F*** - The Censorship of Offensive Language by Bethan Lientie

F***

Contents This book is a contemplation on the censorship of offensive language in print-based media. It aims to question whether it is necessary, or if it is a harmful act to censor any language, regardless of itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s meaning. Censorship has a long and controversial history, which this book will explore from various angles, and aim to reveal the truth to you, the reader.

Origin of English Swearing

For and Against

History of Book Burning

8 10

A Clockwork Orange Extracts Effects of Censoring Literature Censorship of Books Venus in the Cloister Shakespeare Lady Chatterlyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Lover Catch-22 Farenheit 451

a3 a5 a7 a9 a11 16

Fit to Print

Censorship of Newspapers Which British Papers Will Print Profanities? Print Censorship around the World

The Freedom of the Press - George Orwell

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Obscenity consists in making public those human acts, words or images which are perceived as offensive or threatening to the ideological principles held to be shared by a particular society.â&#x20AC;?

Santaemilia, 2006

Origin of English Swearing Swearing has always existed, in every language on the planet. If you look back to medieval times, and from the beginning of the written word, you will find evidence of swearing. The first book to be banned for offensive language was ‘Venus in the Cloister’ by L’abbe du prat, which some London printers decided to print, before being shut down very quickly. The publisher was also the first person to ever be prosecuted for offensive language, because of the vast amount of sexual vocabulary in the book. This was in the early 17th century, but even now books are being banned and censored for exactly the same reasons. History plays a large part in why certain words are offensive in cultures. In Dutch speaking countries, disease is the most despicable of taboos. To call someone a ‘Cancer-sufferer’ (Kankerlijer) is the equivalent of ‘Cunt’ in English, and many of their profanities references diseases like typhoid, leprosy or mental illnesses. In China to insult someone’s family is the worst, and in fact most insults are directed at the person’s family rather than the individual themselves (“Fuck your mother and 18 generations of your ancestors” is one of the most offensive phrases in Chinese languages). In France their swear words are largely related to prostitution, but in French Canadian blasphemous insults are the most unutterable, and you will hear profanities centring around things like baptism, tabernacle and chalices. But when did sex become so taboo in the UK? It began long ago, when Christianity was spreading across Europe. It was a long and slow process, Christianity was adopted slowly over the continent after Emporer Constantine converted. It has already begun to be more accepted as a religion, but after this point it truly began to spread. This map shows how Christianity spread during 300-600 AD, focusing on it’s route to

Britain. It first spread through the Middle East, then overseas reached Europe, and really started from Rome and from there to the rest of Western Europe. By the time it had reached Britain, Paganism was the main religion there, and so the Christians began to convert them. Pagan religions were largely polytheist and very much intertwined with the worship of nature. Sex was not taboo to Pagans, however as Christianity was introduced they were taught that it is a sin, that it should only ever be practiced by married couples for the purposes of reproduction. And so people stopped talking about sex as openly, and it became taboo. This does not necessarily mean that sexual words are never spoken though. Censoring gives power to the thing that is censored, as banning records ensures their success, stopping these words from being spoken gave them far more impact. And so is the history of why sexual swear words are the most common, and also most offensive, in Britain. The profanities and offensive phrases in every language tells us a lot about the culture that speaks them, and therefore the foundation for what is censored. Although Britain used to be incredibly religious, we are now a much more multicultural society, and also have a large amount of atheists and agnostics. Blasphemous swears are now considered the most mild, indeed when people self-censor (For example, when around children) they often say things like “heck”, “bloody hell”, and “damn”. An incredible change from Shakespeare’s time, when “zounds” (A blasphemous exclamation) was the equivalent of “cunt.” This is one reason why it can be important when learning about another culture to make sure to learn their swear words, and what will offend them, and therefore gain a better understanding between people.

Reasons Against censorship Censoring out offensive words changes the context of the original text in literature. This can change a story entirely, a character, their intentions and more. Substituting for milder words also changes these things. For example, in the states many places published censored versions of Tom Sawyer, in which the words ‘nigger’ and ‘injun’ were taken out or substituted. But these are words of the time, and gives it historical context, as well as showing that the characters were racist. Often in newspapes that are strongly against printing offensive words, entire exchanges might not be printed. This stops certain content that might be important from reaching the masses. Another common method of censorship in newspapers in to use asterisks or dashes to take out the swear words. This is patronising in news for adults, both assuming that they will be offended by these words, and assumes that by adding the asterisks it is no longer offensive. However people still know what it was meant to be, so is it any different from printing the original word? It gives more power to words, by hiding them and not talking about it adds to the strength, continuing a cycle of censorship. Some argue that the right to knowledge and truth is a human right, and so by hiding language and changing the meaning, you hide the truth from people.

Reasons for censorship It is most often the case that offensive language is censored for the protecting of children and families, who might be influenced by seeing this language used, also by pornography, drugs, alcohol, and other substances. By limiting what they can see, children can be protected, and religious beliefs respected. Religious beliefs are often used as a rationale for media censorship. Sometimes by limiting certain information, tense situations can be better controlled, and avoid outrage and misinformation. However the wrong information can also be spread purposefully, for reasons of control. Military censorship occurs to protect information that is sensitive, and could be used against a nation. Information that could endanger lives if it was released is tightly controlled, and governements will often clamp down on news agencies that attempt to release such information. Censorship being implemented in the media has happened throughout history by governments wanting to control the views of their citizens. There is a long list of dictators who would force media censorship to cover up atrocities commited by them, so that people would not become disillusioned by them. Political censorship has been used to cover up freedom of expression, and to limit the amount of information people receive from other countries. Countries such as North Korea are nototrious for this, being one of the most censored places in the world. Peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s income of information is limited to state-sanctioned propoganda.

History of Book Burning The burning of books has a long history, it is something that has happened as long as books have existed. By destroying the content books contain, many reason that the message they carry is no longer a threat. The fact that people recognise books as being able to change people’s minds shows that books have power, which can be both good and bad. But either way, should they ever be destroyed completely? This is an extreme form of censorship, in which people want to completely get rid of anything offensive to them. In cases such as the destruction of the library of Alexandria, the loss of the knowledge these books contain is incalculable. Humankind could be more advanced than we currently are, but due to all of those books and parchments being burnt, we have been set back as a species. Most often people associate book burning with the Nazi’s, however it has happened in all cultures and points in history.

Book burning in the Bible Back when manuscripts were the main method of recording information, burning them was a lot more significant, especially with the amount of time it took to copy each one. Burnings are described several times in the Bible, including Acts 19:19, 1 Maccabees 1:56 and Jeremiah 36:27. The trial and burning of The Talmud (1240) In 1240, Jewish sacred text The Talmud was put on trial in Paris in the court of Louis IX because he believed it was harmful to Christian views and their way of life. After the trial, the book was condemned, and every copy of it that could be found in the city was burnt. Martin Luther’s German translation of the Bible (1520) The Papal Bull of 1520 ordered the burning of Martin Luther’s German translation of the Bible. “These works, wherever they may be, shall be sought out carefully by the ordinaries and others [ecclesiastics and regulars], and under each and every one of the above penalties shall be burned

publicly and solemnly in the presence of the clerics and people,” it said. First book to be burned what became the USA (1650) The first book to be banned and burned in the USA was ‘The Meritorious Price of Our Redemption’ by William Pynchon, written in 1650.It refuted the Puritan doctrine of atonement, and was condemned by the Massachusetts General Court who ruled that all copies should be burned in the center of the marketplace in Boston. The burning of early Braille books (1842) To begin with, Braille was very much a controversial invention, and was not widely accepted. 73 copies were burned at the Institute for Blind Youth by Pierre-Armand Dufau, where he was director, believing another method to be superior. He later changed his mind and Braille was allowed to be used in the school.

Largest book burning in history (1992) On 17 May 1992 the Serb-led army burned down the Oriental Institute in Sarajevo, destroying more than five thousand manuscripts dating back to medieval times, recording the history of Bosnia.

6,000 volumes of poetry burned in Egypt (2001) In 2001, 6,000 volumes of poetry 8th-century writer Abu Nuwas were reportedly burned by the Egyptian Ministry of Culture for their homoerotic content.

Three months later, on August 25th, the National and University Library in Sarajevo was attacked by Serb forces. Two days later, the library (shown here) had been destroyed. It is estimated that 1.2 million books were destroyed, the largest book burning in history.

Harry Potter books burned (early 2000s) In the early 2000s, Harry Potter books were burned for their “satanic” content in New Mexico, Michigan and Pennsylvania among other places. Among other bestsellers, in 2006, Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code was burned in Italy for blasphemous content.

Book burning in Latin America (Late 20th Century) The book Burning Books by Haig Bosmajian reports that in 1976, “a great book-burning... was shown on television” in Argentina. At the same time, Chile’s widespread governmentendorsed book burning, including books by Gabriel Garcia Marquez, which led to an official condemnation by the American Library Assocation. Libraries in Uruguay were being “purified” at this time, and military governments in El Salvador in the 1970s and 80s also burned books they considered subversive.

Copies of the Quran accidentally burned in Afghanistan (2012) In February 2012, US troops at Bagram Base burned 315 religious books that were apparently being used by detainees to pass messages including copies of the Quran. As soon as the mistake was realized, water was doused on the fire, but four copies had already been badly burned. Twenty-three people were killed in protests across Afghanistan following the error.

A clockwork Orange extract The next thing was to do the sammy act, which was one way to unload some of our cutter so we’d have more of an incentive like for some shop-crasting, as well as it being a way of buying an alibi in advance, so we went into the Duke of New York on Amis Avenue and sure enough in the snug there were three or four old baboochkas peeting their black and suds on SA (State Aid). Now we were the very good malchicks, smiling good evensong to one and all, though these wrinkled old lighters started to get all shook, their veiny old rockers all trembling round their glasses, and making the suds spill on the table. “Leave us be, lads,” said one of them, her face all mappy with very special plastic veshch so you could roll it up when you’d done with it and hide it in your boot- then three of us went in. Pete keeping chasso without, not that there was anything to worry about out there. As soon as we launched on the shop we went for Slouse who ran it, a big portwine jelly of a veck who viddied at once what was coming and made straight for the inside where the telephone was and perhaps his well oiled pooshka, complete with six dirty rounds. Dim was round that counter skorry as a bird, sending packets of snoutie flying and cracking over a big cut-out showing a sharp with all her zoobies going flash at the customers and her groodies near hanging out to advertise some new brand of cancers. What you could viddy then was a sort of a big ball rolling into the inside of the shop behind the curtain, this

being old Dim and Slouse sort of locked in a death struggle. Then you could slooshy panting and snoring and kicking behind the curtain and veshches falling over and swearing and then glass going smash smash smash. Mother Slouse, the wife, was sort of froze behind the counter. We could tell she would creech murder given one chance, so I was round that counter very skorry and had a hold of her, and a horrorshow big lump she waw too, all nuking of scent and with flipflop big bobbing groodies on her. I’d got my rooker round her rot to stop her belting out death and destruction to the four winds of heaven, but this lady doggie gave me a large foul big bite on it and it was me that did the creeching, and then she opened up beautiful with a flip yell for the millicents. Well, then she had to be tolchocked proper with one of the weights for the scales, and then a fair tap with a crowbar they had for opening cases, and that brought the red out like an old friend. So we had her down on the floor and a rip of her platties for fun and a gentle bit of the boot to stop her moaning. And, viddying her lying there with her groodies on show, I wondered should I or not, but that was for later on in the evening. Then we cleaned the till, and there was flip horrorshow takings that nochy, and we had a few packs of the very best top cancers apiece, then off we went, my brothers.

the translated Extract The next thing was to do the generous act, which was one way to unload some of our money so we’d have more of an incentive like for some shop-lifting, as well as it being a way of buying an alibi in advance, so we went into the Duke of New York on Amis Avenue and sure enough in the snug there were three or four old women drinking their black and suds on SA (State Aid). Now we were the very good boys, smiling good evensong to one and all, though these wrinkled old lighters started to get all shook, their veiny old hands all trembling round their glasses, and making the suds spill on the table. ‘Leave us be, lads,’ said one of them, her face all mappy with very special plastic thing so you could roll it up when you’d done with it and hide it in your boot – then three of us went in. Pete keeping guard without, not that there was anything to worry about out there. As soon as we launched on the shop we went for Slouse who ran it, a big portwine jelly of a man who saw at once what was coming and made straight for the inside where the telephone was and perhaps his well-oiled cannon, complete with six dirty rounds. Dim was round that counter quick as a bird, sending packets of tobacco flying and cracking over a big cut-out showing a sharp with all her teeth going flash at the customers and her tits near hanging out to advertise some new brand of cigarettes. What you could see then was a sort of a big ball rolling into the inside of the shop behind the curtain,

this being old Dim and Slouse sort of locked in a death struggle. Then you could hear panting and snoring and kicking behind the curtain and things falling over and swearing and then glass going smash smash smash. Mother Slouse, the wife, was sort of froze behind the counter. We could tell she would scream murder given one chance, so I was round that counter very quick and had a hold of her, and a great big lump she was too, all smelling of scent and with flipflop big bobbing tits on her. I’d got my arm round her mouth to stop her belting out death and destruction to the four winds of heaven, but this lady doggie gave me a large foul big bite on it and it was me that did the screaming, and then she opened up beautiful with a wild yell for the police. Well, then she had to be smacked proper with one of the weights for the scales, and then a fair tap with a crowbar they had for opening cases, and that brought the red out like an old friend. So we had her down on the floor and a rip of her clothes for fun and a gentle bit of the boot to stop her moaning. And, seeing her lying there with her tits on show, I wondered should I or not, but that was for later on in the evening. Then we cleaned the till, and there was wild great takings that night, and we had a few packs of the very best top cigarettes apiece, then off we went, my brothers.

Bowdlerised Extract The next thing was to do the generous act, which was one way to unload some of our money so we’d have more of an incentive like for some shopping, as well as it being a way of buying an alibi in advance, so we went into the Duke of New York cafe on Amis Avenue and sure enough in the snug there were three or four old women drinking their coffee on SA (State Aid). Now we were the very good boys, smiling good evensong to one and all, though these wrinkled old lighters started to get all shook, their veiny old hands all trembling round their glasses, and making the coffee spill on the table.

curtain and things falling over and exclamations and then glass going smash smash smash.

Mother Slouse, the wife, was sort of froze behind the counter. We could tell she would scream murder given one chance, so I was round that counter very quick and said to her, don’t you worry ma’am, and a generous figure she was, all smelling of scent and with ample bosoms. I asked her to calm down and then she opened up beautiful with a wild yell for the police. Well, then she had to be told off proper, and she fell over all in a panic. We helped her up and then we payed at the till, and there was wild great takings that night, ‘Leave us be, lads,’ said one of them, her face and we had a few packs of the very best top all mappy with very special plastic thing so sweets apiece, then off we went, my brothers. you could roll it up when you’d done with it and hide it in your boot – then three of us went in. Pete keeping guard without, not that there was anything to worry about out there. As soon as we entered in to the shop we went for Slouse who ran it, a big portwine jelly of a man who saw at once what was coming and made straight for the inside where the telephone was. Dim was up to that counter quick as a bird, ordering a packet of sweets from the man. Behind the counter a poster of a young lady was advertising shampoo.What you could see then was a sort of a big ball rolling into the inside of the shop behind the curtain, this being old Dim and Slouse sort of locked in a gamely wrestling match. Then you could hear panting and snoring and kicking behind the

Censored extract The next thing was to do the generous act, which was one way to unload some of our money so we’d have more of an incentive like for some shop-lifting, as well as it being a way of buying an alibi in advance, so we went into the Duke of New York on Amis Avenue and sure enough in the snug there were three or four old women drinking their black and suds on SA (State Aid). Now we were the very good boys, smiling good evensong to one and all, though these wrinkled old lighters started to get all shook, their veiny old hands all trembling round their glasses, and making the suds spill on the table. ‘Leave us be, lads,’ said one of them, her face all mappy with very special plastic thing so you could roll it up when you’d done with it and hide it in your boot – then three of us went in. Pete keeping guard without, not that there was anything to worry about out there. As soon as we launched on the shop we went for Slouse who ran it, a big portwine jelly of a man who saw at once what was coming and made straight for the inside where the telephone was and perhaps his well-oiled cannon, complete with six dirty rounds. Dim was round that counter quick as a bird, sending packets of tobacco flying and cracking over a big cut-out showing a sharp with all her teeth going flash at the customers and her tits near hanging out to advertise some new brand of cigarettes. What you could see then was a sort of a big ball rolling into the inside of the shop behind the curtain,

Fit to Print A catalogue of expletive avoidance Not all newspapers will print offensive language. In this book, you can see which British newspapers will print which words, but in general, there are four methods of censoring swearing; Asterisks, lines, ‘grawlixes’ and not printing the words at all. One blog called Fit to Print catalogues the lengths of which some newspapers will go to in order to avoiding printing swear words, even thaough they may print phrases or stories which are just as offensive as swear words. Below are a few examples from the blog.

14th Oct 2014

17th Sep 2014

A couple of months ago, I was on the receiving end of a furious, expletive-laden outburst from one sick patient, the printable fraction of which ran, ‘Can’t you people read?’

Winston’s comments Tuesday, which were sexual in nature, played off a meme — a running gag, essentially — in which passers-by shout the phrase on live news broadcasts.

14th Oct 2014

4th Sep 2014

That ‘Bring it, you [expletive] animals, bring it!’ that the Ferguson police officer spat at the protesters back in August should be heard in this vein as a slur and a battle cry.

According to a designer who works at Apple, Jonathan Ive, Apple’s design chief, in bragging about how cool he thought the iWatch was shaping up to be, gleefully said Switzerland is in trouble though he chose a much bolder term for ‘trouble’ to express how he thought the watchmaking nation might be in a tough predicament when Apple’s watch comes out.

6th Oct 2014

In a 1991 Chicago Tribune interview, he described the offers he received this way: ‘I get a lot of [expletive] scripts, stereotypical unhuman, uncomplex, thick-lipped, long-limbed heathens.

19th Sep 2014

Mr. Di Bona used salty language to express his initial anger.

31st Aug 2014

That article cited a wildly viral blog with a name very much like ‘Look at My Red Trousers’ - its actual name is unprintable in this newspaper which posted too-Sloane Square-for-satire snapshots of red-trousered toffs at university mixers and horse races (the blog now appears dormant).

25th Aug 2014

27th Jan 2015

He remembers first hearing a common racist epithet at a local suburban school, where he and his two siblings were the sole black students.

Other season highlights include ‘Bridget Everett’ (the full title is unprintable) (April 9), a concert by the alt-cabaret performer Bridget Everett and various Ars Nova emerging artists; and the annual ANT Fest in June.”

25th Aug 2014

His insult and lack of regard for the work my colleagues had done for decades covering war, genocide and famine in Africa put blood in my eye, and I suggested that ‘Just because you put on a’ — insert spicy, unprintable modifier here — ‘safari helmet and looked at some poop doesn’t give you the right to insult what we do.’

26th Jan 2015

“‘So when we “target the middle class,” American hears us saying “EXPLETIVE THE POOR,” as if we don’t care about them.’”

23rd Jan 2015

‘If we’d been signed with MGM, we would have owned that [expletive].

Suffice it to say that it uses a stronger version of the phrase “gol darn” or variations thereof almost exclusively, so much so that it never does convey what specifically Muggins is so upset about.

3rd Aug 2014

22nd Jan 2015

He lobbed a profanity at the erroneous report during an interview on Thursday.

“I mean, this [expletive] hurt.”

8th Aug 2014

19th Jan 2015 27th Jul 2014

No lasting marriage, it was, however, a lasting friendship, although Olivier groused about the alimony: ‘She’s cost me £75,000 a coitus!’ (Actually a saltier noun.)

His blog RNT — the full title can’t be printed — was an early warning system for emerging hip-hop that was both stylish and rugged, from all corners of the country.

Read more at http://fit-to-print.info/ 17

“Take any word, any innocuous word, such a ‘finger’, and put it in a sentence such as ‘‘I want to finger your mum’’... It could be construed by some national newspapers to be offensive. You’d have to say in that sentence that the offending word is the word finger... but you would not get that sentence on the front page of a national newspaper spelling it f*****. And that’s because it’s the context in which the words are used that makes them offensive. So you might be better off spelling that sentence, i want to finger your m*m.” Tim Minchin on Censorship

Censorship of Books 19

Venus in the Cloister, or in the original French, Vénus dans le cloître, ou la Religieuse en chemise, was an incredibly controversial book in it’s time. It was first published in Britain in 1683, by the bookseller Henry Rhodes of Fleet Street. It is not known who wrote it originally, however it is published under the psudonym ‘L’Abbe du Prat’. The content of the book itself is of a genre known as ‘whore dialogue’, and involves a young nun being instructed in the ways of sex by an older nun. It remained controversial from it’s release even until the Victorian era, where it was banned on occasions. It was later republished by Edmund Curll, who became the first person to be arrested for offensive language. As a publisher, he spent his life championing for experimental books, often ones focusing on sexuality, which got him in to trouble with authority a lot. This was in fact the first book to be taken to court for an obscenity trial. When in court, Curll stood in favour of the book being available, citing the reason that it was in fact a satire attacking the injustices of the church. Whilst being a valid criticism, Venus in the Cloister was dismissed as being just a work of erotic fiction with no higher purpose. This deconstruction of the book considers it as a satire on the repression of church life“L’Abbe du prat satirizes the constraints of convent life which expected nuns to live in a “cloister” of sexual repression and suffering and the use by the state of religious ideology as a means of control. Sex becomes the only means of protest against such rigorous controls of the state. A careful parallel is drawn between the act of sexual pleasure and protesting against repressive state control. “At the moment of orgasm, individuality triumphs over the collective, nature acts out against culture and freedom strikes a blow against tyranny. Gradually through the dialogues, Agnes begins to see Sister Angelica’s viewpoint and embraces her doctrines, she is freed from the sense of prejudice that she starts out with at the beginning of the book. The author attempts to attack the Church and its policies by creating an erotic setting with a convent. Secret meetings, acts of voyeurism, presence of veils and observers all combine to make the narrative extremely erotic and critical of repressive practices at the same time.”

Thomas Bowdler was an English physician and philanthropologist in the early 19th century, who created an edited, “family-friendly” version of Shakespeare’s works, intended to be more appropriate for women and children to read. His sister, Harriet, also worked on editing and publishing some of the plays, however she was never credited as it would not have been acceptable to admit that, as a women, she had read Shakespeare’s more raunchy pieces of writing. Although this had little disagreement at the time, by changing the offensive language it had a huge change on the actual content, for example in Hamlet they changed Ophelia’s drowning to an accident. ‘Bowdlerise’ now means to change a play or piece of writing to be less offensive. Below you can see some examples of how they changed the works:

Romeo and Juliet Shakespeare’s original: “the bawdy hand of the dial is now upon the prick of noon” – Mercutio, Act II, Scene 4, line 61 Bowdler’s Family Shakespeare: “the hand of the dial is now upon the point of noon” Shakespeare’s original: “Spread thy close curtain, love performing night” – Juliet, Act III, Scene II, line 5 Bowdler’s Family Shakespeare “. . . and come civil night”

Othello Shakespeare’s original: “I am one, sir, that comes to tell you, your daughter and the Moor are now making the beast with two backs.” - Iago, Othello, Act I, Scene I, Ln 121 Bowdler’s Family Shakespeare: “Your daughter and the Moor are now together,”

Macbeth Shakespeare’s original: “Out, damned spot! out, I say!” - Lady MacBeth, Act V, Scene I, Ln 38. Bowdler’s Family Shakespeare: “Out, crimson spot!”

Lady Chatterly’s Lover is a novel by D.H.Lawrence, which was first published in 1928, and only published with the full, uncensored content in 1960. The story revolves around an upper-class women who is unsatisfied in her relationship, who has an affair with a working-class man who works for her. The main themes of the book are love and relationships between various characters, and it is argued that it is about the need for both mind and body to be satisfied in a relationship in order to have happiness. This was a very controversial book at the time, and at it’s time of printing was released as a censored version, with many words and whole passages taken out. At the time, what could be released was based upon what would be considered ok for a 14 year old girl to read, anything otherwise was unnacceptable Reviewing it in The Observer, Gerald Gould noted that “passages are necessarily omitted to which the author undoubtedly attached supreme psychological importance – importance so great, that he was willing to face obloquy and misunderstanding and censorship because of them”. As such, it seems important to keep a book as it was written, without censorship, so that the full meaning that the author wanted the text to put across can be read. Until 1959, the publisher of a book that contained any “purple passage” that might have a “tendency to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences” was liable to imprisonment, and so when the trial attempting to make Lady Chatterly legal came about, it was a historic event. In the article ‘The Trial of Lady Chatterly’s Lover, Geoffrey Robinson QC writes of the trial “It is a measure of the narrowness of legal education in England in those days that this had simply not occurred to the lawyers in the DPP’s office or to the team of Treasury Counsel, a pampered, old-Etonian set of barristers who conduct major prosecutions at the Old Bailey before their inevitable elevation to its judicial benches. Its leader, Mervyn Griffith-Jones, had no interest in literature: he was the incarnation of upper-middle-class morality, obsessed with the book’s danger to social order. His famously asinine question about wives and servants was asked rhetorically and with utter sincerity.” This shows that although the reason for the book being censored was obscenity laws, in reality it was largely the distate for it’s representation of cross-class relationships. Class had much more influence on society back then, which by the 80’s had started to break down. However recently, Britain was found to be one of the top countries in the developed world to have a huge gap between rich and poor, and it’s getting worse. This shows that these issues are still relevant today, and although we won’t have books banned now for having cross-class relationships, it is important to be aware of the history of this happening.

Catch-22 is one of the great anti-war novels, published in 1961 by Joseph Heller, and is so well known that it coined the eponymous phrase, which means an unsolveable logic puzzle. The book follows various different characters and different timelines, towards the end the story takes a much darker turn, and reveals the dark and serious nature behind war, and life in general. Despit being a work of fiction, the story is inspired by Joseph Heller’s experience during WWII as a bombadier. His criticisms of war are however aimed at the Cold War. Literary criticism ranged from very positive to incredibly negeative, The New Yorker being one which said it “doesn’t even seem to be written; instead, it gives the impression of having been shouted onto paper,” and “what remains is a debris of sour jokes”. It is considered by many to be one of the most important novels of the 20th century because of how it reveals the atrocities of war, however this is yet another book that was banned because of “objectionable and offensive” language. It was mostly in the United States that it is banned, by many libraries, book stores and schools. Schools are places where a lot of controversy over books takes place, as parents and teachers are able to challenge books they find objectionable, and can get them taken off the shelves so that their children can’t read them. This can be considered especially wrong. Childhood is an important time for learning about the world, growing your views and ideas, influenced by your environment. And so by taking these books out of the reach of children, they are not exposed to alternative views. They could be taught that war is good and never question otherwise because they have been deprived books that teach that they aren’t. Although this could be an extreme view, it is true that children are influenced by what they are exposed to when growing up, and as it is such an important time, should we not allow them to hear all sides of the story? War can be good and bad, and books such as Catch-22, Slaughterhouse 5 and many more show us, it is complicated and there are many sides to it. In the first and second world wars men were recruiting under the guise of it being heroic, great and brave, and the real darkness of going in to war was never exposed to them. Nowadays we are more aware of the many sides of war, but there is still propaganda in favour of it everywhere in the media. Watching TV you will see modernised adverts that make being a soldier out to be cool, posters everywhere saying how you will be helping your country, combined with the nostalgia of how heroic it is to aid your country means that as many people as ever are signing up. These are reasons why governments would not want people being anti-war, and books like Catch-22 are one of the strongest forces against it. Being banned for ‘offensive language’ is just patronising.

Farenheit 451 is a science fiction novel by Ray Bradbury, that he wrote in reaction to book burnings that were happening at the time. He wanted the book to prevent this happening in the future. The book is based in a world where books are banned, people who are found to own them are arrested and the books are destroyed by ‘firemen’. It follows the protaganist Guy Montag, a fireman who begins to see how the world really is after meeting a young, liberal girl whose mind has not been taken over by the sports, television and news that controls everybody’s minds. The book is very much about control and censorship by the authorities, and how reading books can help you to understand the world, and ironically has been banned or challenged on a few occasions. Many schools have banned it for obscene language, or in America, for being anti-Christian. A bible gets burnt at one point in the story, and although the book itself portrays this as a bad thing, many people were offended by this happening and wanted it removed from libraries. Starting in January 1967, Fahrenheit 451 was subject to expurgation by its publisher, Ballantine Books with the release of the “Bal-Hi Edition” aimed at high school students. Among the changes made by the publisher were the censorship of the words “hell”, “damn”, and “abortion”; the modification of seventy-five passages; and the changing of two episodes. In the one case, a drunk man became a “sick man” while cleaning fluff out of a human navel became “cleaning ears” in the other.For a while both the censored and uncensored versions were available concurrently but by 1973 Ballantine was publishing only the censored version.This continued until 1979 when it came to Bradbury’s attention: In 1979, one of Bradbury’s friends showed him an expurgated copy. Bradbury demanded that Ballantine Books withdraw that version and replace it with the original, and in 1980 the original version once again became available. In this reinstated work, in the Author’s Afterword, Bradbury relates to the reader that it is not uncommon for a publisher to expurgate an author’s work, but he asserts that he himself will not tolerate the practice of manuscript “mutilation”.

If you can’t say

Fuck you can’t say

Fuck the government. Lenny Bruce

The Daily News

30p

Tuesday, Monday 13th June

Which British Newspapers will print swear words? In order to research which newspapers will print offensive language, I contacted all of the following papers to try and find out their guidelines on printing swear words. Unfortunately only The Independent replied, and so a study of the papers was required to see in one issue each what they would print. Read on to find the results...

The Metro

Here, only asterisks were used on swear words, but they do regularly use puns made to sound like swears. This is interesting as they are trying to get around actually using a swear, but it is still known to the reader what they meant, similar to using asterisks.

The Guardian The guidelines for printing swear words in the Guardian are simple: If it’s necessary, then print the whole word. Asterisks are a cop-out, according to this newspaper.

The Daily Mirror In this

paper no swear words were found at all, instead they try and talk around the concept and try not to write the word. But suprisingly, it did have multiple articles which described content that could be taken as offensive, for example the article about how “A shocked couple found two men in bondage gear by a road”, which then went on to describe in detail what they were wearing, and implying at why they were there. There was also a photo comic which showed a couple having sex, cropped so that you don’t actually see anything.

The Sun

At the Sun, all common swear words are censored out with asterisks. In one issue, three instances of f*** or f****** were found, and one c***. However, a few stories appeared with sensitive topics, for example talking about rapes and murders in some detail. There was also an entire article about swingers, their lifestyle and habits, in which the reporter interviewed a couple who were regular swingers. They spoke about this in detail, and yet the odd swear word was censored. Do people not find content offensive, only words?

The Daily Telegraph

This newspaper censors swear words, but is the only one to do it in the format of f---, rather than using asterisks. It is also a repeat offender of describing around a situation without saying explicitly what happened. For example, if one person had sworn at another, they will go to all lengths to avoid writing that word. (Similar to the Fit to Print examples on the previous page.) It was also interesting to find that the latest issue had a double spread article about a new exhibition in London of paintings, most of which included full frontal nudity, of both men and women. Words including “genitals”, “erotic” and “crotch” were included in this article, however elsewhere in the newspaper fuck was censored four times. The only times it was found, it was only in the context of a quote, as well.

The Independent According to the

deputy managing editor Will Gore, “The practice at the Independent is that there are no words which we will definitively not use. If we believe it is necessary/justifiable to use a particular term, we will do so – and we will not use asterisks. Our other titles take a different view because of their different audiences. The i and Evening Standard both use asterisks unless there is an overriding need not to: that is true of most of the common swear words.”

Censorship of Print Around the World China Continues to Stifle Free Speech

Russia Bans Swearing in Arts and Media

China has one of the highest amounts of banned books in the world. This country swiftly bans anything that contradicts the communist regime and values, especially anything that speaks badly about China. The top banned book is “Daughters of China”, a series of true stories about three generations of Chinese women. The censoring of this book was enforced due to it’s criticism of Mao and his personality cult, and the author’s descriptions of torture that happened under his leadership. It is known that the internet is also very monitored there, with many websites being banned entirely to all citizens. A result of this is that often websites will change how they work, or the information they show in order to keep the Chinese authorities happy. This way they don’t lose the Chinese market, which is becoming very lucrative.

From the 1st July 2014, the words khuy (cock), pizda (cunt), yebat (to fuck) and blyad (whore) — a smutty quartet known as mat — will be banned from use in the arts in Russia.

North Korea- Nothing But Propaganda

North Korea is the country with the highest degree of censorship in the world. There is no freedom of the press, and all newspapers and other media outlets are strictly controlled by the government in order to promote the personality cult of Kim Jong-il and Kim Jongun. Access to the internet is only allowed to high level government employees and some trusted teachers. Not a lot of information is known about it either, any true information about the country comes from sources such as people who have escaped or have been allowed to leave the country to work. There was also a fascinating documentary recently filmed by a teacher allowed to enter the DPRK to work, and although he was strictly monitored, he managed to learn a lot about the country and give the viewers an inside view.

This isn’t the first time that the state has intervened in this manner — the Soviets too attempted to dispense with foul language to preserve the beauty of the Russian language. But add to this law a legislative debate in the Duma on banning foreign, mainly English, loanwords last month, as well as a crackdown on independent media, and you start to sense the presence of a much more pernicious effort to restrict both information and language. Together, the law on profanity and the bill on foreign words serve as a two-pronged attempt to cleanse the Russian language in order to ensure its “purity”, a moral crusade that dovetails with President Vladimir Putin’s ideological hopes to create a “national and spiritual identity” for Russia. With the ban on swearing, which includes books, film, music, theatre and popular blogs, Putin has the spiritual side of things covered. Films containing expletives won’t receive general distribution, and copies of DVDs, books or CDs will come sealed and labelled as obscene. Yet the law is so hazily worded that it is not known which cursewords are out and which are in — what counts as profane will be determined by an expert panel, making effing and blinding a risky business. The loss will be felt. Swearing in Russian is a linguistically productive exercise; by applying prefixes, infixes, suffixes and different combinations of the four words, khuy, pizda, blyad and yebat can be used to express pretty much anything, and in a surprisingly eloquent manner. The professed thinking behind the law is that such a ban will not only ennoble Russian culture but also position Russia as the antithesis of the decadent west. A ban on foreign words meanwhile can be seen as a form of linguistic protectionism, intended to safeguard Russian culture from external influences, thereby helping advance Putin’s second pillar of nationalism.

If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.

On Liberty, John Stuart Mill

George Orwell The Freedom of the Press “Animal Farm was first thought of, so far as the central idea goes, in 1937, but was not written down until about the end of 1943. By the time when it came to be written it was obvious that there would be great difficulty in getting it published and it was refused by four publishers. Only one of these had any ideological motive. Two had been publishing anti-Russian books for years, and the other had no noticeable political colour. One publisher actually started by accepting the book, but after making the preliminary arrangements he decided to consult the Ministry of Information, who appear to have warned him, or at any rate strongly advised him, against publishing it. Here is an extract from his letter: “I mentioned the reaction I had had from an important official in the Ministry of Information with regard to Animal Farm. I must confess that this expression of opinion has given me seriously to think … I can see now that it might be regarded as something which it was highly ill-advised to publish at the present time. If the fable were addressed generally to dictators and dictatorships at large then publication would be all right, but the fable does follow, as I see now, so completely the progress of the Russian Soviets and their two dictators, that it can apply only to Russia, to the exclusion of the other dictatorships. Another thing: it would be less offensive if the predominant caste in the fable were not pigs. I think the choice of pigs as the ruling caste will no doubt give offence to many people, and particularly to anyone who is a bit touchy, as undoubtedly the Russians are. This kind of thing is not a good symptom. Obviously it is not desirable that a government

department should have any power of censorship (except security censorship, which no one objects to in war time). But the chief danger to freedom of thought and speech at this moment is not the direct interference of the MOI or any official body.If publishers and editors exert themselves to keep certain topics out of print, it is not because they are frightened of prosecution but because they are frightened of public opinion. In this country intellectual cowardice is the worst enemy a writer or journalist has to face. Any fairminded person with journalistic experience will admit that during this war official censorship has not been particularly irksome. We have not been subjected to the kind of totalitarian ‘co-ordination’ that it might have been reasonable to expect. The press has some justified grievances, but on the whole the Government has behaved well and has been surprisingly tolerant of minority opinions. The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary. Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news—things which on their own merits would get the big headlines-being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that “it wouldn’t do” to mention that particular fact. So far as the daily newspapers go, this is easy to understand. The British press is extremely centralised, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on

certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is “not done” to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was “not done” to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals. At this moment what is demanded by the prevailing orthodoxy is an uncritical admiration of Soviet Russia. Hardly anyone will print an attack on Stalin, but it is quite safe to attack Churchill. Stalin is sacrosanct. The endless executions in the purges of 1936-8 were applauded by life-long opponents of capital punishment, and it was considered equally proper to publicise famines when they happened in India and to conceal them when they happened in the Ukraine. But now to come back to this book of mine. The reaction towards it of most English intellectuals will be quite simple: “It oughtn’t to have been published.” Naturally, those reviewers who understand the art of denigration will not attack it on political grounds but on literary ones. They will say that it is a dull, silly book and a disgraceful waste of paper. This may well be true, but it is obviously not the whole of the story. One does not say that a book “ought not to have been

published” merely because it is a bad book. After all, acres of rubbish are printed daily and no one bothers. The English intelligentsia, or most of them, will object to this book because it traduces their Leader and (as they see it) does harm to the cause of progress. If it did the opposite they would have nothing to say against it, even if its literary faults were ten times as glaring as they are. The issue involved here is quite a simple one: Is every opinion, however unpopular—however foolish, even—entitled to a hearing? Put it in that form and nearly any English intellectual will feel that he ought to say “Yes.” But give it a concrete shape, and ask, “How about an attack on Stalin? Is that entitled to a hearing?” and the answer more often than not will be “No.” In that case the current orthodoxy happens to be challenged, and so the principle of free speech lapses. If one loves democracy, the argument runs, one must crush its enemies by no matter what means. And who are its enemies? It always appears that they are not only those who attack it openly and consciously, but those who ‘objectively’ endanger it by spreading mistaken doctrines. In other words, defending democracy involves destroying all independence of thought. These people don’t see that if you encourage totalitarian methods, the time may come when they will be used against you instead of for you. To exchange one orthodoxy for another is not necessarily an advance. The enemy is the gramophone mind, whether or not one agrees with the record that is being played at the moment.”