Intent and Goals of "Horror in the 1st"
The horror genre has always been at the front lines of the battle to preserve freedom of expression and fight censorship, because it is a genre that often deals in the taboo, the uncomfortable, and can be an avenue to question authority and norms. Whether it is film, television, literature, music, other arts, journalism related to the genre or education in and study of the genre, those working in or related to horror have always faced challenges to their free expression and their desire to explore ideas and topics which may challenge power or discomfit the majority.
Horror in the 1st would exist to combat this, because the clear rise in challenges to free expression threaten the ability of those who create or work in fields related to the genre, and our ability to engage with and enjoy those works as fans and audiences. This would be achieved through a three part process.
The first part is to approach as many people working in the genre and related fields as possible, to create and sign a declaration of solidarity in standing against censorship and challenges to free expression of works within and about the genre. The wider the cross section of creators, journalists, academics, entertainers, the better, and it is important that cross section includes not just the most recognizable names, but also those whose work would be considered more obscure, and to insure it is as diverse across lines of identity as possible. For instance, independent filmmakers, micro-budget filmmakers, authors who tend to be published in small presses, self publishing authors, podcasters with large or small audiences, etc. If their work is in the genre or focuses on the genre, they should be encouraged to sign the declaration, and to feel mission of Horror in the 1st is to include them. The goal is to begin to establish a pluralistic, intersectional cross section, with the ability to represent anyone working in the genre, and have the dexterity to understand and address unique ways challenges to their creation or public presentation of their work may occur. By harnessing a collection of people who work across mediums, and with different audiences, it would give those contributing to Horror in the 1st the unique opportunity to use the skills and talents they’ve honed to reach the widest possible audience who already have an affinity for horror, with the goal of insuring horror continues to be a genre where free expression is possible.
The second part would be to start creating what amounts to public education materials, be it YouTube vides, podcasts, social media content and the like, specifically highlighting the history of censorship of works of horror and the genre in general. The intent here is essentially to use the audience interest in horror to start to educate them about the various ways censorship and challenges to free expression occur. This would, by definition, also mean opportunities to educate the audience about how that censorship often comes from prejudices, bias and bigotry already at work in the culture. Public education materials should not be limited to a focus on The United States, as there is the twofold benefit of expressing solidarity with horror creators and people in related fields internationally, and also help educate the audience within the US about how to recognize the way censorship and repression of free expression work, what its consequences are, and what tactics and techniques have been used to gain public support for them. This, again, would benefit from the pooling of the considerable amount of talent and experience of the people who work in or related to horror, and ideally, would be self directed and motivated, based on specific initiatives.
The third part would be to create opportunities for action, and fundraise for legal fights. The idea is that Horror in the 1st could become someplace that people working in the genre or fields related can turn for support if they face censorship or challenges to their freedom of expression. For example, if an author is facing book banning, Horror in the 1st would be able to contact those who’ve signed the declaration of solidarity, as well as contacting the audience that has interacted with the material and content Horror in the 1st produces, to ask they publicize the specific case and create pressure on the entities who are advocating the censorship and the entities who have the power to install and/or enforce it, like school boards, library oversight boards etc. It would also be able to do this in relation to film exhibition, performance venues etc.
If these conflicts should devolve into legal fights, Horror in the 1st will also be able to use this same network of creators and fans to petition the public for support and donations to support those legal fights, especially for creators and others in related fields who may not have the resources to afford representation. Horror in the 1st should be willing to work with other entities/organizations engaged in similar efforts, where they overlap. The whole of the focus of Horror in the 1st should be about protecting the genre’s ability to be an avenue for free expression. If there is state or federal legislation creating new barriers to free expression within horror or creating new regimes of censorship (even if said legislation doesn’t specifically name horror or works within/related to it), Horror in the 1st should be willing to work with any and all entities engaged against that effort.
It is likely there will be some question about why it is necessary or effective to create an organization dedicated to free expression within horror, as opposed to free expression as a whole. There are two specific answers.
First, there is an ability to use horror as an avenue of education and motivation of the public who indulges in anything related to the genre. It’s an opportunity to reach an audience of people who may not fully considered the importance of free expression in horror or have much of a knowledge base about its history, and to engage their affinity for the genre as a way to motivate them to take action, but also to increase their understanding of the importance of freedom of expression and how to fight for it more broadly. There is a portion of the horror audience who can be reached through their love of the genre, that might not be engaged with the broader ideas about free expression and censorship, and there is no reason not to try to reach and motivate them. There is also an opportunity for the considerable talent and intelligence of the people working in or related to horror to use those to contribute to the continuing health of horror and free expression as an extension of it.
Second, it’s unfortunately true that horror often finds itself alone in the battles against censorship it has faced. As genres are concerned, and within the arts and communication broadly, horror has historically been somewhat maligned and marginalized. Because it does often broach topics or content considered taboo or norm breaking, by nature challenging the majority perspective, works of and creators within horror can find themselves without the support of organizations and individuals who do otherwise take an interest in supporting free expression more broadly. Horror has often in the past been the “canary in the coal mine” where matters of censorship are concerned. The history of public sentiment and discourse related to things like violence in media, Satanic Panic, sex in media, all demonstrate this. We can look to the history of the comic book as a medium to cite the way horror was used as one of the main targets in creating a censorship regime which created a public perception that the comics are for children, as opposed to just being another storytelling medium, that can encompass any material or content, for children or adults. Considering how many challenges to free expression we’re currently seeing, creating Horror in the 1st would be a way to proactively prepare for instances when more “mainstream” support of works within or related to the genre is not forthcoming. It gives us a better opportunity to take care of our own, when other organizations and individuals who might have the status and resources to contribute refuse to defend the genre, and works within and related to it.
The second part would be to start creating what amounts to public education materials, be it YouTube vides, podcasts, social media content and the like, specifically highlighting the history of censorship of works of horror and the genre in general. The intent here is essentially to use the audience interest in horror to start to educate them about the various ways censorship and challenges to free expression occur. This would, by definition, also mean opportunities to educate the audience about how that censorship often comes from prejudices, bias and bigotry already at work in the culture. Public education materials should not be limited to a focus on The United States, as there is the twofold benefit of expressing solidarity with horror creators and people in related fields internationally, and also help educate the audience within the US about how to recognize the way censorship and repression of free expression work, what its consequences are, and what tactics and techniques have been used to gain public support for them. This, again, would benefit from the pooling of the considerable amount of talent and experience of the people who work in or related to horror, and ideally, would be self directed and motivated, based on specific initiatives.
The third part would be to create opportunities for action, and fundraise for legal fights. The idea is that Horror in the 1st could become someplace that people working in the genre or fields related can turn for support if they face censorship or challenges to their freedom of expression. For example, if an author is facing book banning, Horror in the 1st would be able to contact those who’ve signed the declaration of solidarity, as well as contacting the audience that has interacted with the material and content Horror in the 1st produces, to ask they publicize the specific case and create pressure on the entities who are advocating the censorship and the entities who have the power to install and/or enforce it, like school boards, library oversight boards etc. It would also be able to do this in relation to film exhibition, performance venues etc.
If these conflicts should devolve into legal fights, Horror in the 1st will also be able to use this same network of creators and fans to petition the public for support and donations to support those legal fights, especially for creators and others in related fields who may not have the resources to afford representation. Horror in the 1st should be willing to work with other entities/organizations engaged in similar efforts, where they overlap. The whole of the focus of Horror in the 1st should be about protecting the genre’s ability to be an avenue for free expression. If there is state or federal legislation creating new barriers to free expression within horror or creating new regimes of censorship (even if said legislation doesn’t specifically name horror or works within/related to it), Horror in the 1st should be willing to work with any and all entities engaged against that effort.
It is likely there will be some question about why it is necessary or effective to create an organization dedicated to free expression within horror, as opposed to free expression as a whole. There are two specific answers.
First, there is an ability to use horror as an avenue of education and motivation of the public who indulges in anything related to the genre. It’s an opportunity to reach an audience of people who may not fully considered the importance of free expression in horror or have much of a knowledge base about its history, and to engage their affinity for the genre as a way to motivate them to take action, but also to increase their understanding of the importance of freedom of expression and how to fight for it more broadly. There is a portion of the horror audience who can be reached through their love of the genre, that might not be engaged with the broader ideas about free expression and censorship, and there is no reason not to try to reach and motivate them. There is also an opportunity for the considerable talent and intelligence of the people working in or related to horror to use those to contribute to the continuing health of horror and free expression as an extension of it.
Second, it’s unfortunately true that horror often finds itself alone in the battles against censorship it has faced. As genres are concerned, and within the arts and communication broadly, horror has historically been somewhat maligned and marginalized. Because it does often broach topics or content considered taboo or norm breaking, by nature challenging the majority perspective, works of and creators within horror can find themselves without the support of organizations and individuals who do otherwise take an interest in supporting free expression more broadly. Horror has often in the past been the “canary in the coal mine” where matters of censorship are concerned. The history of public sentiment and discourse related to things like violence in media, Satanic Panic, sex in media, all demonstrate this. We can look to the history of the comic book as a medium to cite the way horror was used as one of the main targets in creating a censorship regime which created a public perception that the comics are for children, as opposed to just being another storytelling medium, that can encompass any material or content, for children or adults. Considering how many challenges to free expression we’re currently seeing, creating Horror in the 1st would be a way to proactively prepare for instances when more “mainstream” support of works within or related to the genre is not forthcoming. It gives us a better opportunity to take care of our own, when other organizations and individuals who might have the status and resources to contribute refuse to defend the genre, and works within and related to it.
Comments
Post a Comment