jha@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Jamie Andrews) (05/25/89)
In article <3302@tank.uchicago.edu> stel@tank.uchicago.edu (stelios valavanis) writes: >This censorship thing is really scary. I think everybody should be completely >against it. That's why I'd like to see what people for it have to say. I >want to see what makes them tick. So, how 'bout it. Anybody for censorship? >Let's see what you have to say! There still is free speech you know. "For Censorship?" What does this mean? In favour of total freedom of the people in power to censor anything they want? In that case, of course not. No one is... except maybe some people in power. In favour of giving the legal system some way of censoring certain selected things? Yes, I raise my hand. This issue could (and does) go on forever in followups, so I've written a dialogue between myself (pro-ability-to-censor) and an unnamed "Other" (totally-anti-censorship). I hope this can summarize and cut short some of the endless debate. Again, apologies for the length, I hope it's at least entertaining. -- Jamie: When it comes to individual cases, individual questions of whether we should or should not censor a particular work, I usually find myself agreeing with the anti-censorship people that we should not. However, I think we should have the power to censor things like child pornography and hate literature. Other: Why? No one's forcing you to read those things if they offend you, and no one would force anyone to sell them. J: The question is not whether anyone is simply offended by them, or forced to read or sell them, but whether they are dangerous. O: How can a piece of written work be dangerous? J: If it promotes dangerous ideas. O: Hoo boy, "dangerous ideas" -- that sounds like something out of the McCarthy era, or Stalinist Russia. I think we shouldn't have the power to police what other people think. J: In these cases, it's not a question of what people think as much as a question of prejudices, desires and irrational motivations. Literature that plays on these things to advocate harmful acts is like someone aiding and abetting a crime. O: The typical socialist crap, "we have to save all these stupid people from their own devices." Bullsh*t. J: Look, written words have the power to encourage people to do things. Advertisers have known this for years. If we think that everyone analyzes everything they read totally dispassionately and act accordingly, we're fooling ourselves. O: So if I hate Jell-o(tm), and I see enough ads telling me how great Jell-o is, then suddenly I'll wake up one day loving Jell-o? J: Probably not, but if you liked Jell-o a bit, seeing enough ads about it might make you like it more. If it didn't work, why would advertisers do it? It's the same with pieces that promote dangerous ideas. O: But what are "dangerous ideas"? If I write an article encouraging people to participate in an illegal strike, should that be censored? J: Well, now we're down to individual cases, which is where I think the debate about censorship should be conducted. No, I don't think it should be censored. O: Why not? I'm advocating an illegal act, aren't I? J: Yes, but there's some debate over whether illegal strikes are a valid form of political expression, and I don't think anyone except some child molesters thinks that the typical child *likes* getting molested. O: I don't think governments and public opinion should decide what other people can think. J: But public opinion and government studies *do* decide what other people can *do*, in the form of laws. We have laws against people having sex with children because enough people, whether they've studied it technically or not, agree that having sex with children can cause them great harm. O: Then let people know that, promote *that* idea in the free marketplace of ideas, and the demand for child pornography will go away. J: I agree, but until it goes away we have to stop it from growing by whatever means possible. Whether to have sex with a child is not decided by completely rational means; it's decided by a complex system of desires and compulsions. If those desires and compulsions are reinforced by literature, pedophiles are more likely to act out their desires. O: Prove it. J: I don't want to prove it, because any experiment which would prove it would be inherently immoral. Either that, or it would probably not be conclusive enough to satisfy you, because it would not simulate real conditions. We have to break off the "scientific" analysis at some point and do some philosophy, some introspection, make some reasonable guesses about people's behaviour. That's what we *always* do when we formulate laws. O: So you think that if enough people think that pornography leads to rape, you should ban pornography. J: I think public opinion should be taken into account, yes. But in this case, I think the argument that all pornography leads to rape is nonsensical, and I would hope that the lawmakers would look beyond that. O: Wait a minute, weren't you just advocating censorship of child pornography? J: Yes, I think pornography promotes whatever acts it depicts. If it depicts just naked adults, or adults having non-coercive sex, I can't see how that promotes rape. I am, however, equally opposed to pornography that depicts or encourages rape. O: Why? If the people involved *are* getting raped, then there are laws that can handle that. J: Of course. But I'm talking about the effects of the porn, which I think are harmful whether or not the acts being depicted or described have actually been enacted to make the porn. O: *You* think! *You* think! Where do you get off wanting to force people to think the way you do? J: I *don't* want to. I'm just putting my $.02 into this particular debate. The final decision must be with a consensus of lawmakers deciding what are dangerous ideas to promote. If a pedophile has the idea that children like and desire sex, and it has no ill effects on them, I think that's a dangerous idea. The right of children to live a life free of exploitation supersedes the right of someone to plant such ideas. O: What if someone decides that Christianity is a "dangerous idea" because it's caused so many wars in the past? J: Again, you're confusing the ability to make censorship laws with the absolute ability of some totalitarian government to censor things because "someone decides" they're bad. We might as well say "let's not have any laws at all, since governments can misuse the ability to make laws". O: Yes, we might as well! J: OK, well I don't want to get into debates about libertarianism/ anarchism/etc. here. O: Aren't you a member of Amnesty International, which promotes the right of people to express opinions? J: Yes. Generally they help people who have been imprisoned for speaking out against the government on political issues. The day they try to get child pornographers out of jail is the day I leave it. O: Freedom of speech is a principle, you either believe it or you don't. I think you're being hypocritical. J: That's exactly what I'm arguing against. The choice is not between absolute freedom of speech and absolute right of the government to censor anything, it's between absolute freedom of speech and the ability to make *some* laws to censor things. You don't believe that people should be able to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre, do you? So you don't believe in absolutely absolute freedom of speech. O: That's different, obviously. We're talking here about the free marketplace of ideas. J: Is people producing pro-pedophilia magazines, sold to people who look for that material to validate their irrational desires, part of a free marketplace of ideas? Is someone handing out misleading racist pamphlets on the street to people who may never follow the debates about racism, part of a free marketplace of ideas? O: Well, who is to decide what is or isn't? You? J: No, lawmakers, judges and juries. They've been deciding the interpretation of phrases like "beyond reasonable doubt", "with malicious intent" and so on, for centuries. O: Where does it stop? What if the lawmakers start censoring other things, like Hitler or Stalin did? J: Then we should make it a big enough issue to kick them out. And if we can't kick them out, then censorship will probably be the least of our problems. -- Jell-o is probably a trademark of someone. Hope this has been illuminating, --Jamie. jha@lfcs.ed.ac.uk "How can we sleep while our beds are burning"