Censorship: Part I

First, for the benefit of my Libertarian friends out there, allow me to explain what is not censorship. When our government hunts down, busts, and imprisons Internet child pornographers, nobody’s Freedom of Expression has been violated. Government has a responsibility to protect us from predators who would destroy our children. We have a responsibility to protect our children. We must protect even our teen-aged children from groups like the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), whose members believe that grown men should be able to sleep with young boys as long as the boys agree. Kids have rights, they say, and we don’t force them. They don’t force these boys into bed with them using knives and guns, to be sure. Rather they coerce the young and vulnerable with sweet-talk, a place to live, spending money...wherever there’s a void, they fill it. Surely, there is a role for government to play here.

But I am an adult. My government has no right to protect me from myself. Two consenting adults may do whatever they want to each other—however unhealthy, however offensive, however immoral [you may think it is]—and post photos and video for the world to see. I may choose to watch their depravity; I may choose not to, but that choice belongs to me. To censor, hunt down, bust and imprison the depraved would be immoral, offensive, and unhealthy to all who cherish liberty.

The First Amendment exists not to protect the majority, but rather, to protect the unpopular, offensive, minority opinions. Majorities don’t need protection.

Banning racist speech in the market place of ideas is probably not censorship. People have no control over their race. Science has demonstrated emphatically that racial differences are wholly irrelevant: debating those differences serves no useful purpose. Given our history, I think it’s safe to say that racist speech should be labeled “fighting words,” and consequently should not be protected. Cultural differences among people—religion, politics, music, literature, etc.—are a very different thing. People choose their culture. Efforts by some individuals to persuade others to reconsider their choices must be protected free speech however offended some groups may be. I am free to insult your irrational faith; you’re free to hate my blog. If I want to have a Mohammed drawing competition, I can. If you don’t like it, don’t participate. If I want to make a movie depicting Jesus and his apostles as gay lovers, I can. If you don’t like it, don’t go to see it.

The problem of censorship arises when some adults encounter ideas in the market place that they find offensive or immoral. They feel they’re on a mission to rid the world of immorality, and they wrongly assume this means that they have a right to police the market place, banning any speech they find objectionable. These people must know that they have no right to censor the thinking of any other man, yet in their determination to silence certain voices, they willfully ignore the First Amendment. In the name of some “greater good” [e.g. to protect the children] they ban books, declare government ownership of the electromagnetic spectrum, license only broadcasters who pass muster, place countless rules and regulations on television and radio broadcasters, police the air waves, and dump massive fines on individuals who refuse to play by their rules.

The job of monitoring what my kids watch, play, or listen to is mine. I accept that responsibility and reject our government’s unlawful policing of speech in this country.