tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33813337.post7360527838514245601..comments2023-09-12T06:18:38.552-04:00Comments on The World in the Satin Bag: On the SFWA Bulletin Petition Thing NonsenseAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13571452656553970472noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33813337.post-44640799440640654712014-02-12T22:09:22.395-05:002014-02-12T22:09:22.395-05:00Another point: even if we were to agree that this...Another point: even if we were to agree that this *is* censorship, I would wonder why it matters, since in defining *this* as censorship, we're providing such an extraordinarily low bar that the power of the word, the intention for which it is used, is essentially neutered. So why should I care if the SFWA or any organization decides it will not print X and will provide oversight for its publications on specific subjects (and for specific purposes)?<br /><br />I mean that seriously. Truesdale didn't trot this word out because he thought it didn't mean something. He used it explicitly for the purpose of eliciting the emotions censorship is bound to elicit, because it has a history that is, at times, incredibly dark. But we're not talking about some horribly, violent, terrible use of censorship here (accepting the premise for the sake of argument). So short of a fallacious slippery slope argument...why should I care about this on the censorship grounds alone?<br /><br />And if there isn't a good answer for that, then wouldn't it make sense to just move on to what is actually at issue?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13571452656553970472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33813337.post-23190357369783841782014-02-12T21:52:05.469-05:002014-02-12T21:52:05.469-05:00Except that doesn't apply here, since the SFWA...Except that doesn't apply here, since the SFWA rules clearly state that the President is in charge of publications; therefore, the amount of involvement said president has is up to their individual discretion, and is clearly delineated in the editing process by those same rules. So...no censorship.<br /><br />Regardless, the very process of publication mandates restrictions. The idea that the Bulletin's editor should have no oversight at all, even when said editor may have failed to do his or her job in meeting the demands of the publication in question, is absurd. If you had published pictures of cards instead of doing your job as editor of JSES, you would have been fired or reprimanded by the publisher...because undoubtedly, JSES shouldn't be publishing pictures of cars (and if I'm wrong about the cars thing, just stick something else that isn't relevant into the analogy, like cross beams). None of this is censorship. This is an organization making decisions on what its publications are meant to do and determining what qualifies to be published within its pages on those grounds. There's no indication it has any intention of silencing anyone, unless you want to argue that saying "things about Y don't fit what we're looking for" is censorship.<br /><br />Even so, none of this really matters, because the censorship charge is a distraction from what is really at issue here. And I'm done with it, to be honest. If it were actually happening, I'd certainly be concerned, but since it's not, I'd rather the focus be on the actual problem. And that, unfortunately, seems to be that some people believe the Bulletin should be a mouthpiece for their particular views, *even if those views having nothing whatsoever to do with the purpose of the Bulletin.* I've yet to hear a valid justification for this. I don't think we will, because to articulate that is far more difficult than just crying "censorship" like the scare tactic that it is.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13571452656553970472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33813337.post-74612880416668016742014-02-12T21:34:23.023-05:002014-02-12T21:34:23.023-05:00I'm afraid we disagree completely. An editor ...I'm afraid we disagree completely. An editor makes all kinds of decisions, including what to publish and what not to publish, what the published work should like, etc. None is censorship - it's all part of the editing and publishing process. Censorship occurs when a person, group, or whatever, not part of the editing process, dictates to the editor what can and can't be published. The Bulletin currently has no group or committee which passes muster on what should be published, and in what form. It currently has no editor, either, but, when it did, and throughout SFWA's history, the editor made these decisions. Appointing a board to regulate what the editor does - especially in these circumstances, where the contemplated board is an outgrowth of what happened with the Bulletin last year - undermines the editor and the editorial process. By the way, I was Editor of The Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems for 10 years. As Editor, I appointed an advisory board for whatever help I deemed necessary. Had the publisher imposed such a board on me, I would have likely resigned. Because a board looking over an editor's shoulder - as opposed to being used solely at the editor's discretion - is indeed a vehicle of censorship.<br />Paul Levinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07609987407926836519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33813337.post-59241976700393932252014-02-11T21:19:08.871-05:002014-02-11T21:19:08.871-05:00That's what editors *do.* They have a set &qu...That's what editors *do.* They have a set "vision" or a set list of "standards" that must be met. In this case, that standard was set by the SFWA and determined both by the committee (and elsewhere) that the Bulletin was definitively *not* fulfilling the "vision" or the "standards" it was set up for. So, no, this has nothing whatsoever to do with censorship of any kind. This has everything to do with what the committee set up by SFWA's president (within his power to do) and the president himself decided to do with the Bulletin to meet the demands of the public and the demands dictated by a professional organization.<br /><br />By your definition, all publications which have any guidelines whatsoever are acts of censorship, which makes the definition meaningless, except that it reveals something which is at the heart of all of this: this isn't about actual censorship, but rather about what certain individuals don't think should be removed from the discourse in a specific and focused institution. It's about the *what,* not the action itself. "Censorship" is just the smokescreen being used to make this sound bigger than it really is, because it's far more difficult to justify why the SFWA *must* print the kinds of things Truesdale would like to see published without it.<br /><br />Not to mention that all of this is meaningless, since the SFWA has done no such thing as set "moral edicts" or whatever. It has simply said "this organization is diverse and publishing material which belittles members of that organization is contrary to our purposes." In other words: it's doing what any publisher does -- making sure its standards are met. Why should the publication for professionals that is published *by* a professional publication publish anything that is clearly not professional (as with Resnick's/Malzberg's final column) and offensive to many members of that community? Why are they obligated to publish any of this?<br /><br />If this is a little all over the place, it's because my upstairs neighbor has been screaming at his Xbox for the last hour, which means I can't concentrate. Hopefully, you can still make sense of it if it is, in fact, all over the place.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13571452656553970472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33813337.post-29098974094965137962014-02-11T20:04:03.491-05:002014-02-11T20:04:03.491-05:00Obviously this is not literally a First Amendment ...Obviously this is not literally a First Amendment issue, because no Federal or local state government (First Amendment via Fourteenth Amendment) possible censorship is involved. But a board created for the express purpose of making sure an editor does not violate some moral or whatever standards is not only an affront to and weakening of the editor, but a violation o the spirit of First Amendment, in the same way that CBS's censorship of language at the Grammys, or a university censoring of a student newspaper, violates freedom of expression, not legally but culturally.Paul Levinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07609987407926836519noreply@blogger.com