Tag Archives: Freedom of the Press

The Comics that Was Refused to Be Printed Out of Fear

Commentaries, translated…

To print, or not to print, that, is the question!  After the shooting rampage at French’s Charlie Magazines, the varied media in multiple nations are faced with the question from Hamlet.

There are many press companies that supported the actions of printing the letter to the magazine that it was the igniting point of the shooting rampage.  The two large standards in the American papers, The Washington Post and the New York Times, the latter decided to NOT print the news or the photograph of the shootings in the French Magazines, while the Post had printed just the cover page of the periodical, not the one that had caused the shootings.

The decisions of the NY Times not printing the periodical was dissed by some people as being weak, giving into terrorist.  But, I think it’s too heavy an accusation.  From the “Vietnamese War Reports”, faced to the pressures from the governments, the New York Times had stood its grounds for a very long time, and, everybody can see that.

And still, the New York Times can stand at the forefront of the world’s newspapers, not because of its “guts” to print these news, but more importantly, it’s because of the periodical’s moral values.  The founding ideals of the New York Times on the upper left hand corner, “All the News that’s Fit to Print” says it all.

After the bloodshed, the words of “I am Charlie”, shocked the world.  The Swiss paper with over a hundred years of history, “Techno Metal Post”, pointed out where the problem is: “We’re Charlie, because we took the sides of the innocent victims, and we’re NOT all like comic strip artists.  We are not believers of the real God, Mohammed, because we stood on the side of those Muslims who chose to give up on violence.  We are all Abraham, because we stood on the side of the Jews who were murdered at the supermarket.”

From this, it’d showed that a simplistic call of words, and labeling not only doesn’t help out the situations at hand, it also exacerbated it.

Maybe, in this day and age where everybody can state on how s/he wanted to kill someone, the New York Times’s along with other presses that refused to print the comics that got everybody angered takes more courage, compared to those periodicals that decided to print the messages.

And so, it takes courage to print words that are not to everybody’s likings, and, it takes even MORE courage, to not print these words, after all, we are still, operating on the values of the Freedoms of Speech and Press here, aren’t we?

Leave a comment

Filed under Expectations, Messed Up Values, News Stories, Social Issues, Socialization, Values

Banned Books

W-H-O, gets to DECIDE, which books, WE, the people (hello, hello, hello, does THIS sound familiar?  It S-H-O-U-L-D!!!) can or cannot read?  And, wouldn’t banning BOOKS be a VIOLATION of the RIGHT to free press?

Banned books, that already long-winded list is updated yearly, because there are more and more opinions from the “outside world” saying how oh, it wouldn’t be suitable for kids of a certain age, to encounter something, something, or something else.

Banned books, IF my entries on here got compiled into book form, I’m over a-hundred percent certain, that it WILL be banned, because there is a TON of uses of obscene languages, a TON of “nudity”, and, a TON of everything ELSE that those school districts are against, which is why, I’m still just satisfied, being “in print”, online, and, who knows, maybe, one day, they’ll “bind” me too, and then, I get to grow up, to become a multi-volume series of B-O-O-K-S, looking forward to that day that’s for certain!






Filed under Coping Mechanisms, Cost of Living, Legislature, Moral Responsibilities, Observations, Professional Opinions, Properties of Life, The Constitution, Values

A Children’s Book about Gay Parents

How could you possibly EXPOSE our daughter/son to such atrocities???  Uh, just WATCH me!!!

We’re all coming OUT of the closets these days, and so, it’s NO surprise, that there would be books on gay parents, but, we’d never heard about a children’s book ON that topic, up until N_O-W, and, because matters as delicate as this, the government fears, would taint the minds of young readers, they’d DESTROYED the books, or rather, asking the rest of the public to do so.

A children’s book about gay parents, do you see anything wrong with that?  I mean, it’s NOT as if after you’d read books about gay parents to your kids as their bedtimes, they’re going to become gays OR lesbians, hello, hello, hello?  Homosexuality IS inborn, are you FUCKING kidding me?  And, IF you want to blame, blame it on the CHEMICAL imbalances during the women’s PREGNANCIES.

A children’s book about gay parents, that’ll totally SHOCK those religious fanatics all right!!!  How can public libraries support such an idea?  Do they NOT know, that children are easily influenced by what they read?

Leave a comment

Filed under Adoption, Awareness, Homosexuality, Interpersonal Relations, Invasion of Privacy, Issues of the Society, Issues on Gender, Legislature, Life, My Thoughts on Various Issues, Nonconformity, Observations, Parenting/Parenthood, Perspectives, Problems with Grown-Ups, Properties of Life, Social Awareness, Socialization, Story-Telling, Values

Exploring the Censorship Fight Over Trying to Publish “Ulysses”

From The New York Times, by D. Garner…

Kevin Birmingham’s new book, “The Most Dangerous Book: The Battle For James Joyce’s ‘Ulysses’” about the long censorship fight over James Joyce’s novel, braids stories about women’s rights and heroic female editors, about World War I, about anarchism and modernism, about tenderness and syphilis, and about how literature can bend an era’s consciousness.

It isolates a great love story, that of Joyce and Nora Barnacle, one that comes with a finger-burning side order of some of the most cheerfully filthy correspondence in literary history.

About Joyce, he writes: “He wanted people to read novels and carefully as ardently as sleeplessly as they would read dirty letters sent from abroad.  It was one of modernism’s great insights.  James Joyce treated readers as if they were lovers.”

When Joyce embarked upon “Ulysses” in 1915, he was in his 30s, impoverished, unemployed, married with two children and living in Italy.  The war’s battle front was nearby.  His literary career was a shambles.  He had devastating eye problems brought on, Mr. Birmingham argues, by syphilis, and endured more than a dozen surgeries.

As excerpts from “Ulysses” appeared in the Chicago magazine The Little Review, edited by Margaret Anderson, the magazine began to be harassed by censors, partly because of its supposed links to radicals and anarchists.

Mr. Birmingham describes that while anti-vice crusaders wanted to ban “Ulysses” to protect what they considered to be female sensibilities, many of the book’s champions were women.  Upon reading Joyce’s prose, Anderson said her partner at The Little Review, Jane Heap: “This is the most beautiful thing we’ll ever have.  We’ll print it if it’s the last effort of our lives.”  Both women would end up in court.

Sylvia Beach, the owner of Shakespeare and Company bookstore in Paris, published the first edition of Joyce’s novel in 1922 and worked to smuggle the book into the United States.  Mr. Birmingham says of her, “She wanted to give the world something more than pajamas and condensed milk.”

Other heroes include Ezra Pound, who once explained he couldn’t help Joyce get his poems published in England, because he’d burned all his bridges.  They also include Ernest Hemingway, who helped Beach smuggle copies of “Ulysses” into the United States, and John Quinn and Morris Ernst, who each defended Joyce’s writing in court.

This book is populated by the less heroic as well.  Virginia Woolf didn’t like “Ulysses” and passed up a chance to be its first publishers.

Mr. Birmingham writes that Joyce’s novel was “a new rendering of the way people think” and he explains why good history, not just Joyce, matters.  “It can be difficult to see how Joyce’s novel (how any novel, perhaps) could have been revolutionary.  This is because all revolutions look tame from the other side.”

He adds: “We forget what the old world was like, forget even that things could have been any other way.”

And so, this, is still how censorship is going way too far, because someone writes something that offends someone else, therefore that piece of writing should be banned?  What about the freedom of the press and the freedom of the speech?  And, if not for those forward thinking people of the older times, where would we be today???

Leave a comment

Filed under Perspectives, Properties of Life, Social Issues, The Constitution, Values