Censorship – The New Normal?
Censor – related to census, censorship, consensus, censure.
Census in the original meaning, is a count of the number of people, a very neutral idea. To censor, is to take something, be it an opinion, a person, a statement, an idea etc., and to make a judgement about it, then choose to include or exclude based on that judgment. The kind of censorship that a democracy encourages is to take what the majority of people believe and call it the truth….because a majority of the people believe it. That is, a democracy encourages censorship, based on a consensus.
Censorship, the term from admiral law, which has come to mean the act of censoring, or the medium through which it occurs, includes the word ship. The word ship is synonymous with the word vessel, meaning that which carries, as in judgeship. A judgeship or judge vessel, carries a judge, and a censorship, or censor vessel, carries a censor. A judge may act in official capacity of a judgeship or a censor may act in the official capacity of a censorship. Or perhaps a judge or a censor can also act in an unofficial, or personal capacity, such as in our own lives.
A censor could be neutral, if he or she were tallying opinions on a particular subject, and recording them, or counting the number of people and recording them; however, our current definition of censor has come to hold a very negative connotation. In this definition it means actually deciding what can or cannot be heard, which is actually illegal in our country, according to the first amendment.
Let’s present a scenario. You have your own personal chef. Your chef cooks for you all the time, and you trust that chef. The chef prepares your meals and you never question the chef. One day, you and I are having lunch. You chef brings you out a burger. As I look at the burger your chef brought you, I notice that it is only cooked on one side, or so it appears to me. And as you allow the burger to get closer and closer to your mouth, I feel I must point out that, as I see it, the burger has been cooked on only one side. After I speak you have infinite opportunities for response. But here are just a couple:
- “Oh no, you must be mistaken. My chef would never serve me anything questionable,” and you eat the burger after asking me to leave.
- “Oh my! It looks like you may be right. My chef could be having a bad day. I will check into it,” and you do not eat the burger. Instead you investigate, entertaining the possibility that I could be correct.
In the first scenario it seems that you have trusted one person, the chef, fully, regardless of any other opinion, to cook your food. You trust that person before you trust yourself or anyone else. It is a sort of lazy, and at the same time, naive approach to living. That has always been your chef, that chef has always cooked your food well, and further, you will always trust that person – no matter what.
You have demonstrated a closed mind. You are getting your food from one source and one source only. And whether or not that burger is going to kill you, you are going to eat it. After all, you would much rather eat the burger and die, than admit you have a closed mind, or may have been wrong.
In the second scenario you have an open mind. You are open to hearing that the chef may be having a bad day, or that something may not be as you might have expected it to be. And you get that there is no harm in checking. You show that you value my input, and me as a friend. After all, the chef could need your help, or a day off, and I could have saved you from a very bad night.
There are many, many ideas that come to mind in the previous scenario. We could talk about trust, trust in the chef, trust that I arrived at just the right time to tell you what you needed to hear, or trust that the chef always has your best interests at heart. We could talk about judgement, and how would we know if the burger was fully cooked? Censorship and censoring, in the negative sense, is the literal use of a blinder to block a certain idea or image from coming through.
Censorship asks someone to eat the burger without looking at it. It asks someone to accept that the potentially half-cooked burger is fully cooked and good for them. When the blinders are supplied by you and for you, that is one thing. But when the blinders are put in place by another for you, that is a complete other thing.
You see, I’m not sure about you, but I do not want blinders. I believe myself to be educated enough, and in touch enough with the source of my being, to be competent at distinguishing the truth. And if, by chance, I do not find the truth, then I am willing to accept the consequences of not having come to the right conclusion. I am an adult, a human being of this earth, and a soul, with full rights therein. And if you are offering me something, say the news, I expect you to offer me everything you have. Not just the parts that you like. Because I do not judge you for your differing views. And I would hope that you would feel the same as me, if my views differ from yours.
Blind decisions are not good decisions. Truth can never come of the dark. Truth lives in the light. If decisions come from one source outside us, if food comes from one chef, then we can be assured that our opinions are not our own, and our food is not necessarily what we need.
Think back to a time when you came to a conclusion, or made a decision. You were so sure that it was the right decision. You were never more sure. But, alas, it turned out, you were wrong. We have all been there. And when we censor information, when we present only half of the picture, when we allow only part of the story to run, are we sure it is the right information? Was the censor sure that they were presenting the right side of the material? And were they right?
There are times when it is so scary to tell the whole truth. There are times when it could bring persecution, or ostracism. But those are the times when it is most important to give all the details. Those are the times when we can step up to the plate, so to speak, as human beings, and shine more light on the world. I used to have someone in my life that told me “little white lies” were ok, if they spared another’s feelings”. But I much prefer the idea, that if you cannot say anything nice, do not say anything at all. And if asked, then tell the truth as you see it, no matter what. That seems to me, the best we can do.
In life, in politics, or in relationships, there is no room for judgment right now. We are not here to decide what is right for our brothers and sisters. We may agree or disagree, and we may choose to continue our relationship or end it, based on likeness or difference. The truth is, however, that we are here to decide what is right for ourselves. And we, as adults, must be able to accept that what is right for us, may not be right for another. That is part of living. It is not a reason to shun, or hate, or fight. It is a reason to further define ourselves. We can love, while at the same time be in disagreement, with another. If everyone were the same, or agreed on everything, would the world really be worth living in?
And lastly we must speak of disinformation. We must consult our own intuition and have the ability to seek many sources. Our main source is alway ourselves. Our goal is to find the truth. Those who are misinformed, those who are censored, and do not see the truth, can’t possibly present the truth to another.
Censorship in its most negative form is, in essence, judgement. Everyone judges. As human beings it is unavoidable. But not everyone places their judgement on another. Fewer people still, allow their judgement to discern what another can hear or see. Isn’t it time that we hold our fellow beings in high enough regard to give them all the information? And isn’t it time for others to come to their own conclusions, regardless of whether we like them.
By Tammie Mohn, CCHP, MBA, CPA, RYT
11.10.20
