Mohit Just's Library tagged censorship →  View Popular, Search in Google

The creative act requires not only freedom but also this assumption of freedom. If the creative artist worries if he will still be free tomorrow, then he will not be free today. If he is afraid of the consequences of his choice of subject or of his manner of treatment of it, then his choices will not be determined by his talent, but by fear. If we are not confident of our freedom, then we are not free...
At its most effective, the censor’s lie actually succeeds in replacing the artist’s truth. That which is censored is thought to have deserved censorship. Boat-rocking is deplored...
You will even find people who will give you the argument that censorship is good for artists because it challenges their imagination. This is like arguing that if you cut a man’s arms off you can praise him for learning to write with a pen held between his teeth. Censorship is not good for art, and it is even worse for artists themselves...
Even more serious is the growing acceptance of the don’t-rock-the-boat response to those artists who do rock it, the growing agreement that censorship can be justified when certain interest groups, or genders, or faiths declare themselves affronted by a piece of work. Great art, or, let’s just say, more modestly, original art is never created in the safe middle ground, but always at the edge. Originality is dangerous. It challenges, questions, overturns assumptions, unsettles moral codes, disrespects sacred cows or other such entities. It can be shocking, or ugly, or, to use the catch-all term so beloved of the tabloid press, controversial. And if we believe in liberty, if we want the air we breathe to remain plentiful and breathable, this is the art whose right to exist we must not only defend, but celebrate. Art is not entertainment. At its very best, it’s a revolution.

art creativity offence salman_rushdie censorship wp

We would, however, be deluding ourselves if we make believe that it is only the arts that suffer because of censorship. A free, uninhibited and open atmosphere is the oxygen that allows scientists, mathematicians, architects and those from other disciplines to think without walls, taboos and claustrophobia; and to dare to take risks and venture into unknown and unexplored territories.
But that too does not reveal the insidious but palpable far-reaching effects of an atmosphere of Big Brother looking over your shoulder every minute. The openness that should be the hallmark of all universities, educational and research institutions goes out the window. Much worse, the horizon shrinks at an alarming rate and all your values get skewered. Your air supply starts to dwindle. Creative minds in the sciences as well as in the humanities and the arts can breathe, thrive and contribute to their disciplines only when there are no barriers to knowledge and ideas.

censorship free_speech freedom kiran_nagarkar india politics wp

"The three forces, God, Money, and the State, are using all the force at their disposal, to prevent ideas that challenge their belief, facts that undermine their wealth, and dissent that speaks truth to power, from flourishing. European law—which guarantees free speech but also guarantees the right of privacy—doesn’t help. Nor will most politicians. Only a handful of British parliamentarians have been firm in their support of overturning the libel laws (most would prefer tinkering with the legislation), just as no mainstream politician in India spoke up for Rushdie’s right to visit Jaipur, or speak to the festival through a video-link.

That’s because India has another powerful force ranged against free speech: the vigilante, who will ransack a gallery, assault an artist, burn books, and attack theatres that show films he doesn’t want others to see. Most gods are happy with that; most people with money, therefore, wouldn’t take any risk; and most politicians jail the artist or the writer for disturbing the peace."

free_speech freedom censorship salil_tripathi wp

All voices need to be heard. Silence some, you silence others; silence many, and you are left with only a few safe subjects, as the late Behram Contractor, or Busybee, noted about the emergency—cricket and mangoes.
...At a time when prosecutors are considering charges against four authors and the organizers of the Jaipur Literature Festival, after the four read from The Satanic Verses, it is important for the government to remember the kind of state it is—letting writers speak, or letting rioters silence others.
This profound conversation needs to begin. Our being able to express ideas, challenge one another and question beliefs establishes our humanity. Our ability to settle differences by talking through things, by moving away from conversations we don’t like, by being sceptical about claims we disagree with, and by letting others have their say so that we can have ours creates that virtuous circle that restores our dignity. Do away with that, and we belong to the Land of Chup, or silence, as Rushdie points out in Haroun and the Sea of Stories: “All those arguments and debates, all that openness, had created powerful bonds of fellowship… the Chupwalas (those from the silent land) turned out to be a disunited rabble, suspicious and distrustful of one another. The Land of Gup (talk) is bathed in endless sunshine, while over in Chup, it is always the middle of the night.”
That afternoon it felt like dawn. It was the beginning for all of us to speak what we think, read what we want, and shut the book if it is not interesting. The choice should be ours, not of the state, or men (almost always men) who claim to speak in the name of gods.

free_speech freedom censorship salil_tripathi friends wp

the whole principle of freedom of speech is predicated on the right to offend.
Consider a society where everyone said nice things about everyone else. Would such a society ever need to enshrine the right to freedom of speech in its constitution? There would be no reason to do so because nobody ever got offended.
You only need the right to free speech when you want to offend people...
Because the ‘giving offence’ argument is so weak in the Rushdie case, those who want to ban the book have fallen back on another argument. Now they say that if a book like this is published, then it will lead to violence.
And why should it lead to violence? Well, because the same people who had never read the book and who we agreed had no right to demand a ban will now run riot setting fire to property and killing people.
A genuinely liberal society should recognise this for what it is: a law and order problem and not a free speech issue...
But when it comes to free speech, we don’t act against those who threaten violence. Instead, we turn against those whose right to free speech we should be protecting.

virsanghvi freedom censorship reading writing india wp

there will be no point to the festival if the invited writers are forbidden from challenging the fast-settling status quo. The fate of the festival is the same as the fate of free expression. The problem is not that four writers spoke up at JLF, the problem is that so few of us did...
19. It is wishful to assume the censors haven’t entered our heads. The space for thought has shrunk, is shrinking right before our eyes. They want not just that Rushdie shouldn’t come, they won’t even allow his image on a screen. They want not just that Kak’s documentary not be screened, they want the entire event cancelled. Each step they gain is harder to reverse...
22. Why read at all? For a sense of empathy and risk. Because only reading will prevent you from mistaking fiction for fact and help you see the internal borders of a made-up story. Why read? Because culture is conversation.

india freedom censorship reading writing JLF wp

the word of god grows best in fields watered by the state's pelf, and ploughed by the state's swords.
Salman Rushdie's censoring-out from the ongoing literary festival in Jaipur will be remembered as a milestone that marked the slow motion disintegration of India's secular state...
Few Indians understand the extent to which the state underwrites the practice of their faith. The case of the Maha Kumbh Mela, held every 12 years at Haridwar, Allahabad, Ujjain and Nashik, is a case in point...
Last year, the Uttar Pradesh police sought a staggering Rs.2.66 billion to pay for the swathe of electronic technologies, helicopters and 30,000 personnel which will be needed to guard the next Mela in 2013. There are no publicly available figures on precisely how much the government will spend on other infrastructure — but it is instructive to note that an encephalitis epidemic that has claimed over 500 children's lives this winter drew a Central aid of just Rs.0.28 billion.
The State's subsidies to the Kumbh Mela, sadly, aren't an exception. Muslims wishing to make the Haj pilgrimage receive state support; so, too, do Sikhs travelling to Gurdwaras of historic importance in Pakistan. Hindus receive identical kinds of largesse, in larger amounts. The state helps underwrite dozens of pilgrimages, from Amarnath to Kailash Mansarovar. Early in the last decade, higher education funds were committed to teaching pseudo-sciences like astrology; in 2001, the Gujarat government even began paying salaries to temple priests...
It doesn't end there: the state regulates, on god's behalf, what we may eat or drink — witness the proliferation of bans on beef, and proscriptions on alcohol use in so-called holy cities. It ensures children pray in morning assemblies funded by public taxes, provides endowments for denomination schools and funds religious functions. It pays for prayers before state functions, and promotes pseudo-sciences like astrology. And, yes: it censors heretics, like M.F. Husain or Mr. Rushdie...
the real costs of India's failure to secularise: among them, the perpetuation of caste and gender inequities, the stunting of reason and critical facilities needed for economic and social progress; the corrosive growth of religious nationalism.
India cannot undo this harm until god and god's will are ejected from our public life...
In a 1927 essay, philosopher Bertrand Russell observed that theist arguments boiled down to a single, vain claim: “Look at me: I am such a splendid product that there must be design in the universe.”
The time has come for Indian secular-democrats to assert the case for a better universe: a universe built around citizenship and rights, not the pernicious identity politics the state and its holy allies encourage.

india censorship religion faith atheism secularism salman_rushdie JLF wp

“In all the arguments made against Salman Rushdie’s attendance at the Jaipur Literature Festival this week, the gist of them is just this: he disturbs the peace.” But all great literature (or work of art) disturbs the peace in its own way—by questioning tradition, urging us to see in new and different ways, even by being a call to arms. At its core is the concept of “doubt”, without which there can be no progress, no equity, and above all, nothing at all that is new. A world without doubt is a world of endless recapitulation. There can be no freedom of anything, at any level, if doubt is stamped upon. The Deoband clerics have every right to protest peacefully, and Rushdie has every right to seed doubt. It will be truly sad for Indian democracy if Rushdie is barred from coming to India.

views right censorship free_speech freedom wp india

By demanding that Rushdie should not be allowed to enter India, fundamentalists are seeking to set the terms under which dialogue can occur in India. Muslims have been vocal in protesting against material they find offensive, with the Bangladesh-born novelist Tasleema Nasreen a frequent target.
But in the past quarter century, other groups have also joined in, increasing the clamor against free thought, and narrowing public discourse...
The inevitable result is deadened polity. While the People’s Union of Civil Liberties has admirably spoken out in defence of Rushdie, other Indian civil society groups have been reticent, unwilling to take on the intolerant, who respond not with argument, but with violence. A few columnists and Bollywood personalities have also criticised the fundamentalists. But no politician of consequence has done so.
We watch as India hovers over that precipice; it must decide what kind of society it wishes to be — where, as India’s greatest poet wrote, where the mind is without fear, or where words are swallowed, lest they offend somebody.

free speech censorship india free_speech freedom friends wp salil_tripathi

The EU seems to be particularly concerned that unregulated blogs may have helped the "No" campaign in the Irish referendum. Fortunately, the final resolution was watered down somewhat, instead calling for "an open discussion on all issues relating to the

censorship blogs blogging

the point is this. Flickr should NOT be permanently deleting anyone’s account. Especially a paid account. And especially without warning. In the event that Flickr really feels that they need to delete an account, I think that they owe it to their customer

yahoo photography flickr censorship tyranny

The assault on Tehelka resulting in its closure, was one of two standout cases of media harassment by the former BJP government, whose prime ministerial candidate L.K. Advani was recently decorated by India’s leading English language broadcaster NDTV with

bjp government censorship tehelka advani press

I loved coming to the US...because I loved the idea that freedom of speech was paramount. I still do. With all its faults, the US has Freedom of Speech...You can say what you like, write what you like, and know that the remedy to someone saying or writing

politics freedom speech writing censorship comics rights law free_speech

Why is it in the “wider public interest” for the book to be banned rather than debated and, if it deserves to be, dismissed? And why is the media, a firm believer that the best yardstick to measure “news” is the decibel count, reluctant to do more than me

censorship freedom free_speech bans protest media bjp india politics

Voices can be silenced, but the human voice cannot. Our languages are what make us fully human...Each language is unique: To lose one is to lose a range of feeling and a way of looking at life that, like a living species that becomes extinct, can never be

censorship freedom writing

to the parents in these towns: There are people out there who are deciding what your kids can read, and they don't care what you think because they are positive their ideas of what's proper and what's not are better, clearer than your own. Do you believe

books reading censorship freedom free_speech kids children choice

"Responsibility" is seen as an authorial function: few people see that those who may be offended have an equal responsibility, which is to set out their arguments in a way that at the very least, does not include physical violence.
All of this sends out a

censorship offense freedom free_speech law india dissent

The easiest way to discredit a woman writer, or womens' writing in general, is to call it obscene, to set yourself up as Narain Rai did, as a morality cop.
Ismat Chugtai had the right answer so many decades ago. Some of us are girls who are not respectabl

writing censorship freedom free_speech nilanjana_roy expression feminism

Historically, the emergence of arguments vindicating the right to free speech was based precisely on the recognition that ideas and their expression would unsettle us...
Lately, we seem to think that free speech is a contingent, grace and favour grant fro

freedom free_speech censorship liberty culture india sunil_khilnani essay

Talking about controversial things became taboo, and if anyone felt offended, the State was ready to restrain the offender. Since outraged religious feelings could lead to law and order problems, there was now a law to ban that; since the government would

freedom free_speech censorship liberty salil_tripathi friends culture india