Censorship: Pros and Cons
DAN: Let's talk censorship.
ANDY: Very hot topic.
DAN: Very hot.
ANDY: Personally, I like to take the line that censorship should be outlawed and its proponents silenced...under the laws of irony and poetic justice.
DAN: But what about the salutary functions of censorship in the system as a whole?
ANDY: Well I am assuming consenting adults, I understand the need to protect minors.
DAN: Then again, what are we protecting them from? How about protecting them from the bigotry of their parents, from their own ignorance caused by fear and fear caused by ignorance?
ANDY: As well as hatred as source and consequence.
DAN: But I'm also talking about the long range salutary functions of censorship.
Censorship acts as a catalyst for rebellion against censorship. ANDY: Yet without censorship there would be no need for rebellion against it.
DAN: But this rebellion is not simply against censorship, it is a catalyst, a tool, for a whole range of discussion. Censorship and the rebellion against it act as a forum for discussion.
ANDY: But ultimately it oppresses creativity and the means of distribution. It limits the number and types of outlets, which also blockades creativity.
DAN: Possibly, probably, to some degree, but where do you think my work would be without censorship?
ANDY: PBS? ; )
DAN: NBC? FOX? The Cartoon Network? Yes ideally, eventually, but let's say that the more obvious means of oppression are repealed today, my work on the philosophy and psychology of sex and violence in the future gains its audience by the taboo against it, the taboo gives my work importance...potency.
ANDY: Well in many ways we're just emphasizing different points of the problem. My primary concern is for trends toward the acceptance of the loss of freedom, while you fear the same acceptance of loss caused by token freedoms.
DAN: Yes, but let's also look at the glut of freedom that already exists. Radical ideas run the risk of being ignored or snickered out of existence. The freedom we already possess allows the glut of metaphysical crap and mindless fetishism to find its way into the mainstream society without inspiring an ounce psychological revisioning. Truly interesting ideas become buried. They become guilty by association, but they are not put on trial where their tenets can be lauded to the amazement of the frenzied masses, they are simply ignored.
ANDY: But that's not to say that you don't support measures for freedom.
DAN: Exactly, ultimately I support freedom of creativity, but, as a revolutionary tool, I support the battle itself to be used as a forum. Ultimately, I support peaceful resolution without compromises to intellectual freedom. Currently, I support the building of a better war. I support using the struggle as a tool to highlight and evolve more intelligent sexuality and lesser or better vulnerability to "violence" and pain.
1. We need no censorship whatsoever. Assuming consenting adults. Not so sure we have to protect them, what are we protecting them from, how about from ignorance, fear, hatred. Well you and I may not care if our children are exposed to these things but what about other people with different beliefs and their right not to be exposed to that which threatens them, which they are vulnerable to and thus harms them. So what are we going to do, allow our culture to be defined by bigots? But who going to decide, are we going to simply allow ourselves to dictate that they shouldn't be afraid or repulsed by this, and force it on them, aren't we setting ourselves up for them or someone else forcing their beliefs on us. But they already do, this idea that sexuality whether it be nudity, obscenity, profanity, should be outlawed is already forced upon us.
2. Censorship serves a revolutionary function, where is my writing when censorship is not obviously tyrannical, particularly my more taboo work, you hear people complaining about apathy and complacency and most of their ranting is bullshit, but there is some kernel of truth in it, the society which believes itself to be free enough, to be at a state of stasis in which individuals are not sure whether we have too much or not enough freedom, is a society which will oppress your ideas simply by tolerating them, they will laugh them off quietly and ignore you, whereas a society which tyrannically oppresses is a society that establishes a forum for discussion and provides the impetus and staging ground for revolution.
3. The problem with this line of reasoning is that ultimately to irradiate censorship would irradiate creativity, but even at a less extreme level we might find ourselves arguing for a more oppressive society for the sake of creativity, when in my point of view the products of creativity cannot be distributed within an oppressive society.
4. Stuff for shock value only. well I don't want to bad mouth shock value for it is a value, possibly great value. But we become buried in an avalanche of crap, pseudo symbolism bereft of meaning. Inspiration of **** censorship, qualified by intelligent discourse. Yes, and that diversity, that juxtaposition, that synthesis of high and low.