The kettle black

This morning in my Music 201 (History of Civilization) class, we talked a little bit about Plato’s Republic, which brought up the topic of censorship. (It’s one of the things Plato discusses to stimulate discussion, along with a government-regulated breeding program and other controversial ideas.) And I realized my opinion had changed.

First of all, there’s good and there’s evil. Moral relativity is weak in the knees and can’t even support its own weight. Some things are evil — some art, some music, some literature, etc. Not everything, granted, but the potential is there and it’s being exploited to a wide variety of ends. And of course some things are good.

As a religious person, I don’t like evil. (Ahem, that’s an understatement.) And I don’t approve of evil-minded art, music, literature, or anything else. I’d rather there not be any of it in the world. I’m sure many people feel likewise.

But the ability to choose — agency — is more important. If the government starts censoring, then the definition of what is evil falls into the hands of that government. That’s dangerous. Sure, they’ll get it right sometimes, but what if they deem evil something that I hold sacred? Persecution begins, unnecessarily. I’d rather preserve agency, because even though the bad guys can create all their muck and filth, I’ll be free to avoid it and create clean, pure, virtuous good.

So I’m against censorship.

So we should allow anyone to publish anything they want? Regardless of whether it is completely false, plagarized, exploitive, harmful, destructive? I disagree. Again, this is an area where going to extremes can cause a lot of problems. Obviously, 1984-like censorship is an extremely bad thing. But allowing total freedom, with no limitations, can cause an equal amount of chaos and ignorance: chaos because no censorship essentially says that all ideas are of equal worth, ignorance because it reduces publishing standards so much that the truth becomes obscured in a sea of fictions.

Luckily, censorship is not a choice between two extremes, but a placement on a scale. Like so many things in life, censorship is a balancing act. Although it is true that by allowing any censorship we gain the added duty to continually examine the standards by which we judge our literature, I think that this responsibility is outweighed by the benefit to society of repressing dangerous and degrading materials.

The focus of these debates should not be on simply whether we ought to have censorship; it is clear that by establishing civilization, we establish a code of conduct, which implies censorship in the very nature of a society. What we ought to focus on is the degree of censorship we should have. I personally agree with you that we should avoid simply repressing ideas that arbitrary individuals think are “evil”–look at where that leaves Harry Potter! I tend to think that censorship should be based on authorial intent: if the author has written something with the clear and present intent to cause harm to or degrade other people, it should not be allowed to exist. Of course, people are people, so we will inevitably come across “Type I” and “Type II” errors in this system, but I have faith in people. I believe that the majority of the time, we will be able to come out with correct decisions.

The problem with no censorship is that some voices, often the evil ones, have a scarry advantage. Since it is often these that are so addicting and aluring to the average or natural man, it is almost limiting the exposed individual’s ability to choose. I agree though, it is necessary to have the option, it’s just it should have limits in how loud it’s voice can be.

Liz, I think the idea of legal censorship based on the author’s intent is a slippery slope. In spiritual and personal matters, this is a wise scale to use; I will react a perceived slight from a friend differently if it is intentional than if accidental. But granting that power to government is a different matter altogether. A high degree of freedom and liberty was necessary to have a nation where the Church could be restored. As Ben implied above, decreasing that liberty (an unfortunate trend in our country over the past 100 years) will likely lead to censorship of things not originally intended to be censored.

Liz: But deciding what an author’s intent was is a difficult matter, and in an effort to avoid censorship the author would of course say that their intent wasn’t malicious/perverse/whatever. (Out of curiosity, are there any laws based on intent? It seems like it would have to be action, not intent, that has legal consequences.) I realize that not having censorship does mean that there’s a lot of garbage out there. The filth and grime bother me just as much as anyone else. (Read my Poisons and Paradise post, for example.) But I don’t think the solution is government censorship.

No human government can stop all the bad things from being published, and do you really want to relinquish your definition of good and bad to them? Just look at the MPAA — do you want a bunch of Hollywood people deciding what’s appropriate and what’s not? (I’m not condoning watching R-rated movies at all, by the way. Quite the contrary; I think a lot of PG-13 movies have content that places them squarely in the do-not-watch category.)

There will always be evil in the world; there always has. And as this earth’s time on stage is swiftly racing to the curtain call, the powers of darkness will continue to gain dominion. The dark is rising. Yes, we must fight it as best we can, but I can’t help but wonder if covering it up is all that effective. It keeps oozing out, spreading all the time, and it’s almost impossible to contain it. Instead, open up the windows and let the sun shine in. Light dispels darkness.

That’s all well and good, but what does it mean? I think it means we have to choose for ourselves. The way to stop the darkness is to fill ourselves with light (and God is the source of that light). Censoring will always be unsuccessful because the bad guys will always find ways around it. In the end, it has to come down to us. And there will be people who embrace the filth, certainly. It’s sad but true. And we have to defend their right to make that decision.

Rachel: The voices may be loud, but the way to win is to be louder. We can’t stop the film industry from producing garbage, but we can create more wholesome films that warm the heart and bring people nearer to God.

Sean: Exactly. The government is not who should be doing the censoring — it’s us, individually and as families. We can’t rely on the government to keep the filth out of our lives. We have to be the ones who shun it.

I agree with Liz that balance is needed. I’ve realized lately how difficult it is for a society as a whole to achieve balance: look at Calvin and Luther (saved by works vs. saved by grace), look at political scientists and econimists (rational choice theory explains the world; no, sociological theory explains the world; no, pluralism explains the world), look at tort reform and lawsuits… I’ve determined that balance is tough without a good measure of spirituality anchoring people. But, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t seek it. I think an absence of censure based on Sean and Ben’s arguments is dangerous. There is always the danger that government will encroach upon the rights of the good, however, government (and society behind it–speaking in terms of represenative republics like our own) needs to take a stand on issues. It needs to recognize the difference and existence of good and evil. If people should use families and their own conscious as a way of choosing what or what not to allow in their lives is a dangerous idea because it can easily lead to the idea that the government should not have a say on any issue and everyone should decide for themselves what is good or bad: abortion, drinking, drugs, molesting children, robbery, etc. I think in the case of censure, the best thing to do would be to create a basic standard of what is good and what is not and then live by it. To me, when the people as a whole choose bad and the government bends the standard to restrict the good and allow the bad–censureship becomes a moot point anyway because it is clear that everyone’s standards are backwards anyway.

Ben: On the contrary, intent often has a key role in legal proceedings. Conspiring to commit a crime (murder, robbery, terrorism) is usually punishable, even when no action has actually happened. (At least I think this is true. Legal buffs, correct me on this.) Defamation and libel I believe are also primarily based on intent: publishing incorrect facts by accident is not a crime, while publishing them on purpose with the intent to harm is.

Also, when a more normal crime (stealing, murder) is committed, the actual intent of the person has a lot to do with how they are punished. Thus we have different degrees of murder. Calculating to kill someone as a mercinary in cold blood is different than killing someone in the heat of the moment because you found them sleeping with your wife. (Clearly, the first receives a harsher punishment.)

Back to the topic at hand: no, I don’t want the government to stop all bad things from being published. As you have wisely pointed out, this would be impossible and irrational. Government does not exist to be a moral censor, and all people have to right to their own moral standard.

However, censorship does not necessarily imply that all bad things are repressed, and that the government should be the only moral standard. This is a “false choice” argument; censorship is a scale, not an either/or.

The type of censorship I envision is one of the least common denominator, the one which pretty much already exists in this country. Censor things which an enormous majority of the population can agree are bad. Some examples of things in this category include guides for building bombs or committing other crimes; encouraging in a specific manner actions which cause public harm (crimes, terrorism, random violence); pornography (again, the definition is a problem, but where the overwhelming majority of the population agrees, it should be, and is, banned); defamation and libel; etc.

Do you see what I mean? Restrict to the point of civilization, not to the point of morality. It’s similar to the difference between illegal and immoral. Some immoral actions are illegal (again, theft, forgery, murder, abuse), but some are not (immodesty, infidelity, alcohol). (Also, some illegal actions are not immoral. But that’s another topic.) Bad people still commit these illegal actions, but does that mean we should lift the restriction on them? Surely not. Just as the laws against this actions give us a safe society, so does a certain amount of censorship. These laws, as Rachel said, place a restriction on actions which would certainly be too tempting for some without them.

In general, we should place restrictions on actions and words which cause too great a harm to the public to be allowed. However, within the laws, we still have serious choices to be made about what is good and evil.

Sean: Your argument is interesting to me. What is this “unfortunate trend” you speak of? From what I understand, you would say that people have less freedom of speech (in other words, more censorship) than in the past. To me, this seems clearly not true. Watch any commercial break, read any political literature, and you can see that more evil, slander, and untruth is permitted now than would have been tolerated in past decades.

The only area that I can possibly see any reasonable person thinking this is true in the separation of church and state issue, which is an entirely different debate from censorship. Well, not entirely; they are related, but I would use different arguments to convince you about it. And even then, I would argue that we are allowed to say more now than in the past. (I am for separation of church and state on several issues, just to be clear. If we want to talk about that, I can, but I’m trying to be more general.)

Bethany and Liz: Good point, and the idea of censoring those things which the vast majority of the population consider bad seems reasonable. I think my reservations mainly had to do with small groups defining right and wrong for the citizenry as a whole; if it’s the people themselves, then that’s fine. In fact, if I recall correctly that’s the Book of Mormon attitude — let the people’s voice be heard (this was around the time of Amlici’s failed attempt to become king, I think), and if they choose evil, then they’re ripe for destruction. You’ve made a good case for it and pretty much convinced me. :)

Liz, the unfortunate trend I speak of is decreasing liberty. Over the past 100 years, we have seen a rise in compulsion and a retreat in freedom. I have no big complaints with current freedom of speech in general; I’m talking more about things like the rise of entitlement programs and increased taxation (the USA didn’t even have an income tax until 1913), the state of education, and commerce, to mention a few.

I agree there should be a common denominator of decency in censorship. What I disagreed with is using intent as the standard. I’m not a lawyer, but I think intent as you have discussed above is different from an author’s intent. In conspiring to commit a crime, aa person must actually do something (meet, discuss, plan the crime) before it is a crime. In defamation and libel, intent is not the guiding principle; it appears to me that truth is the main guidepost, with others sometimes coming into play (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation).

I see censorship as a complex issue, and agree with you that the main question is one of scale. I think common responsibility asks us to create a reasonable level of legal censorship as a common denominator; personal responsibility demands that we censor material for our selves and our homes.

Sean - You are still being very general. The examples you give are, for the most part, not decreases in liberty. Liberty and entitlement are not opposites, so I don’t see how entitlement programs can decrease freedom. (If you wanted to talk about a decrease in responsibility, then I can see your point.) Taxation is a possibility, but it’s not really a decrease in freedom so much as a change in rules. With commerce and education, you’ll have to be more specific. As I see it, liberty has increased in both areas. Maybe you are equating decrease in freedom with an increase in bureaucracy, which I also don’t agree is equivalent. . . . Can I get any specific examples?

Oh, and the idea I was trying to convey by intent is this: free discussion of ideas should be allowed, but when materials clearly advocate harmful action, they should be censored. Thus, it’s like what you’re saying. They must actually be taking action (via words) towards a crime.

In general, I’m in favor on erring on the side of not censoring. The greatest part about censorship is that voices that are poorly organized and defended simply do not get listened to. One only needs spend about ten minutes going through the average blog to see that their literary and communication skills are so lacking that they could never develop a serious position of influence unless they improve their skills. It seems to me that this is where the greatest concentration of “much” is and within it are sown the seeds of its own destruction.

But what about the more articulate? Well, that’s tough. As has been pointed out, making a call on an author’s intent isn’t easy and even if it is somewhat malicious, does not someone have the right to express displeasure over another? The courts have repeatedly ruled in favor of the offending party rather than hitting them with libel or slander. We need to be responsible enough to sift out what looks to be untruthful or hurtful remarks.

Even using society’s opinion on good/bad isn’t a wise idea, I think. For one thing, society varies vastly from area to area, country to country, and region to region. In communist China, anything published or spoken that might be construed as against the ruling government can have serious, even life-threatening consequences. Publishing political cartoons in Denmark depicting the prophet Mohammed can result in riots in Europe and the Middle East with murders, burning of embassies, and boycotts.

Getting caught up in defining what is good or bad is too cumbersome for a heterogeneous society. Even movie ratings have been noted to be fickle and deciding on a movie solely on its rating may not be the best criterion for a decision.

For example, what about some war movies, or movies intended to raise awareness of a reality? Gratuitous violence, sex, language, etc. are pointless to me, but there is a wide range of definitions on what gratuitous is. I remember watching the scene from “Saving Private Ryan” that captures D-Day, the storming of Normandy Beach. This was definitely one of the reasons the movie was rated R. I admit I was sickened by the blood and carnage I saw, literally to my stomach.

At first I was upset at seeing it, but then I thought about it. To that point in my life, war and its horrors were only an intellectual concept for me. Killing is bad, war is not good, etc. etc. But at that point, I experienced something one step closer to the real thing. I realized and understood on a whole new level just what war is and can do to a person. It’s something I can’t describe.

Immediately after watching it, I wished I hadn’t. However, now I’m not so sure. I had a similar experience with “Saints and Soldiers”. The violence was literally sickening, but it had a valuable lesson for me and I came to a better understanding, something I could never have done otherwise. It changed me.

So even from what might at first seem to be a thing purely of spite or evil, one can glean something of value. Everyone has a responsibility for what they say and do, but even after that, everyone has a responsibility to take what they see & hear and think about it and evaluate it. No one can force you to agree with, enjoy, or continue to engage in an idea or concept. I think we should first censor ourselves, and then decide for ourselves what we will and will not give credence to and let everyone else do the same.

Interesting opinon. However, your two counter examples to censorship by overwhelming majority are invalid. China’s censorship is a government program, not something decided on by the people. It’s the kind of censorship we’ve all agreed is wrong. And the Danish newspaper cartoons are actually an example of how the system does work: even though some of the population found the cartoons very offensive (and would have censored them if they could), because the majority did not find them directly harmful, the opinions were allowed to be expressed.

The majority isn’t necessarily the group that holds the most people, but the group that holds the most power. Thus vocal minorities often over-ride majorities. And after the cartoons were published, just about every western government, including the US (much to my dismay), denounced the cartoons and it’s almost certain that if it were tried again that it would be halted in its tracks.

The fear generated by the protests and riots from the Islamic world caused some of the most pro-democratic countries to state that the cartoons should not have been published. Even the Danish government copped-out by saying they have no influence over the private sector (rather than re-affirming the paper’s right to print them). Counter this with much milder protests from other religions and groups when unflattering political cartoons were published about them. Time and again it was plainly stated there was no case because it was well covered in freedom of speech.

I don’t intend to come down on Islam, it’s just an example of a group that’s willing to exercise force, like China, to force public opinion. In both cases they are permitted to wield enough power to influence what is deemed right or wrong even though they do not reflect the opinion of the population as a whole.

I must agree with Shaun here. Our particular political system is set up (regardless of how the BoM peoples set up theirs) so that neither the majority can silence and oppress the minority nor can a minority (even if the minority are in office!) use violence or guilt to silence the majority. In a pure democracy, whatever > 50% of the people say is law, regardless of whether they decide “All Jews shall be murdered” or “No one may eat cold-cuts on even numbered Tuesdays”. The Founders thus set up a constitutional republic.

Amendment the First
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I am always frustrated, whether in spiritual or in legal issues, about the fact that we seldom go to the sources to decide what is correct and why. The spiritual source for answers to this discussion would be, for instance, Doctrine and Covenants 121:46-end.

Julia has posted a response to this. :)

[…] As for myself, I try to pick up on clues from the book cover text or Amazon reviews or LibraryThing discussions that will give hints as to whether something is inappropriate or not. It’s not perfect, but when I find a book that’s bad (in my view, of course; we’ve already talked censorship through :)), I close it and return it to the library. […]