Dear Shadow Minister,

You ask me what my reaction would be if a
conservative government stacked a board with
the likes of Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones.

I've been thinking about how to answer that
question of yours and quite frankly - I can't
really comment on that. I'm too frightened
of appearing like an idiot - no matter what I say.

Lexi, I think you avoided a trap by not answering.
A bit like the PM avoided answering the Bolt question.

Leave SM out of it.
The real question is; Are you in favour of censorship ?

Dear Bazz,

Am I in favour of censorship?

I am a librarian by profession. Librarians are not
in the business of censoring books and other material.
Their responsibility
is not to deny, but to add, enrich, stimulate and amplify
the reading of their patrons - especially of the young.

However, when teachers and librarians sift through all
the potential books and material they might order they
do employ certain criteria, a certain process of selection.
Based on literary quality, the needs of their clientele
and professional judgement, to obtain the best, most
appropriate material.

BTW - censorship doesn't work as the material can be obtained
from other sources. Frequently, the controversy increases the
interest, with a wider audience for a censored book. There
is no evidence that controversial books lead to deviant,
disruptive behaviour, or affect morality. On the contrary,
evidence suggests that such readings do not adversely
affect behaviour. Experts argue that children should have
a whole culture, not just the "plums" and "learn the art of
comparison and subconsciously acquire critical standards."
Anyway, enough said. I hope this answers your
question.

Dear Lexi,

I'm in broad agreement with your last three posts, especially your Last Post, although I am a bit uneasy about what I perhaps mis-perceive as a drift towards an elitist criterion when you seem to infer that only people who have read, and studied, and thought about an issue can really discuss it and therefore only they should have the right to speak:

"You can only form a broader picture if you do look at things
from various sides - not only the same narrow, blinkered
point of view that agrees with one's own values.
For example, it would be perfectly legitimate for a
sociologist to give as objective an account as possible
of a social problem, and then to add a subjective judgement
provided that the judgement was presented as a matter of
personal opinion."

And therefore only experts should be allowed to speak or write on issues:

".... it would be perfectly legitimate for a
sociologist to give as objective an account as possible
of a social problem, and then to add a subjective judgement
provided that the judgement was presented as a matter of
personal opinion."

But not for some yobbo ? Some uninformed blow-hard ? To reiterate what others have written above, the right to freedom of expression extends to everybody, drunk or sober, tolerant or intolerant, Right or Left, sweet or obnoxious, not merely to some (usually self-appointed) elite.

I'm sure that's what you meant too ;)

Cheers,

Joe

Let's get real. Joe.

Yobbos aren't usually into writing social commentary. For some reason they're just not into it. And uninformed blowhards will face the sort of censorship that has "always" been in place. The censorship exercised by editors and publishers over what is likely to be read and what is likely to be bought by the public. You appear to think that anyone can get their views "out there" merely because they put pen to paper of finger to keyboard. Social commentary has always been the prerogative of those who have the means, persuasion and/or talent to disseminate their opinion. That is changing somewhat due to blogging, but most people would still strive to gain recognition in mainstream areas with all its attendant criteria.

The "elite" have always written the history, even in democracies.

And is that how it should be, Poirot ?