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.

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.

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.

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.