Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 16:21:06 +0000
From: Michael Vandelaar <hq06-AT-dial.pipex.com>
Subject: Re: Censorship!!!!


Michael Betancourt wrote:
> 
> >I am more concerned with Michael B.'s attitude toward service people. I
> >reserve the right to choose who I work for, and to choose what kind of work
> >that I do. I must of necessity respect the autonomy and self-determination
> >of other workers.
> 
> The woman has a right not to print my photographs. That's not at issue here;
> what is at issue is the photolab's policy -- that of allowing a single
> worker's feeling determine what kind of work can and cannot be done. Their
> literature makes it very clear that AS A LAB they will supposedly print
> anything, and do any job.
> My point with stating who objected was to point out that it was the action
> of a single individual not in a leadership role making policy for an entnire
> organization, a policy that is not spelled out anywhere in the literature of
> that organization. Do not get confused about the issues involved here.
> 
> And as for no hinderance to buying the necessary equipment, etc... no they
> did not, however, (as I am like most artists and do not have a spare
> $50,000.00 sitting around to buy the high-resolution digital-to-film
> equipement), to say that they didn't hinder me is to miss the point
> entirely: The LAB offered a particular service to the public at large, I
> came in and asked for that service, and was denied for no reason I could
> have known walking in off the street (so to speak) and reading the "fine
> print" on their directory of services (which does not mention this policy at
> all; in fact it makes states that they will do anything: "BERRY & HOMER'S
> PROMISE TO  YOU IS OUR GUARANTEE TO MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO PRODUCE YOUR WORK
> FOLLOWING YOUR EXACT SPECIFICATIONS. IF WE MAKE AN ERROR, WE WILL BE HAPPY
> TO REMAKE YOUR ORDER AND WE REGRET ANY INCONVIENCE. BERRY & HOMER MUST BE
> NOTIFIED OF A JOB REQUIRING A REMAKE WITHIN 10 DAYS." This statement is
> under a header called "The Berry & Homer Promise.") It seems to me that
> you've missed the point entirely.
> 
> -- Michael Betancourt


What you have described still does not amount to censorship. Whether a 
member of staff decides not to print your work or whether it is the 
business's decision is a moot point. Berry & Homer's promise does not say 
they will print ANYTHING, nor does it say that they won't. It just says 
that whatever they print will be done to your specifications.

What you have described is an inconvenience, not censorship.

An artist friend of mine had the processing of his photos refused by 
Kodak in Australia. He was furious, wrote them a letter protesting their 
stupid 'business' decision, and then took his business elsewhere.

The same artist was 'commissioned' to produce a cover for a magazine. His 
 designs were rejected on the grounds of 'pornography'. He then had the 
'covers' privately printed as 'THE REJECTED SUITE', and they are doing 
nicely.

Both these examples are not censorship; they are decisions that every 
individual or group has a right to make. 

On your homepage, you provide a service for creating ads. I presume if 
someone came along with a proposal which was against your ideals, that 
you would refuse to produce an ad for them. Is this censorship? Would you 
be refusing to provide a service, when you have nowhere stated that there 
is any reason for refusal? 

Again, it seems to me that you've missed the point entirely.

Cheers,
Michael