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

[Vishal Rawlley]

Dear KK,

You said:
Disagreements (if any) perhaps boil down to WHO should lay down these
standards, WHAT PROCESSES or 'sanctioned by Law' Institutions should be
involved, WHAT AREAS and WHAT EVALUATIONS should be considered for
application of the guiding principle  "......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"

But its not about "who" should decide. That way depending upon "who" is in
power, each time a different standard would be applied. The "who" should
therefore be the individual, and each should decide for themselves.

But that does not mean that individuals can do whatever the decide to. There
are some extreme and rare cases where restraint is necessary. And that
brings us to:"what processes", "what areas" and "what evaluations" are to be
considered??

Shuddha has very clearly elaborated on each and thus explained his position.
He is not saying that everything should be allowed. "If it were non fiction,
and non consensual [sexual act], then I would advocate strict
censorship,..." he says - to give an example. Now according to his criteria,
Jashn-e-Azadi is not such an extreme case, as the example he cites, so
regardless of whether he likes the film or not, agrees with it or not, he
feels it should not be censored.

Now can you give your reasons for censoring a certain thing? What would you
censor and why? Should Jashn-e-Azadi be censored, and if so why? Please
state your case. Thank you.

-Vishal



On 9/15/07, Kshmendra Kaul <kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Shuddhabrata
>
> Your mail is addressed to me as an individual and therefore I shall
> equally courteously respond. Soon after though, in another mail you revert
> to "let us bunch them together" routine.
>
> It is interesting that some people who celebrate an individual's freedoms
> and thereby an individual's identity in this "intellectual community" should
> so readily chorus the "I see a mob, I see a mob, attack the mob" shouts
> irrespective of how varied the opinions, positions and arguments might be.
> Pick up one issue over which there might be strong disagreements and on that
> basis dismiss all else about anyone who might even remotely suggest
> himself/herself not subscribing to your views on any topic. Demonise them.
> No good should be seen in the devils by anyone, so cloud the scene with
> "They are a mob; They are a mob; Everyone must attack the mob".
>
> It was interesting to see someone like Rahul Asthana also (who in my
> opinion is one of the "decent" correspondents on this list) get clubbed (not
> by you) with the "mob" because he might have disagreed over some issue.
> "Rahul is a part of them, Rahul is a part of the mob, beware, you must see
> Rahul as part of the mob". Amusing.
>
> I see all of this as "intellectual cowardice" and a lack of "intellectual
> ethics". Those who find it convenient to see a "mob" end up becoming a
> "mob". It is sad because it includes some extremely sharp and bright
> intellect. Individual intellect however always sacrifices itself to the
> psyche of the "mob".
>
> Let me come to what your mail was essentially about.
>
> - Naeem asked a question in the room
> - I did not see Naeem receiving an answer in the room
> - Shuddha says he answered Naeem in private and explains why he did so
> - No one in the room saw Naeem receive an answer in public for a question
> he asked in public
> - As far as any member (including me) of the room is concerned, Naeem did
> not receive an answer.
>
> So Shuddha, there is no assumption on my part as far as that domain is
> concerned where the question was asked and where no answer was given. I am
> just a simple minded Horatio of simple philosophies of the apparent.
>
> Actually Shuddha, you of all the people should be able to appreciate that.
> I remember the rather facile but the distinctinctness and separateness with
> which you sought to aggressively define "public" and "private" spaces.
>
> I wonder now who should be the candidate for your threatening admonition
> of "watch it" and the pomposity in  "...makes you (more than occasionally)
> run the risk of looking foolish."
>
> Shuddha your comment about me "Your eagerness to assume the role of the
> omniscient surveillance agent of other peoples' actions and opinions" might
> sound very telling but does not make me cringe (if it was meant to) simply
> because I was very interested in seeing what answers Naeem would receive.
> For me, the answers to that question from a "neutral" observer would only
> add perspectives to the discussion about "what" or "are there any at all"
> limits that can be considered for "individual" or "collective" freedom of
> expression.
>
> Thank you Shuddha for posting your response to Naeem. I saw the most
> significant part of your response in your words:
>
> """""" 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."""""""
>
> You have very clearly given the examples and the reasoning.
>
> You have for one set of cases used the evaluating principle of "......
> 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" Could hardly be put better.
>
> So, although both "regulation" and "censorship" may be restrictive of the
> individual's right to freedom of expression or of that of the collective,
> yet have to be taken on board as possible necessities for a variety of
> reasons in a variety of situations.
>
> Both "regulation" and "censorship" cannot be an "open licence". The areas
> where they can be applied, the bases of application and the extent of
> application has to be extremely carefully thought about.
>
> Without any doubt (in my mind), the "regulatory" or "censoring" actions
> have to be sincere, honest, should not over-step the allowed briefs and not
> seek to serve hidden agendas.
>
> Disagreements (if any) perhaps boil down to WHO should lay down these
> standards, WHAT PROCESSES or 'sanctioned by Law' Institutions should be
> involved, WHAT AREAS and WHAT EVALUATIONS should be considered for
> application of the guiding principle  "......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"
>
> Shuddha, if my comments over your mail to Naeem seem like they
> misrepresent you, please do tell me (if you feel like doing so). Please make
> it specific and brief because you can very often be tediously boring and so
> convoluted that it defeats the purpose of making yourself understood, unless
> it is deliberately so strategised.
>
> In conclusion, your reference to "La La Land" is quite childish and hardly
> does credit to your intellect. Intellectual dishonesty. It was an expression
> used by me for specific reference to the attitude of "we do not care for the
> Nation, we do not believe in a Nation" (my own quote marks). It is hardly
> pertinent to this topic. Again, I see in it an attitude of "You are one of
> the mob, remember you spoke of La La Land. You must be attacked over it even
> if it has no bearing here" Sad attitude.
>
>
> Kshmendra Kaul
>
>
>
> Shuddhabrata Sengupta <shuddha at sarai.net> wrote:
> 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
> Reply-To: shuddha at sarai.net
> Organization: Sarai
> To: Naeem Mohaiemen
> References:
>
> 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 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:
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > 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: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story.
> Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.
> _________________________________________
> 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/>