What happens when you have a semantic debate about censorship in a Shakespeare class

The word censorship is defined way too broadly. The dictionary defines it as, "The removal and/or withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body." This definition is talking about two very separate issues. It is talking about the way that writers want you to define censorship. This is adding on the connotation of human rights violations so as to make argument against crap writing a sin. The second is actual definition of penalty not censorship or even persecution for that matter.

Writers, these days, use the word censorship to make excuses for crappy writing. I can't believe that censorship is anything more than group or body not allowing you to perches a particular manuscript. Likewise, censorship is not allowing a person to publish a manuscript even though the author has the financial means to endorse the publishing of their manuscript.

The dictionary definition assumes that human are obligated to hear (or in this case read) anything ever written. It is up to the writer to produce a product worth reading. If the public doesn't want to read the manuscript, it can still be written. I find that a large amount of "writers" want to complain that because a large group of people don't want to pass on or interact with the information or ideas presented in their manuscript, they are being censored. No, that is merely penalty. Think of a penalty in a football game. You roughed that passer so you get something taken away from you that would otherwise want in order to succeed. “Writers” use the word censorship to explain the penalty that a large group of readers impose because of their common dislike for the manuscript’s content.

Penalty is not always bad. In fact, in most cases it can be used to stop an action that is harmful. Think of the roughing the passer analogy. Just to be clear, I am defining censorship as a penalty not as a punishment. The writer is being penalized by the public. The public is not going to give him their support, both monetarily and morally, because they don't want to. I want it to be clear that I am not defending censorship. I am redefining it as a monetary and moral penalty. Then I am saying that my redefined censorship can be used to weed out bad writing.

The dictionary definition of censorship assumes a moral homogeny. Another words, it does not take into account the antithesis. It assumes that there is no one truth. This is the same old tune that pagan relativistic ninnies try to foist onto the world. They do this so that they can pretend that their crappy writing means something. The most annoying use I have ever read of this is Jonathan Safran Foer commenting on his book Extremely loud and Incredibly Close. He told an interviewer, “Why do people wonder what's "OK" to make art about, as if creating art out of tragedy weren't an inherently good thing? Too many people are too suspicious of art. Too many people hate art.” –Jonathan Safran Foer, on why he wrote a 9/11 book. Here we have an author calling his work, “Art”. So if you dislike his book then you dislike art. Foer is interpreting dislike for his book as artistic persecution. He even uses the word hate. It a real asshole thing to do.

The definition also assumes a communistic society. How might it assume a communist society? Well it’s simple. In the society we live in it is impossible not to hear any information. True or false, all information is jammed into our senses. We are made to sleep with it and told that it is good and warm and tender. Just as soon as we realize that we are in bed with a lie, we are told not to worry because some of it is still true.

Today I heard the stupidest thing ever. I was educated (at $357.49 per credit nonetheless) that there exist such a thing as self censorship. This is when an author feels that what he or she is writing will bring persecution upon themselves; so they don’t write it. This is the biggest load of crap I have ever heard. I would like to see one example in the last 100 years of an English language writer that silenced themselves because they were afraid of the consequences. You would have to go to China or Cuba to find examples of that. And, those examples would be persecution against Christian doctrine. This is why it assumes communistic society. The only real place you see censorship is in communistic societies.

In my opinion if a writer does not have boulders large enough to say what is true then he shouldn’t be saying it at all.