Operation Froth Back

November 11, 2009

            After agreeing to and then reneging on their promise to publish an article I wrote about political correctness and hyper word-policing within Earth First!, the current EF! Journal Collective has instead used the space it denied me to trash me (in a publicly circulated newspaper no less, based on comments they found objectionable in private emails).

            The Collective members I am referring to are Luke and Jezzabell, so as not to besmirch any future Journalistas once the movement takes back its beloved Journal.  The most charitable thing one can say about them in their editorial capacity is that they are functionally illiterate.  Their homework should be to read old Journals (showcasing a healthy history of debate, dissent, and self-parody – the better to keep evolving, and also avoid leaving movement criticism entirely up to South Park (provocative as “Whale Whores” was)), before editing new ones.

            Unlike Luke and Jezzabell, I hope that entrusting the following opinions to readers will enable people to join the discussion and reach their own conclusions. 

            I am posting the following:

            1.  Luke and Jezzabell in their own words (email excerpts)

                 Raising the specter of censorship better than anyone could against them.

            2.  “Dear Censorshit For Brains” (first submitted on 10/2/09)

                  My article/letter about censorship, which the Collective invited following our tiff, then refused to print.  It’s actually an article about their censorship of an article about their censorship of an article about censorship.  (Wow, way to make a guy’s brain explode, thanks!)  It’s admittedly long-ish (826 words), but highly current, and the result of having had a shorter piece axed.  And it’s not like the Journal is awash in submissions right now.  Regardless, they never asked me to edit it down; they just axed the piece entirely after promising repeatedly to run it, for reasons based entirely on taste, as their own statements reveal.

            3.  “Team STUFITT” (first submitted on 7/21/09)

                  My original, satirical piece about word-policing at the 2009 Rendezvous, which the Collective first ignored, letting one deadline elapse, then tried to ignore again, then considered, then censored.

1.

The Collective Censors – In Their Own Words

(excerpts of emails – key statements underlined)

7/21/09          [Ben:]  Dear Journalistas, Please accept the following submission to Shit Fer Brains…I realize my letter may spark controversy, but I also think it expresses the sentiment of a lot of people…Please publish this letter, consistent with longstanding policy favoring free speech…

8/13/09          [Ben:]  I'm resubmitting an updated version of the letter I'm requesting publication of in the next issue… Please run this either in Shit Fer Brains, or as a separate article...

9/23/09          [Previous collective member:] To be honest, I am not sure that the editorial collective are going to print it as an article. I don't feel this is a censorship issue.

                        My suggestion is to submit a Shit Fer Brains that introduces the new strategy of procedure you have devised and do it in 300 words or there about.

9/23/09          [Ben:]  With all respect, it does strike me (ironically, since it was originally titled "Dear Censorshit Fer  Brains") as a censorship issue.

9/28/09          [Luke:]  I've been in touch with [previous collective member] over your submission for the past month and we are still debating how to use it.

                        I'd also like to clear up the definition of "censorship" because you're tossing the term around a bit too hastily. Freedom of press means the right to publish or not publish what those doing the publishing desire.  Censorship, on the other hand, means to prevent (physically or otherwise) another person from publishing their own material themselves.

                        If we chose to not publish an article we didn't like, that would be freedom of press. If we chose to prevent the writer of that article from publishing it themselves, that would be censorship. It's a pretty important distinction. :)

9/28/09          [Ben:]  In my view, in its most common and widely understood usage, to censor means to screen and exclude material from publication or dissemination based on its content (for example, by deeming it to be offensive, harmful, objectionable, etc.)  People who censor always find "good" excuses to censor…

                        The Earth First! Journal, historically, publishes the submissions of Earth First!ers…The Journal does [not] measure its commitment to "freedom of the press" by the standards of a private, for profit newspaper ("the right to publish or not publish what those doing the publishing desire," in your words), nor by the mores of its sitting collective.

9/29/09          [Jezzabell:]  Hey Ben, so yea the past two collectives decided that the letters you  have written were leading down roads we don't chose to travel down. If you want to submit something that has a link to your letter I'd be glad to run it and write a response from the editorial collectives point of view since I was on it the past two time we declined to run  it. I persynally will not be part of a collective that tries to pull humor from sensitive issues.

                        What you said about the old guard is a great example of what I don't want to be associated with. Believe it or not lots of people disagree with us.

                        It sucks but oh well. Don't really see anything changing there. But again if you want to send a more tasteful letter that doesn't  offend, well, everyone than we would be glad to run it. Feel free to  include a link to the old one too.

9/29/09          [Ben:]  What is my deadline for submitting a letter about the exclusion of my letter/article for inclusion in the forthcoming issue?

9/29/09          [Jezzabell:]  Anytime in the next week would be great. Were having our layout meeting this weekend so as long as it's in before then we'll be able to put in.

9/30/09          [Anonymous (likely Luke):]  If you are going to continue sending out more bulk e-mails exaggerating the situation to others, please let them know that we have, in fact, agreed to print your response to our "censorship" that will include a link to your original submission.

                        When choosing letters and submissions to print, we'll favor writing that can make a point without mocking others, even if it's humorous to a small group of people…

                        It would serve a much more constructive purpose if you can get your point across in a kinder fashion…

10/2/09          [Ben:]  Following (and atached) is the piece I would like to publish in the Shit For Brains section, titled "Dear Censorshit for Brains"  Please keep me informed.

10/9/09          [Anonymous (likely Luke):]  we are printing some letters we totally disagree with this issue…we've decided against printing yours, not because of your overall stance, but because exaggerations and condescension are no way to carry out an efficient debate. we want your concerns addressed, we just want that to happen in a constructive way. your 2nd letter reaches nearly 900 words. you know that we would have a very hard time fitting it, it would have been nice for you to respect our 300 word limit. including that letter would mean cutting others, and we just can't see any purpose of including it other than letting you vent.

[Ben’s Note: Needless to say, if limited space were the issue, the Journal could have (a) asked me to trim it, (b) serialized it, (c) printed part of it and allowed me to link online to the rest of it, or (d) avoided using the same space they deprived me of to trash me (to everyone who reads the paper, not just the people I emailed privately about our dispute).

2.

Dear Censorshit For Brains (Oct. 2009)

Astonishingly, the Journal censored from these pages an article I submitted immediately following the 2009 RRR about, of all things, censorship.  Readers can view my original piece at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/10/02/18624234.php.  Such meta censorship robs the movement, in this shared forum, of discussion about a trend which is alienating scores of longtime Earth First!ers and newcomers alike:  hyper word-policing and literalism.

You might contend that your publication of this letter proves that you are in fact providing a forum for such discussion.  However, you agreed to do so only (1) after rejecting the piece as I wrote it, and (2) after I invoked the collective exasperation of countless “old guard” friends in this movement who also comprise a significant part of the dwindling subscribership to the Journal.  Most importantly, my original submission made my point the way I, the author, wanted to make it – in a manner which is satirical, irascible, critical and self-critical, and therefore more provocative and stimulating of collective self-examination and discussion.

Therein lies the problem:  Language is nuanced and complex.  The meaning often resides in the subtext and the context, not the literal text.  The First Amendment recognizes this essential fact.  As even the Supreme Court has acknowledged, we cannot solve social ills by scrubbing our discourse of offensive expressions.  To do so only deprives us of the richness of speech and ideas, as well as deeper and more abiding consensus. As Justice William Brandeis observed,  “If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies [of ideas]…the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”

Censors can always enumerate “good” reasons to censor.  Sometimes those reasons are rooted in financial or space constraints, or in evenly-applied editorial policies.  In this case, however, the Collective rejected my piece, twice submitted in time to meet two deadlines and offered as either a letter or an article, because it was “leading down roads we don’t chose [sic] to travel down,” a Collective member informed me. “[I]f you want to send a more tasteful letter that doesn’t offend, well, everyone than [sic] we would be glad to run it.”  Another wrote: “When choosing letters and submissions to print, we’ll favor writing that can make a point without mocking others...”

These responses meet the textbook definition of censorship – the blocking of material deemed to be harmful or offensive.  Worse, the Journal’s standard is no standard at all, but a subjective moving target reflecting only the whims of one, sitting Collective, which appears to have forgotten its responsibility to a broad movement of “disparate voices,” as Earth First!ers used to refer to themselves, including a multitude who, ironically, feel alienated by the manner in which people are trying to create “safe space” in an effort to expand participation.

If it is now impermissible to offend, “well, everyone” in the pages of the Earth First! Journal – in a section entitled “Dear Shit For Brains,” no less – we need a seriously funny attitude adjustment.  The movement has survived, and bridged, great controversy not by sanitizing it from the Journal, but by letting it range, and sometimes rage.  Absent the right to offend, we never would have worked out as deep an understanding of social ecology, aired important grievances on both sides of the anti-whaling and native rights debate, or agreed that the movement does not condone violence, among myriad other topics.  Opinions on all sides of these issues offended many people.

The most radical thing about Earth First! in my estimation – i.e. what radically sets it apart from other movements – is that it’s not a society of true believers, but a fractious gathering of caustically critical and self-parodying people who have both an analysis and a confidently open mind (for it takes confidence to be open-minded), not just a button to press whenever they see or hear something they don’t like.  This is to say nothing of the ability to dance in the revolution.  Your elders in the movement used to sing to stern-faced bystanders at protests, “we have more fun than you do.” Today, the answer from one Journalista is: “I persynally will not be part of a collective that tries to pull humor from sensitive issues.”  Well, humor is a lubricant which works especially well on “sensitive issues.”

The effect of this new word-policing is not just linguistic illiteracy – cramped discourse, and concomitantly, cramped thinking – but experiential illiteracy.  As you alienate the old guard, you also cheat yourselves, and the movement as a whole, out of the stories, skills, and lessons reposed in it.

I welcome retorts.  I don’t presume to have the monopoly of thought on the subject.  But it begins with re-establishing the forum.  I also propose a one or two part workshop at the next RRR both to discuss censorship, broadly, as well as to try to hammer out a further set of editorial standards for the Journal which do not leave publishing decisions to a matter of such delicate, personal taste.

3.

Team STUFFIT (July 2009)

This year’s otherwise perfect RRR was marred by several vicious verbal attacks. In one incident, an apparently white male referenced the N word in a poem at the Night to Howl. Fortunately, a person who to this writer’s knowledge identifies as a Native American male condemned the slur on the spot, to rousing applause. In another incident, a young white woman overheard a white movement elder privately ask a group of rowdy wrestlers, “what are you, Mongolian”? While no one knows quite what this means, the woman was too triggered to speak up until the morning circle, where she generously complained, also to rousing applause.

Applause won’t cut it. So long as any member of this movement oppresses any member of any racial or ethnic minority (i.e. anyone who is not White Chinese), whether publicly or quietly under his/her/their/ziz/zer breath, none of us is safe. This is especially true in light of the U.S. radical environmental movement’s longstanding hegemony over the Mongolian people. We should not model our behavior on self-pardoning Catholics who sin at the Saturday fire only to expiate at the Sunday circle (no offense to Catholics).

In response, some have proposed the creation of a new team, STUFITT – or Strikeforce Trained to Understand, Ferret and Interrupt Trash Talk (no offense to ferrets). STUFITT would respond rapidly to gross language violations which afflict (or should afflict) the entire group, while also monitoring for those barely audible insults which might otherwise escape detection. Even this writer has from time to time muttered offensive remarks under his breath which, if unchecked, might mushroom into a full-blown politically incorrect syndrome (no offense to mushrooms).

STUFITT operatives would of course read lips. Eventually, they would learn to read our thoughts, based on our gestures and expressions, enabling them to prevent humiliating slips before they occur. STUFITT could also profile sub-demographics within the movement, and anticipate when and under what circumstances they might erupt.

If STUFITT posts good results in its first year, we might want to empower it to pursue enhanced training techniques, greater reliance on undercover operations and informant recruitment, and the acquisition of robust listening technologies, like canine-borne eavesdropping platforms. In its annual reports, STUFITT could help bolster the badly needed case for a dry Rendezvous.

A word about the Old Guard: They are relics from an era of rank insensitivity who thought they could eradicate oppression without restricting free speech, the right to dissent, or the diabolical pleasure some people take in just being gratuitously crass on occasion. They should be permanently ostracized. One solution is to site future RRRs up steep trails far from parking lots where these doddering Neanderthals fear to tread. But this might unduly burden the barefoot-with-sores anarchist summer campers who come to wait in free food lines, and who currently make up the shock troops of the EF! movement.

STUFITT would also be uniquely situated to identify emerging oppressive trends, and to quash them before they take root. For now, I’m sure we can all agree to purge the following words from our usage, in all contexts: 1. paddy wagon: derived from a derogatory term for Irish people, describing the police vans used to haul them away drunk; 2. jerry-rig: from a pejorative term for German soldiers, describing their knack for using scavenged parts to repair vehicles and weapons; 3. fuck: from the Indo-European root fuk, meaning both “to strike” and “to copulate,” thus equating sex with violence; 4. biocentrism: an antiquated movement term which subordinates people and their pronouns to flora and fauna which don’t even possess pronoun consciousness.

We must all work together to expand this list, and to remind ourselves that only by banning offensive words, regardless of their context or subtext, will we relegate them to the lexical trash heap. Irony, sarcasm, and humor simply are not funny, and have no place in this earnest movement.