I was talking about Feynman book that published by one of famous publishing house in Indonesia. The book is pretty famous as a popular science book ; it’s “Surely You’re Joking Mr. Feynman”. This book published with the new title, “Cerdas Jenaka Cara Nobelis Fisika” (can be translated as Witty Intelligent Way of Physics Nobelist”.
Perhaps, morality become the most important consideration. Actually I disagree with the idea of censoring translation book. Readers have rights to judge what they have read without being directed by the publisher or translator. Otherwise, publisher have rights not to publish kinds of books that are incompatible with their religions/belief/moral standard/objectives or whatever.
I have meet some children that say, “I want to be Feynman”, and not only children actually. The adult physicist will say the same. How do you want to be like Feynman personally? He is cool, nice and fun. How do you know that? I read “Surely you are…..”
Oh Man! I am not sure that you still idolize Feynman if you read the original text! By the way, academically, he only produced 37 research paper.
This is a small example, how censorship can lead the readers to misleading. Messy censorship giving an incomplete picture for the readers. Not only incomplete, it can be totally wrong sometimes.
I will give you a big example. Einstein case
Most of you must be ever hear, one of Einstein’s most eagerly quoted remarks; ‘Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.’
But you may not realized that the quote was continued by Einstein,
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion. I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism. The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive.
Here is the perfect example of censorship that lead misleading. If the publishing house censor the last 2 paragraph, we will not know what kind of God that Einstein try to refer.
By considering the positive side of censorship itself. It seems like the publishing house intend to protect certain values (morality, religion etc.) inside the society. However, any kind of censorship that eliminated or even change the true picture of the author is a fraud and infringement copyright.
You can check the originality of Einstein quote by searching a famous paper justifying his statement ‘I do not believe in a personal God that was wrote by Einstein in 1940 or read Max Jammer’s book; Einstein and Religion.