The illogic of censorship

Chait reminds us of this abhorrent 2011 opinion piece by Time magazine's Paris bureau chief, penned in the wake of Charlie Hebdo's firebombing. Wrote, in part, Bruce Crumley:

Members of … free societies have to exercise a minimum of intelligence, calculation, civility and decency in practicing their rights and liberties—and that isn’t happening when a newspaper decides to mock an entire faith on the logic that it can claim to make a politically noble statement by gratuitously pissing people off….

So, yeah, the violence inflicted upon Charlie Hebdo was outrageous, unacceptable, condemnable, and illegal. But apart from the "illegal" bit, Charlie Hebdo’s current edition is all of the above, too.

Crumley's argument is easy enough to fathom. We should all behave with "acceptable" civility. But Crumley left a couple things out of his morality and human-decency lesson, and their absence turns his argument to mush. He neglected to issue comprehensible guidelines as to precisely what constitutes civility and exactly who should draw its parameters. Is it government officials, who may interpret what I see as necessary incivility as instead an unacceptable offense against society's sensibilities? Is it schoolmarms? Is it the Church? I believe we already tried that one.

And those parameters. If mocking my religious ideology is unacceptable, then surely mocking anyone's religious ideology is just as unacceptable, be it veganism or voodoo. It's a sensitivity thing. And if my religious feelings are to be delicately protected from uncivil speech — to avoid a shattered society — should not my political views be covered by the same official protection?

It ain't long before Crumley's argument results in an altogether incoherent, upside-down kind of anarchic phantasmagoria. In his acceptably civil society, Lutheran neo-Nazis could be found bellowing on any street corner, but disallowed would be my ridiculing presence — for what I considered my "politically noble" statements would be received by some, no doubt, as merely "gratuitously pissing people off."

A paraphrase of WarGame's WOPR perhaps says it best: When it comes to censorship, the only winning move is not to play. Q.E.D., Crumley's opinion piece.

 

Comments

[David & Son of Duff]

Once again you react like one of Pavlov's dogs! Crumley isn't laying down a system of rules and regulations, he is merely reminding us to *think* before engaging the mouth or the pen. It is true that the terms "intelligence, calculation, civility and decency" are open to interpretation but I would suggest that most people most of the time would share a general definition.

Certainly the editors of the French magazine did some hard thinking, indeed, that is what editorial meetings are for. They came to their conclusion concerning "intelligence, calculation, civility and decency" and having done so they paid their price. Alas, so did several other totally innocent and un-involved people who had no say in their decision but - heh! - omelettes and eggs and all that sort of thing!

Or to put it another way, it is now clear that the editors lacked intelligence, undertook no calculation, ignored civility and couldn't spell the word decency. What a pity that innocent people had to die for rank stupidity.

[Peter G]

Very ironic. Clearly you heard a bell and started typing.

[David & Son of Duff]

Very witty, Wilde, er, I mean Peter!

[Peter G]

Like a stream of bat piss....;)