Monthly Archive for October, 2007

I dislike the concept and practice of censorship. The NSFW disclaimer, whose proliferation on the web is astounding, warning people about potentially offensive content I see as a direct limitation on human experience.

What is SFW? Doesn’t it differ by job type? Wouldn’t NSFW for a person that works at the Porn Palace be diametrically opposed by a person that works at Dinosaur Adventure Land? In the former’s case, most content would be safe (and searching for porn might be a job responsibility), but scientific websites describing evolution or advocating critical inquiry would be unsafe for the latter (if they had computers). If something might be considered unsafe for work, should the person even be browsing the site that would link it at work?

Yesterday, I was self-filtering the content in subscriptions I receive via RSS, and I was came across this brilliant translated Japanese comic by Shintaro Kago. The webpage described the content as being “fucked-up” and “NSFW,” and I began to think about labeling things as obscene or NSFW and the content that you miss because one person deems it unsuitable for the consumption of all. By labeling content as such, it allows people the opportunity to avoid subject matter that challenges their beliefs and ideas, and limits their context of the world.

The above linked cartoon was based on the premise that the previous activities in a person’s life follows them as visible comic frames and leads to a sight gag involving eating Nori, which resembles the black bars censoring pictures:

It is difficult to find a name for those black boxes blocking out offensive materials… but I think the consensus is censor bars (Wikipedia has an article on pixelization, a much less severe visual form of censorship, using the term “censor bars” and another wiki I found actually has a page for the term). For a photographic example (albeit a shitty example from my CC-licensed Flickr search) look here:

Someone else is making a buck by selling glasses that resemble this effect… Sadly, this was the prevalent content when searching for the term “black box censorship photography” or the hundreds of other manners in which to search for this idea:

I have been writing more online as of late, and I realize that my words are (for the most part) non-explicit in the greater sense of the concept (e.g. not so many uses of the word “fuck” “shit” etc…). As evinced by this website (that I found in some random link – I hate quizzes, but I still take them – I stripped it of its ad, but it is still hotlinked ) giving me a tame rating of “G.”

To say that my site is “SFW” is questionable based upon word-choice alone. What of counter-cultural ideas or the overall theme of anti-establishmentarianism that is pervasive throughout all of my thought and writings? Isn’t being subversive enough to make you NSFW? I realize that this blog is actually quite tame, but not due to the fact of self-censoring and monitoring the output, more than I haven’t had a proper opportunity to be profane.

Simultaneously, I endeavour to write in a manner that is more-direct and uses less profanity than I actively employ in my day-to-day interchanges. This could be due to the fact that someone might read my blog, and it is attached to my real identity (the “what would I do if my mom read this?” factor), but I believe it is more due to an arbitrary choice of proper voice. I find that using an overarching mental template to post entries using concerted word choice allows me to be clearer and often not use an expletive (and, I think, to better effect).

That being said, I need the freedom to write about whatever I choose in any manner that may tickle my fancy at the time… If I happen to use an expletive, or post something graphic, I don’t think that censoring the idea for others through means such as a label of NSFW or a censor bar is proper.

Limiting the visibility of content due to others tagging it as potentially objectionable limits the thoughts people browsing can mentally represent (a la 1984 by Orwell). If a person disagrees or finds something objectionable that is great! At least they have come to this endpoint through self-directed reflection, not by being told by someone else that they should see it in a certain manner. Critical inquiry and evaluation of ideas is an important (or the important) trait to have as a human.

More on this later… and I think I found a new category for this site: “Free Speech.”