Matter of Censorship should be a worry to us all
Published: 2017-11-22

By and large, the general public accepts the given narrative of WW2. The victors get to write history, thereafter ensuring that their version of events is reinforced by way of education, media and, in particular, the funding of onside lawmakers who will eventually be persuaded to bring about legislation that will effectively silence dissenting views. Here in the UK, my court case proceedings show that we are teetering on the brink of a ‘Holocaust’ denial law, as it were, being ushered in through the back door. Nevertheless, if I am found guilty in January, the appeal process will be used, if necessary to the highest level. A brief update of Monday’s hearing can be found here.

 

In the past, censorship of theatre productions was a duty assigned to the Lord Chamberlain – a measure initially introduced to protect Robert Walpole’s administration from political satire. From Wikipedia:

The Licensing Act 1737 gave the Lord Chamberlain the statutory authority to veto the performance of any new plays: he could prevent any new play, or any modification to an existing play, from being performed for any reason, and theatre owners could be prosecuted for staging a play (or part of a play) that had not received prior approval.

The Licensing Act was replaced by the Theatres Act 1843 which (again according to Wikipedia) restricted the powers of the Lord Chamberlain, so that he could only prohibit the performance of plays where he was of the opinion that “it is fitting for the preservation of good manners, decorum or of the public peace so to do”. 

In 1909, a Joint Select Committee on Stage Plays (Censorship) was established and recommended that the Lord Chamberlain begin to codify the grounds on which he would refuse a licence for a play. The recommendations of this committee ratified the Lord Chamberlain’s powers to prevent the portrayal of living or recently dead people, effectively suppressing any play which dared to be politically motivated or discussed political problems or featured living politicians as characters. In 1968, when Parliament began to debate the abolition of the Lord Chamberlain’s censorship power, the argument largely centered around this issue on the portrayal of living and recently dead individuals particularly in reference to the monarchy as well as politicians.

The 1843 Act remained statutory until Parliament passed the Theatres Act 1968 which abolished censorship of the stage in the United Kingdom.

Needless to say, the 1968 Act was the result of campaigning by various liberal leftists, including theatre critic Kenneth Tynan. What, I wonder, if he were still alive today, would be Mr Tynan’s view on the attempt by a foreign lobbying group to suppress my freedom of artistic expression, censor my music and, in Orwellian terms, to unperson me?

Yesterday, in another clear attempt to demoralise me, the original demo of my song (((Survivors))) was sandboxed by YouTube. For the moment, it is still available to view with the usual warnings for delicate flowers. This latest assault comes 18 months after the video was originally uploaded – viewed more than 37,000 times, with hundreds of overwhelmingly positive comments and over 1,400 thumbs up. I await the outcome of my submitted appeal. In the meantime, Wikipedia’s article on music censorship may need an edit or two, for anyone who feels up to it.

It’s best if I don’t share the actual link to my video. Anyone interested should visit Campaign Against Antisemitism website and search for their article published last December which contains the live link. Thoughtful of them to share! Although based on prosecution witness statements as well as on this week’s indication by Judge Zani, surely this sharing of my video constitutes sending or causing to be sent allegedly grossly offensive matter?

In fact, since when did electronic signals made up of electrons constitute matter? Furthermore, sound waves – and therefore music – also cannot be defined as such. Yes, the transmission of sound waves or of electronic signals requires the presence of matter (e.g. air molecules) but they do not have volume and do not take up space.

Ergo, sending or causing to be sent matter over the Internet would be a physical impossibility. If I had sent a DVD or a hard-copy libretto of my songs through the post to one of my accusers, then the wording of the charges brought against me would be more appropriate. “Ah yes, but..,” come the cries from my detractors, “the Communications Act applies to obscene or threatening telephone calls and hasn’t been updated to take into account the Internet.

Well, the original legislation on which the Act is based existed before the telephone was invented, which rather cancels out this argument.

Of course, it is the censorship issue which is at the heart of the matter. Do we really want to regress to a time when political satire was banned? No, of course not. And if the general public were made aware of the facts surrounding my case, it’s highly likely that there would be considerable concern regards the implications for free speech. Predictably, UK mainstream press is silent. Rather than inform the British public, they prefer to dissimulate and carry on giving us The Treatment as described in the introduction to this blog post.

Many thanks to all who continue to support me via PayPal and Hatreon. Now on bail for more than a year without any real possibility of being able to upload edgy new songs or share my previous work for fear of being reincarcerated for my heretical ways, your donations brighten my existence and strengthen my determination to fight on.

Love and blessings to all.

Alison. X x


Additional information about this document
Property Value
Author(s): Alison Chabloz
Title: Matter of Censorship should be a worry to us all
Sources:
n/a
Contributions:
n/a
Published: 2017-11-22
First posted on CODOH: Nov. 22, 2017, 2:11 p.m.
Last revision:
n/a
Comments:
n/a
Appears In:
Mirrors:
n/a
Download:
n/a