Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
CMU School of Drama
Friday, September 07, 2018
Saudi Government Outlaws Satire; Violators To Face Five-Year Prison Sentences
Techdirt: Lately, real life pretty much anywhere in the world has threatened to kill off satire. The surrealism of day-to-day politics, combined with the increasing embrace of extreme viewpoints by world leaders, has made satire all but impossible.
12 comments:
Lauren Sousa
said...
Saudi Arabia banning satire is unfortunate event for its citizens and any country which interacts with Saudi Arabia in any form. Since criticism is necessary for any type of growth and this criminalization of satire seems to come from a root of avoiding conflicting ideas and criticisms it means the already significant problems facing the country are on a trajectory to get worst. Though I wish I could say this is outrageous and I’ve never seen anything like it before the same sort of outrageous control has been happening in China for years but because of their economic relationships with the world they aren’t punished with any sort of severity. In China’s case a government which has to ban Winne the Pooh and is so aggressively against criticism is deeply flawed. I also agree with the author’s point of what is somehow more disappointing than authoritarian governments exerting unreasonable control, which is more or less expected, is the free world’s response of devaluing human rights in favor of political connections.
If you open up any American newspaper, or weekly magazine, 9 times out of ten you will see at least one satirical column, artwork, etc. We use satire as a way to reevaluate and criticize our society and culture as we see fit, and clearly that is something that I take so often for granted. By the Saudi government outlawing the use of satire they highlight the insecurity of their ruling staff. They do not want to be criticized at all, but sometimes, that is how a country is able to evolve. The article specifically talked about the banning of satire when it came to the state religion, which apparently hasn't been favored too highly. However, if you look at, for example, the Catholic Church, which is constantly criticized and the subject of many satirical mediums, they continue to exist, and problems are brought to the public eye and either dealt with, or not dealt with. Rather than being an issue with satire it just seems like the Saudi government have only found one way in which they can enforce obedience, and that is through the outlawing of satire (a form of free speech).
While this isn’t necessarily unexpected from a traditionally oppressive and conservative country, it is very unfortunate. There’s a reason that free speech is the very first amendment to the Constitution. It allows for people to speak their minds against a radical or oppressive government (or one that is about to become one). Free speech promotes change and freedom within and without a country. Saudi Arabia obviously does not have this provision in their constitution, or else there would be much outcry against this decision. Satire is an important form of free speech as well as art. Many plays and books that have affected (or attempted to affect) real change have been satirical. Take, for example Voltaire’s Candide or Moliere’s Tartuffe. Satire is an important in art that works as a mechanism in society to affect change. Saudi Arabia has effectively lost this mechanism. Hopefully, even without this, Saudi Arabia will be able to transform their society to a more liberal society.
It is so unfortunate that authoritarian regimes across the globe continue to enact draconian policies like these without facing stiff consequences from the rest of the world. There are, of course, economic and political consequences in sanctioning other countries, but if the United States and other countries want to continue to be able to claim they are advocates of human rights like free speech and freedom of the press, they must cease supporting regimes that attack those very values. It’s like eating vegan while financing a butcher’s shop. The United States has the economic leverage to crack down on countries like Saudi Arabia, the Philippines, Turkey, and Russia. Every day that we don’t is a day that we have failed to uphold the values that this country is founded upon. It is day that we have failed to live up to our reputation as the leaders of the free world.
In this week's edition of 1984: Living It In Real Time...
But in all seriousness, this is so disappointing, but not shocking. The lack of shock doesn't even come from the fact that it is a country in an area where extremist views (religious, political, both, or otherwise) tend to control people's lives. The lack of shock comes from the lack of heavier responses from more "enlightened" and "Westernized" countries that could potentially have the trade and other socio-economic impacts to really fight against this terrible censorship because Saudi remains a major supplier of oil. Our dependence oppresses. Furthermore, are we shocked? One look at America's current "leadership" and if the eradication of satire wouldn't cause massive riots, it would totally pass. Satire is a powerful weapon when things, people, and politics, are bad. It's also uplifting and empowering. One of the easiest ways to get over "Activist Fatigue" is to find a way to laugh at what's happening. Satire can be a gateway to that. A government that wants to control it's people should fear anything that can uplift, empower, and criticize.
As the U.S. deals with our own free speech and peaceful protest issues, it is interesting to see another country's solutions and suddenly become grateful for the country at hand. An interesting part of this article is the concept of cowardice in Administration. Personally this seems to be a theme on an every day basis, from online twitter rants to defend against any negative views, to high school administrations only allowing peaceful student protest if it fits with their schedule or personal views. In some ways these issues have their perks. We can acknowledge the changing times of calculated administrative responses to quick 120 character snippets into a leaders mind and school administrations can keep an eye on the student body to ensure protests remain peaceful. It would be an injustice to ignore what the cowardice in administration means. If administrators are not confident in their actions they cannot be effective decision makers. So, if someone points out that some decisions may not benefit the country as they seem or take a personal stab at an administration or a core belief of that administration, they can retaliate quickly. The effect is often the limitation of free speech or the drowning out of those in disagreement. In my opinion administrations should be strong enough to take a little criticism, reflect internally and respond effectively. If they are not strong enough internally to do this we risk losing more and more free speech just like the citizens in Saudi Arabia just did.
This article reminds me of a couple years ago when Putin banned his citizens from posting or liking memes about him. Governments all over the world are constantly oppressing speech more and more, because they are threatened by the accessibility of the internet at this day and age. They want to be able to control what comes in and out of their country, to ensure that their citizens are only seeing the side of the government, that the government wants them to see. As countries like China, Russia, and now Saudi Arabia continue to limit their citizens access to full usage of the internet, they are limiting our ability to fully understand what is happening within these countries. This is dangerous for the citizens of these countries, and the citizens of other countries all around the world. The more restriction, the less of the truth we will see about these countries. If the only voices of these countries that we are able to hear, are the bad ones, how will we ever really know what is really happening?
I and many Americans consider free speech a fundamental human right, but in other countries around the world that’s very different, not in that the people don’t want to speak, but that their government will not be spoken against. The most unfortunate part of the current situation with Saudi Arabia is that the US had the power to potentially do something about it by relocating the 2020 summit, as a bribe of sorts, until the Saudi Arabian government starts complying with UN ideals. Though the summit itself is about economy and not human rights, we can’t go around making claims about fighting for human rights within and outside of our own country when we let such blatant violations not slip, but dive, through the cracks. We’ve seen a lot on media censorship and censorship of the arts even in recent times, and much of it is in the middle east. A prime example being Kurdish journalist and painter Zehra Dogan who was sentenced to two years in prison after depicting a Turkish city damaged by state forces. Her official charge was for allegedly having connection to the Kurdistan Workers Party who want to overthrow the Turkish government, in other words “spreading terrorist propaganda”. She continues to paint in prison.
I can very easily see this becoming us. This censorship mirrors some of the things occurring throughout our country. We all laugh about "fake news" but the fact that our own president is attacking the media and labelling the things he doesn't want to hear as fake are the first steps to a violation of our rights. If an article like this about our own country came out tomorrow, I would be appalled, but not surprised. This is surprising given the fact that we all consider Saudi Arabia to be so below us in the way they treat their people. While I do not negate the fact that Saudi Arabia commits atrocities, in this particular instance we are on par with many of the oppressive regimes throughout the world. Things like satire and theater are the frontlines for any political movements, and often times they share what the people are thinking. Once those aspects of culture are attacked, everything else often slowly goes with it.
The Saudi decision to outlaw satire is a horrifying one. Throughout history, satire has been used as a political weapon against authoritarianism, and has been feared by medieval kings and modern heads of state alike. If the government does not want their policies criticized, they should enact ones for the benefit of the people rather than themselves; if you have to demand respect, you don’t deserve it. Forbidding satire, forbidding criticism of the government, is absolutely a human rights violation by the Saudi government and the world governments have a responsibility to intervene or at the very least publicly speak out against it.
Censorship is something humanity has grappled with globally for centuries. It has most often been used to silence criticism, be it of a government, person, or societal practice. When those in power choose to silence critics and engage in censorship, what we see is stagnancy. No problems are addressed, because none can be voiced. Criticism prompts reflection and conversation, which evokes change regarding said addressed issues. I am disappointed to hear that Saudi Arabia has chosen censorship, especially of satire: a comparatively lighthearted form of criticism. Satire gets a message across with humor and mockery. While it is often intended for entertainment purposes (at least in the US), it can also make people think about serious issues we generally choose to ignore unless we are forced to pay attention to it (in satire’s case, via being entertained). It’s honestly strange to see how quickly such a right can be taken away from people, because we use it so freely in the US.
12 comments:
Saudi Arabia banning satire is unfortunate event for its citizens and any country which interacts with Saudi Arabia in any form. Since criticism is necessary for any type of growth and this criminalization of satire seems to come from a root of avoiding conflicting ideas and criticisms it means the already significant problems facing the country are on a trajectory to get worst. Though I wish I could say this is outrageous and I’ve never seen anything like it before the same sort of outrageous control has been happening in China for years but because of their economic relationships with the world they aren’t punished with any sort of severity. In China’s case a government which has to ban Winne the Pooh and is so aggressively against criticism is deeply flawed. I also agree with the author’s point of what is somehow more disappointing than authoritarian governments exerting unreasonable control, which is more or less expected, is the free world’s response of devaluing human rights in favor of political connections.
If you open up any American newspaper, or weekly magazine, 9 times out of ten you will see at least one satirical column, artwork, etc. We use satire as a way to reevaluate and criticize our society and culture as we see fit, and clearly that is something that I take so often for granted. By the Saudi government outlawing the use of satire they highlight the insecurity of their ruling staff. They do not want to be criticized at all, but sometimes, that is how a country is able to evolve. The article specifically talked about the banning of satire when it came to the state religion, which apparently hasn't been favored too highly. However, if you look at, for example, the Catholic Church, which is constantly criticized and the subject of many satirical mediums, they continue to exist, and problems are brought to the public eye and either dealt with, or not dealt with. Rather than being an issue with satire it just seems like the Saudi government have only found one way in which they can enforce obedience, and that is through the outlawing of satire (a form of free speech).
While this isn’t necessarily unexpected from a traditionally oppressive and conservative country, it is very unfortunate. There’s a reason that free speech is the very first amendment to the Constitution. It allows for people to speak their minds against a radical or oppressive government (or one that is about to become one). Free speech promotes change and freedom within and without a country. Saudi Arabia obviously does not have this provision in their constitution, or else there would be much outcry against this decision. Satire is an important form of free speech as well as art. Many plays and books that have affected (or attempted to affect) real change have been satirical. Take, for example Voltaire’s Candide or Moliere’s Tartuffe. Satire is an important in art that works as a mechanism in society to affect change. Saudi Arabia has effectively lost this mechanism. Hopefully, even without this, Saudi Arabia will be able to transform their society to a more liberal society.
It is so unfortunate that authoritarian regimes across the globe continue to enact draconian policies like these without facing stiff consequences from the rest of the world. There are, of course, economic and political consequences in sanctioning other countries, but if the United States and other countries want to continue to be able to claim they are advocates of human rights like free speech and freedom of the press, they must cease supporting regimes that attack those very values. It’s like eating vegan while financing a butcher’s shop. The United States has the economic leverage to crack down on countries like Saudi Arabia, the Philippines, Turkey, and Russia. Every day that we don’t is a day that we have failed to uphold the values that this country is founded upon. It is day that we have failed to live up to our reputation as the leaders of the free world.
In this week's edition of 1984: Living It In Real Time...
But in all seriousness, this is so disappointing, but not shocking. The lack of shock doesn't even come from the fact that it is a country in an area where extremist views (religious, political, both, or otherwise) tend to control people's lives. The lack of shock comes from the lack of heavier responses from more "enlightened" and "Westernized" countries that could potentially have the trade and other socio-economic impacts to really fight against this terrible censorship because Saudi remains a major supplier of oil. Our dependence oppresses. Furthermore, are we shocked? One look at America's current "leadership" and if the eradication of satire wouldn't cause massive riots, it would totally pass. Satire is a powerful weapon when things, people, and politics, are bad. It's also uplifting and empowering. One of the easiest ways to get over "Activist Fatigue" is to find a way to laugh at what's happening. Satire can be a gateway to that. A government that wants to control it's people should fear anything that can uplift, empower, and criticize.
As the U.S. deals with our own free speech and peaceful protest issues, it is interesting to see another country's solutions and suddenly become grateful for the country at hand. An interesting part of this article is the concept of cowardice in Administration. Personally this seems to be a theme on an every day basis, from online twitter rants to defend against any negative views, to high school administrations only allowing peaceful student protest if it fits with their schedule or personal views. In some ways these issues have their perks. We can acknowledge the changing times of calculated administrative responses to quick 120 character snippets into a leaders mind and school administrations can keep an eye on the student body to ensure protests remain peaceful. It would be an injustice to ignore what the cowardice in administration means. If administrators are not confident in their actions they cannot be effective decision makers. So, if someone points out that some decisions may not benefit the country as they seem or take a personal stab at an administration or a core belief of that administration, they can retaliate quickly. The effect is often the limitation of free speech or the drowning out of those in disagreement. In my opinion administrations should be strong enough to take a little criticism, reflect internally and respond effectively. If they are not strong enough internally to do this we risk losing more and more free speech just like the citizens in Saudi Arabia just did.
This article reminds me of a couple years ago when Putin banned his citizens from posting or liking memes about him. Governments all over the world are constantly oppressing speech more and more, because they are threatened by the accessibility of the internet at this day and age. They want to be able to control what comes in and out of their country, to ensure that their citizens are only seeing the side of the government, that the government wants them to see. As countries like China, Russia, and now Saudi Arabia continue to limit their citizens access to full usage of the internet, they are limiting our ability to fully understand what is happening within these countries. This is dangerous for the citizens of these countries, and the citizens of other countries all around the world. The more restriction, the less of the truth we will see about these countries. If the only voices of these countries that we are able to hear, are the bad ones, how will we ever really know what is really happening?
I and many Americans consider free speech a fundamental human right, but in other countries around the world that’s very different, not in that the people don’t want to speak, but that their government will not be spoken against.
The most unfortunate part of the current situation with Saudi Arabia is that the US had the power to potentially do something about it by relocating the 2020 summit, as a bribe of sorts, until the Saudi Arabian government starts complying with UN ideals. Though the summit itself is about economy and not human rights, we can’t go around making claims about fighting for human rights within and outside of our own country when we let such blatant violations not slip, but dive, through the cracks.
We’ve seen a lot on media censorship and censorship of the arts even in recent times, and much of it is in the middle east. A prime example being Kurdish journalist and painter Zehra Dogan who was sentenced to two years in prison after depicting a Turkish city damaged by state forces. Her official charge was for allegedly having connection to the Kurdistan Workers Party who want to overthrow the Turkish government, in other words “spreading terrorist propaganda”. She continues to paint in prison.
I can very easily see this becoming us. This censorship mirrors some of the things occurring throughout our country. We all laugh about "fake news" but the fact that our own president is attacking the media and labelling the things he doesn't want to hear as fake are the first steps to a violation of our rights. If an article like this about our own country came out tomorrow, I would be appalled, but not surprised. This is surprising given the fact that we all consider Saudi Arabia to be so below us in the way they treat their people. While I do not negate the fact that Saudi Arabia commits atrocities, in this particular instance we are on par with many of the oppressive regimes throughout the world. Things like satire and theater are the frontlines for any political movements, and often times they share what the people are thinking. Once those aspects of culture are attacked, everything else often slowly goes with it.
The Saudi decision to outlaw satire is a horrifying one. Throughout history, satire has been used as a political weapon against authoritarianism, and has been feared by medieval kings and modern heads of state alike. If the government does not want their policies criticized, they should enact ones for the benefit of the people rather than themselves; if you have to demand respect, you don’t deserve it. Forbidding satire, forbidding criticism of the government, is absolutely a human rights violation by the Saudi government and the world governments have a responsibility to intervene or at the very least publicly speak out against it.
Censorship is something humanity has grappled with globally for centuries. It has most often been used to silence criticism, be it of a government, person, or societal practice. When those in power choose to silence critics and engage in censorship, what we see is stagnancy. No problems are addressed, because none can be voiced. Criticism prompts reflection and conversation, which evokes change regarding said addressed issues. I am disappointed to hear that Saudi Arabia has chosen censorship, especially of satire: a comparatively lighthearted form of criticism. Satire gets a message across with humor and mockery. While it is often intended for entertainment purposes (at least in the US), it can also make people think about serious issues we generally choose to ignore unless we are forced to pay attention to it (in satire’s case, via being entertained). It’s honestly strange to see how quickly such a right can be taken away from people, because we use it so freely in the US.
Post a Comment