When I was in elementary school, it was fashonable to have an autograph book signed by one's classmates at the end of the school year. I had one of those books at the end of fourth grade. My mother looked through it and found a page where one of the boys had written some mild vulgarity. She was incensed. "That should just be ripped right out of the book!" she announced.
I didn't want to rip out that page, because there were autographs on the other side, including one from a teacher I particularly liked. I just shrugged and waited for my mother's anger to subside.
Many years later, I found that autograph book in a box of old things in Mom's garage, as my brother and I were cleaning it out prior to selling the house. I began flipping through the pages, and discovered that one had been torn out. The names of the bad boy, the teacher, and anyone else who signed that page, are lost forever.
Perhaps worse than what Mom did to me was what she did to herself. In the garage was a bundle of old letters, tied with a ribbon. They were the letters my parents had written to each other during the year prior to their marriage. The letters were sweet and dull, mostly mundane recaps of daily activities alternating with declarations of love and devotion. They were in college at the time (different locations), and often wrote about problems with classes and grades. Dad wrote long letters with numbered pages. Mom rarely wrote more than two or three short paragraphs. One of the letters written by Mom had a sentence that was thoroughly blacked out. I assumed it was obliterated because of a spelling or grammar error (Mom had many, often crossed out and corrected). But then I came to another letter where someone with scissors (Mom, no doubt) had cut out part of a sentence. The context seemed innocuous, a description of a class discussion. "My question, which she didn’t get to, was [missing]." I couldn't really imagine that Mom had asked a question so embarrassing that it needed to be redacted.
I came to another letter, written by Dad, where a large section in the middle of a page had been cut out. Still another of his letters had the entire bottom half of one page cut off. Since he wrote on both sides of the paper, that meant that the next page was also censored. Additionally, three pages were simply missing, presumably destroyed. Several more letters had portions neatly snipped out. It was frustrating.
When had Mom mutilated these letters? Since the collection included both her and Dad's letters, neatly sorted and bundled, my guess was that at some point she had collected the letters, re-read them, and censored them at that time, before storing them. Given the overall nature of the letters, and the surviving content of the ones that were censored, it's hard to imagine what needed hiding, or who she thought she was hiding it from. Did she suspect that her mother would snoop through her things? Did she imagine her future children, fifty years later, being shocked or offended? Was she trying to spare her future self an embarrassing memory?
My guess is that, all those years later, she wouldn't have remembered what it was that she cut out. I can't ask her now.
Showing posts with label censorship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label censorship. Show all posts
Is This Pornography?
Historically, authoritarians have censored dissidents and others they dislike by accusing them of being pornographers who corrupt children.
Something many people don't know about Project 2025 is that its authors intend to make pornography illegal again, but not before they first change how pornography is defined.
Pornography is typically defined as sexually explicitly material (video, written, or audio) that is intended to cause sexual arousal. Educational material, such as medical books or sex-education texts, are usually exempt from being considered pornography, as is material which has "socially redeeming value".
Currently in the US, pornography is not usually illegal, unless it depicts children, or if it is provided to children, or if it depicts people who did not give consent, or if it is determined to be "obscene" - completely lacking artistic or social value and offensive to community standards.
The key thing to remember is that, legal or not, throughout history, pornography has been understood to be explicitly sexual, or to be "indecent" in its portrayal of the human body. (There are longer discussions to be had about how different societies define indecency, or what kinds of things were or weren't taboo in other places at other times.)
Project 2025, however, would expand the definition of pornography by including anything that depicts or mentions gender identity or transgender information. Christine Jorgensen's autobiography would be labeled porn, as would the song, "Take a Walk on the Wild Side", as would my posting an anecdote about how my nephew became my niece. Librarians who allowed people to check out these newly forbidden books would face prison time and would become registered sex offenders. See Page 5 of the manifesto.
This new concept of pornography is just part of the Heritage Foundation's drive to demonize LGBTQ (with a particular emphasis on the trans community). On page 4, they claim that certain words and phrases - sexual orientation and gender identity, diversity, equity, and inclusion, gender, gender equality, gender equity, gender awareness, gender-sensitive, abortion, reproductive health, reproductive rights - "deprive Americans of their First Amendment rights" and must be purged from "every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation, and piece of legislation that exists."
They do not explain how the existence or use of a word can deprive people of First Amendment rights (which include the right to free speech).
Project 2025 is no longer just a proposal or a looming threat. Donald's advisors and other Republicans have now openly stated that it is their agenda.
The Project 2025 manifesto is difficult reading, most likely deliberately so. It is over 900 pages of academic-style writing, heavy-handed propaganda, strange fantasies, and outright lies. It often uses code words and convoluted language to disguise its true intent. Nevertheless, we should all become familiar with it. A good way to start is to read the comic book version.
Links:
• Comic Version of Project 2025
• Online version of the manifesto
• Republicans Admit Project 2025 is Their Agenda
• Christine Jorgensen's autobiography
• On Tyranny
Something many people don't know about Project 2025 is that its authors intend to make pornography illegal again, but not before they first change how pornography is defined.
Pornography is typically defined as sexually explicitly material (video, written, or audio) that is intended to cause sexual arousal. Educational material, such as medical books or sex-education texts, are usually exempt from being considered pornography, as is material which has "socially redeeming value".
Currently in the US, pornography is not usually illegal, unless it depicts children, or if it is provided to children, or if it depicts people who did not give consent, or if it is determined to be "obscene" - completely lacking artistic or social value and offensive to community standards.
The key thing to remember is that, legal or not, throughout history, pornography has been understood to be explicitly sexual, or to be "indecent" in its portrayal of the human body. (There are longer discussions to be had about how different societies define indecency, or what kinds of things were or weren't taboo in other places at other times.)
Project 2025, however, would expand the definition of pornography by including anything that depicts or mentions gender identity or transgender information. Christine Jorgensen's autobiography would be labeled porn, as would the song, "Take a Walk on the Wild Side", as would my posting an anecdote about how my nephew became my niece. Librarians who allowed people to check out these newly forbidden books would face prison time and would become registered sex offenders. See Page 5 of the manifesto.
This new concept of pornography is just part of the Heritage Foundation's drive to demonize LGBTQ (with a particular emphasis on the trans community). On page 4, they claim that certain words and phrases - sexual orientation and gender identity, diversity, equity, and inclusion, gender, gender equality, gender equity, gender awareness, gender-sensitive, abortion, reproductive health, reproductive rights - "deprive Americans of their First Amendment rights" and must be purged from "every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation, and piece of legislation that exists."
They do not explain how the existence or use of a word can deprive people of First Amendment rights (which include the right to free speech).
Project 2025 is no longer just a proposal or a looming threat. Donald's advisors and other Republicans have now openly stated that it is their agenda.
The Project 2025 manifesto is difficult reading, most likely deliberately so. It is over 900 pages of academic-style writing, heavy-handed propaganda, strange fantasies, and outright lies. It often uses code words and convoluted language to disguise its true intent. Nevertheless, we should all become familiar with it. A good way to start is to read the comic book version.
Links:
• Comic Version of Project 2025
• Online version of the manifesto
• Republicans Admit Project 2025 is Their Agenda
• Christine Jorgensen's autobiography
• On Tyranny
Them Books is Dangerous
My mother, staunchly conservative and a lifelong Republican, taught me that the reason we support public education is that everyone benefits from having an educated population. Today's Republicans, after shutting down the libraries and banning factual education, will be very unhappy 15-20 years from now when there is no one capable of developing new technology, or even repairing old technology; when they can't get lifesaving medical treatments because there wasn't anyone qualified to go to medical school; when TV shows are unable to entertain them because no one can write well; when even people in seemingly menial jobs drive them crazy by not understanding how things work. @themrswest
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)