A History of Censorship

Charnow, S.. "The Frightful Stage: Political Censorship of the Theater in Nineteenth-Century Europe. " Rev. of: ***[insert title of work reviewed in italics]***, ***[insert clarifying information]***. History  38.4 (2010): 141-141. Platinum Periodicals, ProQuest. Web.  7 Oct. 2010.

Goldstein, Robert Justin, ed. The Frightful Stage: Political Censorship of the Theater in Nineteenth-Century Europe New York: Berghahn Books 310 pp., $95.00, ISBN 978-1-84545-459-3 Publication Date: March 2009

This article goes in-depth into how censoring plays and operas in Europe during the 19th century took extreme amounts of energy and time. 

The hero of Beaumarchais's Marriage of Figaro sarcastically explains, "They tell me that if in my writing I mention neither the government, nor public worship, nor politics, nor morals, nor people in office, nor influential corporations, nor the opera, nor the other theatres, nor any one who has aught to do with anything, I may print everything freely, subject to the approval of two or three censors" (quoted in Goldstein, 276). Granting a degree of theatrical exaggeration, these restrictions describe the constraints to which play texts were subject across continental Europe during most of the nineteenth century according to Robert J. Goldstein, editor of The Frightful Stage. This volume includes individual essays on censorship of the theater in Germany (Gary D. Stark), France (Robert J. Goldstein), Russia (Anthony Swift), Spain (David T. Gies), Italy (John A. Davis), and the Habsburg monarchy (Norbert Bachleitner), as well as an introductory chapter and a concluding summary by Goldstein. This volume, Goldstein suggests, offers "reliable and comprehensive summaries, for an English-language audience, of the latest research available from the most important countries of nineteenth-century Europe" (viii). Individual chapters stand alone and include extensive bibliographical essays. The Frightful Stage provides a valuable contribution to the growing literature on European cultural history that focuses on theater, performance, and spectacle.

As Goldstein explains, ruling elites sawthe theater as a form of communication that could potentially threaten the existing political, legal, and social order. Given the "especial fear of the poor and the illiterate," who had "far greater access. . . to the stage as compared with print media" (1), censoring play and opera texts occupied a great deal of official time and energy across Europe in the wake of the French Revolution. In each nation, there were also periods of little or no censorship. As Goldstein argues for France, censorship reflected broader political currents and provides "invaluable information about the fears and concerns of political authorities in the nineteenth century"(117).

What is striking is the overwhelming similarity of theater censorship policies across state borders. In each state, some form of preventive or preperformance censorship required theater directors to submit play texts to some form of regulatory body for approval. The question of social class-"of determining what types of material should be permitted for which social groups-was of fundamental concern" to the censors (77). Performances geared toward the popular classes were more tightly controlled than those aimed at the more "elite, educated, and upper class audience" (ibid.). Censors forbade images and characters, including heads of state, and stories that suggested revolution; critical representations of clergy and other church-related persons; and, of course, scenarios depicting questionable morals. Writers also practiced self-censorship. As the well-known Spanish critic of censorship Mariano José de Larra stated, "If I don't write it, they can't ban it" (171). He argued that the laws of censorship turned writers into "self-censoring cowards" (ibid.).

Directors and actors also subverted censorship laws in similar ways across the continent. Directors organized performances in private clubs to avoid submitting texts to the authorities, and actors reinstated text that had been censored and used physical gestures to communicate their intended meaning to the audience, who seemed to know how to read between the lines.

Therewere, of course, significant differences among states. In preunification Germany and Italy, theater censorship policies and licensing were not centralized as in France but differed from state to state and frequently from city to city. Local censorship policies also prevailed in the multinational and multilingual Habsburg monarchy, as did censorship that focused primarily on suppressing nationalist ideology that threatened the dual monarchical system (230). In Spain, there was continued support for ecclesiastical censorship, which could "trump civil law when necessary" (169).

What makes the discussion of censorship so fascinating is not that theater censorship substantially impoverished the nineteenth-century European stage and culture more generally, as Goldstein suggests for the French case (117). After all, we do not know what might have happened with no censorship. Rather, it seems remarkable that talented writers and ingenious directors created lively, if often predictable, theater during periods of censorship. As Anthony Swift argues for the Russian case, "Censorship, however, did not stifle the innovations of Stanislavsky, Meyerhold, Evreinov. . .. To be sure, censorship did have a negative impact on Russian theater, as it did elsewhere in Europe, but that impact should not be overstated. Tsarist Russia's theatrical culture was innovative, and left behind a vital legacy" (155). Despite the extensive blue pencil marks on play scripts throughout the nineteenth century, the chapters in this volume attest to that vital legacy.

Cartoon Censorship?

"When Cultures Collide: Observers around the world tell TIME how they view the cartoons--and the controversy they've sparked." Time 13 Feb. 2006: 48. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 6 Oct. 2010.

Document URL
http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/MagazinesDetailsPage/MagazinesDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Magazines&prodId=OVIC&action=e&windowstate=normal&catId=&documentId=GALE%7CA141687244&mode=view&userGroupName=chsd&jsid=75272541a9451396166ca124933981a8

This article is about a series of cartoons that were published in Denmark that many people found extremely offensive to Muslims. The article addresses both sides of the argument about whether or not these cartoons should have been censored. People from all over the world share their opinion on the cartoons and freedom of speech, as well as censorship in media. 

FLEMMING ROSE Culture editor of Denmark's Jyllands-Posten, who commissioned the drawings

In mid-September a Danish author went on the record as saying he had problems finding illustrators for a book about the life of the Prophet Muhammad. The [eventual] illustrator insisted on anonymity. Translators of a book by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali Dutch politician who has been critical of Islam, also insisted on anonymity. Then the Tate Britain in London removed an installation called God Is Great, which shows the Talmud, the Koran and the Bible embedded in a piece of glass. To me, all those spoke to the problems of self-censorship and freedom of speech, and that's why I wrote to 40 Danish cartoonists asking them to depict Muhammad as they see him.
Some of the cartoons turned out to be caricatures because this is just in the Danish tradition. We make fun of the Queen, we make fun of politicians, we make fun of more or less everything. Of course, we didn't expect this kind of reaction, but I am sorry if some Muslims feel insulted. This was not directed at Muslims. I wanted to put this issue of self-censorship on the agenda and have a debate about it.

SAMIA AL-DUAIJ Kuwaiti oil executive living in Belgium after two years in Denmark
These pictures aren't blasphemous, they're racist. I'm a very liberal Kuwaiti woman who cracks the odd joke about Islam, but I was extremely offended by these cartoons because I know what kind of society produced them. I am well educated and had a high-paying corporate job in Denmark, but I was still subjected to derogatory comments all the time because I look Middle Eastern. Every single second-generation Muslim Dane I met wanted to get the hell out. Why? They say, "We grew up here, but we feel unwelcome. We can't get jobs." Perhaps it's the same feeling that Jews felt at the time of the Nazis or black people in the U.S. in the '50s. It's just not funny. And I'm not even remotely religious.
But I have one question for the thousands of outraged Muslims. America kills thousands of Muslims, and you lose your head and withdraw ambassadors over a bunch of cartoons printed in a second-rate paper in a Nordic country with a population of 5 million? That's the true outrage.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ Harvard law professor
The U.S. news media, by refusing to run these cartoons, are giving in to intellectual and religious terrorism. A separate standard is being applied here out of fear of physical retaliation. Whatever is fair to say about one group must be fair to say about another. The European papers are doing the right thing. They're being courageous. It is in the public's interest to see these cartoons that are causing so much outrage. When you see them, you see the extent of the overreaction. They are not nearly as bad as cartoons that routinely run in the Muslim media against Jews, Christians, the U.S. and Israel.

HABIB DRIOUCH Network engineer and second-generation French citizen of Moroccan origin
I consider myself 100% French. I believe in freedom of speech. The newspapers had the right to do what they did, but that does not mean they were right to do it. I would never go into a church or synagogue and start blasting music or yelling. It would be an insult. This is the same thing. The cartoons are dangerous in that they portray all Muslims as terrorists. One bad apple does not ruin the bunch. Extremists from both sides are going to use this to push their own agendas. With all the tension in the world right now, I really don't see why these journalists had to behave this way. What have they gained from this? Nothing.

JACK SHAFER Media critic, Slate
I've seen evangelical comics in the U.S. that make the minor blasphemy of the cartoon in Denmark seem like nothing. They ridicule the Prophet and all Muslim beliefs. But I defend the rights of the cartoonist. I think that if there's a free press, there's a right to commit blasphemy. If you cannot criticize or express an opinion about a religion in the modern era, we're in serious trouble.

ABOUBAKR JAMAI Editor of the Moroccan weeklies Assahifa al-Ousbouia and Le Journal Hebdomadaire
People are really hurt. You cannot analyze what is unfolding without putting the cartoons in the context of Iraq and Palestine. The cartoons are adding insult to injury. Not only are you invading and robbing our lands, you are insulting our faith. But let me say this and repeat it again and again: I am completely against banning these newspapers. People have the right not to read the newspapers. We don't need to shut them down, and we certainly don't need to kill people. Some people are reacting as if the way to protect Islam is to ban these things--like if you are exposed to too many cartoons, you'll become a Christian or an atheist. But faith is something you renew every day. You are exposed to things you do not like and keep your faith.

YASMIN ALIBHAI-BROWN Ugandan-born liberal Muslim columnist based in London
If they wanted to provoke a reaction, that reaction has been provoked. But when you're free, you have to live with the consequences of your words. The other European papers that reprinted the cartoons have the right to do so, but it's adolescent, like picking a fight in a pub.
I am deeply affronted by the link made between Muslims' faith and violence. If the cartoonists had shown a real terrorist with a bomb on his head, I wouldn't care less, but why should my faith be portrayed in this way? More Muslims' deaths are caused by the violence of Western politics than Muslims are responsible for causing. Using the freedom-of-expression argument, Europe has found yet another way of telling us we are not wanted, we do not belong. And I hate it.

ANDREI SIMANTJUNTAK Member of Indonesia's centrist Islamic Prosperous Justice Party
Why do you have to insult somebody to assert freedom of the press? Even if the Prophet were portrayed in a glorious light, it would still be insulting. Reprinting the cartoons is even more reprehensible. This is pushing moderate Muslims to the fringes and is like pouring alcohol on a wound. It shows there is some serious resentment out there toward Muslims.

TARIQ RAMADAN Swiss Muslim scholar and visiting fellow at Oxford University
Both sides are exaggerating. While it's true that the picture of the Prophet is strictly forbidden, Muslims have to understand that there is an old tradition in secular Western society to make fun of everything. To react emotionally is excessive. It is no longer a debate; it is a power struggle. We have to calm down. We don't want laws preventing people from being free to speak. But we should also not forget wisdom and decency when we are dealing with people. Democracy isn't just a legal framework. It is about respecting one another

 

 

Government Censorship Would Be Harmful

Source Citation:

"Government Censorship Would Be Harmful." Censorship. Ed. Kate Burns. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2004. Contemporary Issues Companion. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 5 Oct. 2010.

Document URL
http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Viewpoints&prodId=OVIC&action=e&windowstate=normal&catId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010266217&mode=view&userGroupName=chsd&jsid=9b7842212188b074eb14a3bc507d40d4

Gale Document Number: GALE|EJ3010266217

 

This article is about how government censorship should not be allowed. It goes in-depth with explaining how there is no correlation between violence shown on tv and how it affects its viewers. It also analyzes how the first amendment affects censorship and what living in a free society really means. 

 

Government Censorship Would Be Harmful

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a national organization that works to defend and preserve the individual rights guaranteed to all Americans by the U.S. Constitution. In the following selection, the ACLU argues that government censorship poses a much greater threat to society than any controversial images of sex or violence in art and entertainment. According to the organization, studies conducted on the potentially harmful effects of sex and violence in the media have produced no conclusive evidence. Furthermore, the authors warn, once the government is given the power to censor some types of entertainment, it will become increasingly difficult to determine where such censorship should stop. The appropriate way to handle offensive material in a democracy is to exercise the right to freedom of speech to explain why the material is objectionable, the ACLU contends.

In the late 1980s, state prosecutors brought a criminal obscenity charge against the owner of a record store for selling an album by the rap group, 2 Live Crew. Although this was the first time that obscenity charges had ever been brought against song lyrics, the 2 Live Crew case focused the nation's attention on an old question: should the government ever have the authority to dictate to its citizens what they may or may not listen to, read, or watch?

To Censor, or Not to Censor?

American society has always been deeply ambivalent about this question. On the one hand, our history is filled with examples of overt government censorship, from the 1873 Comstock Law to the 1996 Communications Decency Act. Anthony Comstock, head of the Society for the Suppression of Vice, boasted 194,000 "questionable pictures" and 134,000 pounds of books of "improper character" were destroyed under the Comstock Law—in the first year alone. The Communications Decency Act imposed an unconstitutional censorship scheme on the Internet, accurately described by a federal judge as "the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed."
On the other hand, the commitment to freedom of imagination and expression is deeply embedded in our national psyche, buttressed by the First Amendment, and supported by a long line of Supreme Court decisions.
Provocative and controversial art and in-your-face entertainment put our commitment to free speech to the test. Why should we oppose censorship when scenes of murder and mayhem dominate the TV screen, when works of art can be seen as a direct insult to people's religious beliefs, and when much sexually explicit material can be seen as degrading to women? Why not let the majority's morality and taste dictate what others can look at or listen to?
The answer is simple, and timeless: a free society is based on the principle that each and every individual has the right to decide what art or entertainment he or she wants—or does not want—to receive or create. Once you allow the government to censor someone else, you cede to it the power to censor you, or something you like. Censorship is like poison gas: a powerful weapon that can harm you when the wind shifts.
Freedom of expression for ourselves requires freedom of expression for others. It is at the very heart of our democracy.

Sexual Speech

Sex in art and entertainment is the most frequent target of censorship crusades. Many examples come to mind. A painting of the classical statue of Venus de Milo was removed from a store because the managers of the shopping mall found its semi-nudity "too shocking." Hundreds of works of literature, from Maya Angelou's I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings to John Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath, have been banned from public schools based on their sexual content.
A museum director was charged with a crime for including sexually explicit photographs by Robert Mapplethorpe in an art exhibit.
American law is, on the whole, the most speech-protective in the world—but sexual expression is treated as a second-class citizen. No causal link between exposure to sexually explicit material and anti-social or violent behavior has ever been scientifically established, in spite of many efforts to do so. Rather, the Supreme Court has allowed censorship of sexual speech on moral grounds—a remnant of our nation's Puritan heritage.
This does not mean that all sexual expression can be censored, however. Only a narrow range of "obscene" material can be suppressed; a term like "pornography" has no legal meaning. Nevertheless, even the relatively narrow obscenity exception serves as a vehicle for abuse by government authorities as well as pressure groups who want to impose their personal moral views on other people.

Media Violence

Today's calls for censorship are not motivated solely by morality and taste, but also by the widespread belief that exposure to images of violence causes people to act in destructive ways. Pro-censorship forces, including many politicians, often cite a multitude of "scientific studies" that allegedly prove fictional violence leads to real-life violence.
There is, in fact, virtually no evidence that fictional violence causes otherwise stable people to become violent. And if we suppressed material based on the actions of unstable people, no work of fiction or art would be safe from censorship. Serial killer Theodore Bundy collected cheerleading magazines. And the work most often cited by psychopaths as justification for their acts of violence is the Bible.
But what about the rest of us? Does exposure to media violence actually lead to criminal or anti-social conduct by otherwise stable people, including children, who spend an average of 28 hours watching television each week? These are important questions. If there really were a clear cause-and-effect relationship between what normal children see on TV and harmful actions, then limits on such expression might arguably be warranted.
Studies on the relationship between media violence and real violence are the subject of considerable debate. Children have been shown TV programs with violent episodes in a laboratory setting and then tested for "aggressive" behavior. Some of these studies suggest that watching TV violence may temporarily induce "object aggression" in some children (such as popping balloons or hitting dolls or playing sports more aggressively) but not actual criminal violence against another person.
Correlational studies that seek to explain why some aggressive people have a history of watching a lot of violent TV suffer from the chicken-and-egg dilemma: does violent TV cause such people to behave aggressively, or do aggressive people simply prefer more violent entertainment? There is no definitive answer. But all scientists agree that statistical correlations between two phenomena do not mean that one causes the other.
International comparisons are no more helpful. Japanese TV and movies are famous for their extreme, graphic violence, but Japan has a very low crime rate—much lower than many societies in which television watching is relatively rare. What the studies reveal on the issue of fictional violence and real world aggression is—not much.
The only clear assertion that can be made is that the relationship between art and human behavior is a very complex one. Violent and sexually explicit art and entertainment have been a staple of human cultures from time immemorial. Many human behavioralists believe that these themes have a useful and constructive societal role, serving as a vicarious outlet for individual aggression.

What Does Artistic Freedom Include?

The Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment's protection of artistic expression very broadly. It extends not only to books, theatrical works and paintings, but also to posters, television, music videos and comic books—whatever the human creative impulse produces.
Two fundamental principles come into play whenever a court must decide a case involving freedom of expression. The first is "content neutrality"—the government cannot limit expression just because any listener, or even the majority of a community, is offended by its content. In the context of art and entertainment, this means tolerating some works that we might find offensive, insulting, outrageous—or just plain bad.
The second principle is that expression may be restricted only if it will clearly cause direct and imminent harm to an important societal interest. The classic example is falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater and causing a stampede. Even then, the speech may be silenced or punished only if there is no other way to avert the harm.
Whatever influence fictional violence has on behavior, most experts believe its effects are marginal compared to other factors. Even small children know the difference between fiction and reality, and their attitudes and behavior are shaped more by their life circumstances than by the books they read or the TV they watch. In 1972, the U.S. Surgeon General's Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior released a 200-page report, "Television and Growing Up: The Impact of Televised Violence," which concluded, "The effect [of television] is small compared with many other possible causes, such as parental attitudes or knowledge of and experience with the real violence of our society." Twenty-one years later, the American Psychological Association published its 1993 report, "Violence & Youth," and concluded, "The greatest predictor of future violent behavior is a previous history of violence." In 1995, the Center for Communication Policy at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) which monitors TV violence, came to a similar conclusion in its yearly report: "It is known that television does not have a simple, direct stimulus-response effect on its audiences."
Blaming the media does not get us very far, and, to the extent that diverts the public's attention from the real causes of violence in society, it may do more harm than good.
A pro-censorship member of Congress once attacked the following shows for being too violent: The Miracle Worker, Civil War Journal, Star Trek 9, The Untouchables, and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. What would be left if all these kinds of programs were purged from the airwaves? Is there good violence and bad violence? If so, who decides? Sports and the news are at least as violent as fiction, from the fights that erupt during every televised hockey game, to the videotaped beating of Rodney King by the LA Police Department, shown over and over again on prime time TV. If we accept censorship of violence in the media, we will have to censor sports and news programs.

Individual Rights, Individual Decisions

The First Amendment is based upon the belief that in a free and democratic society, individual adults must be free to decide for themselves what to read, write, paint, draw, see and hear. If we are disturbed by images of violence or sex, we can change the channel, turn off the TV, and decline to go to certain movies or museum exhibits.
We can also exercise our own free speech rights by voicing our objections to forms of expression that we don't like. Justice Louis Brandeis' advice that the remedy for messages we disagree with or dislike in art, entertainment or politics is "more speech, not enforced silence," is as true today as it was when given in 1927.
Further, we can exercise our prerogative as parents without resorting to censorship. Devices now exist that make it possible to block access to specific TV programs and internet sites. Periodicals that review books, recordings, and films can help parents determine what they feel is appropriate for their youngsters. Viewing decisions can, and should, be made at home, without government interference.

Brainstorming

I honestly have no idea what topic to do for this assignment. I feel like a lot of the topics we have to choose from (abortion laws, gun laws, gay marriage rights, etc.) are extremely similar to the laws we are currently writing in government class, so I feel like I've already said everything I've wanted to say about those issues. There is one thing, though, I feel like we haven't covered in government class and it is something I feel extremely passionate about, and that is censorship in media. I'm a firm believer in freedom of expression, and I feel like the government being able to censor what is in the media is in complete violation of the first amendment. At the same time, though, there is a line that I think all Americans should not cross when it comes to freedom of expression, such as using slander to commit hate crimes. I think doing my research project on censorship in media would be interesting because journalism is something I really want to pursue, and I want to determine for myself where the line should be drawn between what is appropriate and what's not.