2008 Woodie Awards
What is good censorship?
Or is there such a thing? Imus incident provides opportunity for discussion
Stephen Pasqualina, Editor-in-Chief, Emeritus
Issue date: 4/18/07Section: Editor Columns
What constitutes good censorship?
In psychoanalysis, the term "censor"
denotes a mental power that represses elements
of the subconscious from entering the
conscious mind. It's what failed for Don
Imus last week and it's what rappers like
Ludacris have traditionally transgressed.
More colloquially, though, the term has a
twofold connotation: that of protection and
of restriction. It's a question that remains
central at St. John's, as University administrators
have seemed completely tone deaf
when it comes to what should and should not
be censored.
But what exactly is the advantage of censorship?
In the case of Imus, censorship might
have protected the feelings of a lot of very
offended people. It might have protected a
few children from hearing another "ho" comment.
It might have saved Imus his job.
Regardless, censorship seems to be a kind of
concealing of something with the potential to
be actualized. It seems intrinsically repressive.
What I find even more reprehensible
than Imus' comments or Ludacris' lyrics is
the insistence that their voices be silenced for
the sake of not offending anyone. If we are
going to advocate free speech, it must be
done at every turn, with every seemingly
ignorant or racist comment.
Let Imus use the phrase "nappy headed
ho's." Let Michael Richards use the "N"
word repeatedly and aggressively. Let
Ludacris degrade women by calling them
"bitches" and "ho's." They have a right to say
what they will, and so do you.
There's a too-oft quoted remark from
Voltaire that reads, "I disagree with what you
have to say but will fight to the death to protect
your right to say it." What Voltaire said
in the eighteenth century reverberates now,
both within this very University and nationally.
What censorship leaves the censored
with is an absence, a kind of ignorance that
we have too often assumed is healthy and
In psychoanalysis, the term "censor"
denotes a mental power that represses elements
of the subconscious from entering the
conscious mind. It's what failed for Don
Imus last week and it's what rappers like
Ludacris have traditionally transgressed.
More colloquially, though, the term has a
twofold connotation: that of protection and
of restriction. It's a question that remains
central at St. John's, as University administrators
have seemed completely tone deaf
when it comes to what should and should not
be censored.
But what exactly is the advantage of censorship?
In the case of Imus, censorship might
have protected the feelings of a lot of very
offended people. It might have protected a
few children from hearing another "ho" comment.
It might have saved Imus his job.
Regardless, censorship seems to be a kind of
concealing of something with the potential to
be actualized. It seems intrinsically repressive.
What I find even more reprehensible
than Imus' comments or Ludacris' lyrics is
the insistence that their voices be silenced for
the sake of not offending anyone. If we are
going to advocate free speech, it must be
done at every turn, with every seemingly
ignorant or racist comment.
Let Imus use the phrase "nappy headed
ho's." Let Michael Richards use the "N"
word repeatedly and aggressively. Let
Ludacris degrade women by calling them
"bitches" and "ho's." They have a right to say
what they will, and so do you.
There's a too-oft quoted remark from
Voltaire that reads, "I disagree with what you
have to say but will fight to the death to protect
your right to say it." What Voltaire said
in the eighteenth century reverberates now,
both within this very University and nationally.
What censorship leaves the censored
with is an absence, a kind of ignorance that
we have too often assumed is healthy and
Be the first to comment on this story