Hush: The Era of Silence

(Mostly) Opinion: The Weaponization of Censorship

Imagine being offended by the very nature and order that letters are arranged on a piece of paper. I know this concept seems strange to some. But it is the reality of our modern-day existence. I write words and someone is offended in the way they are arranged, by the ideas they portray, by my thoughts, and by what I say.

Classical literature such as Agatha Christie, children's classics like R.L. Stine's Goosebumps series, and modern thrillers such as Ian Fleming's James Bond novels have recently fallen under the ax of censorship. Of course, the censorship we are talking about here has nothing to do with over-sexualization in literature or fringe sexual preferences. Obviously, bodice ripper scenes that would make most adults blush or shake their heads in dismay at someone else's choices in bedroom encounters are being left alone as family friendly entertainment and appropriate material for children.

Children's libraries have taken on new levels of eye-opening depravity in the modern era. So much so that Smut Magazine is downright chaste and classy by comparison. No offense to Smut Magazine.

For R.L. Stine, the censorship to his popular children's series looks like this:

One Goosebumps character is now “cheerful” instead of “plump.” Elsewhere the word “crazy” has been changed to “silly.” And a character who dressed as a “dark and stormy night” for Halloween now no longer wears black face paint.

Weight references such as having “at least six chins,” resembling “a bowling ball,” and having “squirrel cheeks” have been stripped from the novels.

“A real nut” is now “a real wild one” and “nutcase” is “weirdo.”

In the book Don’t Go to Sleep!, Stine edited a boy dismissing Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina as “girl’s stuff.” The boy now insists it’s simply “not interesting.”

National Review: R.L. Stine Accuses Publisher of Censoring Goosebumps Books without Permission

With so many men trying to declare themselves as women, what is so offensive about describing Anna Karenina as "girl's stuff"? One would think the label would be praised among the woke elite and proclaimed empowering. Or does that only happen after living a lifetime of manhood minus 365 days of which you call yourself a girl and mock womanhood?

For author Ian Fleming, censorship takes a slightly different focus.

Fleming used the n-word repeatedly throughout the books he published during the 1950s and ’60s to describe black people. Now, the word will be scrubbed from the texts and replaced with “Black person” or “Black man.”

Other edits include a change to Live and Let Die, in which Bond previously said Africans in the gold and diamond trades were “pretty law-abiding chaps I should have thought, except when they’ve drunk too much.” The edited version axes “except when they’ve drunk too much” from the text, according to the report.

Another part of the book, which takes place during a striptease at a Harlem nightclub, was changed from “Bond could hear the audience panting and grunting like pigs at the trough. He felt his own hands gripping the tablecloth. His mouth was dry” to “Bond could sense the electric tension in the room.”

A portion of the book that described accented dialogue as “straight Harlem-Deep South with a lot of New York thrown in” was removed altogether.

National Review: James Bond Books Undergo Edit to Remove ‘Offensive’ Language

The publisher's explanation for editing the novels was that "they have been altered to remove potentially offensive language at the recommendation of 'sensitivity readers.'” When can we expect the same form of censorship from the music industry? With the excessive use of the N-word in rap music and phrases such as slapping that b—... excuse me, woman..., one would think this would be a happy playground of censorship for those 'sensitivity readers'. Or is it only acceptable to use the N-word if I change the last two letters in the N-word from '-er' to an '-a' and have a certain amount of melanin in my family's ancestry? Hmmm... interesting.

Of course, every time my senses are so assaulted by someone's car stereo, I channel my inner 80-year-old cantankerous grandfather which resides deep in me and summarily tell them off by yelling loudly. Phrases like "turn that darn blasted music down, you young whipper snapper" or some other closely related sentiment blurts out of my mouth in those moments. Naturally I don't ask the offending person to censure themselves. All I ask them to do is to adhere to common courtesy of not assaulting my poor ears with their bad taste in music by turning the volume down. Not stop listening altogether.

And as far as sensing "the electric tension in the room," that just doesn't have the same visceral and animalistic imagery of what that striptease dance must have really been like. Heck! It even made famous womanizer and spy extraordinaire James Bond's mouth go dry. Some phrases just don't do a scene justice. For a company that specializes in publishing the written word for money, "electric tension in the room" is about as dry as it gets. Personally, I would stick to the more primal description. At least it quickens the heartbeat and shallows the breath when you read it.

For Agatha Christie, censorship has summarily not been so kind.

The edits cut references to ethnicity, such as describing a character as black, Jewish or Gypsy, or a female character’s torso as “of black marble” and a judge’s “Indian temper”, and removed terms such as “Oriental” and the N-word. The word “natives” has also been replaced with the word “local”.

Among the examples of changes is the 1937 Poirot novel Death on the Nile, in which the character of Mrs. Allerton complains that a group of children are pestering her, saying that “they come back and stare, and stare, and their eyes are simply disgusting, and so are their noses, and I don’t believe I really like children”.

This has been stripped down in a new edition to state: “They come back and stare, and stare. And I don’t believe I really like children.”

In the new edition of the 1964 Miss Marple novel A Caribbean Mystery, the amateur detective’s musing that a hotel worker smiling at her has “such lovely white teeth” has been removed.

The Guardian: Agatha Christie Novels Reworked To Remove Potentially Offensive Language

Regarding racial descriptions, my only thought is that Agatha Christie must be feeling thoroughly and completely chastised by now. I am sure she would take back every racial description if she were alive. Her characters obviously weren't black, Jewish, or Gypsy. In the year 2023, it has apparently become almost criminal to describe anyone using racial descriptors. These words are obviously blatant insults and attacks to underrepresented blacks, Jews, and Gypsies.

CARTMAN: Kyle, all those times I said you were a big, dumb Jew. I didn't mean it. You're not a Jew.

KYLE: Yes, I am! I am a Jew, Cartman!

CARTMAN: Yeah. I know. Don't be so hard on yourself.

Who would have thought there would be a day where I actually agree with a point made by the excessively offensive and crass cartoon South Park. These days, South Park's writers arguably have more commonsense than the leftist woke censorship sensitivity reader mob. But maybe we should all take a page from their script. Maybe we should collectively start telling people not to be so hard on themselves by using racial descriptors such as black or Jewish.

I am sure we'll be coming back to this point in a bit.

By my own personal standards, I describe South Park as excessively offensive and crass. Frankly, I don't like the show. As a result, I frequently make the personal choice to just not watch it. Problem solved. I only catch clips from time to time because, in my opinion, the show is over-the-target and on point with many of their story-lines. South Park is a slap to the woke agenda and a comedic caricature of the world we live in today.

I don't demand they censure themselves, even though I might find some of their material "excessively offensive." I also don't mindlessly watch them just because they produce a show. We generally call this discerning taste for those unfamiliar with the concept of changing the channel. Imagine that! What a novel idea!

Censorship should always be up to the audience and not the artist. It certainly should not be up to the publisher when there is already an existing and agreed upon business arrangement such as printing a novel that was set to publish years prior. Why undermine a working business model is beyond me. But companies seem intent to engage in this practice. Repeatedly and often. In the end, the audience should always have the right to not drown their senses in something they don't agree with. Ultimately, in the world of culture, the audience is the one with all the power and control in that relationship. Artists, writers and creators are mere slaves to their art and the wanton tastes of the mob. As it should be.

At this point, I wish I could say that I am surprised by the lengths people and companies go to in which to forcibly censor others. Unfortunately, it has become so common place that I am not. Not even when this article by the Anti-Defamation League came out on April 3, 2023.

Anti-Defamation League: Antisemitism, False Information and Hate Speech Find a Home on Substack

In this article, the Anti-Defamation League gives several examples of what exactly they have taken issue with other people's written words.

The following examples highlight Substack accounts whose articles contain extremist rhetoric, hate speech, harmful conspiracy theories and misleading information.

In fact, the Anti-Defamation League goes on to attack the messengers since they really can't dispute the messages which these people write about. Their issue isn't with something being untruthful. Oh no! Regardless, they have taken it upon themselves to take offense of these individuals' opinions rather than certain facts. These opinions, I might add, have growing audiences in today's wonkiest society. Ultimately, they got their '365 days of being a girl' panties in a bunch because the public opinion of certain individuals doesn’t align with theirs. And a few brave souls are willing to write about it.

Since being offended is en vogue, I thought I would get involved in promoting this trend by being offended by the Anti-Defamation League being offended. After all, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

In the spirit of showing my support of the never-ending cycle of offending others, I will be providing links to each of the authors mentioned in the Anti-Defamation League's article at the bottom of this substack. This isn't an endorsement for any particular person. But rather my effort to offer free advertisement for those who would be censored. Unlike Elon Musk, I am an actual free speech absolutist in that I believe all speech has a place in society. Sometimes that place is in an empty room. But it still has its place. I also trust my audience to censor (as in don't read) or support (as in read) any number of those authors as they deem fit.

You might object to some of those names on that list. However, I am of the opinion that there is always an opportunity to learn something new, especially from those you might not agree with, like, or support. Some of those Substacks include people who just happen to be excellent researchers. Besides, even if you don't agree with their opinions, you can at least agree with the facts of their research. Facts are easy things to agree with.

For those not familiar with what the Anti-Defamation League is, let's at least give a brief description of this organization. The below excerpt comes from the Who We Are portion of their website.

ADL is the leading anti-hate organization in the world. Founded in 1913, its timeless mission is “to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all.” Today, ADL continues to fight all forms of anti-Semitism and bias, using innovation and partnerships to drive impact. A global leader in combating anti-Semitism, countering extremism and battling bigotry wherever and whenever it happens, ADL works to protect democracy and ensure a just and inclusive society for all.

Wikipedia has a slightly different take on this.

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), formerly known as the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, is a Jewish international non-governmental organization based in the United States specializing in civil rights law.

Here's my description of their organization which is written in accordance with the current standards, practices, and guidelines given by several well-known publishers. (Or this could just be my interpretation of those standards, practices, and guidelines.)

The Anti-Defamation League is a totally NOT a Jewish organization. It is a non-government organization (NGO) which tries to influence policy that identifies as public, social, or government depending on the gender that policy decides to use that day. This organization is often triggered using the word 'Jewish'. Therefore, the organization shouldn't be so hard on itself by calling itself Jewish. Organizations should be encouraged not to express unpopular anti-Semitic ideology and racial descriptors, such as saying it was founded by Jewish people, as these ideas are often found in literature which promotes hate speech.

Now that we have that settled...

What I do take issue with is anyone who influences public, or government policy being overly offended by the very people who are supposed to be critical, asking questions, and voicing unpopular opinions regarding today's world. Journalists, historians, citizens, and writers have every right to criticize and oppose any group, individual, organization which influences public, social, or government policies -- even if that criticism is sometimes vehemently caustic.

In 1964, there was a landmark US Supreme Court decision made called New York Times v. Sullivan. Really, the decision was about protecting the First Amendment's freedom of speech. It did this limiting the ability of public officials to sue for defamation which resulted in silencing opposing voices. I know this Supreme Court case was in regard to defamation of public officials and I am talking about censorship and free speech here, but bear with me.

An excerpt from the above video:

If any news source or individual could easily be held liable for defaming a public official, nobody would want to criticize public officials out of fear, which would have adverse effects on democracy and society. This is known as a chilling effect. To avoid this chilling effect the court decided to adopt a federal rule that made it significantly harder for public officials to recover damages from defamation suits. This rule is the actual malice test.

During the course of this court case, Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote the decision for the majority.

Brennan noted that the nation’s interest in “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open” debate on public issues might include “vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on public officials.” The Constitution requires those officials to endure such criticism unless the statements were made with “actual malice — with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” While Sullivan reduced public officials’ protection from libelous statements, the Court believed that free discussion must include the freedom to criticize those in power.

Now, I know I am just some right-wing extremist author who engages in misinformation, disinformation, racism, and hate speech and am not a legal expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I am going to argue that censorship, in any form, prevents citizens in engaging in the participation of important public debate. The result of a ‘chilling effect’, which New York Times v. Sullivan tried to prevent, can be accomplished through a variety of way — not just using defamation lawsuits. Free speech and criticism of political, social, and government issues must be endured, even if that speech is considered “vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp." The only censorship that should be employed is if that speech endangers a person individually and physically, such as in the case with doxing or in the case of slander and libel using actual malice.

Actual malice is a legal term. It basically states that the same rules that apply to private citizens do not apply to public figures. To prove actual malice, you must prove that someone published something about a public figure knowing it was false or that they acted with reckless disregard for the statement's truth or falsity. Within this idea of actual malice, public figures and officials are defined to include celebrities, politicians, high-ranking or powerful government officials, and others who hold power in society.

So, here is my million-dollar question for today. Could censorship be weaponized in such a way as to bypass the judicial system and your constitutional protected right to free speech? Technocratic forms of government interference are becoming more commonplace in the United States. As such, if free speech is being limited by organizations and corporations who shape public, social, and government policy, then wouldn't this be the same as certain public government figures silencing individuals? Could censorship be used to bypass the spirit of New York Times v. Sullivan in its attempt to stop public officials from the effects of 'chilling' or shutting down dissenting opinions?

If you don't think this is happening, all one needs to do is look at the Twitter Files to see that organizations and elected officials are using their positions of power to censor dissenting opinion. They are taking away the public squares that were used for discourse.

If you aren't familiar with the Twitter Files, Jordan Sather has written a substack listing all the Twitter File releases.

Running List of All Twitter Files Releases

Or you could do a few internet searches and find articles like the one below regarding suspensions and shadow banning.

Fox News: Twitter Files: Rep. Adam Schiff's Office Requested Tech Giant To Suspend Accounts

What about when someone blocks or mutes me? What then? Isn't that censorship?

I have stated before that I am a free speech absolutist. As such, I believe that all speech has a place — even if that place happens to be a room with no one there to hear you. Just like my "turn that dang music down" analogy, no one is stopping you from saying whatever you want. They just aren't required to participate in listening to your bad taste in music.

This is the exact opposite of what has happened in the case of Twitter and Substack articles being censored from the platform. And I thought Elon Musk was a free speech absolutist.

Elon Musk’s Tweet about being a free speech absolutist

I won't go into the details here. But if you want a breakdown of what is happening, I suggest reading the following article.

Business Insider: Elon Musk and Substack are beefing. Here's a rundown of the back and forth between the Twitter CEO and the blogging site.

There are some reports of this being fixed. However, considering the whole Elon Musk "I just bought Twitter! Everyone who was suspended will be let back on Twitter!" PR stunt and then the following Tweet from Elon Musk...

Another Elon Musk Tweet which he later deleted

Well, just call me a cynic as myself and hundreds of thousands of others sit here while our accounts are still permanently suspended. Indeed, it seemed as if Elon only intended to let a few back on the platform. And with the recent rash of Twitter suspensions, I am rather skeptical of Elon's commitment to free speech absolutism.

If you are offended by this substack, good! I don't care. It doesn’t bother me one bit. Be offended! We need some good ole' fashioned kind of offending in this world today. People have forgotten how to be offended and deal with it constructively in an adult manner. As always, if you are upset at me because I made a mistake regarding a material fact... well... pencils come with a sharp point on one end and an eraser on the other for a reason.

Truth Social Post by Real Ben regarding offending others. This guy gets it.

Substack Links to ADL's Hit List

All links are as they appear in ADL's article. Again, these aren't endorsements of any of the below individuals. As always, use discernment. This is just me doing my part in the name of 1A.