Friday, September 19, 2008


There are only two causes for censorship, and one is appropriate and one is not. The first is to create a formal setting, and this is fairly noble. The second is not appropriate, and it is a moral indignation, an outrage at the sensibilities being offended. What is offensive? People intensifying their words? Taking offense on moral justifications is due to a sense of vanity and is solely an extension of ignorance. If you find yourself outraged at someone saying fuck, then it is fairly safe to assume you do not understand much at all about this world, and are not fit to live in it.

I must say, whether or not for a formal setting, there is only one way to censor something and that is to leave it out. Editing something to say f*ck is NOT censorship, it is a false attempt at such, and all it does is make you morally pretentious, even above people who are outraged, but whom at least have the decency and honesty to eschew it from their vocabularies altogether. If the reader can still guess with ease and certainty what is being censored, then you have not censored anything at all, you have merely made it take longer for them to read the 'vulgarities' that have been espoused.

Now, a misconception that many people seem to have is that they have the right to free speech at all times. You have the right to free speech where it will not bother the sensibilities of others! You do not have the right to disturb the peace screaming; you do not have the right to stalk and harass people who decide they do not want to hear your idiotic views; you do not have the right to speak however you may like at a private or semi-private meeting that has standards you are expected to meet, whether or not you agree with them. You may try, and if you get dismissed for doing so, then you deserved to be dismissed. It would be laughable indeed to espouse that one could have free speech at all times, and only idiots get upset about not having it all the time. This, of course, applies to censorship in proving my basic assumption that one does not have the right to curse all the time. In a formal setting, when it is expected to not curse, then it is best used not at all or as an intensifier. I am all for not following norms, but cursing is usually for an effect to make speech lazier or humorous in most cases, so it is only appropriate sparingly or not at all in a formal setting, and then only to intensify and make a very useful point.

This does not belie my point that anyone who is actually offended on grounds of morality is an idiot; what I am espousing one might be offended on the grounds of is the use of 'vulgarity' as a crutch! If one is too stupid to speak without curses, then one deserves to be ousted from an intelligent setting, which is the only place censorship ought to be occurring in the first place.

No comments: