[Reader-list] Naeem Mohaiemen did not deserve an answer

Thu Sep 13 00:50:56 IST 2007

Dear Kshemendra,

You said,

"Ten days back, Naeem Mohaiemen posted a question "Is There Nothing You 
would Censor". It was pertinent to the then ongoing discussion about 
"freedoms". No one answered him. None of the leading lights of this 
"intellectual community" thought the question deserved an answer.The 
bunch of 'La La Land" hypocrites did not have the moral courage to answer."

As a matter of fact, I did. Though in doing so, I did not think I was 
displaying anything by way of 'moral courage'. I thought I was simply 
haveing an exchange about the circumstances in which I would countenance 
or endorse, or at least not object to censorship.

I answered Naeem off list. I wrote to him, personally, On the same day, 
in less than four hours after Naeem had posted his query. I enclose 
below (at the end of this post) the relevant excerpt from what I wrote 
to him.

(I hope Naeem will not object, and I apologize to Naeem, and to the list 
for posting a private off-list conversation on the list, although it wa 
provoked by an on-list query,for reasons of clarification, and 
tangentially, to defend the honour, if you like, of 'La La Land'.)

I did not think it necessary then to post this to the list because it 
consists in the main, of a quotation from something that I had already 
posted on the list, and that too recently, with some elaboration. I 
thought it would be a tad repetitive. But anyway, since it makes my 
position on censorship very clear,I am happy to include it, at the risk 
of repetitiveness.

Once again, Kshemendra, watch it. Don't be so hasty in the making of 
assumptions about what other people might have done, or not have done. 
Your eagerness to assume the role of the omniscient surveillance agent 
of other peoples' actions and opinions makes you (more than 
occasionally) run the risk of looking foolish.

Take Care, don't stumble, don't rush, the surfaces you fall on are very 
hard. 'La La Land' is not a gentle sort of place.

Shuddha

My reply to Naeem (with the time and date stamp) is below.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: urgent
Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 22:55:51 +0530
From: Shuddhabrata Sengupta <shuddha at sarai.net>
Reply-To: shuddha at sarai.net
Organization: Sarai
To: Naeem Mohaiemen <naeem.mohaiemen at gmail.com>
References: <e9cfea7c0709020748m7876197rcb967d9b9dbcb02f at mail.gmail.com>

Dear Naeem,

... I did write about what I would censor, some time back, in the
post titled 'The Attack on Taslima Nasrin in Hyderabad I' posted on the
18th of August, and maybe it is pertinent to what you wrote and this is -

"Similarly, if someone were to post photographic representations of
children or animals in a pornographic form on any web forum or any other
platform, I would call for its censorship, not because it is
pornographic but because its implies sexual actions with implicitly
unverifiable consent. Here, i would maintain that a drawn or written (as
opposed to photographic) representation would not qualify in my view for
censorship, though I would strongly criticse such a representation.
Similarly, I would personally call for the censorship of the snuff
videos of acts of beheading that jihadist groups in Iraq and elsewhere
in the world are so fond of displaying on internet forums, or the
photographic representations of hangings and public executions that the
fascist and totalitarian regimes in Iran and China sometimes put out
Not because I have a problem with the representation of violence per se,
but because in these cases the act of representation itself is a
violation of the liberty of those who are being killed. No one has asked
them (the executed) for their consent to have their beheading or hanging
put on public display.

In each of these cases, i would call for the regulation of speech and
expression because I believe that in each of these cases there is a
direct harm to the life, or health, or liberty. or personal well being
of a person or persons that can be solely attributed to the relevant
speech act. And these are the only forms of speech or expression that I
would be willing to endorse the censorship of."

My personal view is, if the films you mention were fiction, then I would
not censor them, but I have no problem with giving them a rating, I have
written about it elsewhere, i have no problems with a ratings system,
that spells out what is unsuitable for children, and carries warnings
for strong content. If they were fiction, I would not watch them,
because I find such material disgusting. BUt I dont think I have the
right to stop other people from watching them.

If it were non fiction, but were consensual, as in a bit of rough s and
m, again, I would not watch, but would not advocate that those who want
to watch (and perform) should not be allowed to do so.

If it were non fiction, and non consensual, then I would advocate strict
censorship, for the reasons I have spelt out above.

Please post this argument if you find it necessary, I am a bit tired of
posting on the list by now.

thanks

Shuddha

Kshmendra Kaul wrote:
> Ten days back, Naeem Mohaiemen posted a question "Is There Nothing You would Censor". It was pertinent to the then ongoing discussion about "freedoms".
>    
>   No one answered him. None of the leading lights of this "intellectual community" thought the question deserved an answer.
>    
>   The bunch of 'La La Land" hypocrites did not have the moral courage to answer.
>    
>   Kshmendra Kaul
>    
>   PS:
>   Dear Naeem
>    
>   It might upset you that the likes of me should be using your posting to make a point. You might ignore it, but if I receive a sharp retort from you, I will understand. 
>    
>   KK 
>    
>    
>    
>   
> 
> Naeem Mohaiemen <naeem.mohaiemen at gmail.com> wrote:
>   The question was asked repeatedly on Sarai list recently, "are there
> films whose screenings you would stop"?
> 
> Could it be, that even now, there are certain lines to be drawn? Read on....
> 
> 
> Already Under Fire, a Producer Is Going Further
> By MICHAEL CIEPLY/NYT
> Published: June 25, 2007
> 
> ...Having already provoked parents, women's groups and the ratings
> board with explicit ads for the coming torture movie ''Captivity,''
> Mr. Solomon and his After Dark Films now intend to introduce the film,
> set for release July 13, with a party that may set a new standard for
> the politically incorrect.
> 
> ...But the warren of live torture rooms is a must. As Mr. Solomon
> envisions it, individuals in torture gear will wander through the West
> Hollywood club Privilege grabbing partygoers. All of which is a
> prelude to an undisclosed main event that, he warned last week over
> slices of pizza a few doors from his company's new offices on the
> Sunset Strip, is ''probably not legal.'' "'The women's groups
> definitely will love it,'' Mr. Solomon hinted. ''I call it my personal
> little tribute to them.''
> 
> Mr. Solomon, a fast-talking 35-year-old, and his genre-film company
> were barely noticed until outrage at the ''Captivity'' billboards --
> which chronicled a young woman's torment, with frames titled
> ''Abduction,'' ''Confinement,'' ''Torture,'' ''Termination'' -- led to
> a rare censure by the Motion Picture Association of America this
> spring.
> 
> When the association's ratings board suspended its process for a month
> as a punitive measure, ''Captivity'' missed its May release date and
> was bumped to June 22. But Bob Weinstein and his Dimension Films
> wanted that date for their competing horror film ''1408,'' and he
> persuaded Mr. Solomon to swap for Friday, July 13. Mr. Solomon quickly
> called that Friday ''Captivity Day.''
> 
> ...These added explicit torture , including a so-called ''milkshake''
> scene that involves body parts and a blender, to a picture that was
> largely psychological in its thrust when After Dark acquired the
> rights to it.
> 
> Government to Take a Hard Look at Horror
> By MICHAEL CIEPLY/NYT
> Published: March 24, 2007
> 
> 
> ...Earlier this week, After Dark and Lionsgate scrambled to contain
> the public-relations damage after a Los Angeles Times columnist quoted
> several young students objecting to an especially gruesome billboard
> for ''Captivity'' near their middle school. After Dark, which is
> expected to release the film on May 18 with Lionsgate, quickly agreed
> to pull part of its ad campaign.
> 
> ....Horror aficionados date the genre's current flourishing to October
> 2004. The first of Lionsgate's ''Saw'' movies, about a demonically
> inventive serial killer, opened to a surprisingly strong $18 million
> on its first weekend, though it lacked an expensive cast or a
> pedigreed filmmaker. Sequels, imitators and close cousins soon
> followed.
> 
> ...Fox Atomic, a division formed by Fox Searchlight to cultivate the
> late-teenage and early-adult audience, on March 6 placed an ad for its
> film ''The Hills Have Eyes 2'' with an evening showing of
> ''Dodgeball,'' rated PG-13, on FX. The ad identified ''Hills,'' about
> National Guard trainees brutally murdered by mutants, as being not yet
> rated, though film association guidelines call for the disclosure of
> ratings in ads, and the company had accepted an R rating the day
> before. John Hegeman, Fox Atomic's chief operating officer, said the R
> rating was missing because it takes about two days to alter a
> television spot
> 
> ....official sites for R-rated fare -- deal with
> Bloody-disgusting.com, Arrow in the Head (joblo.com/arrow),
> Fangoria.com, or any of another dozen such Web sites.
> (Bloody-disgusting, for example, includes chat forums that address
> such questions as: ''Can anyone suggest a good torture-esk
> movie?'')...The operators of several such sites said they had no way
> of knowing how many of their visitors were under 17, but believed the
> numbers were substantial. ''The horror site skews a little more toward
> the younger ones,'' said Berge Garabedian, founder of the Joblo.com
> film site and its associated Arrow in the Head horror section, which
> this week carried a banner ad for an unrated DVD of ''Sublime,'' about
> gruesome murder in a hospital, from Warner Home Video. Mr. Garabedian
> said he tried to block visitors under 15 from discussion boards in
> order to eliminate ''a lot of MySpace craziness,'' but thought a
> considerable share of his Arrow in the Head visitors to be in the
> 13-to-18-year-old age range.
> 
> ....Experian Simmons Research found that 12 percent of respondents
> between the ages of 12 and 17 reported watching ''Saw II'' in
> theaters, while 12 percent said they had seen the film on DVD, and 26
> percent reported viewing any horror in theaters. In its 2004 report,
> the Federal Trade Commission said that in 36 percent of their
> attempts, its underage ''mystery shoppers'' were able to buy a movie
> ticket without an age check in theaters, down somewhat from about half
> in 2000. Meanwhile 81 percent of the young buyers obtained R-rated
> DVDs without a check.
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list 
> List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
> 
>        
> ---------------------------------
> Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list 
> List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>