BODY AND SOUL

(via Political Theory):
Two exceptions and proof for rules: "There are two perplexing areas where censorship is routinely advocated and defended by those who claim to be the friends of democracy: they are security and the protection of public morals. These are the two exceptions to the free flow of information and opinion that muddy the pursuit of absolute rights and freedoms, and that make the fight against censorship more an endless series of skirmishes than a single glorious war to be won." (Michael Grade, 2/03/03, Index on Censorship)

Is censorship ever justified? The obvious knee-jerk response must of course be an emphatic no. Just as commercial markets can't function effectively and efficiently without freely available information between buyers and sellers, so democracy cannot flourish without a free flow of facts, ideas, opinions, and beliefs. [...]

The real world is more difficult. There are two perplexing areas where censorship is routinely advocated and defended by those who claim to be the friends of democracy: they are security and the protection of public morals.

These are the two exceptions to the free flow of information and opinion that muddy the pursuit of absolute rights and freedoms, and that make the fight against censorship more an endless series of skirmishes than a single glorious war to be won.

The health of our democracies owes as much to past victories in the name of freedom of thought and expression as it does to the defeat of armies.

In later mediaeval societies - especially after the invention of the printing press - censorship was the blunt instrument used by temporal and spiritual powers alike to enforce and extend control. It was a necessary - and often more potent - instrument than physical force.

Now, the tide of democracy, accompanied by its philosophical and material emphasis on the rights of the individual, has rolled back the defence of censorship to those two issues of national security and public morality.

Of the two, the security issue - though complex - is easier to address. Clearly it would be absurd to allow real and potential enemies to threaten our society, by reckless publication, say, of information that would endanger national defence. [...]

The question of public morals is more difficult. How legitimate are they? If so, how are they to be circumscribed, and not encroach on areas where they are, in ascending order of danger, unnecessary, inappropriate and a threat to freedom?

The other matter, the protection of public morals, also creates blurred edges to any absolute defence against censorship. Pornography may be the cause of actual physical harm, in its making or by those who would mimic it. We all share a particular horror of harm done to children.

But even more than is the case with national security, we must constantly be on our guard to ensure that whatever safeguards we erect for these specific purposes are not hijacked by those who would be the moral police of innocent activities innocently pursued.

It's a genuinely bizarre formulation that requires you to accept risks to the society's moral fiber any more than physical threats. Mr. Grade says: "Clearly it would be absurd to allow real and potential enemies to threaten our society, by reckless publication, say, of information that would endanger national defence." But if you allow the moral degradation of your society then what nation is it that you're defending? In fact, in America there really are no publications that could threaten our physical security and that should be censored, while there are numerous threats to the decent society we've tried to build. Posted by Orrin Judd at August 8, 2003 9:09 AM