An 'interesting' thing might happen in the future if this forces people to censor themselves. In Iran, for example (according to part of a documentary I saw), journalists and writers have to be creative in order to say what they want w/o actually saying what they want (ie, they let their audience read between the lines). While far from ideal, constraints can breed creativity.
While far from ideal, constraints can breed creativity.
Hey, that's right! If the FBI gives you a National Security Letter, make National Security Lemonade!
I think that habitual hinting (which is what "let their audience read between the lines" ultimately comes down to) would lead to destruction of communication. Everybody ends up spending a lot of time on deciding which alternative meaning is merited, which words are code words, and communication ultimately becomes impossible. Take a look at http://www.kcna.kp/kcna.user.home.retrieveHomeInfoList.kcmsf for an example.
I'm the last person to be for surveilance/censorship but in such a situation as I described one would have to become creative or leave the country. That's all I'm saying.
While I in no way condone censorship or dictatorship I can remember a few pieces.
Triumph of the Will is still looked at as a millstone in cinema, and the soviets produced very memorable sculptural works such as The Motherland Calls to name two. Both regimes also had some of the most memorable (propoganda) posters ever made, that are still awesome visual works to this day (even though the content they communicate is abominable).
Point taken, the Nazis had hilariously bad taste in art. But what about Pasternak, Solzhenitsyn, and the rest of the great Soviet dissident literary canon?
