What is your line on censorship?

Tweet

I have just had an interesting comment on my Twitter feed - one that raises a point of principle as far as I am concerned. I use my Twitter account to publicise the articles I have written on my blogs. There are more than 2,000 of these pieces and it takes more than three weeks for the cycle to get back to the beginning. In order to keep Twitter happy, I alternate these tweets that link to articles with favourite quotations. It is one of these that has caused the controversy. The quote was: "A word to the wise ain't necessary, it's the stupid ones who need all the advice." If I had left it there, without citing a source, there would surely have been no problem. These are a witty few words that make a point worth making. However, I always state who has said or written the words I am quoting. That is standard practice and nothing to be wondered at. There are plenty of people who might have been responsible for the words, and who would have excited no comment at all. However, the person in question was Bill Cosby, who is now serving a prison sentence for sex offences committed many years ago. The complaint was that I should not now use this quote on the grounds that the person who originated it was a nasty piece of work who was best forgotten. Everything the man has ever said or written should be expunged and never mentioned again. I don't agree. As far as I am concerned, the quote should be allowed to stand - although I might change the name to "Anonymous" just to prevent any future complaints of this kind. This attitude - of censoring words because of their authorship - is one that I find very hard to accept. As a retired professional librarian, the very notion of censorship is one that is entirely unacceptable. It is not my job to tell other people what they should not read or listen to. It is also worth bearing in mind that many great works of literature, art and music were created by people with highly dubious reputations. If we were to consign to oblivion everything they ever wrote, the literary/artistic cupboard would be much emptier! Yes - the life and attitudes of the artist will always inform the works they produce, and it is worth knowing about the former in order to truly understand the latter - but the works must be allowed to stand for themselves once they have been produced. It is up to us - the readers, viewers and listeners - to make our own judgments about the quality of the works and not for some busybody to say that we must be denied these opportunities because their creators had committed various crimes and misdemeanours. What do you think?