What's in a Name, eh?
October 16, 2001
7:55 a.m.
I'm working on another short story. I didn't really mean to, and to be quite honest it's fairly far out there in its presentation, so I figure it's going to be totally hit or miss with nothing in between. The idea is almost certain rooted in a conversation that Greg Janks recently sparked on another list, wherein he challenged folks to write a ground-breaking fantasy. Move time up a few days, and I'm sitting in an auditorium listening to the Columbus Philharmonic when: zap, the basic idea hits pretty much in full four colors. So it's like, you know, I really need to write this one now or it will never ever work. (Or, for all you Zoolander folks, never ever ever work). And that's why I'm writing a short story again instead of working on the novel. The good news is that it's coming really quickly, so it should be done soon. Like I say, it's going to be either great or terrible. I'm not going to struggle with it one way or the other.   In the category of why it's best to think before you jump, did you see that the rock band Anthrax is reconsidering their name? This time is testing every element of who we are at various times, and besides being all scary and stuff, some of it is interesting. Among the most interesting to me--or maybe the most grating--is the whole question of censorship and how is it done. I think we throw the words censorship and free speech around without thinking about them a lot. For example, there was a group of US paratroopers who put up a site that included some pretty stiff stuff about the US overrunning Osama bin Laden and essentially taking over the entirety of the middle east. I didn't see the site, but apparently it was certainly offensive to most people who consider that area home. When I suggested that doing this was probably in poor taste, a military person got on my case and basically said that it was a burden to give up his civil rights of free speech so I didn't have to. I only noted back that I never said they should have been forced to take the site down. What I had meant was that the soldiers should have been mature enough to know better in the first place. Censorship and free speech go hand in hand, but are not the same thing. Think of it this way. A few months back I sold a story to a magazine that said they would take it if I could do something about an offensive word I had used. I agreed. Was this censorship? Well, in the strictest meaning of the word, yes. They had a forbidden word and I used it, and they struck it. But no. This was not censorship in the way we American/free people mean when we throw the word around. This was a case of editorial policy meeting "artistic integrity." I could always say no, and I could always publish the piece myself if I couldn't have sold it anywhere else. In the case of the paratroopers I meant that the law shouldn't and doesn't say they can't have the site they put up going (though, I do think military law probably does say that), but that they should perhaps have been mature enough to know better. They should have exercised editorial judgement in their situation and chosen their civil right to say nothing. In a similar vein, there's the thing with this airing of Osama bin Laden tapes thing. I'm sorry, folks, but deciding not to air canned messages from this guy is really a no brainer. This is not censorship. And the government asking the networks not to air them is not censorship either--unless Condi Rice threatened anyone with jail for airing them. The government is not censoring until they either physically stop somebody from publishing, or provide them punitive damage for doing so. Yes, they may take funding away from the NEA, or they may try to sway where that money goes. But that is not censorship. It is attempting to sway editorial policy. By all means, complain about them if you want, but I get really uncomfortable hearing these types of behaviors tagged as censorship. People getting canned for saying the "wrong thing" and the "wrong time" on air is another interesting situation. Free speech advocates are certainly getting their dander up over these things, and I keep hearing people saying that the right to free speech is laughable when someone says these things and gets canned. But this is not censorship. Phil Maher (did I spell that right .. probably not, but it's really late in the morning and I don't have time to look it up--which is the ultimate reason I have so many typos in these things, you know?) said something that was controversial given its timing. He misjudged the situation. He got skewered for it. The right to say something does not protect you from the application of editorial guidelines. Of course, if you don't go with me here, I could say that editors across the globe have been censoring me for years. You don't believe me? I've got the rejection letters to prove it. So, coming back to the Anthrax thing ... Back years ago when they picked this name (because it sounded cool and no one knew what it was), this group might have been better off to select something different. I personally never paid much attention to the group, but I'm certain they've taken some heat over their name--as, I'm sure have a lot of other metal bands. Personally, as my daughter gets to be nearly 13, I would like to see a little more application of editorial policies by stations like MTV, but this is another issue. But I'll not that no one is forcing them to consider changing their name. Oh. Hold on. Yes, someone is forcing them to consider change their name. It's the public. The world at large, you know? Peer pressure and all that, and the fear of losing money because now maybe no one will buy their records. It's Saddam. Or maybe Osama. It's Islam. No. Of course not. No one is censoring the members of Anthrax. And any criticism they got about their name was not an attempt to censor it, either. They were attempts to create editorial policy. I would like to think this is a case of a band suddenly faced with the idea that they might need to grow up, and considering applying some editorial policy to themselves so as not to make a large section of the country upset. But I don't believe it. I think instead that they are suddenly faced with the idea that they might lose money if they don't change their name. But as RAH once kinda said, nothing says they liked it like a check, so I guess that's as good a reason as any.  Daily Persistence is © Ron Collins |
|
BACK TO 
|