Judicial Censorship as a Place for the Breakdown of Positivist Jurisprudential Discourse

Abstract

This paper discusses one form of censorship: judicial inhibition of publishing. This kind of act places discourse on judicial positivism, the widest positivist school of jurisprudence, in a borderline situation. Positivism is a captive of the illusion of the “here and now” of meaning. The law can almost be held in hand. It is the statute book lying on the table, with its text clearly structured in paragraphs so that anyone can read and understand it effortlessly. Upon obtaining a judicial decision for censorship, this discourse breaks down. It is not only that “vague notions” in literary interpretation are created, but also that a firm articulation of meaning – that is, theticism – disappears. Artistic texts do not “assert” anything. On the other hand, in its verdict the court still has to accuse the author of stating something that is forbidden: “insulted”, “instigated”, “slandered”, “called”, and so on. How is it possible to bridge this gap between the positivist concentration on the “here and now” of meaning, and the obvious unsuitability of this approach for truth in literature? This paper shows that this gap has never existed and that the interpretation of both judicial and literary texts is based on the same openness of the interpreter to the meaning as such.