Question about Censorship?

[MSDGreen]

I was recently present during an open mic night at my local coffee shop. The Topics of the various poems read varied a little but a few stuck out... A lot. Namely because they contained a great amount of profanity, descriptions of forcefull sexual acts (very descriptive), etc... I do not have copies of the poems and would probably not post them here if I did, they were pretty vulgar.

Anyway, this started a little controversy in the area, and seemed like it was dividing the "artistic" community, to a certain extent. The owner of the shop, made a public apology for those in attendance, and asked that in the future if the content could be toned down a bit. It is my understanding that this was not the first time he has had to do this. His apology and request that they do not use such language without first giving a warning to the people listening started quite the argument about censorship. On one side people are arguing that art should not be censored at all. On the other side, people were saying that the owner has a responsibility to his customers and if people are going to be giving what could be considered an R rated performance there should be some type of disclosure to that fact.


I tried not to explain in too much detail as an attempt to avoid my own bias sullying the question.

What do you think Lit-Net?
Should an artist be responsible, to a certain extent, to the audience/host, and avoid something where it may not be appropriate?

[kiki1982]

To me, it depends what it is. Political censurship (politicians or regimes that do not want to be criticised because otherwise one goes to prison) I find not appropriate in any circumstances.

On the other hand, the stuff you talk about (bad language, sexual connotations ec) all depends on how necessary it is to me. I am not shy of a 'f*ck' or any other swearword, but sometimes it becomes unnecessary (a good example is Gordon Ramsey for the Brits here). It depends whether that is absolutely necessary or whether this type of poem/language is just a matter of demanding controversy/attention. On the other side, though, it is not right that some people do exaggerate and demand no 'f*cks' or 'sh*ts' whatsoever, any sexual content, any reference to it. That is really childish and it should be prohibited because they are ruining anything remotely realistic

I am not sure, though. Expression of the artist is important but should have a deeper message and not have the only aim of causing controversy and attention that way. Then it is not art.

[MrRegular]

A business owner has the right to what kind of services he is offering at his establishment as this is essentially part of his product. If an artist demands to be heard at a business where his type of art is unwanted then he is, in effect, invading on the rights of the businessman.
A governing entity has no right to legislate the content of an artist, regardless of what the populace of that country may think of the art or artist.
If an artist produces art that is unliked by the audience, the artist needs to find a different audience.

[PeterL]

Without having heard the specific poems, I don't know whether there was any reason for any warnings. A lot of foul language to one person might be just a little colloquial language to another. If the shop owner thought that warnings would be required in the future, then he probably thought that the amount of foul language was more than his customers would like or find acceptable. He probably has a fair idea of what would be acceptable in that setting, so his warning wasn't unreasonable. The poets probably had not considered the standards of potential audiences.

Writers of all types should be conscious of what their audiences would find acceptable. Failure to write to the audience leads to failure as a writer. In my experience poets are less conscious of audience that are writers of prose, but that's no reason to excuse them.

[The Comedian]

A business owner has the right to what kind of services he is offering at his establishment as this is essentially part of his product. If an artist demands to be heard at a business where his type of art is unwanted then he is, in effect, invading on the rights of the businessman.

I totally agree -- that business owner is not censoring anything. And, I think those vulgar poets are taking themselves and their work a little too seriously. If the owner asks them to warn the audience that their works are graphic, violent, or sexual, he is simply extending his audience a courtesy. People should have the right to get up and leave or stuff cotton balls in their ears if they want to.

[MSDGreen]

Without having heard the specific poems, I don't know whether there was any reason for any warnings. A lot of foul language to one person might be just a little colloquial language to another. If the shop owner thought that warnings would be required in the future, then he probably thought that the amount of foul language was more than his customers would like or find acceptable. He probably has a fair idea of what would be acceptable in that setting, so his warning wasn't unreasonable. The poets probably had not considered the standards of potential audiences.

Writers of all types should be conscious of what their audiences would find acceptable. Failure to write to the audience leads to failure as a writer. In my experience poets are less conscious of audience that are writers of prose, but that's no reason to excuse them.

The stance from the poets side is that there is no limit to what can be said. This was not just dropping an f-bomb here or a penis innuendo there. I have yet to see something that I would feel uncomfortable hearing, and after hearing this, I do not think I ever will. My understanding from the "poets" side is that there is no limit on what is acceptable or not to a audience at a coffee house. A little beside the point, but there were children present.

I guess the question should be not where the limits are, but if in fact limits do exist.

Does something deserve to be recognized because someone feels it is art? Based on that belief alone, should anyone be subjected to it without warning?

The proprietors stance is not that it is not allowed, but that some warning should have been given. I feel that this is reasonable, but want to see what others feel about this. Thanks for your input.

[BienvenuJDC]

A business owner has the right to what kind of services he is offering at his establishment as this is essentially part of his product. If an artist demands to be heard at a business where his type of art is unwanted then he is, in effect, invading on the rights of the businessman.
A governing entity has no right to legislate the content of an artist, regardless of what the populace of that country may think of the art or artist.
If an artist produces art that is unliked by the audience, the artist needs to find a different audience.

I primarily agree with these comments, however, I do think that a self-governing community has the right to establish certain standards of censorship (in regards to what is acceptable from a moral standpoint) for public areas...not to be enforced in any private settings unless it is content that would provoke criminal activity.

In other words, a community could outlaw profane language/activity that would be performed for a public audience.

[Drkshadow03]

The stance from the poets side is that there is no limit to what can be said. This was not just dropping an f-bomb here or a penis innuendo there. I have yet to see something that I would feel uncomfortable hearing, and after hearing this, I do not think I ever will. My understanding from the "poets" side is that there is no limit on what is acceptable or not to a audience at a coffee house. A little beside the point, but there were children present.

I guess the question should be not where the limits are, but if in fact limits do exist.

Does something deserve to be recognized because someone feels it is art? Based on that belief alone, should anyone be subjected to it without warning?

The proprietors stance is not that it is not allowed, but that some warning should have been given. I feel that this is reasonable, but want to see what others feel about this. Thanks for your input.

But the business owner actually owns the coffee, it's his property. Free speech means you have the right to say basically whatever you want without repercussions from the government. However, there is no such thing as a right to a venue for any individuals speech. The business owner doesn't have to hold these sessions. He isn't censoring these artists. They're free to go find a different venue to read their works.

[MSDGreen]

I primarily agree with these comments, however, I do think that a self-governing community has the right to establish certain standards of censorship (in regards to what is acceptable from a moral standpoint) for public areas...not to be enforced in any private settings unless it is content that would provoke criminal activity.

In other words, a community could outlaw profane language/activity that would be performed for a public audience.

My concern is if you are to draw a line where what is appropriate and what is not in the public sphere, how would you prevent this from infringing upon free speech?*

assuming we have obtained the freedom of speech.*

[BienvenuJDC]

My concern is if you are to draw a line where what is appropriate and what is not in the public sphere, how would you prevent this from infringing upon free speech?*

assuming we have obtained the freedom of speech.*

I think that ALL people ought to respect their peers. We are NOT talking about a government oppression against speaking out against the government, but we are speaking about that which is offensive toward others. It's not an offense to be punishable by death or imprisonment, but to be asked to leave a particular area for an offensive nature. We must be careful not to get into politics, but does the hate crime legislation that some want infringe upon someone's rights to call out prejudice and discriminatory references toward certain ethnic groups or culturally identified individuals.

Should a group of people be allowed to ask an individual to leave their presence due to offensive behavior? (considering that it is a public area)

[The Comedian]

My concern is if you are to draw a line where what is appropriate and what is not in the public sphere, how would you prevent this from infringing upon free speech?*

assuming we have obtained the freedom of speech.*

Yeah, I think what most are sayin' here is that this is not a free speech issue; it's a property rights issue. Those poets are free to write those poems. But reading them on the shop-keep's territory is a different matter. He can set the rules for how his invited (and payin') guests need to behave on his property.

I guess it's sort of like saying to the poets: "you have a right to write whatever you like, but what you say in my house is up to me".

And if all the shop keeper is asking for is that the poets give a little warning that their content isn't rated PG. . . . .sheesh, that sounds totally reasonable to me. He's just asking the poets to be respectful.

[dfloyd]

violate what is normal for the community. As Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, "Fredom of speech does not give one the right to yell, Fire! in a crowded theatre."

[kelby_lake]

The guy has every right to tell the poets off. The audience have a right to know what they will be listening to, and then they can decide whether to go or not. The owner has a right to ensure his audience are 'safe'.

And quite frankly, some poets are far too self-indulgent about explicit content.

[PeterL]

The stance from the poets side is that there is no limit to what can be said. This was not just dropping an f-bomb here or a penis innuendo there. I have yet to see something that I would feel uncomfortable hearing, and after hearing this, I do not think I ever will. My understanding from the "poets" side is that there is no limit on what is acceptable or not to a audience at a coffee house. A little beside the point, but there were children present.

I guess the question should be not where the limits are, but if in fact limits do exist.

Does something deserve to be recognized because someone feels it is art? Based on that belief alone, should anyone be subjected to it without warning?

The proprietors stance is not that it is not allowed, but that some warning should have been given. I feel that this is reasonable, but want to see what others feel about this. Thanks for your input.

If there is an outer limit, then it may be where the audience take the poet out into the courtyard and burn him alive. The practical limit should be somewhere in the region where the audience becomes unhappy. It might be that that poet was not appropriate for that location and would have fit better in another place. Community standards vary from place to place. I don't feel strongly about people using vulgar language, but I think that a little goes a long way. Someone who was highly skilled in the language would have been able to express as mush and as strongly without using any significant amount of strong language.



Does something deserve to be recognized because someone feels it is art? Based on that belief alone, should anyone be subjected to it without warning?

Some rather unworthy things have been called art. I don't think that a simple declaration makes any old thing into art. These Post-Romantic poets think that their feelings alone make something art, but there has to be actual art involved. We should throw out the Post-Romantic ideas and return to Neo-Classical standards, when poetry had to be well crafter and have some meaning that can be recognized by a literate person.

[kelby_lake]

These Post-Romantic poets think that their feelings alone make something art, but there has to be actual art involved. We should throw out the Post-Romantic ideas and return to Neo-Classical standards, when poetry had to be well crafter and have some meaning that can be recognized by a literate person.

I totally agree. Some modern poetry looks like it could have been written by anybody who's literate.
With the classic poems, you can see the degree of craft and skill, the way they use rhyme effectively and they don't just eschew it because they'd have to face up to the fact that they aren't that good.

[PeterL]

I totally agree. Some modern poetry looks like it could have been written by anybody who's literate.
With the classic poems, you can see the degree of craft and skill, the way they use rhyme effectively and they don't just eschew it because they'd have to face up to the fact that they aren't that good.

Too much of modern poetry is like poorly written prose that is chopped up in peculiar ways so that people will think that maybe it isn't prose. Meter and rhyme aren't just pretty affectations, they are methods for emphasizing words, and they can be very effective.

[Virgil]

What do you think Lit-Net?
Should an artist be responsible, to a certain extent, to the audience/host, and avoid something where it may not be appropriate?

An artist has the right (in a free country presumably) to write or create whatever he so wishes. But the publisher or distributer or purchaser has to the right to discriminate in what he so chooses to publish, distribute, or purchase. The owner of that cafe has every right to establish what type of art he wishes to present on his property.

If those peots want to read their poetry, let them buy their own cafe.

Otherwise i can force you to buy my book. Wanna buy it?

[Ashbe Maeur]

I agree with what you said - if there are going to be poems of that nature read, then there should be some disclosure to the general audience. There's nothing wrong with allowing them to read their poetry, but maybe the owner could set up some type of special night for the individuals who feel that they need to write in this way.