A mirror of the eeesite "A Song of Ice and Fire"

This is a mirror of the now defunct eesite ASOIAF webboard.

The discussions for G.R.R. Martin's awesome series "A Song of Ice and Fire" are now being held at: Current ASoIaF Webboard

You cannot post new messages to this board. Go to the Current ASoIaF Webboard for the most current discussions.

A Song of Ice and Fire / Other Topics / Censorship

Next 20 Messages Newest Messages

Swithin
User ID: 0443584 Oct 5th 1:20 AM
The graphic sex and violence topic has died. I just started reading the posts and realised that I very much want to encourage and sponsor such discussions. Kay, Jeff, Kevin, and Omer, you all raise very good points. It seems that all of you have a lot of common sense behind your positions, and you only differ in the nuance about how you organize said common sense.

I'll make a short post if this topic goes up.

Swithin
User ID: 0443584 Oct 5th 1:38 AM
Kay, I cannot quote you verbatim, but I agree with you entirely when you say that a 'good' parent should try to instill the ability for critical thought in his/her children. I find this to be the most valuable thing a person can sponsor in his/her offspring, the thing which most helps to create a 'person' out of a young human being. I believe that even from a very young age children start to develop their own, unique mode of thinking. It is an opportunity and privilege for a parent to help sift out any undue presuppositions a child might make with an untrained and inexperienced logic.

The age at which a child can synthesize violence, or even consider the emotions of others, I have seen vary greatly in my contemporaries. I believe that if a child shows desire to learn more about the world in which he or she lives, the parents should strive mostly for the idea that the child truly understand, and must try to foster impartiality within the eyes of the youngster without falling into the trap of 'reactionary parenting'. Because of this great give or take, I also agree that libraries should consider primarily the ability of material to be misunderstood, and not simply remove 'objectionable' items because of references to the cold, dark world outside of the schoolhouse. I can hardly imagine a child who is clever enough to want to read GRRM and follow his complicated plotlines (not to mention keep track of all the houses and individuals) who would not be ready to handle the graphic level of his writing, and so I do not think that aSoIaF is dangerous in any respect, whereas I would personally burn down any library offering the writings of Immanuel Kant to children, because those types of books are intended to be persuasive and claim to 'know' morality, hence combatting any sense of discovery or objective thought.

Anyways, that's my first little rant. I hope the spirit of the old topic may live on in the new.

Min
User ID: 1446254 Oct 5th 4:00 AM
Talking about parents "censoring" their children: I do not think that any child younger than appropriately five to seven (deoending child and cirumstances) should watch TV _at all_.

Omer
User ID: 0485244 Oct 5th 11:09 AM
Min - I'm not sure anyone should watch Television.

Anyway, my point was never that there should be no parental guidance. But too oftem that becomes a way for parents to control their children, which I think is wrong.

and Jeff - well, if we stop someone from advertising his opinion, isn't that the same as censurship?

Kevin
User ID: 1766884 Oct 5th 11:34 AM
No Omer it isn't (sorry for answering for you Jeff). The public protest gives an unpleasant consequence (lack of business). The owner of the business still has the CHOICE of whether to continue or not. As long as the individual has the choice, then there is no censorship.

The protest is as much an expression of free speech as the owner's. Being able to protest is a key to a democratic society. Censorship is the shutting down of free speech and as such is the antithesis of a democratic society.

Kevin
User ID: 1766884 Oct 5th 11:35 AM
BTW - As I tried to say 3 times on the other thread, "WHOOOOO HOOOOO Congratulations Jeff!!!!"

Watcher
User ID: 7761613 Oct 5th 11:52 AM
Totally agree with you there Min. Congat's Jeff, when are you going to let him/her read ASOIaF?

And this is a great topic. I think the reason behind why something isn't available is just as important as why something is banned, censored or not available.

Some RL examples that may or may not clarify the issue:

A local bookstore is being picketed and accused of censorship because they aren't carrying one book by a local author. The manager of the store thinks the book is badly written, so she won't carry it. Wal-Mart, the largest discount store chain in America and in some places the only store in a town, won't sell "In Sam We Trust" a book that is critical of Wal-Mart. At least one music artist has changed the lyrics to a song because Wal-Mart wouldn't sell her CD otherwise. If Wal-Mart doesn't carry a something its sells will be affected, so her label told her to change the lyric that Wal-Mart was critical. Wal-Mart didn't tell the label to do so, it simply has a policy not carry anything critical to it which the lyric was. A public Texas school district won't carry a book on the Wicca Religion because a Christian group objected to it. A local school stopped it's plans to put on a play adopted from Mark Twain's classic book "Huck Finn". Because a minority group claimed it was racist.

Which of these are censorship? All, none, some? Where does Government responsibility end? When does the need for profit outweigh the need for expression? Where does free expression end and the need to respect others feelings begin?

Jeff
User ID: 0227464 Oct 5th 1:22 PM
Omer, Kevin's response is the same as mine. I tried to add something to what he said but he said it very well. And thanks for the "assist", Kevin.

Watcher, in answer to your question, I think that none of your examples constitute censorship. Every school, library, and bookstore has to make decisions as to which of the millions of books (or CD's or movies) in print it will sell, display, or use. The author's right to make the CD or write the book is unaffected. The author can distribute the book on his or own as well. But the author certainly doesn't have the right to compel third parties to make the book available.

Oh, thanks to all for congratulations. Ned and Catelyn really aren't candidates for names. Actually, I really like Sam -- after my favorite character from LOTR. I'll have to work on my wife for that one, though....

Min
User ID: 9433023 Oct 5th 2:39 PM
congrats? what did I miss?

Kevin
User ID: 1766884 Oct 5th 3:03 PM
Good questions Watcher.
Bookstore - Not, they have right to sell/or not sell whatever they want.

Wal-mart - Not, see above

Texas school - Maybe, with schools, you run into seperation a church/state. The school needs to either not carry books on any religion or keep similar books about many religions. Whether the school was correct depends on whether the Wicca book was singled out or if the school removes all books about religion. Jeff I disagree with part of your statement. Schools must abide by local/state/federal laws for government agencies. Once within the law, then they have the choice as to what to carry.

local school - I don't know. I would have to have more info on the situation.

The line between profit/expression needs to be drawn with the individual.

Jeff
User ID: 0227464 Oct 5th 5:06 PM
Kevin, a school can permissibly retain copies of books about certain religions and not others. It sort of depends upon the focus of the book. If a book is an advocacy book, there's a potential problem with the church/state issue as you indicate. But a book recounting divergence in Christian faiths during the Reformation could be okay if it has primarily an historical or educational focus. But it is a sensitive constitutional issue.

Min
User ID: 1446254 Oct 6th 3:11 AM
HEYA, JEFF!
I scetched the GS&V topic and found out! That's great! I know you're a great father, congratulations from me, too!!!
*hugs Jeff*

Omer
User ID: 0485244 Oct 6th 11:28 AM
mmm...
I wonder... if a very important factory said it'll call all it's workers to stop their suscriptions to a newspaper and stop advertisements if it runs a piece about misconduct within my factory, and the newspaper doesn't... is that censorship?

If I'm someone who wants to advertise in that newspaper... but the fatory threatens the paper and they don't advertise me... is that censorship?

Jeff
User ID: 0227464 Oct 6th 11:35 AM
As to your first example, I don't think it is censorship. Frankly, such threats are such a good story in an of themselves that the paper may run it anyway.

Your second example is not censorship either but it would create the basis for a lawsuit by the competing factory. Possibly an antitrust violation, definitely a claim for tortious intereference with business relations.

But I agree that you have presented a touchy issue, Omer. The problem is that whatever rules you create regarding censorship have to apply equally. Suppose a newspaper chooses to run a full page ad by the Nazi party that spews nothing but hate. Don't other advertisers have the right to say "I'm pulling my ads if you accept that ad"? Or don't people have the right to threaten cancellation of their subscriptions?

KAH
User ID: 9209903 Oct 6th 12:32 PM
I'll give a more thorough bit on Jeff's post here.

I suppose that this is an analogy to Jeff's example of 'Your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my chin'.

I.e., to take the above example. Suppose that I read the newspaper, and found the Nazi ad. This made me very angry, and I make a call to the paper, and say that I want that add stopped. They say that it's 'freedom of speech', and they cannot do anything. However, left to the market forces, the paper will be censored anyway, which I will show below.

Suppose that I withdrew my ad in protest. The paper would then have received a market signal that the Nazi ad is bad news. Over time, they will anticipate this reaction, and will not take in the Nazi ad, because it is ruining them.

If the paper anticipated the reaction beforehand, the Nazi ad would not be taken in _in the first place_, because they know it would ruin them.
I haven't opened my mouth, I have not threatened to pull my add, but the paper _still_ reacted, since they predicted my response.

Let's say then, that the gubmint denied the paper the right to stop the Nazi's from having the ad in their paper. Even after thus violating certain property rights of the paper, the censorship comes into act through market forces, by ruining the paper.

The gubmint then would have to subsidize the newspaper. That is the only way the market forces would be stopped from coming into action and wipe out the paper. In other words, instead of financing the paper that runs the Nazi ad, I'm now
paying for it over the tax bill.

This leaves the question if the state should do such a thing. Should it be the state's responsibility to provide _everyone_ (and it _has_ to be everyone, not to violate the freedom of speech) with a printing press, as well as freedom of speech?

Can Joe Q Public spew venom over his ex-wife in the Telly, on my tax dollars? How many newspapers do the paper have to produce for me to give vent to my thoughts in, so that my freedom of speech is not limited? Five billion? And in several languages?

As you see, this sort of reduces itself in practical terms - it is impossible to keep everyone with a priniting press. If you want to spend your own dollars doing it, it is your choice - you will be much more prudent with your own money than with the state's.

However, if the state actively _stops_ you from making yourself heard, even if you're using your own money, then it is certainly censorship. Else, it is just people closing their ears for your arguments, which must be a fundamental right of theirs. You have a right to speak, not to be heard.

Kevin
User ID: 1766884 Oct 6th 12:50 PM
Well said KAH. That last line is an especially good summary.

KAH
User ID: 9209903 Oct 6th 1:43 PM
Hell, I just let my logical gene run rampant.

Let me just say that I see where Omer is coming from, and try to nuance the picture a bit.

The backdraw of letting it all over to the market forces, is that it gives people with more money than others a lot more clout in the public agenda than the others.

Are rich people more apt in finding the truth than poor people? Certainly not. (note that this works both ways) As such, one might expect that poor people's voice will generally not come to the surface.
A poor person might stand on his soap box and shout out in the world, but a rich person is much more like to get your attention - mass media are a powerful force, surrounding us everywhere - papers, radio, TV, etc. etc.
Given that 'like barn leker best' (loosely translated into 'people hang out with their own kind'); chances are that the rich people will be somewhat uniform in their thinking,
speaking more or less only with their own class, more or less always reassuring themselves of their own PoV, which might differ markedly from what concerns poor people.

Could the state possibly remedy this? Probably not fully, given the practicality problem that I referred to above.
But perhaps an approximation. For instance, it could give Joe Q Public the chance to make himself heard on mass media, making every paper, TV station etc. set off some free space/time for the random man.
Thirty minutes alloted time to a person, drawn by lot. Or maybe to an organization, drawn by lot. Or some other solution. It is certainly not a perfect solution, but it is an approximation.

However, there's the backdraw of letting the state
meddle with the mass media. Can we be assured that the state always will do what is good and proper?

Certainly not. History has shown many cases where this has been proved wrong. One might very well argue that the state should keep it's hands away altogether, so as not to be tempted to overstep themselves. A democracy is, after all, just majority rule, and it is not given that the majority will find the TRVTH anymore than the average Joe.

For instance, one might think the majority voted in an extreme rightist (or leftist, for that matter) party into power, with all the possible ramifications that might have on the freedom of speech (and other basic human rights).
It might not be plausible today, but it certainly cannot be ruled out.
One need not look further than local governments in France, where National Front has taken power, to see worrying signs. Not direct attacks on the freedom of speech, of course - they do not have the clout to do that, but still...
And I wonder what will become of Austria, if Jorg Haider comes to power. He didn't get much more than a quarter of the votes, but still...
It's a trend, and a worrying one. I don't think the government evil, as some libertarians seem to, but it is an effective tool to do Bad Things.

So, what does this all add up to?

Hell if I know. :o) I guess I'm just saying that although the market isn't a perfect solution, it's probably better (or safer) than letting the gubmint in on the play. Rich people are not _that_ uniform, and poor people are not _that_ 'speechless'.

LindaElane
User ID: 7733333 Oct 6th 10:06 PM
Hello: Just dropping by to say that I was really happy to see how this discussion is turning out. Of course I agree with those who are basically saying that there should be some restriction of reading materials for young children, but on the other hand, its the parents who should be in charge of that.

Swithin
User ID: 0443584 Oct 7th 3:35 AM
Damn! This is turning out to be so interesting, yet I'm... too... tired to... type...

Jeff - congratulations! If you were in Seattle we'd smoke a few cigarillos, but since you're not, my best wishes to the health and prosperity of your child!

Watcher
User ID: 7761613 Oct 7th 12:39 PM
To give my thoughts on my last post. I don't think the first three are examples of censorship. A private store has the right to carry and not to carry what it wants. The Record Label doesn't have to produce someone's album and that person can produce their own CD. With the spread of the internet and MP3 this is even more true.

The last two are gray. I think that schools should carry as much information as possible. I also believe the intent of why something isn't being carried is just as important as why it is. In both of these cases the play/book was banned because someone was offended. You don't have a right not to be offended. If there was 5 books on Wicca and they only wanted to ban one then I wouldn't have a problem. But there are no books on Wicca and schools should make an effort to expose their students to as much as possible.
The stopping of a Huck Finn because it is racist is also wrong. I simply don't think that book is racist. Again it is the intent of what the author is saying rather then the words he uses.

KAH, I disagree with you that it is better not to let the government in and trust to market forces. A Democrat/Republican government should be responsible to the people, market forces are only responsible to their shareholders. I believe capitalism makes a good economic system but is bad government system.

Next 20 Messages Newest Messages

Swithin User ID: 0443584	Oct 5th 1:20 AM The graphic sex and violence topic has died. I just started reading the posts and realised that I very much want to encourage and sponsor such discussions. Kay, Jeff, Kevin, and Omer, you all raise very good points. It seems that all of you have a lot of common sense behind your positions, and you only differ in the nuance about how you organize said common sense. I'll make a short post if this topic goes up.
Swithin User ID: 0443584	Oct 5th 1:38 AM Kay, I cannot quote you verbatim, but I agree with you entirely when you say that a 'good' parent should try to instill the ability for critical thought in his/her children. I find this to be the most valuable thing a person can sponsor in his/her offspring, the thing which most helps to create a 'person' out of a young human being. I believe that even from a very young age children start to develop their own, unique mode of thinking. It is an opportunity and privilege for a parent to help sift out any undue presuppositions a child might make with an untrained and inexperienced logic. The age at which a child can synthesize violence, or even consider the emotions of others, I have seen vary greatly in my contemporaries. I believe that if a child shows desire to learn more about the world in which he or she lives, the parents should strive mostly for the idea that the child truly understand, and must try to foster impartiality within the eyes of the youngster without falling into the trap of 'reactionary parenting'. Because of this great give or take, I also agree that libraries should consider primarily the ability of material to be misunderstood, and not simply remove 'objectionable' items because of references to the cold, dark world outside of the schoolhouse. I can hardly imagine a child who is clever enough to want to read GRRM and follow his complicated plotlines (not to mention keep track of all the houses and individuals) who would not be ready to handle the graphic level of his writing, and so I do not think that aSoIaF is dangerous in any respect, whereas I would personally burn down any library offering the writings of Immanuel Kant to children, because those types of books are intended to be persuasive and claim to 'know' morality, hence combatting any sense of discovery or objective thought. Anyways, that's my first little rant. I hope the spirit of the old topic may live on in the new.
Min User ID: 1446254	Oct 5th 4:00 AM Talking about parents "censoring" their children: I do not think that any child younger than appropriately five to seven (deoending child and cirumstances) should watch TV _at all_.
Omer User ID: 0485244	Oct 5th 11:09 AM Min - I'm not sure anyone should watch Television. Anyway, my point was never that there should be no parental guidance. But too oftem that becomes a way for parents to control their children, which I think is wrong. and Jeff - well, if we stop someone from advertising his opinion, isn't that the same as censurship?
Kevin User ID: 1766884	Oct 5th 11:34 AM No Omer it isn't (sorry for answering for you Jeff). The public protest gives an unpleasant consequence (lack of business). The owner of the business still has the CHOICE of whether to continue or not. As long as the individual has the choice, then there is no censorship. The protest is as much an expression of free speech as the owner's. Being able to protest is a key to a democratic society. Censorship is the shutting down of free speech and as such is the antithesis of a democratic society.
Kevin User ID: 1766884	Oct 5th 11:35 AM BTW - As I tried to say 3 times on the other thread, "WHOOOOO HOOOOO Congratulations Jeff!!!!"
Watcher User ID: 7761613	Oct 5th 11:52 AM Totally agree with you there Min. Congat's Jeff, when are you going to let him/her read ASOIaF? And this is a great topic. I think the reason behind why something isn't available is just as important as why something is banned, censored or not available. Some RL examples that may or may not clarify the issue: A local bookstore is being picketed and accused of censorship because they aren't carrying one book by a local author. The manager of the store thinks the book is badly written, so she won't carry it. Wal-Mart, the largest discount store chain in America and in some places the only store in a town, won't sell "In Sam We Trust" a book that is critical of Wal-Mart. At least one music artist has changed the lyrics to a song because Wal-Mart wouldn't sell her CD otherwise. If Wal-Mart doesn't carry a something its sells will be affected, so her label told her to change the lyric that Wal-Mart was critical. Wal-Mart didn't tell the label to do so, it simply has a policy not carry anything critical to it which the lyric was. A public Texas school district won't carry a book on the Wicca Religion because a Christian group objected to it. A local school stopped it's plans to put on a play adopted from Mark Twain's classic book "Huck Finn". Because a minority group claimed it was racist. Which of these are censorship? All, none, some? Where does Government responsibility end? When does the need for profit outweigh the need for expression? Where does free expression end and the need to respect others feelings begin?
Jeff User ID: 0227464	Oct 5th 1:22 PM Omer, Kevin's response is the same as mine. I tried to add something to what he said but he said it very well. And thanks for the "assist", Kevin. Watcher, in answer to your question, I think that none of your examples constitute censorship. Every school, library, and bookstore has to make decisions as to which of the millions of books (or CD's or movies) in print it will sell, display, or use. The author's right to make the CD or write the book is unaffected. The author can distribute the book on his or own as well. But the author certainly doesn't have the right to compel third parties to make the book available. Oh, thanks to all for congratulations. Ned and Catelyn really aren't candidates for names. Actually, I really like Sam -- after my favorite character from LOTR. I'll have to work on my wife for that one, though....
Min User ID: 9433023	Oct 5th 2:39 PM congrats? what did I miss?
Kevin User ID: 1766884	Oct 5th 3:03 PM Good questions Watcher. Bookstore - Not, they have right to sell/or not sell whatever they want. Wal-mart - Not, see above Texas school - Maybe, with schools, you run into seperation a church/state. The school needs to either not carry books on any religion or keep similar books about many religions. Whether the school was correct depends on whether the Wicca book was singled out or if the school removes all books about religion. Jeff I disagree with part of your statement. Schools must abide by local/state/federal laws for government agencies. Once within the law, then they have the choice as to what to carry. local school - I don't know. I would have to have more info on the situation. The line between profit/expression needs to be drawn with the individual.
Jeff User ID: 0227464	Oct 5th 5:06 PM Kevin, a school can permissibly retain copies of books about certain religions and not others. It sort of depends upon the focus of the book. If a book is an advocacy book, there's a potential problem with the church/state issue as you indicate. But a book recounting divergence in Christian faiths during the Reformation could be okay if it has primarily an historical or educational focus. But it is a sensitive constitutional issue.
Min User ID: 1446254	Oct 6th 3:11 AM HEYA, JEFF! I scetched the GS&V topic and found out! That's great! I know you're a great father, congratulations from me, too!!! hugs Jeff
Omer User ID: 0485244	Oct 6th 11:28 AM mmm... I wonder... if a very important factory said it'll call all it's workers to stop their suscriptions to a newspaper and stop advertisements if it runs a piece about misconduct within my factory, and the newspaper doesn't... is that censorship? If I'm someone who wants to advertise in that newspaper... but the fatory threatens the paper and they don't advertise me... is that censorship?
Jeff User ID: 0227464	Oct 6th 11:35 AM As to your first example, I don't think it is censorship. Frankly, such threats are such a good story in an of themselves that the paper may run it anyway. Your second example is not censorship either but it would create the basis for a lawsuit by the competing factory. Possibly an antitrust violation, definitely a claim for tortious intereference with business relations. But I agree that you have presented a touchy issue, Omer. The problem is that whatever rules you create regarding censorship have to apply equally. Suppose a newspaper chooses to run a full page ad by the Nazi party that spews nothing but hate. Don't other advertisers have the right to say "I'm pulling my ads if you accept that ad"? Or don't people have the right to threaten cancellation of their subscriptions?
KAH User ID: 9209903	Oct 6th 12:32 PM I'll give a more thorough bit on Jeff's post here. I suppose that this is an analogy to Jeff's example of 'Your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my chin'. I.e., to take the above example. Suppose that I read the newspaper, and found the Nazi ad. This made me very angry, and I make a call to the paper, and say that I want that add stopped. They say that it's 'freedom of speech', and they cannot do anything. However, left to the market forces, the paper will be censored anyway, which I will show below. Suppose that I withdrew my ad in protest. The paper would then have received a market signal that the Nazi ad is bad news. Over time, they will anticipate this reaction, and will not take in the Nazi ad, because it is ruining them. If the paper anticipated the reaction beforehand, the Nazi ad would not be taken in _in the first place_, because they know it would ruin them. I haven't opened my mouth, I have not threatened to pull my add, but the paper _still_ reacted, since they predicted my response. Let's say then, that the gubmint denied the paper the right to stop the Nazi's from having the ad in their paper. Even after thus violating certain property rights of the paper, the censorship comes into act through market forces, by ruining the paper. The gubmint then would have to subsidize the newspaper. That is the only way the market forces would be stopped from coming into action and wipe out the paper. In other words, instead of financing the paper that runs the Nazi ad, I'm now paying for it over the tax bill. This leaves the question if the state should do such a thing. Should it be the state's responsibility to provide _everyone_ (and it _has_ to be everyone, not to violate the freedom of speech) with a printing press, as well as freedom of speech? Can Joe Q Public spew venom over his ex-wife in the Telly, on my tax dollars? How many newspapers do the paper have to produce for me to give vent to my thoughts in, so that my freedom of speech is not limited? Five billion? And in several languages? As you see, this sort of reduces itself in practical terms - it is impossible to keep everyone with a priniting press. If you want to spend your own dollars doing it, it is your choice - you will be much more prudent with your own money than with the state's. However, if the state actively _stops_ you from making yourself heard, even if you're using your own money, then it is certainly censorship. Else, it is just people closing their ears for your arguments, which must be a fundamental right of theirs. You have a right to speak, not to be heard.
Kevin User ID: 1766884	Oct 6th 12:50 PM Well said KAH. That last line is an especially good summary.
KAH User ID: 9209903	Oct 6th 1:43 PM Hell, I just let my logical gene run rampant. Let me just say that I see where Omer is coming from, and try to nuance the picture a bit. The backdraw of letting it all over to the market forces, is that it gives people with more money than others a lot more clout in the public agenda than the others. Are rich people more apt in finding the truth than poor people? Certainly not. (note that this works both ways) As such, one might expect that poor people's voice will generally not come to the surface. A poor person might stand on his soap box and shout out in the world, but a rich person is much more like to get your attention - mass media are a powerful force, surrounding us everywhere - papers, radio, TV, etc. etc. Given that 'like barn leker best' (loosely translated into 'people hang out with their own kind'); chances are that the rich people will be somewhat uniform in their thinking, speaking more or less only with their own class, more or less always reassuring themselves of their own PoV, which might differ markedly from what concerns poor people. Could the state possibly remedy this? Probably not fully, given the practicality problem that I referred to above. But perhaps an approximation. For instance, it could give Joe Q Public the chance to make himself heard on mass media, making every paper, TV station etc. set off some free space/time for the random man. Thirty minutes alloted time to a person, drawn by lot. Or maybe to an organization, drawn by lot. Or some other solution. It is certainly not a perfect solution, but it is an approximation. However, there's the backdraw of letting the state meddle with the mass media. Can we be assured that the state always will do what is good and proper? Certainly not. History has shown many cases where this has been proved wrong. One might very well argue that the state should keep it's hands away altogether, so as not to be tempted to overstep themselves. A democracy is, after all, just majority rule, and it is not given that the majority will find the TRVTH anymore than the average Joe. For instance, one might think the majority voted in an extreme rightist (or leftist, for that matter) party into power, with all the possible ramifications that might have on the freedom of speech (and other basic human rights). It might not be plausible today, but it certainly cannot be ruled out. One need not look further than local governments in France, where National Front has taken power, to see worrying signs. Not direct attacks on the freedom of speech, of course - they do not have the clout to do that, but still... And I wonder what will become of Austria, if Jorg Haider comes to power. He didn't get much more than a quarter of the votes, but still... It's a trend, and a worrying one. I don't think the government evil, as some libertarians seem to, but it is an effective tool to do Bad Things. So, what does this all add up to? Hell if I know. :o) I guess I'm just saying that although the market isn't a perfect solution, it's probably better (or safer) than letting the gubmint in on the play. Rich people are not _that_ uniform, and poor people are not _that_ 'speechless'.
LindaElane User ID: 7733333	Oct 6th 10:06 PM Hello: Just dropping by to say that I was really happy to see how this discussion is turning out. Of course I agree with those who are basically saying that there should be some restriction of reading materials for young children, but on the other hand, its the parents who should be in charge of that.
Swithin User ID: 0443584	Oct 7th 3:35 AM Damn! This is turning out to be so interesting, yet I'm... too... tired to... type... Jeff - congratulations! If you were in Seattle we'd smoke a few cigarillos, but since you're not, my best wishes to the health and prosperity of your child!
Watcher User ID: 7761613	Oct 7th 12:39 PM To give my thoughts on my last post. I don't think the first three are examples of censorship. A private store has the right to carry and not to carry what it wants. The Record Label doesn't have to produce someone's album and that person can produce their own CD. With the spread of the internet and MP3 this is even more true. The last two are gray. I think that schools should carry as much information as possible. I also believe the intent of why something isn't being carried is just as important as why it is. In both of these cases the play/book was banned because someone was offended. You don't have a right not to be offended. If there was 5 books on Wicca and they only wanted to ban one then I wouldn't have a problem. But there are no books on Wicca and schools should make an effort to expose their students to as much as possible. The stopping of a Huck Finn because it is racist is also wrong. I simply don't think that book is racist. Again it is the intent of what the author is saying rather then the words he uses. KAH, I disagree with you that it is better not to let the government in and trust to market forces. A Democrat/Republican government should be responsible to the people, market forces are only responsible to their shareholders. I believe capitalism makes a good economic system but is bad government system.