Why do we have censorship in the first place? In previous subtopics, we have seen that when the State begins to regulate the freedom of expression, especially with regard to sexuality, it restricts the space for diversity of opinions, ideas and expressions. This is often justified on the grounds that certain expressions must be curtailed for the good of all - this is the stated rationale for censorship. This kind of thinking is simplistic because it doesn't question who and what decides what is in the positive interest of this so-called 'all'.

In subtopic 2, we looked the question of why we have censorship in the first place. Some participants felt that it was important to understand contexts and to curtail 'negative' representations because they lead to exploitation, discrimination, and violence. Others felt that material that is suppressed today may not be suppressed tomorrow, depending on who is in power. The current debate raging globally of the 'cartoons' issue, illustrated how at different times and in different contexts, actual or assumed power allows people to dictate who has the right to speak and about what.

How do we censor things? Participants gave several examples of censorship, ranging from how the State uses it power to exercise censorship of individual and collective rights and the ways in which we self-censor. The example of police in India using harassment as a cover for violating people's rights in a public space highlighted how the State interprets people's rights to using public spaces. It isn't illegal for couples to be in a park together - but that particular expression in and of itself was considered inappropriate. Self-censorship was another part of the debate brought up. Participants sought to debate the relationship between how the public censors influence how we censor ourselves. However, it is important to note as one participant noted - we must be careful to distinguish the difference between censorship and personal choices. When the right to express oneself, form opinions, debate ideas, and educate oneself is taken away by the State - this is censorship. What we choose to represent, think, educate others with, etc., is a matter of personal judgment.

What are the unintended and intended consequences of censorship? As some participants pointed out, self-censorship results in guilt and blame. As we censor ourselves on a larger scale, we prevent the creation of spaces that allow us to talk about sexuality. At a State level, it prevents the recognition of multiple realities that exist within any given community. Through this kind of censorship, there is only one 'right' way of thinking, talking about, and doing things. Consequently, those people ho do not identify with or propagate the majority way of thinking are relegated to being lesser citizens. Others are marginalized.

What next? We will be specifically talking more about the role of representation as it relates to sexuality and censorship. We will be examining the benefits of having as many representations as possible and how different interpretations of various representations enhance debates on sexuality.

I hope you have been able to gain something valuable from this discussion. Feel free to use the discussions we have begun already to tie into future topics. Let's continue to keep this a respectful and safe space for discussion and debate. Again, looking forward to a lively dialogue around the issues!

Thank you,

Neha Patel (Moderator)
The South and Southeast Asia Resource Centre on Sexuality