Odious Comparisons VIII - Censorship

The discussion on the act of censorship is as old and as endless as civilization (I do not know if our civilization will end, but if so, will coincide with that of censorship). From those who practice it shamelessly, to those who fight it in all its forms, discussions take so many shades and hues as the nature of what is censored.

Many like to censor content that is not intended for them, just a few like that contents aimed at them is censored, and none, that I know, wants to be censored in front of the rest. It is clear that the issue has a significant degree of subjectivity. But should censorship be a universal principle, managed and directed without arbitrary discretion?

I do not want to get deeper into this, because then we start with moral digressions, which are worth more to a book than to a post. I will only say that it seems necessary to some extent a degree of censorship on information they receive, for example, children: it is more practical to get a child not touching the bleach at all, than ensuring that he understands the chemical properties of liquid and the harm they could cause if swallowed. It happens that on entering that crack, we step into a world of cases and exceptions of the type: “this category of people is not ready for this kind of information.”

Should a company allow the free flow of information that threatens its stability? I do not only refer to Chinese preventing Google crumbling remains of its Communist foundations, but also books or pamphlets with doctrines that promote controversial issues such as racism, holy war, mass murder or cannibalism. The question does not seem so clear, right? The simple answer is: yes, those issues "I" consider objectionable should be censored. It happens that the "I" are normally "others."

Personally, I do not like "others" decide what I can get to know or not. But, of course, "I" as an individual I have more discretion before I join the "we" of the social mass that I belong to. Then I become a little silly, a little less tolerant, and slightly more susceptible to propaganda. Perhaps what's best to "me" is not what is best for "us." Or for "you", when separately taken. Is it?

Answered Questions VII - Goodbye, Tintin

When will Tintin disappear? Well, one could say that he perished when Hergé, his author, passed away as the franchise's character ended with this event and our young/old reporter will star no more adventures. Now the question is whether his memory will also disappear, and when. Could it be soon?
  

The reason for this question comes in the wake of the claim being made by various groups to withdraw from the shelves of bookstores and libraries all the volumes of Tintin. This claim is especially targeted to the adventure of Tintin in the Congo, because of its out of date, misleading and inaccurate portrait of that country, made through the prism of the colonial era, which becomes more obvious in light of the new century. I do not know how the issue will end, but as always, I can think of at least two points of view.

The first is that it would be a great shame that that happened. Tintin seems to me a delicious read, and I would not like to deprive other people to enjoy it. Furthermore, by creating such a precedent, we can be sure that when China is a bit more open and western comics enter the country, so will Tintin and the Blue Lotus, my favorite. If I think a little on the subject, this reminds me about the heretical books of the Middle Ages or the burning of Hebrew books during the Nazi era. Why do I feel so anxious when I hear of these censorship projects? Well, that's a deep subject, that of censorship, I mean, and I think that is part of another series of different questions.

Let's see. It is clear that Tintin is the result of his time, as was the Captain Thunderbolt, who was killing Muslims here and there, or the witch of Hansel and Gretel who had the children locked in her home to do weird things with them, ugs! It is also clear that they are all, to one degree or another, politically incorrect, and some of the values that can be distilled are out of sync with the sensibilities of our time, but are we still pretending to rewrite history? Should we remove from our shelves the novels of Jules Verne for not conforming to scientific progress? Do we burn the undemocratic books of Plato? “But the case is different”, some might say, because Tintin is aimed at children. There I do see prejudices of our time, to believe that a comic, as such, is aimed at children. But let us concede that this is the case. Can we fix it by putting on the cover "For Mature Readers"? Funny.

The second point of view is a reflection arisen from the same news that is disturbing, and is the initiatory role of stories told to children.

The stories often had an important bringing up role, showing children a series of values, archetypes and ideas that should teach them some things in their society. Under that approach, yes we should avoid frivolously showing them aspects that do not match reality. But by the same rule, should we eliminate sexism in the stories? Or eternally happy endings? Or the irrational fantasies? No doubt here a great debate could start, but it is not worth it. After all, those times when children are formed through the stories they were told are totally left behind. Now the stories do not come from the mouths of parents and grandparents but from television, comics, video games, Internet, mobile content, in spite of any parental controls. It is as inevitable as the Chinese end up hearing about what happens in "Tintin and the Blue Lotus."