in a Hollywood movie or a sitcom starring Michael J Fox. So feel free to make something up and I'll be happy to play along. Much love Poppy.

Rachel


If you do not like the topic Mr. Magoo, you are most welcome to exit the discussion. Quite frankly I find your words disingenuous and insulting to Rachel's memory.

You can read more of her words here.

[ 08 March 2006: Message edited by: FourteenRivers ]


From: Quebec | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 08 March 2006 07:01 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But seriously. There's supposed to be thousands of people who all talk like him, act like him, share exactly the same interests as him, and just magically find babble whenever there's some big "theatre" thing to spam about?

...why wouldn't there be? And why would you object to a discussion of censorship of theatre in the CULTURE forum?

Is there something else you think we should be discussing instead in this forum?


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 08 March 2006 07:28 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There isn't an objection to a discussion of Censorship. We're discussing it. What I'm (and possibly Magoo but I'm not speaking for him) am saying is that "This ain't censorship".
From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
FourteenRivers
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9863

posted 08 March 2006 08:02 PM      Profile for FourteenRivers        Edit/Delete Post
Well a lot of other people, many of them prominent artists in the field, do consider it a case of censorship. That is why there are petitions flying around, people are expressing outrage and taking action, and the media is all over it. When there is a "hot" play like "My Name Is Rachel Corrie" in the drama field, it is bound to face censorship on a regular basis. The same thing happens to plays like The Laramie Project all the time. The reason these plays are so upsetting to certain conservative-minded folks is, I believe, that they are literally taken, word for word, from reality. That means that plays like these viscerally challenge the status quos that allow for things like genocide, gay-bashing, and other forms of oppression. Is it really such a big surprise when these plays get censored? It even happens to the Vagina Monologues, which is another play that is activist (feminist) in nature.

[ 08 March 2006: Message edited by: FourteenRivers ]


From: Quebec | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
FourteenRivers
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9863

posted 09 March 2006 12:22 PM      Profile for FourteenRivers        Edit/Delete Post
Rachel’s Words Update March 8:

WEBSITE:

The website www.rachelswords.org is finally functional and organized. There are buttons for information on March 16th actions, the March 22nd event, press links, resources, and more. We will continue to send out updates, but please check the website for the most up-to-date information, some of which we haven't had time to post yet.

ACTIONS:

We have heard about actions incorporating Rachel’s words planned from Nigeria to Jerusalem to Seattle to New York to Bit Sira, Palestine. All the information we have been given about actions planned will be found now at www.rachelswords.org, organized by city. If you are planning an action on March 16 and don’t find it there, please send an e-mail to [email protected] with the word ACTION in the title telling us the city, location, time, description of the action and a person to contact for more information. To share information and resources about the actions with other folks planning in other cities, please use the [email protected] listserve set up for that purpose. To join the listserve, write us an e-mail at [email protected] and put LISTSERVE in the title.

RACHEL’S WRITINGS:

At the moment, the e-mails that Rachel wrote from her time in the Gaza strip, describing what she witnessed there, are posted on the website. The Royal Court Theatre will also permit a segment from the play “My Name is Rachel Corrie” (edited from Rachel’s writings) to be used in the actions as well. As soon as they decide what segment, we will post it.

DOCUMENTING:

Please document your actions by video or photograph and send it as soon as you can. Video/photo can either be uploaded to [email protected], or shipped to Rachel's Words at 300 West 55th Street, New York, New York, 10019.

We will edit them into a video montage and show them on the March 22nd event; video footage of people reading Rachel’s words from Rafah, Afghanistan, Iraq and New Orleans—underscoring the important point that there are many silenced voices in the world and that, through this one woman’s words, we hope to acknowledge all of them.

THE ENDORSEMENTS OF THE MISSION:

As of today, 40 groups and over 250 individuals have endorsed the initiative from dozens of cities in countries all over the world, including Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Egypt, France, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Mexico, Nigeria, Palestine, Thailand, UK, USA……. You can now endorse the initiative on the website at www.rachelswords.org

MARCH 22 EVENT: SAVE THE DATE!!!!

March 22 will be an incredible event. The venue will be the Riverside Church in Manhattan. We can't list the names of people we've invited until we get confirmation -- but we'll keep you posted, it's going to be an exciting evening.

SCRIPTS:

We have ordered copies of the script of “My Name is Rachel Corrie” from London, but they have only a limited amount they can send due to the overwhelming demand. The Royal Court Theater has offered to contact the publisher to try to make special arrangements to have more scripts printed and available. We'll keep you posted.

RESOURCES:

Rachel's emails from Gaza are available on our site. We will also continue to add other resources that people can use for their actions.

DONATIONS:

We will need to undertake significant fundraising for the Rachel’s Words event on March 16. We are appealing now for donations. Rachel’s Words is now under the umbrella of the Brecht Forum, so not-for profit donations are accepted! We are setting up a system to do it on line, but if you are interested in making a tax deductible donation, please send a check made out to the Brecht Forum, and send it to:

Rachel’s Words

300 W. 55th Street

New York, NY 10019

We are working on setting up a paypal account.

NEW YORK THEATRE WORKSHOP:

We had a long and productive discussion with the artistic director, managing director and associate artistic director as well as several other staff members yesterday morning at the New York Theatre Workshop, raising directly the many concerns around the decisions they made regarding “My Name is Rachel Corrie”. Bottom line: we are not interested in pursuing a “he said/she said” debate with them. We communicated to them our opinion that very serious mistakes were made and, whether or not they were inadvertent, it would be to their advantage to take responsibility for the damage that they have done and take whatever steps they can to try and repair it. We are awaiting a new statement from them.

DOING THE PLAY “MY NAME IS RACHEL CORRIE”

The Royal Court Theatre holds the rights to the play “My Name is Rachel Corrie”. Though they are permitting “Rachel’s Words” to use segments of the play for the readings, and the e-mails that Rachel wrote in Gaza are public domain, any futher use of the play itself is not available right now. They are still in discussions about where the US premiere of the play will be, after which the rights will be much easier to obtain. We are trying to make copies of the script available for purchase for those that want to read it. (see above)

Ann Petter and Jen Marlowe
Rachel's Words
www.RachelsWords.org
[email protected]


From: Quebec | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
mary123
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6125

posted 09 March 2006 01:06 PM      Profile for mary123     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mr. Magoo doesn't speak for me either. And your dishonest way of wanting to make this thread disappear through your shallow snarkism won't work. But you sure do come on this very thread alot yourself and bitch.

And stop accusing posters here until you have proof of what you accuse. What a piece of work you are.

Anyhow don't let this freak distract from the topic at hand. That's his primary motivation.


From: ~~Canada - still God's greatest creation on the face of the earth~~ | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
mary123
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6125

posted 09 March 2006 01:07 PM      Profile for mary123     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Double post.

[ 09 March 2006: Message edited by: mary123 ]


From: ~~Canada - still God's greatest creation on the face of the earth~~ | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
mary123
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6125

posted 09 March 2006 01:07 PM      Profile for mary123     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Triple post.

[ 09 March 2006: Message edited by: mary123 ]


From: ~~Canada - still God's greatest creation on the face of the earth~~ | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 09 March 2006 01:16 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agreed, yesterday, to leave this thread alone.

Are you inviting me back for some fun, Mary? If your post is still here when I'm back from lunch, I'll assume you are.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
FourteenRivers
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9863

posted 09 March 2006 03:00 PM      Profile for FourteenRivers        Edit/Delete Post
A reading has been organized in Montreal, Quebec:

quote:
Experimental performance artist and Ontario native Cassandra Witteman’s Rachel will be confronted with a cacophony of words about her words – words transposed directly from reality, in this case the frenzied people passionately debating this censorship case.

Starting at 8pm at Les Artistes du Toc Toc, 6091 ave du Parc, the event is pay-what-you-can, with all proceeds being donated to The Rachel Corrie Foundation for Peace and Justice.


If you are in Montreal, please feel free to come listen to the words.


From: Quebec | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 09 March 2006 03:40 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Okay, back from my lovely lunch. Now what was it you called me back here to discuss, Mary123? My "freak"-ness? Your whininess? Or the fact that no amount of pious braying and complaining will make this into "censorship"?
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 09 March 2006 03:46 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I guess what I'd like Magoo and Heywood to tell us is why they are so adamant that this ISN'T censorship?

What do they think would happen if they admitted that it was?

It appears that they think that is a slippery slope to something, but precisely what is at the bottom of that slope is hard for me to see.


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
mary123
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6125

posted 09 March 2006 03:48 PM      Profile for mary123     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's only called "censorship" when it suits your sides needs. When "censorship" happens to your enemy, then you spin it to make it sound like it's something else entirely..

Mr Magoo's currently reading "Karl Rove Spin for Beginners".

Happy Reading.

[ 09 March 2006: Message edited by: mary123 ]


From: ~~Canada - still God's greatest creation on the face of the earth~~ | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 09 March 2006 04:00 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I guess what I'd like Magoo and Heywood to tell us is why they are so adamant that this ISN'T censorship?

This will seem entirely self-referential, but: because it's not.

It's not censorship when a newspaper elects not to print my letter. That's been contested in court, and the court upheld the right of the newspaper to not print any letter it did not wish to print.

It's not censorship when babble turfs a right-wing troll. They, naturally, cry that it is, but they're not being silenced. They're not being shut down. They just can't post here. Rabble has every right to say "post your screed anywhere but here".

So as far as I'm concerned, telling someone that they can't use your theatre for their play similarly is not censorship. You're not prevented from putting on a play. Only prevented from using their stage. Go find another. As I noted above, aren't there any other theatres in NYC?

Turning this into what you imagine is the theatre's "real" motivation doesn't have legs, unless you're able to read minds, or you've tortured "the truth" out of them.

As I noted, trolls insist up, down, and backwards that they're being banned to punish them for holding non-NDP-compatible ideas. And the guy whose letter wasn't published also insisted that it was all a big conspiracy to silence his "truth".

Nonsense to him, nonsense to the trolls, and nonsense here too.

quote:
What do they think would happen if they admitted that it was?

For starters, I'd be lying and I'd feel bad. Then, of course, we'd either have to accept that Audra and Michelle are jackbooted censors, or we'd have to allow an influx of wronged trolls and apologize to them for not providing them a stage for their ideas.

quote:
It appears that they think that is a slippery slope to something, but precisely what is at the bottom of that slope is hard for me to see.

Mostly lots of whining.

Waaaah! You won't air my sitcom pilot! You're censoring me!!

Waaaah! You won't allow me to show my artwork at your gallery, you censorious Nazi!

Waaaah! You won't publish my book! You're denying me my rights!

... etc.

quote:
Mr Magoo's currently reading "Karl Rove Spin for Beginners".

And you're clearly reading "Whinemaking for Children".

quote:
Happy Reading.

Happy Cancelled Play.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 09 March 2006 04:05 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Magoo and I are on the same page. I hate to post nothing more than a "me too" but Magoo beat me to the punch.

So, see above for my response.


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 09 March 2006 04:40 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If I owned a New York theatre, I'd book this play right now while the controversy is still hot.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
FourteenRivers
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9863

posted 09 March 2006 07:21 PM      Profile for FourteenRivers        Edit/Delete Post
Magoo - get your facts straight. The theatre had booked the show, and then cancelled/censored it. In the theatre that is how censorship usually occurs in the present era. It is not like the days of Shakespeare where there was an official censor whose job it was to say which words and shows get censored. In the theatre if a show is booked and then "cancelled" due to political content, it is certainly a case of censorship, as we have seen with various examples above. Perhaps Magoo could explain to us how theatre gets censored otherwise. Or perhaps Magoo and his right-wing cohorts believe that censorship does not exist at all?
From: Quebec | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 09 March 2006 10:24 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think what Magoo is really fighting for is the idea that the owners should have all the power and the creators of the works performed in the spaces controlled by the owners should have none.

The issue for him is that property trumps all else.

The weird thing is, he and Heywood probably think that not publishing offensive cartoons about the prophet Muhammed is censorship, but this isn't. Logically they should defend the owners in both circumstances.

[ 09 March 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 09 March 2006 10:31 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Magoo - get your facts straight. The theatre had booked the show, and then cancelled/censored it.

I understand this. They changed their mind, as is their right.

quote:
The issue for him is that property trumps all else.

Sorry, but it does. Rickman and company have no more reasonable "right" to this particular stage than I have to borrow your car, or sit in your living room.

Wanna be mad that the theatre doesn't want to share their property? Go ahead. You certainly have that right. But what, pray tell, are you advocating? That whoever wants to use someone else's property "because it's rilly rilly important" gets to?? That's wacked. Think about it and I'm sure you'll agree.

The government, or anything that we all own in common, is different. We can have a reasonable expectation of use in that case. But someone's theatre?? I'm sure you'd agree that they're not obligated to let ME use their theatre. So why would they be obligated to let Rickman? Because he played a cool bad guy in Die Hard and I didn't?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 09 March 2006 11:13 PM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I think what Magoo is really fighting for is the idea that the owners should have all the power and the creators of the works performed in the spaces controlled by the owners should have none.
The issue for him is that property trumps all else.


14 Rivers and Burch:

Straightforward question. Do you believe that the OWNERS of the PROPERTY known as babble have the right to refuse to post any submitted article they don't want to?

[ 09 March 2006: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 09 March 2006 11:24 PM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The weird thing is, he and Heywood probably think that not publishing offensive cartoons about the prophet Muhammed is censorship, but this isn't. Logically they should defend the owners in both circumstances.


I can't speak for Magoo. But I personally don't think there was any censorship involved when the newspapers refused to publish the Danish cartoons(at least in the cases where there was no government intervention). I didn't think that it was such an awful thing for them to be published, since they were all over the internet anyway. But if a newspaper doesn't want to publish them, that's their choice, and I would never call it censorship.

EDIT: Just because I wouldn't call the decision censorship doesn't neccessarily mean that I think it was the right decision for the newspaper to make.

[ 09 March 2006: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 09 March 2006 11:41 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:

The weird thing is, he and Heywood probably think that not publishing offensive cartoons about the prophet Muhammed is censorship, but this isn't. Logically they should defend the owners in both circumstances.

[ 09 March 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]


I've never objected to any newspapers not publishing the cartoons.


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 09 March 2006 11:53 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The weird thing is, he and Heywood probably think that not publishing offensive cartoons about the prophet Muhammed is censorship, but this isn't.

See above.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 09 March 2006 11:58 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Didja hear Mr M.? You're a right-winger.

I guess breaking solidarity makes you not a leftie.

[ 09 March 2006: Message edited by: HeywoodFloyd ]


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 March 2006 12:00 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If being ohtuse and being right wing are necessarily conected, then i have to agree.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 March 2006 12:06 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Shear bogiosity Magoo. Censorship can be applied to any institution. It does not have to be a government organization.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 10 March 2006 12:09 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You're talking about babble, right? And its policy of actively denying a forum to certain participants, known in the vernacular as "trolls"?

How do you live with yourself, supporting that?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 10 March 2006 01:11 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Is there a difference between trolls coming to babble with no purpose other than to cause trouble, and a play about someone who was crushed under a bulldozer while trying to prevent people's homes from being destroyed by an invading army's sub-contractors?

Is turfing trolls the same as bowing to the political and financial pressure of groups in positions of influence who want to silence the story of someone who would come to the aid of an oppressed people?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 10 March 2006 01:22 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Is there a difference between trolls coming to babble with no purpose other than to cause trouble, and a play about someone who was crushed under a bulldozer while trying to prevent people's homes from being destroyed by an invading army's sub-contractors?

Sure. But it's the similarity that wins. Specifically, babble doesn't want to host the trolls, and the theatre doesn't want to host the play. No differences between the two override that.

quote:
Is turfing trolls the same as bowing to the political and financial pressure of groups in positions of influence who want to silence the story of someone who would come to the aid of an oppressed people?

In the sense that both are either censorship (and thus odious) or they aren't.

Censorship (or not) isn't decided on the merits of what's being "censored". Depending on one's opinion, the same question could be asked with exactly opposite answers.

And for the record, the play isn't silenced when it's cancelled at one of about a million stages in the world. That's like saying that if your painting doesn't hang at one, specific gallery you're being blacklisted.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
FourteenRivers
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9863

posted 10 March 2006 01:54 AM      Profile for FourteenRivers        Edit/Delete Post
Enough of the dancing Magoo. I repeat: Perhaps Magoo could explain to us how theatre gets censored otherwise.

[ 10 March 2006: Message edited by: FourteenRivers ]


From: Quebec | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
deBeauxOs
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10099

posted 10 March 2006 01:55 AM      Profile for deBeauxOs     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
posted by Mr. Magoo: And for the record, the play isn't silenced when it's cancelled at one of about a million stages in the world. That's like saying that if your painting doesn't hang at one, specific gallery you're being blacklisted.
So if a specific cultural organization agrees to present a play or publish a book or host an exhibition then cancels its contract with the artist because of public pressure, that is not censorious?

From: missing in action | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 10 March 2006 01:59 AM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So if a specific cultural organization agrees to present a play or publish a book or host an exhibition then cancels its contract with the artist because of public pressure, that is not censorious?

Wouldn't it also prevent the play from showing elsewhere for sometime and possible cause a financial disater for the cancelled play? Couldn't a cancelleation put a play out of business entirely?


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 10 March 2006 02:10 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So if a specific cultural organization agrees to present a play or publish a book or host an exhibition then cancels its contract with the artist because of public pressure, that is not censorious?

They have the right to cancel it for whatever reason they want to.

Is that Karla Homolka movie being "censored" if my local Famous Players Googolplex decides they'd rather screen Brokeback Mountain?

No, not really. If they don't wish to be at the epicentre of a contoversy, neither you nor I have any right to demand that of them.

And that assumes we even know, rather than guessing, their motivation.

quote:
Wouldn't it also prevent the play from showing elsewhere for sometime and possible cause a financial disater for the cancelled play? Couldn't a cancelleation put a play out of business entirely?

Perhaps, if they've already invested cold hard cash into it. And in that case I'd fully support their right to recoup their losses through some contract law. But that still doesn't mean it's censorship.

quote:
Enough of the dancing Magoo.

My head just exploded. Now I have to wear this green smiley to work tomorrow:


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 10 March 2006 02:18 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
Is there a difference between trolls coming to babble with no purpose other than to cause trouble, and a play about someone who was crushed under a bulldozer while trying to prevent people's homes from being destroyed by an invading army's sub-contractors?

Is turfing trolls the same as bowing to the political and financial pressure of groups in positions of influence who want to silence the story of someone who would come to the aid of an oppressed people?


Do you feel that the right of free speech is a function of the particular speaker's relative power or influence? In effect, the less power they have, the greater leeway they should have in speech and that the powerful should have their speech more strictly scrutinized and restricted?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 10 March 2006 02:25 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by FourteenRivers:
Enough of the dancing Magoo. I repeat: Perhaps Magoo could explain to us how theatre gets censored otherwise.

Have you considered the possibilty that theaters aren't censored?? You seem to be saying that theaters must necessarily be subject to some type of censorship. Why?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 10 March 2006 02:41 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Do you feel that the right of free speech is a function of the particular speaker's relative power or influence? In effect, the less power they have, the greater leeway they should have in speech and that the powerful should have their speech more strictly scrutinized and restricted?

You're close.

The less power you have, the less you're heard.

I don't know much about "rights," which seem to be whatever anyone can get away with. People like to think they have rights, but if they dare try to exercise such rights in a way that challenges or threatens those in power, they get slapped down pretty fast.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 March 2006 03:15 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
You're talking about babble, right? And its policy of actively denying a forum to certain participants, known in the vernacular as "trolls"?

How do you live with yourself, supporting that?


When babble culls trolls it is censorship. That is what it is.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 10 March 2006 04:12 AM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I just wanted to point out to Magoo(since the troll issue seems to be a particular bugaboo for him)that my participation in the Babble forums should not be interpreted as necessarily supporting the banning of trolls.

I haven't spoken to that particular issue much, largely because I don't think its actually possible that objecting to troll banning would lead to its being stopped.

So don't assume that I(or anyone else)is being a hypocrite on this issue.

[ 10 March 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 10 March 2006 10:21 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
See, I would think a boycott, on principle, would be the least you could do.

Actually, now that I think about it, some protest when a troll is censored would be the least. And I don't think I've even seen that from you.

Now me, I support Judy's right to boot anyone off her website that she wants to. And I support her right to full editorial control over what happens at rabble as well. But if babble were doing something I found odious, I'd be gone.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
FourteenRivers
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9863

posted 10 March 2006 11:55 AM      Profile for FourteenRivers        Edit/Delete Post
Magoo, what if Judy specifically asked you to write an article to be posted on rabble, the contract was all worked out, and just as it should have been posted the rabble editorial board decided that it would be "indefinitely postponed" due to political content. I would argue that such a move would be considered censorship. BTW, you still haven't answered my question above.
From: Quebec | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 10 March 2006 12:03 PM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Magoo, what if Judy specifically asked you to write an article to be posted on rabble, the contract was all worked out, and just as it should have been posted the rabble editorial board decided that it would be "indefinitely postponed" due to political content. I would argue that such a move would be considered censorship.

Actually, I think that would just be considered breach of contract. (Assuming the contract didn't allow for Judy to back out at some point.)

If I sign a contract with an employer to pay for me to re-locate to Tokyo, and the employer reneges on the contract, is he violating my freedom of movement? No, he's just breaking the contract. I'm still free to go to Tokyo on my own dime.

[ 10 March 2006: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 10 March 2006 12:06 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Magoo, what if Judy specifically asked you to write an article to be posted on rabble, the contract was all worked out, and just as it should have been posted the rabble editorial board decided that it would be "indefinitely postponed" due to political content.

That's why we have contract law.

quote:
BTW, you still haven't answered my question above.

This one?:

quote:
I repeat: Perhaps Magoo could explain to us how theatre gets censored otherwise.

Uh, you're the one making the assertion that theatre is being censored. But you want me to explain how?

I'll give you a for-instance: you want to take your one man show, "Hurrah For Uncle Sam", to Cuba. The government forbids you. Not a theatre owner who doesn't want to show your play, but the government. It's made clear to you that attempts to put on your show in a public venue will result in your arrest. When a copy of the script is found in your luggage, it's confiscated. Attempts to protest the confiscation also result in your arrest, and attempts to protest your arrest result in even more arrests.

Upon your eventual release, you decide it's just not worth it, and decide to take "Jesus Christ Superstar" on tour in Nigeria...

See the difference? You're not just stuck looking for another theatre. You're silenced. Truly silenced, not hyperbole-"silenced". There's a huge, huge difference.

Now don't you feel whiny and pathetic for kicking up such a fuss and crying wolf just because ONE THEATRE in one of the most theatre-rich cities in North America put your precious play on hold? Don't you feel just a bit stupid trying to pretend that the jackboot of the Man is crushing the life out of you, when in fact all you have to do is go to another friggin' theatre, safe in the knowledge that you're allowed to do so, and that nobody is going to imprison you for distributing the play, performing the play, talking about the play, and yes, even endlessly bleating and moaning and whining and griping about the play?

[ 10 March 2006: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
FourteenRivers
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9863

posted 10 March 2006 12:20 PM      Profile for FourteenRivers        Edit/Delete Post
Magoo, your logic is absurd. Using your own argument, I could simply say: well, there are lots of other islands where it could be played, so it's not censorship. Also, in the age of the internet, one could argue that your version of "censorship" could not be censored because the text would be accessible online, and therefore impossible for the Cuban government to delete. Censorship in the 21st Century often applies to a specific audience - in your case the Cubans, in this case the NYTW and by extension all of NYC (at least until other arrangements can be made).
From: Quebec | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 10 March 2006 12:22 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Using your own argument, I could simply say: well, there are lots of other islands where it could be played, so it's not censorship.

And in a sense you'd be right. So even my example of censorship isn't really censorship.

Keep going.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
FourteenRivers
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9863

posted 10 March 2006 12:31 PM      Profile for FourteenRivers        Edit/Delete Post
Magoo, why don't you post your definition of censorship? I posted what I believe to be a reasonable and well-sourced definition above.
From: Quebec | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 10 March 2006 12:40 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm not interested in writing a Wikipedia entry for it, but let's just say that for me, censorship HAS to involve the state, or some kind of exclusive or monopoly power (with thousands of theatres in the U.S., this one theatre lacks any exclusive power), and it HAS to actively prevent expression.

Let me be clear on that last part. This theatre owner may say "No" to hosting the play at this particular theatre, but s/he has NO INTEREST in preventing it from being hosted elsewhere. S/he is not ACTIVELY trying to suppress this play. S/he is just saying "not at this particular theatre".

To relate this back to other examples: a newspaper refusing to print my letter to the editor is not censoring me, because I'm not prevented from submitting the letter to another paper. They don't somehow "owe" me some space in their paper, and they're within their rights to say so. I'd call it censorship if they also took steps to prevent me from sending my letter elsewhere.

And the babble trolls aren't being censored, in my opinion, because they're free to go over to FD if they want to and spout their crap there. Babble certainly has no interest in trying to prevent them from doing so. As awesome as babble is, it's not the only game in town. There are literally thousands of places on the web where their ideas can be published.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 10 March 2006 06:04 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As a person who has (I'm assuming)never been involved in theatre, you may not realize how absurd the comparison of banning trolls and canceling plays is.

If a troll is banned, all he has to do is find a different website(or, in some cases, simply invent a new name to fool the mods)this takes a matter of seconds.

If a play is canceled, it can take weeks, months, at times years to find another company to present it. If one company has sent the message that it is too scary to do a show, the herd mentality in theatrical management will act to prevent all the other theatres in a city, or at times a country, from staging it as well. Years, decades go by, and the moment at which the play would have made its impact, would have been a living experience for people, has been forever lost.

And you also forget that we are living in a world where life is becoming increasingly and tragically based on private property. In some small towns, they main public space is now a mall, and courts have ruled that mall owners have a right to prevent opinions they don't like from being aired on their property.

Most theatre owners in New York, if they truly had their way, would go on doing nothing but endless revivals of 1950's musicals for Iowa businessmen who are in town for the weekend.
Defending them is defending the use of property to silence truth.

(And how clever of you to work THAT OLD DEVIL CUBA into this. Just for the record, I oppose censorship there too, and all government censorship, and you can see the flame wars I've had with the Stalinist M. Spector over that.)

We are moving in many places towards a future where property owners take on the functions of government. If that trend continues, an expectation of use, as you termed it, must be established or we will end up, not with fascism, as you were probable expecting me to say, but with feudalism.


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 10 March 2006 06:35 PM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If a troll is banned, all he has to do is find a different website(or, in some cases, simply invent a new name to fool the mods)this takes a matter of seconds.

If a play is canceled, it can take weeks, months, at times years to find another company to present it. If one company has sent the message that it is too scary to do a show, the herd mentality in theatrical management will act to prevent all the other theatres in a city, or at times a country, from staging it as well. Years, decades go by, and the moment at which the play would have made its impact, would have been a living experience for people, has been forever lost.


That's a difference of degree, not of kind.

Okay, so it's inconvenient for the playwright to have to find a new stage. That doesn't make the cancellation of the play into censorship.

Do you consider it censorship if a TV writer is told that the show he created will premiere in the fall, only to have the network cancel the premiere after looking at the demographics and deciding the market just isn't there? I mean, is Beverly Hills just one big gulag of silenced writers?

[ 10 March 2006: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]

[ 10 March 2006: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 10 March 2006 06:46 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
Most theatre owners in New York, if they truly had their way, would go on doing nothing but endless revivals of 1950's musicals for Iowa businessmen who are in town for the weekend.

Are you saying that NYC theater owners don’t “truly have their way” with what plays are produced on their stages??? If a theater owner wanted to run “endless revivals of 1950's musicals for Iowa businessmen”, nothing is stopping the owner.

Am I missing something?

quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
We are moving in many places towards a future where property owners take on the functions of government. If that trend continues, an expectation of use, as you termed it, must be established or we will end up, not with fascism, as you were probable expecting me to say, but with feudalism.

If there is a privately-owned auditorium in a town and a group wants to stage a play there, are you saying that they have (or should have) a right to use that private property, even if the owner objects, because they represent “the public”?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 10 March 2006 06:49 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There's also the fact that, if the play has been cast, the cast may have to disperse(since they will need to find other work to make a living)and that the money that has been spent on sets, constumes, lights, sound, et al, has been lost.

The economics of rescheduling are a form of censorship, and have probably deprived us of many important works over the years.

And as to television, a better example would be the many horrible changes and compromises forced upon various shows by meddling from network executives and the paranoia of sponsors. It was censorship when "The Smothers Brothers Show" and "Lou Grant" were forced off the air, despite excellent ratings, because of a few uptight sponsors who couldn't handle the fact that the shows were actually dealing with reality.


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 10 March 2006 06:53 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

If there is a privately-owned auditorium in a town and a group wants to stage a play there, are you saying that they have (or should have) a right to use that private property, even if the owner objects, because they represent “the public”?


Ultimately, yes, if freedom of speech is to survive in a privatized land.

If property rights come first, then all but the wealthy are effectively silenced forever. Property rights serve no humane or democratic purpose. They represent nothing but the right to be a selfish, arrogant pig. Property is never used for justice or hope.


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 March 2006 06:54 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
See, I would think a boycott, on principle, would be the least you could do.

Actually, now that I think about it, some protest when a troll is censored would be the least. And I don't think I've even seen that from you.

Now me, I support Judy's right to boot anyone off her website that she wants to. And I support her right to full editorial control over what happens at rabble as well. But if babble were doing something I found odious, I'd be gone.


I objected directly to Mishei being banned, for the record, even though I detested him. But that situation persisted for years, and he considtently smeared babble and participants with his snide insinuations. His behaviour was persistantly disruptive, and he was booted not for the content of what he was saying but for the disruptive manner in which he preented it.

And herein lies all the difference, banning someone for thier behaviour is not political censorship, though it is censure of behaviour.

If you can suggest that the play in question was being produced in a manner which was disruptive to the fair operation of the theater, and the actors and staff of the production were rude, and difficult to deal with it might be possible to suggest that they were censured on the same grounds, but that is not the case, they were censured for the expression of political views.

The other thing that is censored on babble is hate speech. Is the play overtly hateful?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 10 March 2006 06:59 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As noted above, insist a few times that "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve", and you're gone. That's neither a longstanding disruption nor hate speech.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 10 March 2006 07:02 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
And as to television, a better example would be the many horrible changes and compromises forced upon various shows by meddling from network executives and the paranoia of sponsors. It was censorship when "The Smothers Brothers Show" and "Lou Grant" were forced off the air, despite excellent ratings, because of a few uptight sponsors who couldn't handle the fact that the shows were actually dealing with reality.

“Meddling” sponsors? Ah, they are the one’s paying the bills, no?

There is nothing obligating sponsors to spend any money on TV. And, if they didn’t, TV would have to get all revenue from the viewers, essentially a huge (a quadrupling? quintupling? more?) increase in cable bills.

The sponsors elect to fund TV programs for one reason: It promotes their companies and products. If, in their judgment, a TV program does not serve that purpose, they are as free to withdraw funding as they were to withhold funding in the first place.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 March 2006 07:02 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well the board came to a determination on that point.

It is not as if the theatre did not make a commitment based on a reading of the script to allow the theater a production facility, knowing full well the content, and then later scuppered the production.

The circumstance is entirely different.

[ 10 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 10 March 2006 07:03 PM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And as to television, a better example would be the many horrible changes and compromises forced upon various shows by meddling from network executives and the paranoia of sponsors. It was censorship when "The Smothers Brothers Show" and "Lou Grant" were forced off the air, despite excellent ratings, because of a few uptight sponsors who couldn't handle the fact that the shows were actually dealing with reality.


So is it censorship when someone on babble gets a petition going to pressure the sponsors of some supposedly offensive media product to drop their sponsorship?


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 10 March 2006 07:04 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
Property rights serve no humane or democratic purpose. They represent nothing but the right to be a selfish, arrogant pig. Property is never used for justice or hope.

Well, I take it you do not own a home, a car or any other assets? If you do, I’m going to be traveling to Alaska in June and I’d like to use those things with my friends, since you have no higher claim to your things than I do.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 10 March 2006 07:09 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
His behaviour was persistantly disruptive, and he was booted not for the content of what he was saying but for the disruptive manner in which he presented it.

That is an excellent point (although I don't know about the particulars of that specific situation). If someone is abusive, for example, then that behavior justifies banning.

However, I have seen several examples of where a poster has simply said something that is extremely "non-progressive" and been banned as a result. So, there isn't a babble policy on banning that is limited to abusive behavior, although I would favor that.

But, although I don't like banning posters for content reasons, banning someone for the content of their posts is not censorship.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 10 March 2006 07:10 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I'm not interested in writing a Wikipedia entry for it, but let's just say that for me, censorship HAS to involve the state...

So once everything is privatised, censorship will no longer exist?

Where's AE? He could tell you about censorship.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 March 2006 07:11 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Banning someone for the content of their posts is censorship. Plain and simple.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 10 March 2006 07:14 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Banning someone for the content of their posts is censorship. Plain and simple.

To work off of Magoo's example: If someone has a long history of writing letters to the editor of the local paper and the paper has a long history of publishing many of them, and if the letter writer starts to address issues that the paper doesn't agree with, doesn't think are appropriate, doesn't think are relevant, or what have you, are you asserting that the paper is obligated to continue to publish the writer's letter consistent with past practice, else it is censorship?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 10 March 2006 07:15 PM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But, although I don't like banning posters for content reasons, banning someone for the content of their posts is not censorship.


Yeah, if this thread had gone in a different direction(ie. if the op hadn't used the word "censorship"), I myself would probably have spent this thread lambasting the New York theatre for their gutlessness. I agree that Rachel Corrie's story is probably a compelling one, and I'm glad to see anyone challenge the zionist stranglehold on the mideast discussion.

However, just because I think the decision to cancel the play was gutless, shortsighted, whatever, does not make that decision into the moral equivalent of censorship.


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 March 2006 07:17 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

So once everything is privatised, censorship will no longer exist?

Where's AE? He could tell you about censorship.


One has to be really wary of this defintion. For instance what constitutes a "state." A consortium of private British ran India as the British East India Compamy for years, enacted laws, including censorship and other measures designed to keep the local populous in check.

People seem to go through extensive exercizes of coming up with technicalities in order to prevent themselves from having to remove thier heads from the sand.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 10 March 2006 07:18 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by voice of the damned:
I myself would probably have spent this thread lambasting the New York theatre for their gutlessness.

And, that would have been totally accurate.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 10 March 2006 07:19 PM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Banning someone for the content of their posts is censorship. Plain and simple.

I applaud your consistency, Cueball. However, if getting banned from babble for making "Adam and Steve" jokes qualifes as censorship, I think we need to find a new word to descibe what happens when the secret police march into a newspaper's offices, read the next day's editorial, and black out the parts they don't like, with the understanding that the editor will suffer legal repercussions for not co-operating.


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 March 2006 07:20 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh come on VOTD, no one uses balck magic markers anymore.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 10 March 2006 07:22 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Oh come on VOTD, no one uses balck magic markers anymore.

I do. In fact, [looking in my desk], I have a black magic marker right here.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 March 2006 07:27 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The whole idea that institutions, other than the state proper, are somehow outside of the social organization of society is completely bogus. Corporations and business act in state-like manners and consitute in some senses legally sanctioned and defined instruments of the state, even though not fully empowered to act as the state.

Cities for instance are incorporated. Public libraries run as wholey owned coroporations owned by the state, etcetera etcetera.

Trying to make artificial distinctions between power structures as if the social organization and management of economy exist outside of sphere of politics is absurd. If a coroporation exists in the politcal realm, then obviously they can engage in political censorship.

Fuck. I even censor myself.

[ 10 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238

posted 10 March 2006 07:28 PM      Profile for obscurantist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If anyone doesn't have a black magic marker, they can feel free to borrow mine.
From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 10 March 2006 07:29 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
CIA Realizes It's Been Using Black Highlighters All These Years
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 10 March 2006 07:30 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Cities for instance are incorporated. Public libraries run as wholey owned coroporations owned by the state, etcetera etcetera.

Yes, and they represent the "government" because they are cities or public libraries own by the state. They are not private legal entities simply because they are "corporations".


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 March 2006 07:32 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The point is that corporations are manifestly created in a body of law. Law is the manifest expression of the will of the state.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 10 March 2006 07:34 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
If a coroporation exists in the politcal realm, then obviously they can engage in political censorship.

What does it mean to exist in the “political realm”?

If you create a legal entity (say a corporation or a limited liability company) and the business of that corporation is to lobby the parliament members regarding the protection of the environment, is that corporation then obligated, say, on its website to publish everything some Tom, Dick and Harry want published there because it is a “corporation” operating in the “political realm”?

Or, because you own the website (indirectly through your corporation) do you have the right to dictate what is published on that website?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 10 March 2006 07:36 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
The point is that corporations are manifestly created in a body of law. Law is the manifest expression of the will of the state.

Your right to own your computer is a right created by law. It is a right that is an expression of the state. Can I use your computer without your permission?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 March 2006 07:38 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am talking about what consitutes a defintion of censorship.

The example of cities and libraries is too show the clear overlap of the mechanism. Why if the corporation called a "library" takes a book off the shelves it is censorship, but if Indigo does the same it is not?

Certainly it can not be the issue of the ownership of corporation, since both types of corporations are consituted under the same laws.

Suddenly, if we sell the library to the private sector, the mechanisms of its internal governance do not change.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 10 March 2006 07:43 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
I am talking about what consitutes a defintion of censorship.

The example of cities and libraries is too show the clear overlap of the mechanism. Why if the corporation called a "library" takes a book off the shelves it is censorship, but if Indigo does the same it is not?


Because the library is a public organ. Indigo is not.

quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Suddenly, if we sell the library to the private sector, the mechanisms of its internal governance do not change.

Let’s look at two alternatives regarding the sale of the library.

First, assume the library is sold to an individual. If that individual elects to remove certain books from her own library (which she voluntarily continues to make available to the public), is that censorship?

Second, assume instead that the library is sold to a corporation that is solely owned by that same individual. Does her removal of the book now constitute “censorship”.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 10 March 2006 07:45 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

Well, I take it you do not own a home, a car or any other assets? If you do, I’m going to be traveling to Alaska in June and I’d like to use those things with my friends, since you have no higher claim to your things than I do.


I own a car(albeit not a real new one). If using it were, for whatever reason, the only way you could express a point of view that was otherwise not being heard, I suppose I couldn't quarrel with you borrowing it.

I'd hope you'd fill up the tank when you were done.

And I own some musical instruments. If you were visiting me in wherever my new apartment is(and I will be getting a new one about then, as my old one flooded out and I'm about traveling for two months before I find a new place)I'd be glad to let you play them.

So no, you didn't trip me up on that one, Svenster.

My overriding point is, if property rights trump freedom of speech, do we have any remaining freedoms, or at least any that matter to anyone but the rich?

Which, in the end, is my prime arguement for the institution of some form of democratic socialism.
The earth needs to belong to us all for our souls to belong to ourselves.


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 March 2006 07:48 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well then what is it called "definitionally" when a private corporation like indigo removes Mein Kampf from sale?

There is no term for it, as VOTD, points out.

I argue that "censorship" is a mechanism of social organization unrelated to the actual party engaging in censorship.

When the Volkstrum Beobachter "voluntarily" omitted news which put the NSDAP into a bad light was it censorship or not Sven?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 10 March 2006 07:48 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
I own a car(albeit not a real new one). If using it were, for whatever reason, the only way you could express a point of view that was otherwise not being heard, I suppose I couldn't quarrel with you borrowing it.

Oh, I didn't say anything about "borrowing" it. I'm not going to give it back. After I'm done using it, I'm going to give it away to the charity of my choice. Same with your musical instruments.

quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
I'd hope you'd fill up the tank when you were done.

That would only make sense if you own the gasoline in the first place. But, since you don't believe in property rights, you have no claim to that fuel.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 10 March 2006 07:49 PM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The example of cities and libraries is too show the clear overlap of the mechanism. Why if the corporation called a "library" takes a book off the shelves it is censorship, but if Indigo does the same it is not?


Actually, I don't personally consider it censorship if the library doesn't stock certain books or magazines. I've never seen hardcore pornography at the Edmonton Public Library, but I don't think that deliberate lacuna on the part of library managment is the same thing as if the owner of a newsstand gets arrested by the cops for selling hardcore pornography.


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 March 2006 07:53 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
When the Volkstrum Beobachter "voluntarily" omitted news which put the NSDAP into a bad light was it censorship or not Sven?

What is it Sven? "Freedom of speech," simply because the Volkstrum Beobachter was a private coporation?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 March 2006 07:54 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by voice of the damned:

Actually, I don't personally consider it censorship if the library doesn't stock certain books or magazines. I've never seen hardcore pornography at the Edmonton Public Library, but I don't think that deliberate lacuna on the part of library managment is the same thing as if the owner of a newsstand gets arrested by the cops for selling hardcore pornography.


Hardcore pornography is generally, as a rule, censored by most public libraries.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 10 March 2006 08:00 PM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
quote:

Hardcore pornography is generally, as a rule, censored by most public libraries.


But is that the same thing as if the police forcibly confiscate all the hardcore porn and force it out of circulation? If Larry Flynt was complaining that the public libraries weren't stocking Hustler, would you consider him a victim of censorship?


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 10 March 2006 08:05 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Well then what is it called "definitionally" when a private corporation like indigo removes Mein Kampf from sale?

I call it a private decision. No one is forcing Indigo to remove the book.

quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
When the Volkstrum Beobachter "voluntarily" omitted news which put the NSDAP into a bad light was it censorship or not Sven?

I think you mean the “Völkischer Beobachter”.

That was a newspaper owned by the Nazi party. It was not a state organ (pre January 1933). After the Nazi’s game to power, the paper became an organ of the state. So, until the paper became an organ of the state, it was not censorship.

The only way that a paper run by a political party could engage in censorship would be to assert that an incorporated political party which operates a website is engaging in censorship if refuses to publish on its website the views of its opponents.

The NDP is a legal entity (a state created organ, though neither owned nor controlled by the state). Must the NDP include in its publications the views of the Conservatives, else be engaging in censorship?

ETA: Labor unions and cooperatives are also legal entities.

[ 10 March 2006: Message edited by: Sven ]


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 March 2006 08:06 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sure. And why not? We often call the discreet kind of journalist censorship where a reporter fails to report something "self-censorship," but the mechanism is still called censorship.

Often there is no need for the police to come barging in with big black magic markers, all that is needed is a phone call, and an appeal to some higher priority like patriotism.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 10 March 2006 08:07 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Hardcore pornography is generally, as a rule, censored by most public libraries.

And, there, you are using the word "censored" correctly.

ETA: And for that, you win this:

[ 10 March 2006: Message edited by: Sven ]


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 March 2006 08:10 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

I call it a private decision. No one is forcing Indigo to remove the book.


You don't fuckng get it Sven. I am talking about the defintion of the act of "censorship."

There are all kinds of "private decisions" but if I say I made a "private decision" no one automatically knows that I made a private decision to not tell someone something, I might be saying that I made a "private decision" to buy a car.

However if I said I "censored" something everybody knows that I intentionally prevented information from being disseminated.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 10 March 2006 08:12 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
You don't fuckng get it Sven.

Oh, I get what you're saying: A private person or entity can censor themselves.

That's silly.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238

posted 10 March 2006 08:14 PM      Profile for obscurantist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh. So there's no need for black magic markers? Pity. I just got this brand new one, with that fresh-black-magic-marker smell and everything, and I wanted to use it for something. But I guess I'll just have to put it away again. Darn it, that sucks.
From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 March 2006 08:15 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Absolutely they can. It is called self-censorship.

You should try it sometime.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 March 2006 08:16 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Find for me Sven, one definition of censorship on-line that indicates that censorship is only the domain of the state.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 10 March 2006 08:17 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Absolutely they can. It is called self-censorship.

You should try it sometime.


“Self-censorship” is a misnomer. Furthermore, . And if you don’t believe that, then . Otherwise, all I can say is .


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238

posted 10 March 2006 08:18 PM      Profile for obscurantist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, Sven, that's easy for you to say, you furshlugginer so-and-so.

[ 10 March 2006: Message edited by: Yossarian ]


From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 March 2006 08:22 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

“Self-censorship” is a misnomer. Furthermore, . And if you don’t believe that, then . Otherwise, all I can say is .


No it is an adaptation of the term "censorship," which means quite clearly to "withold information," not the act of the "state witholding information."

Again, find for me a defintion which asserts that cesorship is only the domain of the state. There are none, because you are wrong.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 10 March 2006 08:24 PM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The regime has done much for the people, and should not be the object of divisive critiques by unhealthy elements.
From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 March 2006 08:26 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I see Sven that when cornered by the obvious facts once again you have retreated into your idiotic evasions, rather than simply to say, I was wrong.

Now go and find that definintion for me.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 10 March 2006 08:32 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Find for me Sven, one definition of censorship on-line that indicates that censorship is only the domain of the state.

For the sake of argument, let's accept your definition of censorship.

Now, let's look at the following two examples (using our agreed-upon definition of "censorship"):

(1) I refrain from saying something in public (or from including something in letter to the editor) that may be impolite or unpopular because I don't want to get angry letters from the public.

(2) A government prohibits a newspaper from publishing unflattering, but true, information about an office holder.

Can we, first of all, agree that those examples are qualitatively different? If so, can you identify why there is a qualitative difference?

In example (1), the person refraining from making the statement did so voluntarily, presumably because he thought it would be better to remain silent than to receive angry letters from the public. But, it was his decision.

In example (2), in contrast, the newspaper had no choice (let's say that the newspaper staff was all jailed and the printing plant destroyed). That is not choice in that example. Censorship is forced upon the paper.

Which example is closer to the issue regarding the play and the NYC theater?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 March 2006 08:35 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thank you. You are absolutely right in the use of the defintion of censorship in both cases. You are also correct in trying to establishes that censorship can be modulated by different types and also intensity of censorship. Good.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 March 2006 08:40 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In example (3), in contrast, to 1 and 2, the thespians had no choice because the theater thought it would be better to silence the thespians than to receive angry letters from the public. And the thespians had no choice. The censorship is forced upon the Thespians.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 10 March 2006 08:46 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Censorship can be applied to any institution. It does not have to be a government organization.

Upon closer consideration, I may tend to agree with that.

But, I think that misses the point. The point is that “censorship” is one party (usually a government) coercing silence. “Censorship” is not a failure or a refusal to affirmatively enable someone else to speak.

Babble has no obligation to publish or permit the posting of any information on its site. If Babble does not want to publish the word “fuck”, it’s not obligated to do so. By not enabling a potential poster to publish the word “fuck” on babble, babble is not engaging in censorship, no more than refusing to make the side of your house available to a graffiti artist is “censorship” of the artist. The website is babble property, just like the side of your house is your property.

Now, if you wanted to publish the word “fuck” on your own website and babble affirmatively prevented you from doing that, then that would be censorship.

So, by focusing on who is acting is not relevant (a government, a corporation, rabble, you, etc.). Rather, it is the action the person takes that is relevant.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 10 March 2006 08:49 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
In example (3), in contrast, to 1 and 2, the thespians had no choice because the theater thought it would be better to silence the thespians than to receive angry letters from the public. And the thespians had no choice. The censorship is forced upon the Thespians.

No. See my post above. What the theater did was refuse to enable the play or speech (as it has no obligation to make its stage available to anyone). What the theater did not do was to affirmatively prevent the thespians from performing.

There is a crucial qualitative difference.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 10 March 2006 08:50 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
posted 10 March 2006 07:48 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by me:
I own a car(albeit not a real new one). If using it were, for whatever reason, the only way you could express a point of view that was otherwise not being heard, I suppose I couldn't quarrel with you borrowing it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sven:
Oh, I didn't say anything about "borrowing" it. I'm not going to give it back. After I'm done using it, I'm going to give it away to the charity of my choice. Same with your musical instruments.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Well, ok, none of my stuff is actually THAT expensive.
What you are describing, however, is not actually analagous to either my views on property or the situation with the cancellation of the play.

The author and actors involved in "My Name is Rachel Corrie" were not going to take over that theatre space for all eternity and then refuse to return it to the control of those who had it before.)

Originally posted by me:
I'd hope you'd fill up the tank when you were done.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sven:
That would only make sense if you own the gasoline in the first place. But, since you don't believe in property rights, you have no claim to that fuel.

(No, it would also make sense if I was a person who tried to display consideration towards others and believed it was reasonable to expect to see it displayed towards myself. You know, like they taught most of us in second grade.)

[ 10 March 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 10 March 2006 08:55 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
(Well, ok, none of my stuff is actually THAT expensive. What you are describing, however, is not actually analagous to either my views on property or the situation with the cancellation of the play.[/QB]

I agree. What I was responding to was your assertion that “Property rights serve no humane or democratic purpose. They represent nothing but the right to be a selfish, arrogant pig. Property is never used for justice or hope.”


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 March 2006 08:59 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

Upon closer consideration, I may tend to agree with that.


You have to don't you, as you have spent the entire thread making a hash of your claim that conservative Muslims were attempting to censor the press when they got offended at the Jylland-Posten cartoons fiasco.

But you and Magoo are liilypads in the great swamp of ideological hypocrisy, letting your base fears and prejudices shift your principles, rather than asserting your principles above your fears.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 10 March 2006 09:01 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, while you did indicate that you are capable of thinking like a thief, you didn't actually rebut my point about the reactionary consequences of putting property rights(and what could be more accurately termed property worship
[what the Bible referred to as Mammon]before the right of human beings to make themselves heard.)

Your response said a lot about yourself, and did little to refute my arguement.


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 10 March 2006 09:03 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

You have to don't you, as you have spent the entire thread making a hash of your claim that conservative Muslims were attempting to censor the press when they got offended at the Jylland-Posten cartoons fiasco.


I don't think I ever said that the Muslims were censoring the press (if you have a quote of mine that actually says that, please point it out). But, if the government were to prohibit the publication of offensive cartoons in order to placate the Muslims, then that would be censorship.

By the way, by your silence regarding acknowledging my last point about the importance of the "action", not the "who", are you agreeing with my argument? If not, on what basis do you disagree?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 March 2006 09:06 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

No. See my post above. What the theater did was refuse to enable the play or speech (as it has no obligation to make its stage available to anyone). What the theater did not do was to affirmatively prevent the thespians from performing.

There is a crucial qualitative difference.


If you assert that the thespians had no rights as far as their reasonable expectations to have the performances to go on as planned, and then the theater acted to quash the production on second consideration under political pressure.

Rachel Corrie was a brave and slefless person, crushed by a D-9 bulldoaxer. Perhaps she was a little naive. But nonetheless she represented the best of us. You are a complete asshole for spending these many hours trying to come up with technical reasons as to why her memories are "justly" to be burried.

This is of course the kind of mealy-mouthed technical bureaucratization of discourse which is truly banal.

[ 10 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 10 March 2006 09:07 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
Well, while you did indicate that you are capable of thinking like a thief

Thievery is only possible if there are property rights. You have said property rights should not exist (therefore you are implicitly arguing against the existence of thievery).

quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
, you didn't actually rebut my point about the reactionary consequences of putting property rights(and what could be more accurately termed property worship [what the Bible referred to as Mammon]before the right of human beings to make themselves heard.)

Your response said a lot about yourself, and did little to refute my arguement.


I made no assertion about whether property rights are superior or inferior to human rights. So, there is no reason to “refute” your argument.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 10 March 2006 09:13 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
If you assert that the thespians had no rights as far as their reasonable expectations to have the performances to go on as planned, and then the theater acted to quash the production on second consideration under political pressure.

Rachel Corrie was a brave and slefless person, crushed by a D-9 bulldoaxer. Perhaps she was a little naive. But nonetheless she represented the best of us. You are a complete asshole for spending these many hours trying to come up with technical reasons as to why her memories are "justly" to be burried.

This is of course the kind of mealy-mouthed technical bureaucratization of discourse which is truly banal.


I have clearly “won” this argument for two reasons:

(1) You have resorted to the weakest possible response by using an ad hominem attack. It is one of the clearest signs that a person has not logical response to an argument.

(2) You only non-ad hominem attack is to attack “mealy-mouthed technical bureaucratization of discourse”. In other words, you are unable to address the logic and reason of what I was saying.

I’m really disappointed in that, Cueball. I thought this was an interesting discourse. I actually revised my thinking regarding the nature of the actor (as you correctly pointed out). Yet, when I look at the issue a little closer and found what I think is the true heart of the issue of censorship, you resort to (1) and (2).


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 March 2006 09:15 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

By the way, by your silence regarding acknowledging my last point about the importance of the "action", not the "who", are you agreeing with my argument? If not, on what basis do you disagree?

My 'silence' on this point is absolute agreement with it, very much because it is you who have finally agreed to my point, after arguing against it, when I have repetedly stated that the "who" is irrelevant, time and time again above.

Remember:

quote:
I am talking about what constitutes a defintion of censorship.

The example of cities and libraries is too show the clear overlap of the mechanism. Why if the corporation called a "library" takes a book off the shelves it is censorship, but if Indigo does the same it is not?

Certainly it can not be the issue of the ownership of corporation, since both types of corporations are consituted under the same laws.

Suddenly, if we sell the library to the private sector, the mechanisms of its internal governance do not change.


You are so committed to this idea that you are incredibly smart that you seem to have adopted my origincal position, as if you have been arguing it all along. Good on you for recognizing the reality of the argument. Stunning that you should not be able to identify the author of the arguement.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 March 2006 09:19 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In fact you argued that the "who" not the action was of paramount importance:

quote:
I think you mean the “Völkischer Beobachter”.

That was a newspaper owned by the Nazi party. It was not a state organ (pre January 1933). After the Nazi’s game to power, the paper became an organ of the state. So, until the paper became an organ of the state, it was not censorship.


It is pointless to discuss moral issues with someone who seems oblivous to the fact that they are plagerizing, and adopting someone elses ideas as there won.

You should hook up with Karl Rove. Astonishng!

And it is from someone so shallow as to approriate someone elses ideas so bold-facedly, even in the same thread, that I am to recieve lectures about the morality of censorship?

[ 10 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 10 March 2006 09:22 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
You are a complete asshole for spending these many hours trying to come up with technical reasons as to why her memories are "justly" to be burried.

One final thought: This sentence also highlights an incredible weakness in your rhetoric. You are ascribing motives to me (i.e., that I want to bury the memory of Rachel Corrie) that do not exist. I don’t know anything about RC. My argument is made on the principled basis of trying to logically and rationally analyze and understand what is and what is not “censorship” (“mealy-mouthed technicality”, as you call them). I was not, as you imply, jumping through rhetorical hoops to argue in favor of silencing the play (as I have no opinion, either way, as to the content of the play and, therefore, I have no care, content-wise, whether the play is presented or not).


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238

posted 10 March 2006 09:24 PM      Profile for obscurantist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm interested in learning a bit more about the Rachel Corrie story. I must've read something about it at the time, but I forget when that was.

It sounds quite horrific, but in an unusual kind of way. Did she think she was seriously at risk by putting herself in front of the bulldozer, or did she think that she would be able to stop it? What happened to the people who ran her over?

In a way, it sounds like a strange cross between the tragic actions of the Ontario government and OPP at Ipperwash, and the scene at the start of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. (I'm not trying to make light of what must have been an awful event -- I was just put in mind of it by the idea of someone standing / lying in front of a bulldozer to stop a house being demolished.)

(Edit: Okay, I should've expected there would be more than a few Babble threads on this topic. I think this is the first one, but there are several others as well. I can probably read up on this topic myself if I want to learn more about it.)

[ 10 March 2006: Message edited by: Yossarian ]


From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 10 March 2006 09:26 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

[ 10 March 2006: Message edited by: Sven ]


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jeb616
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10841

posted 10 March 2006 09:27 PM      Profile for Jeb616   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Not to demean this issue, but I always thought Rachael Corrie was the matriarch on a long-deceased soap opera named another world. anyways, carry on...
From: Polar Bunker | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 10 March 2006 09:28 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
In fact you argued that the "who" not the action was of paramount importance:

quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
It is pointless to discuss moral issues with someone who seems oblivous to the fact that they are plagerizing, and adopting someone elses ideas as there won.

Can you not read?!?! I said that I now agree with you that the "who" is not the issue (I wasn't attempting to appropriate "your" idea).

But, my underlying conclusion regarding whether or not the thespians were "censored" or whether rabble "censors" trolls, remains the same: It is not censorship. And, I gave you a very detailed analysis that described my reasoning.

You have simply ignored it because you cannot adequatly refute it, at least not with the use of logic and reason (only with ad hominem attacks and other weak rhetorical devices, sure signs of a sinking argument).

[ 10 March 2006: Message edited by: Sven ]


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 March 2006 09:29 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes you did agree with me. And then you made it out that it was your arguement:

quote:
By the way, by your silence regarding acknowledging my last point about the importance of the "action", not the "who", are you agreeing with my argument? If not, on what basis do you disagree?

Banal.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 10 March 2006 09:36 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Yes you did agree with me. And then you made it out that it was your arguement.

quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
By the way, by your silence regarding acknowledging my last point about the importance of the "action", not the "who", are you agreeing with my argument? If not, on what basis do you disagree?

I've got news for you: It is "my" point regarding the analysis of "action" that I made after we agreed regarding your point of the "who".

Yet, you keep harping on the "who" issue (plagarism, etc., etc.)....apparently because you cannot adequately retort the "action" analysis that concludes the thespians where not censored by the theater (or anyone else, for that matter) and that trolls are not censored by babble.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 10 March 2006 09:46 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

I made no assertion about whether property rights are superior or inferior to human rights. So, there is no reason to “refute” your argument.


Au contraire, mon ami. In arguing that the owners of property(in this case a theatre) have the right to cancel a play they've committed to staging and thus prevent the ideas within the play from being heard, you have clearly stated that the right to private property trumps the right to free speech, and thus all other rights.

And I'll amend "think like a thief" to read "think like a person with no respect for others".


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 10 March 2006 09:47 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ah, the sweet sound of silence.

And, for that, Cueball, I’m pleased to say you get another one of these:


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 10 March 2006 09:51 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Holy crap. This thread is so long. Sorry, I didn't see it get to this point (been away from babble since early this morning).
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca