Category Archives: Transhuman News

In the wake of the firing of Timnit Gebru and other notable AI researchers at Google, Alphabets circled the wagons and lawyered up. Reports flow out of Mountain View depicting teams of lawyers censoring scientific research and acting as unnamed collaborators and peer-reviewers.

Most recently, Business Insider managed to interview several researchers who painted a startling and bleak picture of what its like to try and conduct research under such an anti-scientific regime.

Per the article, one researcher said:

Youve got dozens of lawyers no doubt, highly trained lawyers who nonetheless actually know very little about this technology and theyre working their way through your research like English undergrads reading a poem.

The problem here is that Google isnt censoring research to avoid, say, its secrets getting out. Its lawyers are targeting scientific research that makes the company look bad.

The person quoted above added that they were specifically talking about crossing out references to fairness and bias and scientists being told to change the results of their work. Its not only unethical, its incredibly dangerous.

The tea: Googles AI is broken. It might be a trillion-dollar company and the most cutting-edge AI outfit on Earth, but its algorithms are biased. And thats dangerous.

No matter how you slice it, Googles AI doesnt work as well for people who dont look like the vast majority of Googles employees (white dudes) as it does for people who do. From Searchs conflation of Black people and animals to the algorithms running the camera on the Pixel 6s inability to properly process non-white skin tones, Googles machine-learning woes are well-documented.

This is a big problem and it isnt easy to fix. Imagine building a car that didnt work as well for Black people and women as it did for white guys, selling 200 million, and then people slowly learning their automobiles were racist.

Thered be a lot of feelings and emotions about what that would mean.

Googles current situation is a lot like that. Its products are everywhere. It cant just recall Search or put Google Ads on hold for a few days while it rethinks the entire world of deep learning to exclude bias. Why not fix world hunger and make puppies immortal while theyre at it?

So what do you do when youre one of the richest companies in the world and you come up against a truth so awful that its existence makes yourmodel seem evil?

You do what big tobacco did. You find people willing to say whats in your companys best interests and you use them to stop the people telling the truth from sharing their research.

The National Institutes of Health released research in 2007 describing the role of lawyers during the big tobacco legal battles of the previous decades.

In the paper, which is titled Tobacco industry lawyers as a disease vector, the researchers attribute the spread of diseases associated with long-term tobacco use to the tactics employed by industry lawyers.

Some key takeaways from the paper include:

And were seeing the same potential with Googles approach. The companys treating the scientific method as an optional component of research.

As researcher Jack Clark, formerly of OpenAI, pointed out on Twitter:

I like to collaborate with people in research and I do a huge amount of work on AI measurement/assessment/synthesis/analysis. Why would I try and collaborate with people at Google if I know that theres some invisible group of people who will get inside our research paper?

Clarks talking about legibility here, the idea that the researchers have their names on the papers but the censors and lawyers dont.

See, down the road a few years, if Googles inability to address bias or create algorithms that are fair turns out deadly at scale over time,no lawyers will be harmed in the proceeding lawsuits.

And thats not fair. Billions of people put their trust in Google products every day. The AI we rely on is a part of our lives that influences our decisions. Whatever Googles lawyers are hiding could hurt us all.

See original here:
Google channels Big Tobacco with research censorship

Marty Ryan| Guest columnist

Author Toni Morrison dies at age 88

Toni Morrison was the first African American woman to win the Nobel Prize for Literature. This is her legacy.

USA TODAY

Censorship: the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

What is so attractive about shutting down the ability of another to read, see, or hear what may be offensive to you but not to others?

I feel like were back in the 1980s when government attempted to shut down rap music, performance artists, photography by Robert Mapplethorpe, and books that had been banned in earlier decades.

President Ronald Reagans attorney general, Edwin Meese, established the Attorney Generals Commission on Pornography in 1986.It was commonly known as The Meese Commission. At the end, the commission issued a bulky two-volume report, much of it consisting of detailed narrations of the plots of pornographic movies dutifully set down by FBI agents whod been assigned to view them at taxpayers expense, of course.Not one of those FBI agents turned into a sexual predator. However, the commissioners believed dysfunctional predators who had testified to the commission that Porn made me do it. It was laughable.More laughable was the fact that former Attorney General John Ashcroft had blue drapes made to cover the bare breasts of Lady Justice.

Recently, Toni Morrisons book "Beloved"was the focus of a political advertisement in the campaign for governor in Virginia.The novel, a Pulitzer Prize winner, is an unflinchinglook into the abyss of slavery.A woman in the advertisement describes how her 17-year-old (white) son was traumatized by reading the book as it was assigned in a high school class. The boys mother wants the book banned from the Fairfax, Virginia, schools. Well, slavery wasnt exactly as honorable as you might think.It goes to show that not all books are banned because of sexual innuendo or content. But most books are banned because of embarrassing sexual information.

Waukee, Iowa, parents are upset that books found in a schools library are inappropriate for students of all ages because of explicit sexual content and graphic images. What ifthe books were in the reference section. And if you remember from high school, or even notice at public libraries, reference books are not available for check out. Books that depict graphic images, explicit sexual content, and violent passages should be considered for viewing with assistance from an adult who can intellectually serve as a guide to the adolescent.

There are many ways to deal with printed material, movies, and music that may raise an eyebrow. Adults are responsible for talking to their children about sex, their bodies, respect, and boundaries. Its not an easy task, but whoever said being a parent was a breeze? In my day, we had to learn everything on the street. And it wasnt always pretty, nor was it explained in terms that were educational, respectful, and honest. This matter is not like telling a kid theres no such thing as Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy. No, snickering was an essential cog of the street learning process.

Curiosity has been around since cats evolved. Adolescents should be able to bring questions to their parents without worrying about consequences.In the Register story on the Waukee matter, a parent found a book in his sons backpack about a boy who lives with his grandparents and is searching to discover the truth about his family.The parent said: I cannot write what I saw but found 33 different pages that contained sexual and or slanderous/vulgar content that if spoken in my house would be grounds for immediate discipline. [Emphasis added.] I pity that young man who lives in his fathers house and not his parents home.

When I was a young boy, a group of us (boys and girls) sat around a HiFi set and listened to a couple of LP albums found in a stack of a girls mothers records. One was recorded by Redd Foxx. If you grew up in the 1960s you know how dirty Foxx could be, but funny. Another album we listened to was Banned in Boston.Funny as hell. None of us had adverse reactions to the material in those LPs.

Supreme Court Associate Justice Potter Stewart is credited with saying: I know pornography when I see it, but I cannot define it. He didnt say that. It has been paraphrased to mean that, however.What he did say was I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description /"hard-core pornography"), and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that. (Themovie was "The Lovers," a 1958 French film by director Louis Malle.)

When books, music, and films are censored, they go underground. When anything goes underground, its impossible to control. Thats where the devil lives, isnt it?

I read "Catcher in the Rye" when I was young.I didnt think it was that great of a book. I read it again later in life to see what I missed because it had been banned so many times.I still didnt get it. Not only that, but once again, I didnt think it was that great a piece of literature. Im surprised no adult stopped me from reading "Wild in the Streets" around the same time.I loved that book, and it had more anti-authoritarian passages than "Catcher in the Rye."

Decades ago, if a book, play, movie, or music was banned in Boston it was an indication that the material was on its way to being a best seller.

Im sending my first book to Boston in hope that the Watch and Ward Society will recommend that it be banned.

Marty Ryan of Des Moines is retired after lobbying the Iowa Legislature for 27 years. This essay was originally posted on his blog.

View post:
Opinion: Censorship is unlikely to have the desired effect - Des Moines Register

Libraries are under attack in many parts of the country right now. In Wyoming, librarians are facing criminal charges for stocking informative books about sexuality and sexual health. In Florida and Pennsylvania, librarians are being forced to pull books with antiracist themes from the shelves. Patrons in Illinois are harassing librarians due to the inclusion of a widely popular book about sexual education in the collection. In Texas, police were called in to censor a book featuring a sexual experience between two young boys. Again in Illinois, a library is being dismantled by its own board.

I just received an email from a good friend about an organization that is not even from our area deploying a small group of parents to organize loud complaints about queer books in our countys school libraries. This same organization had success in getting books banned a couple counties south of us and have expanded their efforts. This is happening all over the country and the assailants are only growing bolder and louder, despite their small numbers.

Books that help children and teens better understand themselves, the world around them, and even the very real issues they dont have to face head-on are important and should be valued. These books are not harmful just because a select few individuals are afraid of their children being more comfortable with topics the adults are uncomfortable with. Sex education prevents teen pregnancy and sexual assault. Books about queerness and racism help kids navigate those issues with self-love and understanding.

If youre a library patron, parent, or simply a member of the community who would like to help libraries (both public and school) weather these attacks, here are three simple things you can do.

As with any other issue or industry, decision makers hear far more from people trying to censor and ban materials than they do from those in support of keeping the materials. With the quantity and volume of complaints, its easy for them to start to think the book banners are in the majority. Its time to change that perception.

Dashing off a tweet about how monstrous this or that action was after its complete is not enough. Librarians and administrators need to hear directly about your support before and while they endure the shouting from the book banners.

Email your library director, library board members, city and council officials, school board members, and school administration to let them know you support the inclusion of queer, antiracist, and sex education books in their collection.

When there are library board meetings or school board meetings, go. Administrators are being overwhelmed by vicious people who are becoming accustomed to getting their way if they are loud and nasty enough. Dont engage with them they want you to lash out so they can claim the high road but be there and let the decision makers see and know your dissent. If youre brave enough (no judgment, I abhor confrontation) sign up to speak at the meetings and calmly speak your piece.

When your library hosts a queer author or an antiracist speaker or a drag queen storytime, let your attendance speak for itself. Make it a family outing. Attendance numbers speak louder to library administration than anyone would believe. Show the decision makers that there is a demand and a need for this kind of programming. And fill out the survey at the end of the program.

If your library has digital programming (YouTube or Facebook videos) in these areas, get those view counts up and leave an encouraging comment.

Another metric that speaks louder than words is circulation numbers. Check those books out. If youre a parent, read and discuss them with your kids. Then return them before the due date so someone else can benefit. I say that last part, because book banners will check these books out from the library and never return them, believing they are removing them from the collection. In reality, if the book is popular enough and the library has the resources, theyre prompting the library to buy another copy to keep up the collection.

Local elections dont get a lot of press or social media coverage, but they can impact your day-to-day life even more so than the big, expensive elections. Check your local elections information often and know when those smaller elections are happening. Learn about the candidates as much as you can and stay informed. Talk to your friends about them and post on social media to spread awareness. And then when the time comes, if youre able, vote for the candidates you believe will stand up to the book banners.

Many libraries are controlled by a board that is not directly elected or who serves on the board is not easily-influenced by the public. Find out how those board members are appointed and contact those decision makers, letting them know what youd like to see from your library board.

Libraries are supposed to be a bastion of free speech and discovery, but the book banners are getting more brash and more shameless every year. If we want to stem the tide, we need to be more proactive in supporting libraries in times of increased censorship.

For more information on supporting your local library, see 7 Ways to Support Your Local Library Right Now, 5 Ways You Can Support Your Local Public Library, and How to Fight Book Bans and Challenges: an Anti-Censorship Tool Kit.

See the original post here:
How to Support Libraries in Times of Increased Censorship - Book Riot

Sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

Theres a large yellow brick house with red trim in Austins West Campus neighborhood, a stone's throw away from the University of Texas flagship campus. Inside sits the headquarters for a new liberal arts university launching to counter what its founders believe is a growing culture of censorship on college campuses.

"We're done waiting for America's universities to fix themselves," stated a promotional video for The University of Austin posted on Twitter Monday morning. "So we're starting a new one."

The announcement garnered national attention partially for its board of advisers a who's who of higher education critics and iconoclasts such as former New York Times columnist Bari Weiss, Harvard academic Steven Pinker, former Harvard University president Lawrence H. Summers and playwright David Mamet.

But also because the university decided to open in Texas capital city.

If its good enough for Elon Musk and Joe Rogan, its good enough for us, the new universitys website reads, referencing the CEO of Tesla and podcast host, respectively, both of whom relocated from California to Austin since mid-2020.

The University of Austins mission is to create a fiercely independent school that offers an alternative to what founders see as a rise in illiberalism on college campuses and a waning dedication among universities to protect free speech and civil discourse.

Most people, most institutions are really well intended, Pano Kanelos, the new universitys president, said in an interview with The Texas Tribune. And I don't think there's like evil people out there causing this. Its just a kind of cultural drift.

Kanelos, who left a job as president of St. Johns College in Annapolis, Maryland, this summer, said he sees this new university as a north star for universities to reclaim a space for open debate, which he doesnt think is happening as frequently as it should on other college campuses across the country.

We may never find the truth, but that's what scholars do, he said. It's hard to do that if you're afraid that if you make a mistake, you may be punished.

Kanelos said the decision to open the university in Austin had more to do with the citys attractiveness to innovative thinkers and mavericks.

Austin's like one big maker space now, he said. Being adjacent to a lot of that space is really intellectually stimulating

Kanelos said the proposed university has received a lot of financial support, raising $10 million in private donations in two months, allowing it to hire about seven staff members. Since publicly launching Monday morning, Kanelos told The Texas Tribune he has received more than 1,000 requests from professors to participate in the university, which he believes indicates the need for this type of school.

But the university is still many steps away from operating as a traditional university. It lacks a permanent address for a campus (leaders say theyre acquiring land in the Austin area), degree programs (estimated time of arrival for an undergraduate program is fall 2024) and accreditation (founders believe the standard accreditation process needs reform, but acknowledge oversight is necessary so degrees are considered legitimate).

They also havent officially received nonprofit status from the federal government. They are using Cicero Research, which is run by Austin-based tech investor and advisory board member Joe Lonsdale, as a temporary nonprofit sponsor.

According to the 2020 tax filing for Cicero Research, its mission is to create and distribute non-partisan documents recommending free-market based solutions to public policy issues, and produce and distribute non-partisan educational materials about the importance of preserving Texan policies, values and history.

The University of Austins website also promises a new, more affordable tuition model made possible with low administrative costs and fewer amenities than a traditional college campus.

Kanelos estimates tuition would be about half of the average annual cost of attending a typical private university, or $30,000. Founders aim to raise $250 million to launch the undergraduate and graduate program over the next few years.

Dont expect state-of-the-art recreation centers or high-end food services, either, Kanelos said.

Well probably have a soccer field and a basketball hoop outside, he said. No food court. We're gonna be an old-school, 1950s cafeteria, stand-in-line kind of place ... and the reason is that ultimately the students pay for it.

The school plans to start next summer with a non-credit program called Forbidden Courses. It will be open to students from other universities to participate in discussions about topics that often lead to censorship or self-censorship in many universities. The program is currently in design mode with the help of three founding faculty, including Peter Boghossian and Kathleen Stock.

Boghossian resigned from Portland State University because of his belief that the university has transformed a bastion of free inquiry into a Social Justice factory. Stock resigned from the University of Sussex after receiving harassment and criticism due to her work questioning whether gender identity is more important than biological sex.

A masters program in entrepreneurship and leadership would start next fall ahead of the launch of an undergraduate program.

The University of Austin announcement comes at the same time that University of Texas at Austin leaders have been working with private donors and Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick to launch a new think tank on that schools campus that would be dedicated to the study and teaching of individual liberty, limited government, private enterprise and free markets. Texas legislators already approved an initial $6 million in funding for the Liberty Institute. UT-Austin officials have also committed $6 million.

Emails obtained through an open records request by the Tribune show at least one member of the University of Austins advisory team has connected with UT-Austin President Jay Hartzell.

According to the emails, Hartzell had lunch earlier this year with Lonsdale, the Austin-based tech investor. In February, Hartzell connected Lonsdale via email with Carlos Carvalho, the professor at UT-Austin who was leading the work on that schools Liberty Institute.

Joe is interested and actively working in many of the same areas you are bringing data to policy questions, supporting free markets and capitalism, etc, Hartzell told Carvalho. In the same email he told Lonsdale about UT-Austins planned think tank.

Were working together on a campus-wide initiative that could amplify many of the same themes in a broader, cross-campus way with a working title of the Liberty Institute.

UT-Austin and Lonsdale did not respond to requests for comment. Kanelos said while he met with people at UT-Austin who are involved in launching the Liberty Institute, he said that the center's goals dont represent the entire university he is trying to launch.

Disclosure: New York Times and University of Texas at Austin have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

See the original post here:
The new University of Austin hopes to counter what its founders say is a culture of censorship at most colleges - The Texas Tribune

As social media giant Facebook is reeling from disclosures recently made by a former employee, a new poll is shedding light on what employers and workers think of whistleblowing.

Facebook has faced sharp criticism in recent weeks after tens of thousands of internal documents leaked by Frances Haugen, a former Facebook product manager, painted the picture of a company that prioritizes profit over the safety of its users.

The documents provided insight into how hate speech and misinformation are amplified on the social media site and many other of the companys pressing issues.

A new poll from Lawsuit.org found 62 percent of workers believe its appropriate for their employers to ask them not to discuss company conflict or scandals, while 56 percent of employers said the same. Half of employees said its appropriate for businesses to monitor their conversations on company messaging platforms.

America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news.

The survey found 49 percent of people believed its unethical to leak classified or confidential company information.

The poll, however, found most employees and employers believe it is in fact ethical to leak confidential company information to protect the public from physical harm, or expose fraud or a data breach.

Lawsuit.org found 70 percent said it was ethical to leak such information if it poses a physical threat to the public.

Sixty-eight percent said it was ethical if the information exposed fraud against the public, and 67 percent said the same if the public is in danger of a data breach.

Meanwhile, more than half, 54 percent, said leaking information is ethical to alert the public if they are being misinformed.

When it comes to office censorship, 73 percent of employers said its appropriate to ask employees to not talk about delicate or confidential information they may see while on the job, compared to just 48 percent of employees who agree.

More than half, 54 percent, of employers said its appropriate to prohibit employees from talking about a colleague with COVID-19. Thirty percent of employees agree. Republicans are 10 percent more likely than Democrats to believe employers can tell their workers to refrain from talking about vaccination status.

The survey included 1,156 business owners and employees.

READ MORE STORIES FROM CHANGING AMERICA

CANADIAN WOMAN BECOMES FIRST PERSON DIAGNOSED AS SUFFERING FROM CLIMATE CHANGE

MORE THAN 12 MILLION INVASIVE ASIAN FISH REMOVED FROM TWO US LAKES

MORE THAN 100 FLORIDA BUSINESSES, CITIES AND SCHOOLS DEFYING GOV DESANTIS DESPITE RISKING BIG FINES

CHEFS DECLARE WAR ON A TRENDY FRUIT BECAUSE OF ITS ENORMOUS CARBON FOOTPRINT

FACEBOOK DISCOVERS THERES ALREADY A COMPANY NAMED META

Here is the original post:
Poll finds what employees really think about whistleblowing and office censorship | TheHill - The Hill

The Socialist Equality Party (PES) of France and the World Socialist Web Site call for an immediate end to the censorship of articles about the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic by administrators of the Red Pens Facebook group. The group, created in December 2018, includes more than 70,000 teachers in France. With COVID-19 cases once again accelerating across Europe and thousands of students being infected each week, it is essential that teachers have the democratic right to freely discuss and share information on the spread of the virus in schools.

On October 9, a Red Pens member shared an article to the group entitled, Macron lifts mask mandates in French primary schools. Numerous WSWS articles, many with interviews and statements by teachers themselves, have been regularly shared to the group over the past 18 months, some receiving hundreds of likes and comments. However, while the latest post was initially approved, it was deleted by administrators two hours later.

When asked to clarify why the article had been removed, a Red Pens group administrator stated that it was part of a policy of promoting as a priority posts concerning our wages and articles which deal with the death of Samuel Paty, a high school teacher slain in an Islamist terror attack in October 2020. Two subsequent follow-up messages to the administrators appealing their decision have remained unanswered.

The censored article discussed the danger posed to teachers, students and their families by Macrons herd immunity policy in schools. Its analysis was based on data provided by Public Health France and modelling by the Pasteur Institute. It also cited Dr. Malgorzata Gasperowicz, from the University of Calgary, whose work has shown that COVID-19 can be eliminated within two to three months of stringent scientific measures.

The actions of the Red Pens Facebook group raises many troubling questions. What other articles on the pandemic, its impact within schools, its effect upon children, including in France and internationally, have been rejected by administrators? Why has a decision been taken to prevent teachers from having access to this critical information?

The claim that information about the coronavirus pandemic is less relevant to teachers lives than information about their wages or the danger of Islamist terror attacks is absurd on its face. The deadly virus continues to rip through schools, infecting thousands of children and teachers each week. Since the reopening of French schools, tens of thousands of pupils have been infected with COVID-19, and thousands of classes have been closed. At least nine children in France have died from the virus already. Dozens remain hospitalised.

The number of teachers who have died after contracting the virus in classrooms is unknown. This information is covered up by government authorities and goes unreported by the trade unions.

Administrators of the Red Pens Facebook group may claim that the COVID-19 pandemic is irrelevant for teachers, but it is a basic democratic right that teachers be able to decide this for themselves. Without such information, how else are teachers to wage a struggle in defense of the safety of their students, themselves and their loved ones?

This is all the more critical as the virus has begun to quickly rebound in France over recent weeks. The 7,360 cases reported on October 30 was the highest since September 21.

In the past, the Red Pens has sought to provide teachers with information about the pandemic. On its website, there is a COVID-19 information page for teachers and supporters to keep track of outbreaks across France. Teachers have shown strong interest in this information, with the page being viewed over four million times since May 2020. Why, then, amid a new surge of the virus in France and across Europe, have the administrators decided to censor teachers access to scientific information about the pandemic from the WSWS?

Regardless of their own individual views or intentions, the administrators actions objectively support the efforts of the Macron government to enforce unsafe conditions in schools. Since the end of the initial lockdown that began in March 2020, the Macron government has insisted that in-person schooling must continue at all costs, regardless of the impact upon the spread of the virus. As teachers are aware, this has not been aimed at protecting the psychological well-being of children but ensuring that their parents are able to continue to go to work.

This has been the centerpiece of Macrons policy of attempting to reach herd immunity through mass infection, allowing the virus to spread and tens of thousands to be killed in order to prevent any restriction on corporate profit-making operations.

Teachers have played a major role in the fight against this murderous policy in France. In November 2020, educators organized wildcat strikes at dozens of schools to close classes and oppose the unsafe reopening of schools in the midst of the second wave of the pandemic.

This movement remained isolated only because the teachers unions opposed any broader mobilisation. The administrators actions are serving the bureaucracy of the Sud Education and CGT trade unions, which have supported and enforced the Macron governments unsafe education policy from the beginning of the pandemic.

Opposition in the working class is rapidly mounting to the ruling elites policy of mass death. We again demand that the administrators of the Red Pens Facebook group allow the free circulation of information, without which there can be no talk of a successful struggle by teachers to defend their interests. We encourage members of the Facebook group to write to the group administrators and demand that they end the censorship of articles on the pandemic. Letters should also be sent to the WSWS here: https://www.wsws.org/en/special/pages/contact.html.

COVID-19 can be eliminated.

We gathered a panel of scientists to explain how.

Read the original here:
Open Letter to the Red Pens Facebook group administrators: End censorship of articles on the COVID-19 pandemic! - WSWS

When Penguin Books was prosecuted for publishing its uncensored edition of DH Lawrences Lady Chatterleys Lover in 1960, the prosecution lawyer, Mervyn Griffith-Jones, posed a rhetorical question: Is it a book that you would even wish your wife or your servants to read?

Griffith-Joness appeal to gentlemen as the guardians of moral probity was widely seen as an indication of just how out of touch and paternalistic the censors had become. The press seized on his remarks and lampooned the prosecution, which eventually lost the case. Penguin sold two million copies of Lady Chatterleys Lover in the six weeks before Christmas 1960.

The Lady Chatterley trial is widely seen as a landmark moment in the history of censorship in Britain. Christopher Hilliard certainly treats it as such in his new book, A Matter of Obscenity: The Politics of Censorship in Modern England, which explores the wider battle over censorship in the arts after 1857 the year of the first Obscene Publications Act.

As Hilliard explains, a major motivation behind the Lady Chatterleys Lover prosecution was the fact that the book was sold in a cheap paperback edition. Small editions of Lady Chatterleys Lover, and books like it, were already available in hardback, but these were too expensive to reach large readerships.

Paperback editions meant that erotic literature could reach a mass readership. This was why the director of public prosecutions (DPP) viewed Lady Chatterleys Lover as a book that could lower the morals of common people.

Griffith-Joness rhetoric further revealed the class dynamics underpinning the Lady Chatterley trial. The defence was aided by the press, which mocked Griffith-Jones. Together, liberal lawyers and the media undermined the moral and legal authority of the elite, while advancing literary free expression. They also, of course, opened up commercial opportunities for publishers.

Indeed, there is a clear sense in which the Lady Chatterley trial was above all a victory for the managerial middle class of senior newspaper editors, lawyers, publishers and authors. Here it is worth looking at the 1959 version of the Obscene Publications Act, under which Penguin was acquitted. The act allowed the defence of literary merit as a justification for publishing erotic material. The Obscene Publications Act of 1959, writes Hilliard, was the result of years of lobbying by authors to carve out a protected space for literature. Lobbying bodies included the Society of Authors and the National Council for Civil Liberties (now simply called Liberty).

The Obscene Publications Act did not protect imported works or pornography. It protected the publication of literature of value in England and Wales. From one perspective (the Whig view of history), we could see this as authors striving for more creative freedom and seeking to remove the hypocrisy of a class-based system of censorship. From another perspective (the elite theory of power), we can see this as the liberal bourgeoisie seeking to undermine the rival power bases of the patrician class and the Church.

As Hilliard shows, the act had been a long time coming. Back in the 1920s, James Joyces Ulysses became a test case for censorship. Imported copies were regularly impounded and destroyed. In 1926 literary critic FR Leavis deliberately challenged the censors by ordering a copy through a local bookseller so he could prepare a lecture on it at Cambridge University. Sir Archibald Bodkin, the then DPP, wrote to the university and stated that the book was not a fit subject for a lecture, especially for a mixed body of students.

Around this time the Metropolitan Police decided not to prosecute any translations of classics, deeming them de facto exempt from the law. Prosecuting possession of Boccaccios The Decameron or Petroniuss Satyricon made the police look foolish and boorish.

Yet even Radclyffe Halls unexplicit The Well of Loneliness (1928) was caught up in a censorship dispute simply because it touched on lesbianism, despite the author intending to explore the suffering of sexual inverts rather than celebrate their supposed depravity. The Well of Loneliness had been sympathetically and soberly reviewed before a star columnist at the Daily Express denounced it, prompted by concern about the perceived spread of lesbianism in the postwar era of the New Woman. Bodkin, as the DPP, wanted to prosecute but HM Customs and Excise felt that the novel treated lesbianism seriously and sincerely, with restraint in expression and with great literary skill and delicacy. Nevertheless, the destruction order (on behalf of the DPP alone) was granted and the publishers appeal failed.

The Lady Chatterleys Lover verdict did not end literary censorship. Marion Boyars and John Calder, the publishers of Hubert Selbys Last Exit to Brooklyn, were prosecuted in 1967 after rather recklessly daring the DPP to take them on. They were found guilty of publishing obscene material although the Court of Appeal later quashed the conviction.

In general, deliberate defiance of the law and assaults on propriety provoked harsher legal responses than sexual explicitness. In the eyes of officials, puerility was worse than pornography. That is why the underground, counter-cultural magazine, Oz, faced legal action in 1970 but Penthouse did not. Oz advocated promiscuous sex, insulted authority figures and endorsed drug-taking acts almost designed to attract official opprobrium. The editor-publishers of Oz were, in the end, convicted of obscenity.

Hilliard also gives special focus to Mary Whitehouses campaigns for Christian decency. In 1977 Whitehouse brought a private prosecution of Gay News for publishing a homosexual erotic poem about the crucifixion of Christ. She did so, however, under blasphemy laws rather than the Obscene Publications Act. Gay News lost the case.

Whitehouse was involved in legal wrangles over film and television, too. Hilliard gives very telling descriptions of the debate over film censorship at the time. Greater London Council member Enid Wistrich proposed the abolition of the councils film-viewing board of which she was appointed chair in 1973 and (indirectly) a reduction in censorship. Labour Catholics, older members, and, she noticed, many of the East Enders, were in favour of censorship; the teachers supported abolition, Hilliard writes. Conservatives supported her, mostly in private, while Labour leftists were undecided feminists had hardened into a largely sex-negative position by this point and therefore opposed liberalisation. Ultimately, Wistrichs proposal was defeated because too few Labour GLC members backed her.

Hilliard also summarises the state of artistic freedom today. The picture has been complicated by the advent of the internet and the international publication and distribution of offensive and pornographic material. Home secretaries and others, he writes, still have little to gain politically, and plenty to lose, from tidying up the law of obscenity.

He explains the evolution of obscenity laws with well-chosen examples and a minimum of legal jargon. Overall, A Matter of Obscenity is an informative, even-handed and lucid study of British censorship in the 20th century. It is highly recommended, wherever you draw your personal lines regarding the division between the acceptable and unacceptable.

Alexander Adams is a writer and artist. His latest book is Iconoclasm, Identity Politics and the Erasure of History (Societas, 2020). His website is here.

A Matter of Obscenity: The Politics of Censorship in Modern England, by Christopher Hilliard, is published by Princeton University Press. (Order this book here.)

Picture by: LearningLark, published under a creative-commons licence.

Here is the original post:
Censorship is class war by other means - Spiked