[Reader-list] Rhetorical Question

[Vishal Rawlley]

Dear Kashmendra,

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 9/16/07, Kshmendra Kaul <kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Naeem
>
> In the referred to posting, in the footnote I requested your indulgence
> and my readiness to receive a sharp retort from you.
>
> I do apologise for my posting suggesting that you were not considered
> "deserving" of an answer.
>
> Very frankly, the rhetorical nature of your question did not register with
> me. Maybe that was aided by my desire to see what kind of answers it would
> receive.
>
> I must mention though that on the positive side it made me privy to some
> very well argued out guiding principles for "regulation" and "censorship"
> laid out by Shuddha. I regret it was at the cost of the "melodramatic
> subject header" using your name.
>
> Kshmendra Kaul
>
> PS: Is "basta ya" the equivalent of "let go of it"? In Bengali is it?
>
>
>
>
>
> Naeem Mohaiemen <naeem.mohaiemen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Kshmendra,
> You can't really use my email to drive home a thesis about certain
> topics being ignored (in the melodramatic subject header "Naeem
> Mohaiemen did not deserve an answer").
>
> I posted what was obviously a rhetorical question. A news report on an
> ultra-violent horror film, prefaced by my question "Could it be, that
> even now, there are certain lines to be drawn?". It was pretty obvious
> that I was advocating censoring ultra-violent imagery in certain
> contexts. I think most people got what my position was.
>
> Thinking of two cases I dimly recall:
> - A year after Brett Easton Ellis' AMERICAN PSYCHO was released (which
> has some of the most noxiously violent, misogynist imagery on text,
> although at a distance of almost a decade, I recognize lot of it as
> satire-- but satire in extreme poor taste), a home was raided to catch
> a brutal murder, and the same book was found on the bedside table.
> - When two under-15 boys kidnapped an eught year old and strangled him
> to death (this happened, if I recall correctly, in England in the
> early 90s), a raid into their parents home discovered the film
> CHUCKY-- in which the malevolent spirit is in a disfigured doll, which
> looks like-- bingo-- an eight year old child.
>
> I have always argued that certain ultra-violent imagery can push
> certain persons over the edge into violent or copycat action.
> Therefore it should at the least be criticized, as hate speech is
> condemned. Because it directly encourages violence and murder.
>
> This point was pretty obvious from my one-line rhetorical question as
> well. So it was not really a question that was an orphan if left
> without "an answer". So no, I didn't "deserve" or need an answer.
>
> Shuddha wrote to me personally because he knows me personally. He even
> invited me to post his response on Sarai list, but I spaced and
> forgot. Basta ya, let's move on.
>
>
> > From: Kshmendra Kaul
> > Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Naeem Mohaiemen did not deserve an answer
> > To: shuddha at sarai.net
> > Cc: reader-list at sarai.net
> > Message-ID: <214127.82974.qm at web57202.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> >
> > 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 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
> _________________________________________
> 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/>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail,
> news, photos & more.
> _________________________________________
> 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/>