Censorship Anyone?
What did you have for dinner tonight? Mabye a big heaping plate of censorship? Because If Julie's presentation wasn't censoring us in itself, it was undeniably condoning it. We still have the right to write what we want...but if we don't follow certain guidlines then our blog isn't "good?" What a pity, because in that case, my blog really must suck.
I would also like to pose this question to everyone: Has any progress ever been made without offending someone? Every new idea or action offends the group of people who don't believe in it. "Don't be offensive to people or groups?" You may as well not write, speak, express yourself, or be seen in public, because there's a good chance that something you say, do, or even wear will offend someone. Wars have been fought by people who were offended because of Catholic ideas and ideals, but this is still a Catholic Institution, and a damn good one at that. I'm not trying to single anyone out here: That's how it is with every religion, and every time someone has a new idea, though mabye not on such a grand scale. And yet we shouldn't write in our blog because it might offend someone. I'm offended by the guidlines Miss Young has set to "get the most out of your academic weblog." But that's life...suck it up.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Censorship Anyone?.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Maybe she just writes her blog on a PC.
Ooops! You caught me peeking through the classroom window. My bad!
Drat. You'll just have to tune in tommarow night, batwoman.
Wow...that was Jay! Go Jay. And Paul, i agree to, hence reading my comment on Julie's blog, and my post in my blog.....hmm...i was very..honest....but anyhow...this is a bunch of rambling......so anyways...yeah, censorship sucks.....in a sense.
Drat. I tuned in after 8 and was disappointed.
Thank you. Im not trying to say that writing shouldn't have its limits. Saying you're going to kill someone on a blog isn't appropriate to write, just as yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre doesn't fall under the category of free speech. But having different views on issues? That should never be censored.
Paul...Just know that I agree with you...I think that censorship is slightly bogus in a certain sense...Censorship does not really indicate any feeling or interpretation; it is okay to a certain extent, (i.e. profanity or threats toward others) but in today's society...there is too much protection by the use of censorship. People need to get out of their "censorship bubbles," and start focusing on reality.
If he read my entry, why should he think he had to censor what he writes when I preach the opposite? Besides, the line after the one I quoted mentions Julie's presentation, and nothing about my entry. But just to be sure I'll go find him and ask him as a follow up
Paul, I wonder whether Mike D. got that impression directly from Julie's presentation, or from your blog entry here.
But obviously no new bloggers got the wrong idea from the presentation...
At this point I would just like to note that I also "restrict" what I write, as does everyone else. The difference between that and censorship is that we all do it based on what we ourselves believe is "going to far," or morally incorrect. As bad as people think my entries might be, the fact is that they could be much, much worse. Except they're not, because I have a point where I draw the line. No one told me where to put that point, It's just where I believe it should be.
As a side thought, I'd like to take a quote from new blogger Mike Diezmos at
http://blogs.setonhill.edu/MichaelDiezmos/
"I am finally introduced to blogging. [...] it might be a little hard because I have to think twice and censor what I am going to to be saying"
If you're reading this looking for a response to Miss Hibbs post, check back tonight around eight.
Julie originally gave her "Getting the Most out of Your Academic Weblog" presentation as an assignment for my "Media Aesthetics" course, and I thought it was so good that I asked her to repeat it in two of my other classes. While your mileage may vary regarding exactly what you feel you should or shouldn't post on your academic blog, I don't think anything she said could reasonably be construed as censorship or in any way condoning censorship.
http://www.google.com/search?q=define:censorship
And I heard her presentation three times.
Paul, I'd be very interested in hearing more of your own ideas about the function of blogging, and your relationship with your own blog -- particularly because it seems that your strategy for engaging with an audience differs from Julie's.
I would like to echo what Donna Hibbs wrote about the audience for these blogs, and what Mike Arnzen wrote about the huge distinction between peer-to-peer suggestions and actual censorship.
It might also be worthwhile to note that Julie's presentation was about *academic* blogging -- that is, blogging as an extension of the classroom, with the assumption that the way we behave in our private lives is different from the way we behave in a public environment.
Rather than deleting or advocating the deletion of any blog entry that does not meet these criteria, Julie's post does say, "To get the most out of these strategies, do X." I think Lori Rupert's honest response is a good reaction; Lori feels that if she had to restrict what she wrote, her blog would be less her own.
http://blogs.setonhill.edu/LoriRupert/001813.html
Lori recently wrote about romantic troubles, for example, but she leaves quite a lot unsaid. So, Lori *does* restrict what she writes. And that's pretty much what Julie wanted the newbies in the audience to learn -- that they should think about how much of their private lives they want posted on their academic weblogs.
Hi Paul. Glad to match a blog entry with a new face.
Of course you have a "right" to do whatever you please (well, maybe not in some classes...you assent to follow guidelines when you enroll voluntarily in a class -- there's also a "code of conduct" all SHU students assent to by registering). Here's how I see it: It would be censorship if Dr. Jerz edited or deleted your web posts from behind the scenes. But when Julie gives a lesson in good web techniques, she's only making recommendations based on "what works" for most readers. I didn't see her presentation, but I'm sure she wasn't barking orders. By your logic, all teachers of writing are fascists. I wouldn't do what I do if I believed that were true. However, the point behind your point -- that prudence and convention can stifle the creativity and free expression so important to democracy -- is a valid one. So I applaud the spirit of your post, even if I disagree with your definition of censorship. (Or are you just picking on Julie?) Censorship in the classroom is an interesting topic to me, so I'd like to hear what others think of this. Do teachers "censor" when they recommend edits on a paper? Are editors "censoring" when they alter an author's manuscript?
Oh dear. As a good friend of Miss Young, I must say that you obviously didn't get the point. The point was to make you think about whether you wanted your professors reading those offensive thoughts of yours, or those intimate details of your personal life (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, Julie).
Also, you might want a job someday that isn't "offensive blog" friendly. What then? But it seems you're so against censorship that I doubt you would EVER take a job like that.