SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the strike-up-a-conversation-about-censorship dept.
TEDxBrussels has had its license revoked after an organizer dragged the controversial performance artist, Deborah De Robertis, off the stage by force during her presentation there. The parent organization recently has issued a statement on this incident at TEDxBrussels
Today at TEDxBrussels, an independently organized TEDx event, speaker and performance artist Deborah De Robertis was forcibly removed from the stage by one of the event's organizers, who objected to the talk's content.
From Mashable:
According to the TEDxBrussels website, the presenter, artist Deborah De Robertis, was in the middle of a piece addressing past censorship of her artwork. The forcible removal of her from stage was so absurd, reports the Netherlands newspaper NRC Handelsblad, that audience members initially applauded thinking it was a statement about censorship.
From Flanders News:
The organisers of Monday's TEDxBrussels event are refusing to comment on what happened.
TED is a prestigious series of talks in which speakers get a maximum of 18 minutes to spread innovative ideas and tell how they can contribute to a better world. It started off as a 4-day conference in the US state of California.
From Flanders Today:
According to Focus Knack, TEDxBrussels – run by a group of volunteers – was told by De Robertis that she would not show images from her performances as part of her talk. When she did, they decided to shut it down. The New York-based Sapling Foundation, which owns TEDx, did not agree with the move.
TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) Conferences started 1984 in California and cover most topics nowadays. The talks are intended to be thought provoking and are short, being 18 minutes or less in duration. Some may consider the talks too fluffy and lacking distinct solutions. The parent organization is a nonprofit, nonpartisan foundation with the agenda to make great ideas accessible and spark conversation. TEDx events are independently run and occur around the world. Until just now they used to also occur in Brussels.
From Flanders Today : TEDx Brussels loses license due to censorship
From Flanders News : TEDxBrussels loses licence after incident with controversial artist
From Mashable : TEDxBrussels organizer drags presenter off stage during anti-censorship talk
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Bot on Tuesday March 13 2018, @08:40PM (15 children)
This is not censorship, this is reacting to a breach of contract.
A better solution would have been to call it TEDxxx, though.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by unauthorized on Tuesday March 13 2018, @09:14PM (2 children)
That is a double dichotomy. You can censor someone and use a breach of contract as the vehicle of your censorship.
Not that we have any reasons to believe the breach of contract angle in the first place, it rings very much like a "saving throw" made by the organizers. Personally I'm inclined to disbelieve them, given their conduct.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 13 2018, @10:29PM
Isn't a double dichotomy a quadrotomy? Two plus two and all that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 13 2018, @10:53PM
Hmm, I am going to have try that on khallow. Nothing else seems to get through to him. Is "bad faith" enough to breech, um, a contract?
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Tuesday March 13 2018, @09:34PM (3 children)
Only if her contract said "no photos of your art" and maybe "don't re-enact your art live"
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 3, Informative) by FatPhil on Wednesday March 14 2018, @01:01PM (2 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Wednesday March 14 2018, @08:12PM (1 child)
So it has been reported, *after* the event.
What did they *actually* say, or write, in a contractually enforceable way?
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday March 14 2018, @11:24PM
I'm curious why you'd expect to see an explanation of their view of the event before it happened. Time generally moves forward, explications of the unexpected follow, rather than precede.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 5, Informative) by insanumingenium on Tuesday March 13 2018, @09:42PM (1 child)
Literally dragging her off stage is censorship, and potentially assault. The motivation for action might be debatable, but the act is absolutely to prevent her from speaking at that moment. Contracts are enforced in court, not by bodily dragging people around while super ironically exposing them.
(Score: 3, Informative) by FatPhil on Thursday March 15 2018, @08:45AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday March 14 2018, @03:02AM (5 children)
The overrated mod is mine. Censorship is censorship. If I tell my son he can't swear, that is censorship. If your employer tells you to clean up your language, that is censorship. If your company prohibits you emailing clients, that is censorship. And, if government tells you that you cannot talk about $controversial_issue that is censorship. For Tedx to prevent a speaker from performing whatever the hell he/she wishes to perform, that is censorship. Censorship may or may not be justified in some cases, but as a generality, it is unjustified. The fact that you may or may not agree with that censorship is only an agreement. That does not justify censoring.
In this case, I think the speaker was a nasty little twat, and I have no desire to see her performance. That still doesn't change the fact that she was censored. Violently censored, at that.
Do I agree with that censorship? Ehhhhh - undecided, actually. The broad should probably be confined in an asylum, where she may express herself in whatever manner she likes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 14 2018, @03:20PM (1 child)
Are you seriously stating that teaching a kid manners and that there are arbitrary rules to be followed is a form of censorship to get upset about? Not only that, the kid is free to choose other words to express their sentiments. You have censored nothing, you've only forbidden culturally unacceptable terms of speech. They can still say what they want, they just have to choose another way to say it.
And if you used work resources that way while I was paying you to spread the good word that you're a nigerian prince and using the company resources to do it, you're fired. That isn't censorship. that's an acceptable use policy to shield the company from liability in case the employee does something stupid.
Your government example is correct.
Don't confuse freedom of speech with the right to work.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday March 14 2018, @03:35PM
Those words are your own, not mine. If you read my post, you would have seen that censorship is censorship, whether I agree with the censorship or not.
The problem here is, that people tend to evaluate censorship, then to agree or to disagree with that censorship - which is right and proper. But, then they decide that "Because I approve of this censorship, it's not really censorship!" And, THAT is the lie that I was addressing. I ask you, "Do you approve of censorship?" You answer, "No!" Then you turn around and scold your two year old for using a "naughty word".
All I'm asking is, how about we end the hypocrisy? I approve of some censorship, you approve of some censorship, damned near everybody approves of some censorship. You approve of some that I do not approve of, and vice versa. Which is cool - everyone is entitled to their opinions and preferences. But, let's end the hypocrisy.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday March 14 2018, @03:35PM
I agree with that. Just to get it out of the way.
We can go into infinite recursion about whether to label it censorship. Regardless of the labeling, those are examples of prohibition of expression that I would support. People shouldn't have someone else's offensive form of expression forced upon them. She seems to have agreed to discuss censorship, and agreed to do so without engaging in certain forms of expression. If she didn't want to agree, she could find other venues for her expression. If she violated the agreement, I think the organizers are within their right to non-violently get her off stage. Seeing the video, it does not seem violent to me. Merely assertive that they are removing her by force, against her wishes, the wish to violate her agreement.
The same with the workplace. There simply are things you do not do in the workplace. One cannot both complain about a hostile work environment, and then complain that my right to show my genitals is being censored! Or even complain that my right to say offensive, hurtful, hateful things is censored. If I agreed not do engage in those forms of expression, then I should abide by that. If I don't like the terms, then I should find employment at a place that allows generally offensive behavior and language.
You can choose to label it censorship rather than an agreed upon framework for what is acceptable behavior. Maybe public indecency laws are prior restraint and censorship! Oh my! But I would point out there are places one can go to practice one's believe in nudity. I am not judgemental if one wishes to go to such a place for that purpose. If they do so in public, I am all for the full force of the law coming in to play.
We can dance around it all day. Everyone has to live with other people. At all points in human history there have been acceptable norms. With consequences for violating them. I think this is as it should be. People who have an expanded definition of acceptable are free to use their own venue to practice such expanded notions, as long as it is legal.
The government censoring things that are considered within acceptable norms is definitely what I would call government censorship. Especially when the acceptable norms are that it should be okay to criticize the orange one, whether you like that particular color or not.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Thursday March 15 2018, @01:43PM (1 child)
And for TED to prevent a TEDx event from being run the way the local organisers think it should be run?
Genuinely curious - it does seem to fit your definition of censorship.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday March 15 2018, @02:01PM
Yes, that it is. But, of course, TEDx is free to forego the license from TED, and do an anti-TED, or alt-TED, or TEDy - or whatever.