Continue to use a VPN to access
Continue to use a VPN to access
These days, the discussion about the potential lifting of internet censorship is very heated. The government has promised to assist, and the majority of society is hopeful, eager, and waiting for at least some relief in this area to soothe their frayed nerves and troubled economic situation. Although personally, I doubt that the outcome will be what we expect.
When I look at the various reasons, big and small, that led to the imposition of censorship, a gloomy feeling warns me that even if it is lifted, something will be amiss. For example, the internet speed might drop, the cost could become exorbitant, or there might be some other trick involved. I hope my feeling is wrong. Whatever happens with this censorship, we must not forget that the logic of censorship in our country is much broader and more fundamental than this and is not limited to the virtual space.
At least there was a VPN, and you could pay a fee and eventually find a way to bypass it. But our country is filled with filters without a VPN. One example is this newspaper in front of you. Most of our publications are forced to self-censor to survive and have to omit a large portion of news and events or approach them so cautiously that they avoid any trouble. There is no other way.
If they don’t exercise caution themselves, their survival and existence will be threatened. There is no way to bypass the red lines. We cannot forget how journalists were treated just in the past couple of years when they tried to honestly reflect what was happening in society, which everyone was aware of. The virtual space is visible and trendy, and its censorship is tangible and noticeable. However, newspapers in our country, precisely because of this censorship and the distance they have taken from accurate and deep reporting, are no longer very popular or widely read media.
But even the few newspapers that struggle to maintain a clean and useful connection with the realities of society and world events are fundamentally filtered. What reaches the reader is mostly a weak shadow of what it should be, and naturally, its impact is reduced accordingly.
No one talks about this subtle censorship, and there is no demand for it. In fact, demanding the lifting of this censorship is itself censored. The issue does not end here.
Just a few days ago, a friend said he had submitted his storybook to a reputable publisher. The publisher read and liked it but said that if they send it to the Ministry of Culture, some of its very good stories would be subject to deletion and censorship.
Note that the book has not yet been submitted to the Ministry of Culture for approval, and the publisher itself raised this issue. Don’t think the stories were indecent or promoting immorality, or contrary to religious or national values.
Just because of a few romantic words and a few different lifestyles from the tastes and preferences of the authorities, a good work was prevented from being published. It’s that simple. This is one of those filters without a VPN.
Circumventing it means resorting to underground publication or publishing the work with publishers outside of Iran, both of which imply the destruction and neglect of the work and the author’s renunciation of any material and intellectual rights. This is also the subtle censorship in the cultural field, which we know is not limited to literature and affects other arts as well.
Why do I call it censorship? Because here, too, the reader-user loses access to a vast and valuable part of Iranian and world literature when faced with the book market. In fact, publishers and bookstores are somewhat like the national internet.
There is no clear and specific logic to be found in the rules of this censorship. It’s not clear what you need to adhere to in order not to fall into this trap.
The criteria are so slippery, subjective, and seasonal that the publisher prefers not to get involved in these matters at all and preemptively reject the book to avoid its consequences.
Even what is available in the market, especially in the field of translation, is full of deletions, changes, and distortions.
Now there is no choice but to be patient and see what the respected government will do with the censorship of the virtual space.
Afterward, there might be the energy and motivation left to remind them that they need to think about the other filters too. Lifting censorship is generally a good thing, especially when one is seeking consensus.
