From: Tony Hollick (anduril@cix.compulink.co.uk)
Date: Fri Dec 26 1997 - 18:20:00 MST
> Brian D Williams thinks censorship is moral, I think it's an obscenity.
> I can't prove It's wrong, I can't prove murder is wrong either and don't feel
> I need to, I would put both in the same category. There is no disputing
> matters of taste however so I will try to concentrate on practical
> considerations.
I think censorship is wrong, and I can prove it. The common
regulating principle in both science _and_ morality is _truth_.
Obstructing intelligence and knowledge is wrong, and to censor for
_anything_ you have to censor _everyone_ for _everything_. This is
why the 'kiddie-porn' hoo-ha is such a snare and a delusion. Nearly
all the 'kiddie-porn' is produced by or with the cognizance of the
governments (and their criminal accomplices in 'organized crime',
which is 'organized' by the government -- no-one else can let them
get away with it) who then seek to 'censor' it.
In the USA, up to 90% of hardcore 'kiddie-porn' is FBI entrapment
stuff -- 'dangles.' But the great 'kiddie-porn' scare is an
indispensible pretext for getting the Federales into your mailbox
_in the first place_, where they can then go on fishing expeditions
for other things altogether. Intrusive surveillance and Social
Control is the name of the game.
Odd, how the uptight "Moral Majority" crowd seem completely
unconcerned by 350 000 children dying hideously each day in the
world, of entirely preventable disease and malnutrition. Photos of
children starving to death are commonplace, unremarked. This
indifference is far more obscene than (say) Maxfield Parrish
paintings could ever be, or stills of (say) Brooke Shields in
'Pretty Baby' or 'Blue Lagoon'; or (say) Jodie Foster in 'Taxi
Driver' or 'The Little Girl Down The Lane.'
> If you believe that if your children see a picture of 2 people fucking or
> even seeing the word "fuck" will ruin them for life then it's your
> responsibility to stop them from seeing it, not mine. Personally I don't
> think the matter is important so I won't lift a finger to help you, but
> they're your kids so I won't try to stop you either, however if you use that
> tired old excuse to limit my freedom I will fight you with everything I have,
> including violence if I think I could get away with it.
Again, notice the assymmetry: by 15, the average American kid will
have seen around 15 000 real or staged slayings. Yet (some) people
can get all uptight about kids seeing lovemaking. Bizarre! If the
kids are incapable of arousal, it means little or nothing to them.
If they are so capable, what's all the fuss about? Taboos tell us a
lot about the psychosexual hang-ups of _adults_. Kids can enjoy
erotic experiences quite innocently. Like Adam and Eve in the
Garden, before the Fall. It was the Bad Guy who made them ashamed
of their natural nakedness, not God... >:-}
And they're not 'his kids.' On Lockean self-ownership grounds, the
kids' lives belong to the kids. At best, the parents are trustees
and protectors and guardians. Defending people against objective
knowledge of matters of biological necessity and good clean fun
(i.e. reproduction) seems quite utterly daft.
> The man is not a war hero, the man is an actor and that's a perfectly
> honorable profession. He showed intelligence in getting out of the Vietnam
> war, more intelligence than most. When it's a question of survival, when a
> bunch of goons want your labor and try to enslave you so you can perform a
> very dangerous, unpleasant, and pointless job for them 12 thousand miles away,
> you do what you have to do to remain free. I wouldn't have held it against him
> if he shot off his big toe to prevent it, or bribed someone, or pretended to
> be insane, or showed up at the recruiting office in a strapless evening gown.
Amen to that. I'd have killed to avoid conscription (I grew up
under its shadow). Whereas I might have volunteered for combat jets
or some Special Forces work...
Stripped of all the nonsense, a soldier's job is to kill. The work
is unpleasant; it can be dangerous. But there are worse fates. I'd
have volunteered to fight for _his_ strategy with John Paul Vann in
Vietnam. Read Neil Sheehan's magnificent biography, "A Bright
Shining Lie." An intensely moving and unmissable history.
/ /\ \
--*--<Tony>--*--
Tony Hollick, LightSmith
http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/la-agora (LA-Agora Conference)
http://www.agora.demon.co.uk (Agora Home Page, Rainbow Bridge Foundation)
http://www.nwb.net/nwc (NorthWest Coalition Against Malicious Harrassment)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:45:16 MST