Suchergebnisse

The article analyses the relationship between the concepts: "censorship", "taboo" and "shame" on the material taken from the reading of censorship reports from the years 1948–1958. It can be assumed that: 1. censorship is an external control established by governmental or religious institutions; 2. taboo is a prohibition imposed by external bodies (mostly religious), but externalised by the subject; 3. shame is an emotion preventing from something considered inappropriate — the level of internalisation seems very deep here, the subject may not even be aware of the imposition of this condition by external institutions. Both quite subtle differences between the concepts (especially between "taboo" and "shame") and common places — realisations during which the "launch" of censorship, taboo, and shame is simultaneously activated — appear interestingly. An example might be here taken from the moral censorship, where imposed by culture, imbued and accepted sense of what indecent is, has an influence on the legal regulations and the state control practice.

Meanders and paradoxes of interwar film censorship in PolandThe article concerns film censorship in Poland in the interwar period. The first detailed rules on censorship appeared in February 1919. Due to the small level of film production, these provisions related primarily to distribution and screenings. The detailed instructions for censors from 1920 cited in the text contain a long list of prohibitions concerning the presentation of scenes and images "contrary to law and public morality." In practice, film was subject to political, moral, military, religious, and also artistic censorship. The article presents the ways to circumvent censorship guidelines used by distributors and cinema owners, as well as a critical evaluation of the activities of this institution in the eyes of film publicists. ; Meanders and paradoxes of interwar fi lm censorship in PolandThe article concerns film censorship in Poland in the interwar period. The first detailed rules on censorship appeared in February 1919. Due to the small level of film production, these provisions related primarily to distribution and screenings. The detailed instructions for censors from 1920 cited in the text contain a long list of prohibitions concerning the presentation of scenes and images "contrary to law and public morality." In practice, film was subject to political, moral, military, religious, and also artistic censorship. The article presents the ways to circumvent censorship guidelines used by distributors and cinema owners, as well as a critical evaluation of the activities of this institution in the eyes of film publicists.

During the restitution of the Polish Statehood in 1918, the individual provinces maintained the laws of the previous occupying powers with regard to regulating the freedom of the press and specific procedures of the oversight that state authorities had over the press activities. Since January 1919, there was an option to impose a confiscation of any publication in the part of Polish Republic, in which a martial law was in effect. This route, allowing for the introduction of preventive censorship, was used in June 1919 by the Supreme People's Council, an organization that was in power in the Wielkopolska district (of the former Prussian partition). The volatile situation at the front of the Polish–Bolshevik war prompted the Polish authorities to uniform the laws regarding preventive censorships. Subsequently, the Council of National Defense issued on July 19th, 1920 a decree introducing the preventive censorship on the territory of the Polish state. Despite the lack of respective executive directives from the Ministries of Internal Affairs and Ministry of Former Prussian Partition, the Poznań city mayor [starosta grodzki] started implementing the preventive censorship regulations already on July 22, 1920. These restrictions pertained to publications relevant to the army and matters of state defense. However, the implementation of these regulations was aborted after the Polish Parliament approved on October 29, 1920 a bill abolishing a preventive censorship. Nonetheless, the Wielkoposka district waited until November 25, 1920 when the Poznań city mayor [starosta grodzki] issued a document revoking his previous decree about preventive censorship. ; Agnieszka Uziębło

Censorship has often been regarded as the archenemy of artists, thinkers and writers. But has this always been the case? This research paper proposes that censorship is not a total evil or adversarial force which thwarts and hinders twentieth-century writers, particularly those who were part of the artistic, aesthetic, philosophical and intellectual movement known as Modernism. Though the word "censor" originally means a Roman official who, in the past, had a duty to monitor access to writing, the agents of censorship – particularly those in the modern times – are not in every case overt and easy to identify. Though Modernist writers openly condemn censorship, many of them nevertheless take on the role of censors who not only condone but also undergo self--censorship or censorship of others. In many cases in Modernist literature, readership and literary production, the binary opposition of victim and victimiser, as well as of censored and censor, is questioned and challenged. This research paper offers an analysis of the ways in which Virginia Woolf (1882–1941), Allen Ginsberg (1926–1997), Czesław Miłosz (1911–2004) and Bohumil Hrabal (1914–1997) lived and wrote by negotiating with many forms of censorship ranging from state censorship, social censorship, political censorship, moral censorship to self-censorship. It is a study of the ways in which these writers problematise and render ambiguity to the seemingly clear-cut and mutually exclusive division between the oppressive censor and the oppressed writer. The selected writers not only criticise and compromise with censorship, but also thematise and translate it into their works. ; Censorship has often been regarded as the archenemy of artists, thinkers and writers. But has this always been the case? This research paper proposes that censorship is not a total evil or adversarial force which thwarts and hinders twentieth-century writers, particularly those who were part of the artistic, aesthetic, philosophical and intellectual movement known as Modernism. Though the word "censor" originally means a Roman official who, in the past, had a duty to monitor access to writing, the agents of censorship – particularly those in the modern times – are not in every case overt and easy to identify. Though Modernist writers openly condemn censorship, many of them nevertheless take on the role of censors who not only condone but also undergo self--censorship or censorship of others. In many cases in Modernist literature, readership and literary production, the binary opposition of victim and victimiser, as well as of censored and censor, is questioned and challenged. This research paper offers an analysis of the ways in which Virginia Woolf (1882–1941), Allen Ginsberg (1926–1997), Czesław Miłosz (1911–2004) and Bohumil Hrabal (1914–1997) lived and wrote by negotiating with many forms of censorship ranging from state censorship, social censorship, political censorship, moral censorship to self-censorship. It is a study of the ways in which these writers problematise and render ambiguity to the seemingly clear-cut and mutually exclusive division between the oppressive censor and the oppressed writer. The selected writers not only criticise and compromise with censorship, but also thematise and translate it into their works.

The assumption that censorship would effectively maintain the Austrian Empire in the state of political apathy was false in its very nature. These restrictions not only did not insure but also humiliate the government, being an inspiration to numerous supporters of the freedom of speech. Beyond the borders of monarchy, the naive and unbearable system was mocked at and any fact of its violation was eagerly greeted. In these conditions young writers from Lviv, with Leszek Dunin Borkowski in the lead, shattered the political fundaments of monarchy to such an extent that in 1848 censorship was abolished for a short time. This time of freedom enabled publishing of many manuscripts but it did not influence the cultural and literary bloom in Galicia. The next years after restoring censorship entirely stopped the activity of the romantic writers who abandoned their work or became editors of the pro-government newspapers. ; Założenie, że cenzurze uda się utrzymać Cesarstwo Austriackie w stanie politycznej apatii już w swojej naturze było fałszywe. Wprowadzone ograniczenia przyczyniły się nie tylko do wzrostu niepewności, ale także upokorzyły rząd, stając się inspiracją dla wielu zwolenników wolności słowa. Poza granicami monarchii, naiwny i nie do zniesienia system wyśmiewano, a każdy fakt jego naruszenia był ochoczo witany. W takich warunkach młodzi pisarze ze Lwowa, z Leszkiem Duninem Borkowskim na czele, starali się rozbijać polityczne fundamenty monarchii do tego stopnia, że w 1848 r. na krótki czas cenzura została zniesiona. W czasie wolności umożliwiono publikowanie wielu rękopisów, ale to nie wpłynęło na rozkwit kultury i literatury w Galicji. Kolejne lata po przywrócenia cenzury całkowicie wstrzymały działalność pisarzy okresu romantyzmu, którzy porzucili pracę lub stali się redaktorami gazet prorządowych.

Polska Ludowa, published since April 1, 1945 in Poznañ, was among the most important periodicals of the Polish People's Party (PSL), presided over by Stanis³aw Miko³ajczyk. The periodical consistently tried to present an image of reality that diverged from the model followed by the press coverage of other political parties, therefore it suffered from large scale censorship. The Regional Authority for the Control of Press, Publications and Performances did not permit the publication of news that could disturb the image of political life created by government propaganda. Therefore, articles prepared in the periodical from Wielkopolska were systematically purged of any references to the high social support enjoyed by the PSL or the party being discriminated against by state institutions. All releases describing cases of political terrorism were also blocked. All mentions of the Polish Workers' Party (PPR) and its representatives in state authorities were particularly investigated. Censors would delete expressions that evidenced the privileged status of this party or its methods of political competition that defied the principles of democracy. This is indicated by the numerous steps censors took in the periods running up to parliamentary elections. Censors made frequent interventions in articles on social and economic topics as well. Significant restrictions also concerned articles discussing living conditions, security and economic crimes and abuses. The issues of international relations were touched on by Polska Ludowa to a smaller extent, which made censors pay particular attention to articles concerning the Soviet Union. ; Polska Ludowa, published since April 1, 1945 in Poznañ, was among the most important periodicals of the Polish People's Party (PSL), presided over by Stanis³aw Miko³ajczyk. The periodical consistently tried to present an image of reality that diverged from the model followed by the press coverage of other political parties, therefore it suffered from large scale censorship. The Regional Authority for the Control of Press, Publications and Performances did not permit the publication of news that could disturb the image of political life created by government propaganda. Therefore, articles prepared in the periodical from Wielkopolska were systematically purged of any references to the high social support enjoyed by the PSL or the party being discriminated against by state institutions. All releases describing cases of political terrorism were also blocked. All mentions of the Polish Workers' Party (PPR) and its representatives in state authorities were particularly investigated. Censors would delete expressions that evidenced the privileged status of this party or its methods of political competition that defied the principles of democracy. This is indicated by the numerous steps censors took in the periods running up to parliamentary elections. Censors made frequent interventions in articles on social and economic topics as well. Significant restrictions also concerned articles discussing living conditions, security and economic crimes and abuses. The issues of international relations were touched on by Polska Ludowa to a smaller extent, which made censors pay particular attention to articles concerning the Soviet Union.

Underground literature exists only in historical archives or in private collec­tions – and stands no chance of affecting the contemporary debate. Who would be now really interested in liberal views or thematic and aesthetic diversity of underground literature when radical forces, fake news and trolls increasingly shape communication in the public space? Can the escalation of ideological conflicts in Poland lead to a more instrumental approach towards the myth of dissident literature and the press by political actors? What potential for literary and cultural research (but also for teaching) does the underground literature and press have? Does the transition from samizdat to digitization facilitate cultivating memory about these publications? And last but not least, is it time to demythologize some aspects of this culture? 30 years after the abolition of censorship, a question can still be asked why heroes of the Polish history such as printers, distributors and authors are not present in popular forms of remembrance. ; Literatura podziemna istnieje obecnie tylko w archiwach historycznych lub w zbiorach prywatnych i nie ma szansy wpłynąć na współczesny dyskurs. Któż byłby dziś naprawdę zainteresowany prezentowanymi w niej liberal­nymi poglądami, jej różnorodnością tematyczną i estetyczną, kiedy radykalne siły, fake newsy i trolle w coraz większym stopniu kształtują komunikację w przestrzeni publicznej? Czy eskalacja konfliktów ideologicznych w Polsce może prowadzić do instrumentalizacji mitu literatury i prasy dysydenckiej przez uczestników życia politycznego? Jaki potencjał dla badań literaturo-i kulturoznawczych oraz dydaktyki tkwi w podziemnej literaturze i prasie? Czy digitalizacja druków drugoobiegowych ułatwia kultywowanie pamięci o tych publikacjach? I wreszcie – czy nadszedł czas demitologizacji niektó­rych aspektów kultury niezależnej? 30 lat po zniesieniu cenzury nadal aktualne jest pytanie o nieobecność w popularnych formach pamięci bohaterów polskiej historii – drukarzy, kol­porterów i autorów.

Polska Ludowa, published since April 1, 1945 in Poznañ, was among the most important periodicals of the Polish People's Party (PSL), presided over by Stanis³aw Miko³ajczyk. The periodical consistently tried to present an image of reality that diverged from the model followed by the press coverage of other political parties, therefore it suffered from large scale censorship. The Regional Authority for the Control of Press, Publications and Performances did not permit the publication of news that could disturb the image of political life created by government propaganda. Therefore, articles prepared in the periodical from Wielkopolska were systematically purged of any references to the high social support enjoyed by the PSL or the party being discriminated against by state institutions. All releases describing cases of political terrorism were also blocked. All mentions of the Polish Workers' Party (PPR) and its representatives in state authorities were particularly investigated. Censors would delete expressions that evidenced the privileged status of this party or its methods of political competition that defied the principles of democracy. This is indicated by the numerous steps censors took in the periods running up to parliamentary elections. Censors made frequent interventions in articles on social and economic topics as well. Significant restrictions also concerned articles discussing living conditions, security and economic crimes and abuses. The issues of international relations were touched on by Polska Ludowa to a smaller extent, which made censors pay particular attention to articles concerning the Soviet Union.

Researchers into censorship in communist Poland have often analysed the relations existing between the censorship authorities and creatorsor publishers, but have more rarely examined the relationship between the state political authorities and the Central Office of Control of the Press, Publications and Performances (later the Central Office of Control of Publications and Performances). The author of this article considers the strength of the controlling influence of the authorities on censorship, reaching the conclusion that the impact of the communist party and state on censors' decisions was smaller than has generally been thought. The author believes that the censors had a certain degree of independence. This was the result of, among others insufficient personnel and organizational connections between the party and censorship, and faulty provisions regarding the regulation of censorship. Therefore, although censorship was an integral part of a totalitarian state, it probably did not always support its decisions, despite the party's strenuous efforts to make it so. Partly because of this, many publications have appeared in Poland that would not see the light of day in other countries, so-called communist block. ; Badacze cenzury w Polsce Ludowej wielokrotnie analizowali relacje zachodzące pomiędzy organami cenzury a twórcami i wydawcami, rzadziej natomiast powiązania władz polityczno-państwowych z Głównym Urzędem Kontroli Prasy, Publikacji i Widowisk (później Głównym Urzędem Kontroli Publikacji i Widowisk). Autor artykułu zastanawia się nad siłą kontrolnego oddziaływania władzy na cenzurę, dochodząc do wniosku, że wpływ partii komunistycznej i państwa na decyzje cenzury mógł być mniejszy niż zwykło się uważać. Jego zdaniem cenzura była w pewnym stopniu niezależna. Stanowiło to rezultat m.in. niedostatecznych powiązań kadrowo-organizacyjnych pomiędzy partią a cenzurą oraz wadliwych przepisów prawnych regulujących działalność cenzury. Dlatego, pomimo że cenzura była integralną częścią totalitarnego państwa, prawdopodobnie nie zawsze jej decyzje wspierały to państwo, mimo usilnych starań partii, aby tak było. M.in. dzięki temu, w Polsce ukazało się wiele publikacji, które nie ujrzałyby światła dziennego w innych krajach tzw. demokracji ludowej.

Researchers into censorship in communist Poland have often analysed the relations existing between the censorship authorities and creatorsor publishers, but have more rarely examined the relationship between the state political authorities and the Central Office of Control of the Press, Publications and Performances (later the Central Office of Control of Publications and Performances). The author of this article considers the strength of the controlling influence of the authorities on censorship, reaching the conclusion that the impact of the communist party and state on censors' decisions was smaller than has generally been thought. The author believes that the censors had a certain degree of independence. This was the result of, among others insufficient personnel and organizational connections between the party and censorship, and faulty provisions regarding the regulation of censorship. Therefore, although censorship was an integral part of a totalitarian state, it probably did not always support its decisions, despite the party's strenuous efforts to make it so. Partly because of this, many publications have appeared in Poland that would not see the light of day in other countries, so-called communist block. ; Badacze cenzury w Polsce Ludowej wielokrotnie analizowali relacje zachodzące pomiędzy organami cenzury a twórcami i wydawcami, rzadziej natomiast powiązania władz polityczno-państwowych z Głównym Urzędem Kontroli Prasy, Publikacji i Widowisk (później Głównym Urzędem Kontroli Publikacji i Widowisk). Autor artykułu zastanawia się nad siłą kontrolnego oddziaływania władzy na cenzurę, dochodząc do wniosku, że wpływ partii komunistycznej i państwa na decyzje cenzury mógł być mniejszy niż zwykło się uważać. Jego zdaniem cenzura była w pewnym stopniu niezależna. Stanowiło to rezultat m.in. niedostatecznych powiązań kadrowo-organizacyjnych pomiędzy partią a cenzurą oraz wadliwych przepisów prawnych regulujących działalność cenzury. Dlatego, pomimo że cenzura była integralną częścią totalitarnego państwa, prawdopodobnie nie zawsze jej decyzje wspierały to państwo, mimo usilnych starań partii, aby tak było. M.in. dzięki temu, w Polsce ukazało się wiele publikacji, które nie ujrzałyby światła dziennego w innych krajach tzw. demokracji ludowej.

In 1926, in "Myśl Narodowa", Aleksander Świętochowski wrote among others: "For almost fifty years my spirit has endured the torture of Russian censorship, suffering torments, and yet I felt less terror then than I do now." Such a comparison of the Russian censorship (foreign) to the Polish one (native), favourable to the former, was seen by many as highly controversial. Was it a valid comparison? Can foreigncensorship be judged according to diff erent criteria than the native one? Which criteriacan one apply to the very phenomenon of censorship in general? The problem of freedom of speech and censorship took up a special place in Świętochowski's literary production: as a writer, publicist, editor and publisher he had to face numerous instances of the restrictions imposed on the freedom of speech. He used to draw attention, not only to the institutional censorship but also to the informal pressure exerted by the clerical and conservative circles. Following the concepts of Jürgen Habermas and Pierre Bourdieu this articleaims to conceptualise the sphere of the freedom of speech presented in the writingsof Aleksander Świętochowski. ; Agnieszka Uziębło

The purpose of the article is to point out the outlook of Local Censorship Office in Poznań to articles about political changes in Poland in 1956, which were published in Gazeta Poznańska. The previous research on the attitude of the press and censorship during the "Polish October" focused primarily on newspapers which were considered revisionist. Gazeta Poznańska was edited by Regional Committee of the Polish United Workers` Party and presented an official conservative point of view. The article was based on the documents from State Archive in Poznań. The basis of arrangements presented in the article were the result of the analysis of source documents created by Local Censorship Office in Poznań. They made it possible to create a category of texts which were consistently excluded from publication. This group included articles on the increase in wages and focused on the movements of Soviet troops in Poland. Censorship also blocked opinions that evaluated the earlier period of the Communist Party governments too critically and suggested dissatisfaction with the ongoing changes. The activity of censorship in Gazeta Poznańska in the year 1956 also indicates what type and level f criticism of the Communist Party at that time was considered to be admissible. The outlook of Local Censorship Office in Poznań to Gazeta Poznańska in the period of 1956 changes in Poland showed what type and level of criticism was acceptable in the Polish United Workers' Party's press.

In the light of the categorical formulation of Art. 54 paragraph 2 of the Constitution of 1997 any exception to the prohibition of preventive censorship is unacceptable. Hence the conclusion that the absolute prohibition of preventive censorship implied in the current Basic Law protects freedom of speech in the media at a higher level than required by the standards developed on the basis of the European Convention on Human Rights or Amendment I to the United States Constitution. This, however, does not change the fact that the prohibition is circumvented with the use of institutions and procedures, serving the same purpose and fulfilling analogous functions of preventive censorship. The above mentioned equivalent, in a sense, institutions and procedures must be assessed themselves as to their possible non‑compliance with constitutional norms, because formally ban on preventive censorship does not apply to them. I am primarily referring to: an injunction on publication; excessive penalization for activities of journalists, which may cause the so‑called 'chilling effect' in the form of specific auto‑censorship of the authors of press releases discouraging from participation in public debate; the institution of the authorization; ban on publishing information connected with the private sphere of life.

Ambroży Grabowski and his problems with censorship(Summary)Censorship activities on the XIX-th century book publishing market in Cracowhave been and are of interests to many historians and library scientists. It is sufficient to mention the names of T. Gutkowski, J. Bieniarzówna, B. Szyndler orA. Aleksiewicz. # ese studies show both dependency of the book and press publisherson censorship injunctions and problems with distribution of texts comingfrom offi cial and clandestine book trade. In Cracow, restrictions forced by censorshipwere evolving refl ecting changes in policy of invaders. An important event wasthe establishment in 1831 of the Committee of Censorship with its activities basedupon their Austrian origins.When analyzing contemporary problems of publishers and booksellers or depictingcensorship in the context of social life of the city, one can not ignore AmbrożyGrabowski – historian and art collector, lover of national memorabilia, but also writerand publisher, bookseller and antiquarian, astute observer of life. His relationshipwith censors concerned both his writing, publishing and bookselling. Preservedsources show his relation to the contemporary system of censorship on all these levels.# is article analyzes censorship interference in author's writings by Grabowski aswell as interference in his bookselling work associated with illegal distribution of emigrationprints, among others by: A. Mickiewicz, J. Lelewel, M. Mochnacki or H. F.de Lamennais. Grabowski's work was interrupted by search of his bookstore conductedin 1836 resulting in his trial. In his notes, he frequently referenced to the problemof censorship in Cracow – describing people and events associated with those practices.All of this makes it worthwhile to learn more about relationship of this fi gure withlocal censorship over many years and on several levels mentioned here.

A nonconformist approach to the problems of censorshipand freedom of speech (Russian and Polish) in comparative studies by Aleksander Świętochowski(Summary)In 1926, in "Myśl Narodowa", Aleksander Świętochowski wrote among others: "For almost fifty years my spirit has endured the torture of Russian censorship, suffering torments, and yet I felt less terror then than I do now." Such a comparison of the Russian censorship (foreign) to the Polish one (native), favourable to the former, was seen by many as highly controversial. Was it a valid comparison? Can foreigncensorship be judged according to diff erent criteria than the native one? Which criteriacan one apply to the very phenomenon of censorship in general? The problem of freedom of speech and censorship took up a special place in Świętochowski's literary production: as a writer, publicist, editor and publisher he had to face numerous instances of the restrictions imposed on the freedom of speech. He used to draw attention, not only to the institutional censorship but also to the informal pressure exerted by the clerical and conservative circles. Following the concepts of Jürgen Habermas and Pierre Bourdieu this articleaims to conceptualise the sphere of the freedom of speech presented in the writingsof Aleksander Świętochowski.