First Blood

Well, it’s started. I’m only surprised it took this long. Tumblr has flagged one of my old posts. In particular, this one:

Yeah. A baby. It must be a girl with female presenting nipples that are simply TOO SCANDALOUS for people to handle.

Yes, there is that “appeal” process where supposedly they’ll have an actual person look at the post instead of a bot that scans for any form of skin (seriously, I’m not the only one who’s had things flagged because they have flesh tones in them). But it’s still a stupid, crappy process that flags way more than it should. People can’t post sfw selfies without them getting flagged, and I feel like all these so called appeals take away time that should be maintaining their stupid crappy website.

Also, good news. The porn bots are all still there. As are the white supremacists. Wouldn’t want to ban those assholes or anything.

The Code of Codes

While trying to stop exploring TV Tropes (seriously, that site is addictive; click that link at your own peril) I was surprised to learn about an enforced morality system on films called the Hays Code. Okay, maybe not that surprised.

In summary, the code was a moral standard that films were encouraged to follow. And by encouraged, I mean told to or else they wouldn’t get the almighty Hays seal of approval and be blacklisted from movie theatres all over the country. You know. Kind of like the MPAA does today.

Too. Many. Eff Words!

Anyway, in a great bit of 1930s logic, it was believed the best alternative to government censorship was censorship by the film makers themselves. Granted, movies were still stumbling through pre-adolescence, but the fact that the United States Supreme Court ruled that movies were non-protected speechis shocking. But back then, movies were considered to be pure entertainment for profit, and entertainment was not considered worthy of free speech.

Kind of horrifying, isn’t it? Look at these rules which American studios willingly enforced:

General Principles

1. No picture shall be produced that will lower the moral standards of those who see it. Hence the sympathy of the audience should never be thrown to the side of crime, wrongdoing, evil or sin.

2. Correct standards of life, subject only to the requirements of drama and entertainment, shall be presented.

3. Law, natural or human, shall not be ridiculed, nor shall sympathy be created for its violation.

Ouch. And these don’t get into details, where nothing “suggestive” of sex could be shown, you couldn’t even say S.O.B. and white slavery was never permitted on screen. I don’t know why they qualified that but yes I do because they also said no sex relationships between black people and white people. Yeah. Racism. Also, no evil clergy, no indecent dancing, no childbirth, and nothing remotely positive about something illegal.

Can you imagine trying to write a good movie following these laws? I’m not saying that everything has to be grim and glum, especially for grim and glum’s sake, but sometimes that’s what life is. Yet these rules were upheld for over two decades, until the Supreme Court finally updated their decision in 1952. Although the Code stayed in affect for another sixteen years, American studios finally started breaking the rules, no doubt because European studios didn’t have to follow the rules and were kicking their butts with realistic, relatable films.

I for one am glad it’s gone.

Censorship, concluded (finally)

I told myself I wasn't going to do it. After Monday, then Tuesday, and finally yesterday, I figured enough was enough.

But I just...couldn't...stop!

Okay, the preamble is done and I want to say censorship, whether in the form of suppressing newspapers, removing books from libraries or, heaven forbid, burning them, is bad. I understand keeping things age appropriate--no eight year old should be reading Speak, no matter how well-written it is. Besides the fact that he or she would not understand it, the child has not yet come to realize the true nature of the world, i.e. bad things, really bad things, can happen to anyone, but probably won't. When I was six, I firmly believed that every person lived exactly one hundred years and died on their birthdays. So, yes, there are some things that are inappropriate for an age range.

But burning Harry Potter for promoting witchcraft? Okay, the line? You left it in the dust two miles back. Despite what fanfic.com says, Harry Potter is a fantasy novel, plain and simple. Kids, even little kids, know that. True, they might imagine it to be real or have it firmly lodged into their mind that it is real for a short while, but rarely do they believe it is real. Children have the gift of an unencumbered imagination. They should be allowed to use it while they can.

Besides, does Harry Potter even have anything to do with witch craft, real or otherwise (Clarification: by "real" I mean Wicca and other earth-based religions; by "fake," I mean Satanism)? I don't think so. And no matter how much they love a book, most children aren't going to "live" it. True, it might open their minds to new possibilities, other ideas--ones you might not even like! Is that bad? No. No-no-no-no-no-no-no. Just no.

Reading a book rarely makes someone a communist-satanist-homosexual-socialist-liberal-conservative-progressive-whatever you have a problem with. And when it does? Usually because the deviance was already there in the first place. You really think John Lennon would not have been shot if Mark David Chapman hadn't read Catcher in the Rye? I assure you: he was as messed up before as he was after.

Powerful as they are, books are not, in themselves, violent. They can stir up violence, incite hatred, but the act has to be committed by a person, and that person will most likely be influenced by a lot more than a book. My influences include my parents, my siblings, my aunts and uncles, my teachers, my friends and many others, all appearing before any book does. Because these are the people who raised me, shaped me.

And that is the point of these last four days. Books are wonderful, magical tools to the imagination! They are scary, they are sexy, they are fun, they are boring, they are meaningful, they are forgettable. But you are the chief influence in anyone's life, friend or relative. So next time you hear about banning books, ask yourself: right or wrong about the content, is itreally a big deal?

Bad Words

Okay, so this apparently will be part three of the Censorship series. Day one was pulling books out of school for being "inappropriate" and day two was the restrictions on sex and sexuality in television. Today will deal with curse words in both literature and television.

There are several words that are barred from anything kids might happen to look at. I mean, if you read a middle grade book, you're not going to see a character blurt out a string of curses, even if it's appropriate for the character or if the softened dialogue seems inaccurate. The same goes for childrens' television. But keeping children from being exposed to the word "fuck" is one thing. Refusing to allow God, demon, gun or bomb is another.

The first, I'm sure, is not allowed for fear of offending people who don't want their children to hear blasphemy. The second I've never understood, although I suppose demon can have religious connotations, association with such is not the first thing that comes to mind. Gun? This is getting a bit ridiculous, especially when I know of parents who take their children out hunting. Yes, I know there are school shootings, but they aren't caused by anyone, from four to forty, hearing the word gun in a cartoon. Interesting: the word weapon is okay. Bomb is in pretty much the same boat. While I'm not advocating shows about weapons and explosions, if a serious-minded childrens' show mentions a bomb somewhere, I don't think it will traumatize anyone. I mean, it's a kids' show. They're already forbidden from showing death.

Is this a case of taking protection too far? Or is it trying to shield children from harsh truths? Words can be powerful, devastating even, whether in the form of a threat, a cruel barb, or a simple joke. But will...can seeing a cartoon bomb in an unrealistic situation cause irreparable damage? I'm sorry, but I just don't believe that, especially when other countries allow their children to view/read these situations and no harm comes. I just don't believe hearing of bombs and violence will desensitize children even a small amount. Hell, I started reading Steven King when I was eight and violence still horrifies me. I think they're looking in the wrong place if they want to protect their children.

There are words that should be legitimately banned, but these are words of degradation, not actions. If a child hears the n word in casual conversation, s/he will believe it's okay to use that word, that there is no history of violence and disenfranchisement surrounding it. In the same vein, children should not watch/read about heroes who bomb or kill (mentioning is different from actions) because then they'll think that is acceptable. But how far is too far?

We must constantly question that. And we should not rely on others to make that judgment for us.

Speak now, or...

If you aren't all ready aware, a man in Missouri called Laurie Halse Anderson "soft pornography." And because of that, he feels it should be banned. This is a man who is disdainful of fourth grade sex education curriculum, which mentions reproduction. And don't get him started on eighth grade, which has the audacity to mention homosexuality and condoms. Laurie's book Speak is being taught in English class--the movie has even been shown!--and he is disgusted by what it shows: sex, including two scenes of rape (he doesn't come right out and say it's the victim's fault, but his contempt for a girl who believes sex his a part of the high school experience is apparent; basically, his words indicate that she brought it on herself for being a slut). Some of the specifics he claims to have read in Speak I certainly don't remember.

He's demanding this book and others be removed from curriculum, for things like daring to show sex, the use of condoms, and speaking negatively of god. If I had to guess, I would think this man wasn't a very good literature student, or else he would understand that harsh (gritty, if you will), sexualized or blasphemous scenes taken within the context of the novel are used to make a point. If you focus on that one particular part, yeah, you might think it bad because you can only use yourself and your beliefs as a frame of reference. But if you look at the novel as a whole...

Honestly, I don't like the idea of pulling books out of curriculum or off library shelves. It's one thing to keep a place age appropriate. It's quite another to remove it because it has scenes you don't like. People refused to let their children read Huckleberry Finn because of the gratuitous use of a certain word, ignoring the fact that 1: Mark Twain believed in racial equality; 2: a lot of people talked like that during the nineteenth century (they didn't have much consideration for those of African descent...and apparently, Twain couldn't have been making a point about that), and 3: the character of Jim is ill-treated to say the absolute least, yet he is the kindest, most caring adult in Huck Finn's life. He puts himself in danger of capture to keep him safe. So why are people looking at one word, no matter how many times it's repeated?

I think Speak should be taught to high school students. It's about finding courage and strength when it has been taken away from you. It's about how staying silent about something horrible happened is just as bad as the horror. I believe these lessons are important ones to learn. Anyone who reads Speak, or Huckleberry Finn, or Slaughterhouse-Five, might be drawn to what makes them controversial, but that won't be the only think they take away from them. In between what makes their parents uncomfortable (because they have not yet learned why they themselves should be uncomfortable), maybe they'll learn about courage or kindness or making their own fate.

And damn anyone for trying to take that away under the guise of "protection."