Farenheit 451

[Kalessin]

Aiwendil, you will see from my post that I agree with you that both causal determinism (why do we always end up here [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]) or a general philosophical construction in this context of 'awareness' as an entitlement to choice, are not axiomatic or logically valid arguments for censorship in general or particular. However, I think that we do have a case for a certain level of "conjunctions", even if the variables make precise causal connections impossible to quantify.

As I said, there is a dirty reality going on here, and despite my idealism and my pretensions to philosophical rigour, I can see it happening. I reckon experience as a parent also brings you into this slightly muddy world of the empirical intuitive (my patented version of the categorical imperative [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]).

This is not an advocacy of censorship as some kind of perfect solution, by the way, I am in sympathy with your general arguments. I feel not so much angry as bemused that in a litigous country like USA the banning of books on religious grounds has not been challenged on the basis of the First Amendment, and I made the point earlier that here in the UK, without a Bill of Rights or other constitutional protections, the banning of Harry Potter is big news (that doesn't make the UK better, or more 'anything' than the US, but it is the contrast between legally enshrined freedoms and cultural practice that we are looking at).

However, and it pains me to say it, in the end all the causal variables DO mean something in the non-Cartesian day-to-day reality of life. The self-awareness of children in relation to body image, sexuality, wealth as a contingent to status, and so on and so on, these cannot simply be coincidental or meaningless. They may be merely a reflection of the same considerations within adult life, and morality is itself arguably a moveable feast, but conjunction at least is still demonstrable by comparison to even recent history.

As I said, as a parent I have had to take the bull by the horns at various times, in response to various situations, even knowing that philosophically I cannot precisely prove causal connections, but having examples of microcosmic conjunction empirically slammed into my face [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img].

If you take the argument about 'desensitising' for example - again not as an axiomatic validation of censorship in general - the point is not that children, even quite young, are unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality, or quite subtly to perceive the presence of narrative device in TV, film or video that they know is NOT present in 'real' life ... no, they ARE able to distinguish, and they DO perceive. The point is less definitive than that, but is that familiarity with certain imagery IS conjunctive to the desensitising effect.

OK, I can make that argument by showing a group of today's kids a selection of horror films that were considered shocking 50 years ago. But what effects do these changing thresholds have, if any? Well, I would argue that there is a conjunction between this and the conception of the value of human life, for example. In the case of individuals, we unfortunately have to take account of such conjunctions, whatever our doubts about direct causality.

Or, to put it another way, there may be one hundred million variables of which some at any time are more or less important than another - but the point is that as aware adults we are directly responsible for some of those variables, even just a few, and accepting that responsibility means acting accordingly. It might be that we cannot always (or ever) directly attribute positive outcomes to our actions. But the responsibility is there nonetheless.

We could conceptualise a lifestyle where we choose not to 'accept responsibility' as formulated above - or say that a concept such as the value of a human life is irrational (unless its yours [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]) - but this is much an act of faith in indeterminism as the religious faith behind those well-intentioned acts of censorship we find so unpalatable. It has no real merit in itself over and above any other action that is informed by perceptions and hypotheses.

So in this dirty reality I'm living in (maybe I'm spending too much time on the internet [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]) I can be passionately against censorship in principle and undertake it regularly in practice. I can be pretty adamant that causal determinism in itself, let alone specific chains of consequence, is unknowable, while shamelessly acting on the basis of assumptions and expectations, sometimes merely intuitions, precisely in order to engender caused effects ( [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]).

And in that dirty parental reality, my experiment yields the following highly scientific results so far - some you win, some you lose.

By the way, I am told by my 11-year old son that in his (inner city) school Harry Potter is viewed as "babyish", Lord of The Rings is "too over the top", but that The Matrix is ultimately cool. Hm.

Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Kalessin

[ December 04, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[Mhoram]

I'm of the opinion some censorship is necessary for children, the above posts give many valid reasons why, so i'll not regurgitate those. Working from the premise that censorship for children is necessary I turn my attention to the question of who should decide what and how much should be censored and to whom at what age.

I think it is obviously to respect parents as the ultimate authority in regards to their children's best interests, this includes the matter of censorship. Parents can be expected to make these decisions according to their own moral and ethical standards, the only other recourse they have that I can see is to unthinkingly bow to some previously decided status quo. Such a status quo could be simply letting the schools do whatever they see fit, another example might be the morals of Bible or the Church's morals. Not a responsible course of action by any means, but I won't address that now, being a volatile can of worms.

By choice of the parents their children are put into the care of school teachers and administrators for the purpose of teaching and development of character. This includes acknowledgement the school's authority to impart censoring as it sees fit. But, if the parent is truly responsible s/he will pay constant attention to the teachings and guides employed by the school. A parent's use of a school as a tool for the teaching of his or her child doesn't negate or even diminish his or her responsiblity and ultimate authority in the matters of his or her child's upbringing. Therefore the schools should be to a point accountable to the parents it serves. The problem obviously arises with having many parents to accomodate, these parents often having different morals and thus having conflicting expectations of what and how the school should teach.

If the morals of the majority of parents goes against the morals of a small minority of parents and this disagreement cannot be satisfactorily reconciled, the minority may be forced to take their children out of said school and pursue some other means of teaching, be it a different school or home schooling. This seems to be the best practical means of pleasing the most people without resorting to dumbing teaching down to nothingness. This implies relative morality, but this is currently the only way to function, as we havn't quite decided on set of morals that are acceptable to all humans. This is the best way I can see of dealing out the needed censorship to youth without dangerously leaving the matter in the hands of a very few.

On the related note of relative morals and ethics: the comments about a government institution and it's supposed christian base when deciding on censorship matters. The way I see it, schools are tools funded by the tax payers, endowed with certain restrictions and guidelines by the goverment, but then left to be willed by the people that it serves, the local community. This is a largely Christian country and so you will see largely Christian morals, these morals merely find their way into representation in the school system as it naturally bends to the will of the community. It's just representing the morals held by the local majority, not acting on it's own Christian religious beliefs.

[ December 04, 2002: Message edited by: Mhoram ]

[Aiwendil]

Kalessin: I see your point. My original, lost post had a bit on the shades of grey involved in determining exactly how "aware" a person is, and who gets to make that evaluation. Certainly, in the case of a child, there is a strong argument that the parents have the right to make this determination. It is a tricky issue, though; certainly not all parents are equally qualified. Clearly it's possible for a parent to make the wrong choices, either on the side of too much or too little censorship. I still think that censorship is only valid when there is a direct causal link between it and harm or harmful actions. The difficult bit is deciding when this causal link exists. Given the choice, I think it would be better for a parent to allow a child to be exposed to an idea, and to provide whatever discussion or instruction is necessary regarding it, than to merely forbid the idea entirely. But then I am not a parent.

There's also a very significant difference between a parent limiting what sorts of TV shows his or her child can watch and a school forbidding a book. One difference is that the school is a public institution. This means first that it should not practice ideological intolerance and second that any repression of ideas undertaken by it is essentially a form of totalitarianism. In the specific instances mentioned at the beginning of the thread, the schools are clearly engaging in the repression of a certain set of ideas and the advancement of a religious cause.

Mhoram:

The problem obviously arises with having many parents to accomodate, these parents often having different morals and thus having conflicting expectations of what and how the school should teach.

This is precisely why (well it's one reason at any rate) schools should foster an atmosphere of open-mindedness and toleration. That is, they should refrain from censorship as far as possible.

If the morals of the majority of parents goes against the morals of a small minority of parents and this disagreement cannot be satisfactorily reconciled, the minority may be forced to take their children out of said school and pursue some other means of teaching, be it a different school or home schooling.

Considering the current issue in the U.S. of school vouchers and such, this is a topic that makes me a little uneasy. I acknowledge the right of a parent to, at least to some extent, decide to what ideas to expose his or her child. However, taking children out of public schools causes problems. First, there should be no need to do so, since public schools should, as I said above, foster an attitude of open-mindedness (so should parents!). Second, private schools tend to cater to special-interests (most notably, religion), and thus tend to be far less open-minded than public schools. Third, it is not fair to the public school systems (many of which are overcrowded and underfunded) to divert resources to special-interest schools that do not serve everyone.

The way I see it, schools are tools funded by the tax payers, endowed with certain restrictions and guidelines by the goverment, but then left to be willed by the people that it serves, the local community. This is a largely Christian country and so you will see largely Christian morals, these morals merely find their way into representation in the school system as it naturally bends to the will of the community. It's just representing the morals held by the local majority, not acting on it's own Christian religious beliefs.

It doesn't matter whether ninety-nine percent of the population is Christian; it's still wrong to use a public institution to force, in any way, Christianity upon the remaining one percent. I don't see any way to justify the suppression of non-Christian ideas (which is, after all, the event that started this thread) in a public school, either morally or constitutionally. It's a blatant violation both of an individual's religious freedom and of the first amendment.

[ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: Aiwendil ]

[Bill Ferny]

Note: The word indoctrination means the process of indoctrinating, and to indoctrinate means to instruct in doctrines and principles. There is nothing in the word indoctrination that would necessarily mean that the principles being instructed are not, in fact, based on truth or reality. Indoctrination is the business of education, and is a perfectly good word to use. Of course, it can be argued that all education is the imposition of another’s opinions upon impressionable youth, and I’m sure Socrates was indeed guilty of this. Whether it justifies his execution or not is a matter that this thread has taken up, much to all of the contributing members’ credit.

Mhoram’s post comes to the point very clearly when dealing with the issue of censorship: the real discussion should not be about the act of censuring, but who censures, by what authority do they censure, upon what principles do they censure, and who is the object of the censure. For every act of censorship, if we look at each of these questions, then we can come to reasonable arguments against censorship (I’m speaking of small-minded, irresponsible censorship that takes the form of banning) that in the end make far more sense than just saying: Censorship is wrong!

Each facet of the question has its importance, but most will focus on the principles by which censuring is practiced. As long as the principles are safely non-religious, most people don’t have a problem with said principles. For example, when movie critics censure a movie based on poor plot or bad acting, people may disagree, but they aren’t going to say that plot or acting have nothing to do with making a movie good or bad. But if an authority in an organized religion where to say to its believers that such a book or movie is bad based on doctrinal or moral reasons, people come out of the woodwork to say its “Censorship, and all censorship is wrong” (while ignoring that movie critics practice of a form of censorship everyday based on different principles), or that said authorities are totalitarians and hypocrites. The result being that all discussion and debate ends abruptly, and as a consequence those religious authorities, and their principles, go unquestioned and unchallenged.

Parents can be expected to make these decisions according to their own moral and ethical standards, the only other recourse they have that I can see is to unthinkingly bow to some previously decided status quo.

Well, if the status quo promotes unthinking bowing, then that status quo isn’t a good one to follow, however, not every status quo is a bad thing, and to ignore centuries and millennia of human existence in ethical decision making is foolish.

Second, private schools tend to cater to special-interests (most notably, religion), and thus tend to be far less open-minded than public schools.

This has not been my experience, as I noted above. I found much more close-minded people in the public school system than I found in the Catholic parochial system. At least in the Catholic schools there was greater freedom to broach controversial issues dealing with God, morality, religion, etc… because the school, parents, and teachers weren’t threatened by these controversial issues due to their firm acceptance of the Catholic Weltanchaung. As a result, the most challenged religion in this system was the Catholic religion. In the public schools, however, there was considerable worry that any discussion of any religion would offend an administrator, parent, or teacher; thus all religions were investigated in only the most superficial manner. Western culture’s generally negative assessment of religion in part comes from the fact that many schools give the impression that religion is, first, something that can’t be talked about, and second, something that is insignificant to human existence. What induced me to hang up teaching was when I was told by a public school administrator that I was not to mention “the Church” in my Western Civilization class. Attempting to discuss medieval Europe without mentioning the Church is like trying to teach geometry without mentioning angles.

Also, I found it most interesting how this debate turned to the issue of rights in relation to morality. It helps to remind me just how brilliant Robert Bellah, and his cohorts, are. Anyway, this does help to clarify that the will of the majority alone is a dangerous, and never trusted, governing principle. The predominance of constitutional government is example enough of how little faith is placed on the will of the majority, which is never left to its own devices.

Aiwendil, I agree with your assessment “that censorship is only valid when there is a direct causal link between it and harm or harmful actions.” This is good common sense, but in regard to morality (as opposed to ethics) what constitutes harm or harmful actions? Should toleration be upheld at the expense of one’s faith? There are many who would not agree, upon religious grounds, that some things should be tolerated in society. For example, there are those who believe, upon religious grounds, that pornography should be banned completely, not just restricted. Likewise, there are those who believe, upon religious grounds, that Tolkien and all other fantasy writers, should not be read at any time and at any age. For them, fantasy writers do harm and inspire harmful actions in all people, no matter the age. In this case you are either to oblige these people, and, therefore, pull all fantasy books off of public library shelves so as not to offend them, or to present a staunch argument against their principles, and thus save those fantasy books from banning.

By privatizing all discussion about religion, banning the mention of religion from the public forum, these nutty people will inevitably win their case, because no one can enter into meaningful debate with them. Thus, out of toleration for them and their sensibilities, you have an unquestioned and silly form of censorship which is now acceptable because it was done out of “toleration” for their religious beliefs.

[ December 06, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Ferny ]

[ December 06, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Ferny ]

[Aiwendil]

. For example, when movie critics censure a movie based on poor plot or bad acting, people may disagree, but they aren’t going to say that plot or acting have nothing to do with making a movie good or bad.

I think we need to be a little more clear about definitions. When movie critics express their opinions on a movie, they are not in any way preventing people from having access to the movie. I don't think that anyone has condemned the expression of opinion with regard to an idea; what is being discussed is the act of preventing other people from access to that idea.

But if an authority in an organized religion where to say to its believers that such a book or movie is bad based on doctrinal or moral reasons, people come out of the woodwork to say its “Censorship, and all censorship is wrong”

Perhaps some people would, but certainly not I. There is nothing wrong with expressing an opinion, even if the opinion is incorrect. There is everything wrong with enforcing your opinion on others (that is, through force rather than through argument).

I found much more close-minded people in the public school system than I found in the Catholic parochial system.

I cannot dispute your own account; however, I know at least one person who attended Catholic school and has formed exactly the opposite opinion. The difference may be this: that he is not Catholic. Which is exactly what my point is - if you're Catholic, of course you will not find much fault in the teachings of a Catholic school; if you are not Catholic, you may. Thus, Catholic schools cater to Catholic interests. Of course, I don't know whether you are Catholic.

At least in the Catholic schools there was greater freedom to broach controversial issues dealing with God, morality, religion, etc… because the school, parents, and teachers weren’t threatened by these controversial issues due to their firm acceptance of the Catholic Weltanchaung.

Still, you can't deny (at least, I don't believe you can) that Catholic schools teach Catholicism. If a student therein were to ask a teacher if there is a God, what would the answer be? Would it be "I don't know?" Because that is the open-minded answer.

In the public schools, however, there was considerable worry that any discussion of any religion would offend an administrator, parent, or teacher; thus all religions were investigated in only the most superficial manner.

I'm not sure how true this is of most public schools. Insofar as it is true, it is very unfortunate. I am not advocating this kind of closed-mindedness. In fact, what you just described is a form of the very censorship I am attacking. The point is that public schools should be a place where ideas of diverse kinds are tolerated.

Incidentally, my experience in public school was not at all like what you described. We studied the teachings of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam; and we discussed the role of the church in ancient and medieval Europe as well as in the Renaissance and modernity.

Attempting to discuss medieval Europe without mentioning the Church is like trying to teach geometry without mentioning angles.

Indeed; and it is a form of censorship.

in regard to morality (as opposed to ethics)

How do you define the difference between those terms? In my usage, they are synonymous.

Should toleration be upheld at the expense of one’s faith?

Short answer: yes.
Long answer: Any imposition of one's own faith upon another person is an act of repression and is immoral. Suppose members of some faith demanded that the Bible be banned in order to prevent the spread of falsehoods. Should they have their way? Of course not. Nor should Christians who ban Tolkien (or anyone else).

In this case you are either to oblige these people, and, therefore, pull all fantasy books off of public library shelves so as not to offend them, or to present a staunch argument against their principles, and thus save those fantasy books from banning.

One need not argue against the all the person's principles. The only principle incompatible with freedom to read any book one wants is the principle that one's own beliefs should be imposed on others. It is possible to be tolerant both of a religion and of ideas that contradict that religion.

[Cúdae]

In my mind, censorship is not wrong, but not right either. All the world is contained in the pages of books. To quote my grandmother: "Books are how a person learns about the world they are in." Withholding extremely violent books from 7 year olds simply means that the children aren't ready to enter that part of the world yet. Withholding extremely violent books from 17 and 18 year olds is unwise. By that time, they are ready to deal with the violence--indeed they see it on the news and read it in the papers. Withholding a book about witchcraft from a 6 year old simply means that they aren't ready to read and accept and make their own decisions. Withholding the same book from a 17 or 18 year old is a sorry attempt at sheltering them from a world of different ideas that they have already entered.

Say a school withholds Tolkien's books from everyone under age 7 (just say that the reading level would be generally good enough to understand Tolkien at this age) for the reason of violence. The young children may not be ready to deal with the violence prevented. Banning Tolkien to 14-18 year olds for the same exact reason. By this time, these people will most likely be able to handle violence much easier.

To bring this to come type of conclusion: The ones who ban the books, etc. should take into consideration the age and world experience of the people they are withholding the books from.

In general, the public is pretty much mindless.

Clear proof would be the brainwashing that leads most Americans to believe that they are invincable and/or the greatest people on the face of the earth...but let's not get into that here. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

I am told by my 11-year old son that in his (inner city) school Harry Potter is viewed as "babyish", Lord of The Rings is "too over the top", but that The Matrix is ultimately cool.

That seems to be widely accepted. My eleven-year-old sisters said the same thing not too long ago. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Bill Ferny]

Aiwendil, great post! I haven’t had this much fun since… well, school!

In regard to movie critics, I’m speaking of the act of censuring, that is judging something as bad (or in the case of SW II, absolutely horrendous), not restricting access. This is the type of censuring that is practiced by theologians and ultimately bishops in my religion. Contrary to popular opinion the Church doesn’t, nor can it, restrict access to any written material, unless not having a book on a school library is considered restriction. (In that case it is probably at the discretion of the administrator, and usually for the same reasons you would find some books absent from public school libraries, that is, they just don’t happen to have a copy of it).

Something tells me that you would never scream such a thing. However, not just some people, but most people do. The reason for this is because most people lack a language to deal with the objective reality of religion, as is evidenced by our constant referral to rights language that neatly sets religion aside as a peripheral subject relevant only to the individual.

Still, you can't deny (at least, I don't believe you can) that Catholic schools teach Catholicism. If a student therein were to ask a teacher if there is a God, what would the answer be? Would it be "I don't know?" Because that is the open-minded answer.

I have to strongly disagree on this. Agnosticism is not equivalent to open-mindedness. When having an open mind strips us of all convictions, then the old adage, “if you have an open mind, your brains fall out,” is true. Having an open mind, rather, is having the willingness to test all things. When something fails the test, it is not close minded to reject it; likewise, if something proves the test, it is not close minded to accept it. Agnosticism does not open debate, it closes it. Once you admit that something can not be known, you make all further inquiry pointless.

It would be very difficult to argue that Catholic schools do not primarily teach Catholicism. In fact, that is the only reason why they exist, and reading, writing, and arithmetic are secondary. Catholic schools “cater to Catholic interests” because they are Catholic. The connotation that this is a bad thing perplexes me, but I may be reading something into your post that is not there. There are those in the world who freely choose to be Catholic, and believe it or not, there are those who freely choose to be good Catholics. Can you fault the Catholic Church for striving to provide guidance and nourishment for these people? Non-Catholics, it is true, can have problems in this atmosphere, but lets face it, if you want your children to grow up as Marxists, you are going to have problems with the public school system.

In order to distinguish between purely philosophical ethics, such as Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics or secular fields of ethics such as medical ethics or legal ethics, and ethical systems based on revelation, it was a common convention for us to use the term “morality” when dealing with the later, and “ethics” when dealing with the former. Ethics then is a broader field than morality.

Toleration in our modern parlance receives more devotion than it deserves, especially since we must maintain a higher degree of intolerance than tolerance to function in communities. The legal system, a vast labyrinth of volume after volume after volume, is the most prevalent monument to intolerance that comes to mind. In fact, there is much more we are intolerant of than tolerant. Compare all these law books to the single piece of paper that represents what we tolerate.

In my country, my neighbor can spout all manner of racist sentiments he wants, but I’m not required to tolerate this, both from my own personal convictions, and out of genuine concern for my neighbor. Does my intolerance give me the right to burn down his home, run him through, and starve his wife and children? Of course not! But my intolerance can take the form of constantly challenging him and the views he holds, and, of course, this would entail an emphatic, “you are wrong” occasionally, which is a form of censorship. Just because you can say whatever you want, doesn’t mean that what you say must go unchallenged (as this thread demonstrates very well), or that you are right. The challenging of my neighbor’s views, or the emphatic denial of their validity, is not the same thing as repressing him.

In the above example, my faith, or at the very least, my personal conviction, takes precedence over toleration. I don’t disagree with this statement: “It is possible to be tolerant both of a religion and of ideas that contradict that religion.” However, it is not possible to be faithful to one’s religion and to be tolerant of ideas that contradict that religion. If that were true, then why should anyone believe in anything? But, I hope that I demonstrated well enough above, intolerance doesn’t equal repression, nor should it.

[Kalessin]

I tend to agree that toleration should be upheld at the expense of faith, but faith and toleration are perhaps uneasy bedfellows at the best of times. In the end the deconstruction to 'tolerating intolerance' is probably inevitable.

I think that religion is by no means the only culprit in the debate about censorship. Whilst not advocating a simple "creationism vs. evolution" judgement, I have direct experience that some schools, or teachers, treat traditional theories of physical science as holy writ, and insist on a (typically incomplete and flawed) indoctrination of absolute materialism. I undertook a couple of statistically unreliable vox-pops among adult peers and children about what 'evolution' was, and came up with a sort of free-market process that was more like a definition of capitalism, all based on some old fossil records. Just adding the word 'theory' to various sacred technocratic cows would help [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img].

If a school believes that empirical objective truths exist and are fully and irrefutably expressed in the hypotheses of Newton, Einstein and so on, then all mysticism could be censored on the grounds of absurdity. If a school believes that the Bible is the only truth, then what is the point in teaching evolution theory? Both these extremes are examples of, in effect, institutional faith as an inevitable antagonist of toleration.

My personal experience is that censorship works best (if it works at all), when undertaken in a pragmatic way, on a case by case basis, and that each decision is only valid for the time in which it was taken. I think that blanket censorship on the grounds of religion, morality or other tenet, is ultimately destructive and disempowering - and the evidence is that it is often self-defeating. Simply suppressing racist ideology, without ever confronting the issues themselves, creates an adversarial society where racist groups believe themselves 'oppressed' and become a sort of clique for a dispossessed (and dysfunctional) minority. This is how racist political movements have gained electoral power in Europe both in the past and recently.

Yet I still think Bill's earlier rant has some merit, and Cudae has emphasized the point about how insular delusions become institutionalised. I don't know if it has been banned anywhere (yes, probably for its homoereotic undertones), but Lord of the Flies is a potent exploration of freedom, or perhaps anarchy. Alternatively you might try Milius' Conan The Barbarian as libertarian allegory [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]. Without any indoctrination (or teaching, if you prefer) freedom itself can be a brutal thing. Ah, Neitzche [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

Peace.

Kalessin

[ December 07, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[Bill Ferny]

Conan The Barbarian as libertarian allegory? I thought it was their manifesto. [img]smilies/eek.gif[/img]

[Bill Ferny]

I should underscore this to make myself clear (because I think my point was lost, at least on me, when I got mired down in that tolerance stuff):

The only principle incompatible with freedom to read any book one wants is the principle that one's own beliefs should be imposed on others.

The problem with this statement is that those nutty people who want to ban fantasy books are using the same argument. These fantasy books, in their minds, by being present in the public schools, is an imposition on them. An argument from toleration becomes a vicious circle, and this circle is the evolution of political correctness.

My personal experience is that censorship works best (if it works at all), when undertaken in a pragmatic way, on a case by case basis, and that each decision is only valid for the time in which it was taken. I think that blanket censorship on the grounds of religion, morality or other tenet, is ultimately destructive and disempowering - and the evidence is that it is often self-defeating.

There is a lot of validity to this method, and I can think of at least one Catholic moral theologian, Timothy E. O’Connell, who would agree with you. Here is the best link I could find to his most recent book (http://www.scu.edu/bannancenter/Explore%20Articles/W1999/Book--text.html) that mentions just such a method, albeit in terms of a whole moral system. However, there are many who would argue that O’Connell, and also you, would put too much emphasis on circumstance at the expense of fundamental principles.

Edit: URL link didn't work.

[ December 07, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Ferny ]

[Aiwendil]

Bill Ferny:

In regard to movie critics, I’m speaking of the act of censuring, that is judging something as bad

Okay. But the original question was about something quite different.

(or in the case of SW II, absolutely horrendous)

I am forced to disagree vehemently on this point.

unless not having a book on a school library is considered restriction.

It can be, if it is done in order to restrict access to that book. Of course, not every library can have every book ever written.

The reason for this is because most people lack a language to deal with the objective reality of religion, as is evidenced by our constant referral to rights language that neatly sets religion aside as a peripheral subject relevant only to the individual.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this. I don't have anything against discussing religion; I find it rather interesting. Nonetheless, our common notion of human rights should not depend upon any individual's religion.

Agnosticism is not equivalent to open-mindedness.

It seems to me that it's quintessentially open-minded. To tell a student "there is God" is to repress the idea that there is no God. To tell a student "there is no God" is to repress the idea that there is one.

Agnosticism does not open debate, it closes it.

How so? If everyone agrees that there is a God, then there's no debate. If everyone agrees that there's no God, then there's no debate there either. If we acknowledge that we don't know, then we can entertain debate in pursuit of an answer. If someone said "I don't know" and then simply refused to entertain any further inquiry, that would be closed-minded. But genuine Agnosticism is open to all arguments.

It would be very difficult to argue that Catholic schools do not primarily teach Catholicism. In fact, that is the only reason why they exist, and reading, writing, and arithmetic are secondary. Catholic schools “cater to Catholic interests” because they are Catholic. The connotation that this is a bad thing perplexes me, but I may be reading something into your post that is not there.

I did not say that it is a bad thing. The original point was this: taxpayer money should not be taken out of public schools and given to private schools because they "cater to special interests" like Catholicism. That is, they serve only a portion of the population, not everyone.

Non-Catholics, it is true, can have problems in this atmosphere, but lets face it, if you want your children to grow up as Marxists, you are going to have problems with the public school system.

My point is that public schools should be places open to any argument as an argument. I don't see any problem with a public school acknowledging that many people are Catholics and describing their beliefs, or with examining the strengths and weaknesses of Marxist theory.

But my intolerance can take the form of constantly challenging him and the views he holds

Again, we seem to be using different definitions. To me, tolerance means this: a willingness to accept any argument on its own merits and willingness to allow those with whom you disagree, if they are not persuaded by argument, to continue to disagree, so long as they do not cause clear harm to others in doing so. Argument does not run contrary to tolerance; it is essential to tolerance.

The challenging of my neighbor’s views, or the emphatic denial of their validity, is not the same thing as repressing him.

Right. But the type of censorship that sparked this thread is indeed repression.

However, it is not possible to be faithful to one’s religion and to be tolerant of ideas that contradict that religion.

You haven't addressed one of my hypothetical situations, though: what if someone's faith compelled them to ban the Bible, or to do everything possible to restrict access to it? Suppose there were a school system in which the people of this faith predominated. If they ban the Bible, or any discussion of Christianity, from public schools, is that fair to the Christian minority? Certainly not. How, then, is it different for a Christian majority to ban works based on their faith?

Kalessin:

In the end the deconstruction to 'tolerating intolerance' is probably inevitable.

I think I agree, though this deconstruction is unfortunate.

I have direct experience that some schools, or teachers, treat traditional theories of physical science as holy writ, and insist on a (typically incomplete and flawed) indoctrination of absolute materialism.

That an unfortunately high number of teachers do not understand evolution properly does not mean that evolution itself, the proper theory, should not be taught.

My personal experience is that censorship works best (if it works at all), when undertaken in a pragmatic way, on a case by case basis, and that each decision is only valid for the time in which it was taken. I think that blanket censorship on the grounds of religion, morality or other tenet, is ultimately destructive and disempowering - and the evidence is that it is often self-defeating.

I actually agree with this entirely. (Shocking!)

Again Bill Ferny:

The problem with this statement is that those nutty people who want to ban fantasy books are using the same argument. These fantasy books, in their minds, by being present in the public schools, is an imposition on them. An argument from toleration becomes a vicious circle, and this circle is the evolution of political correctness.

The argument from toleration does solve this problem, regardless of whether certain school administrators listen to it or not. There is a profound difference between imposing your view on someone and exposing your view to someone. Banning books is imposition. Not banning books is exposure.

One last note (and I know I'm going to inspire the heated contention of a lot of people with this): Political correctness. It has in recent years been blasted unceasingly. Yet there is - or rather, there should be - a big difference between political correctness and censorship. Political correctness means making an effort toward equity and toward tolerance in one's speech. It means saying "he or she" instead of just "he", it means not talking about "flesh colored" and meaning just Caucasian, it means not making unfair stereotypes or generalizations about races or cultures. It should not mean prohibiting ideas, however objectionable they may be. Political correctness, when coupled with an open-mind is a very good thing.

[ December 07, 2002: Message edited by: Aiwendil ]

[Bill Ferny]

You haven't addressed one of my hypothetical situations, though: what if someone's faith compelled them to ban the Bible, or to do everything possible to restrict access to it? Suppose there were a school system in which the people of this faith predominated. If they ban the Bible, or any discussion of Christianity, from public schools, is that fair to the Christian minority? Certainly not. How, then, is it different for a Christian majority to ban works based on their faith?

I’ve already said, banning is a form of censorship that is irresponsible, small-minded, and demonstrates a lack of intelligence or ungrounded principles. Also, I’ve already said that the will of the majority is not necessarily right, as is evidenced by constitutional government that imposes limitations to the will of the majority in all modern representative republics. So in response to your hypothetical I would, of course, respond that any form of banning is wrong no matter the majority or minority position.

While some forms of censorship are necessary, I do not support, nor do I think there is any good argument, for banning or book burning. The issue is how do you address those who argue for banning or undue censorship. In regard to a specific area, religion, we lack a language to do so. We can not in this day and age discuss religious principles without recourse to “rights language” which is inadequate in regards to issues that suggest absolute truth. I’m not going to attempt to explain this, but I do recommend the brilliant work of sociologist, Robert Bellah, who collected a group of fellow scholars and put together two excellent books, Habits of the Heart, and The Good Society, both of which are absolutely essential reads about modern American (and for that matter, western European) sociology and cultural anthropology.

There is a profound difference between imposing your view on someone and exposing your view to someone.

No doubt that there is. However, what one person considers mere exposure, another is inclined to think of as imposition. For many people the presence of a book on a teacher’s reading list is considered imposition, while from the teacher’s perspective is an attempt to expose the student to some form of literature. In a course on modern English literature, the appearance of The Hobbit {mandatory reference to Tolkien in order to avoid the censorship of the moderators} on a recommended reading list is an imposition of a demonic influence on their poor bible bred 17 year old daughter even though the teacher isn’t making it mandatory. In short, dealing with real people places a lot of grey area between imposition and exposure. [An aside: I can just see some people having a fit that their children are “exposed” to (fill in the blank).]

In the end, imposing a regulation, whether it be based on the difference between imposing and exposing or anything else, is inadequate. First, any regulation can be interpreted in as many ways as there are people who want to challenge it or bend it to their will. Second, such a regulation does not address the reasons why someone would be so intolerant of something that they would want to ban it. The only adequate solution is to argue against the primary principles upon which their position rests. I’ve already touched on why this is such a stumbling block for us when the principles are religious ones.

To me, tolerance means this: a willingness to accept any argument on its own merits and willingness to allow those with whom you disagree, if they are not persuaded by argument, to continue to disagree, so long as they do not cause clear harm to others in doing so.

Would you also hold that tolerance includes the willingness to decline any argument on its own faults? If you do, then we are in agreement.

If they are not persuaded by argument, that’s no excuse to stop arguing. The only bad debate is the one that comes to an end.

What are the principles that would determine “clear harm”? There’s a good reason why I ask this question. Within certain circumstances some things may cause harm, but given other circumstances they would not. Likewise, some things that in and of themselves do not cause harm, may be clearly harmful to the ends intended. For example, reading Tolkien during civics class is harmful to the ends intended, but there is no harm in reading Tolkien in and of itself. Does harm only apply to the physical well being of individuals? My racist neighbor, for example, doesn’t beat people up over his racist beliefs, but on a different level, doesn’t his speech and his display of a Nazi flag harm the community? For some people, fantasy literature is clearly harmful, whether it be religious reasons or not.

Don’t misunderstand me; I’m not saying your definition of tolerance is wrong. However, it is open to a vast array of interpretation. For this reason arguing that a form of censorship is wrong because it is intolerant doesn’t do the job.

That an unfortunately high number of teachers do not understand evolution properly does not mean that evolution itself, the proper theory, should not be taught.

This is a good example of censorship. Your stance that there is a proper theory of evolution implies that there are improper theories. That implication means that you have censured these theories, or, in other words, judged them as faulty or inadequate. It also implies a certain level intolerance for these improper theories, in as much as you would argue against them in favor of the proper theory. There’s nothing in the least wrong with your censorship and intolerance, unless, of course, some paleontologist comes along and proves your proper theory wrong.

[ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Ferny ]

[Carannillion]

First of all, I have not had the time to read through all the above posts, so I may be repeating things, but I will say them anyway.

Aiwendil, I was thinking about the exact same thing as you: Banning books is on the brink of breaking the law. The school I attended did not ban any books whatsoever. Had a student brought Mein Kampf and my teacher found out, it would have turned into a loooong discussion, not a ban.

This banning of things - books - for some obscure reason seems to always end up in tragedy or defeat. Why ban these seemingly bad things (books written by Tolkien and all the others...)? Why not look at them and figure out how to prove them wrong? Let me give you an example of how banning something turned out to have a very opposite effect of the intention, and how the people of this effect failed to learn anything at all. some 2000 years ago, a certain priesthood in a known region tried to ban a certain man's teachings. It went so far that in the end, they killed him. This all evolved into this man's teachings becoming one of the most widespread and accepted teachings ever known to mankind. Now, the irony here is that the leading followers of this famous man's teachings soon began to fall into the pattern of the previous priesthood; banning oppoosition. Was it Sun Tzu who wrote about knowing your enemy? Take modern medicine as another example. If a virus like HIV is discovered, the important thing if you want to fight it, is to understand it. Find out how it works, then fight it. If you as a principal have a hard time accepting what Tolkien wrote, first you have to read him and get to know him yourself. Then you have to explain your students why you have decided to ban this book. Actually, you should not ban it at all, simply enter a discussion with them, and if you know what you are talking about, you will make them understand. Ultimately, you will understand that banning things will not work. The variety of our society is what is keeping it alive.

In my English class we were encouraged to read. If I brought a book to class and concentrated about it instead of what the teacher said, she would go on and in the break ask me what i was reading and then decide whether I could go on or had to put it away (when I brought Silmarillion, she encouraged me to go on, even though she had never read a word of Tolkien herself...).

Oh my, I am raving and ranting uncontrollably now.... ooo... phew! managed to stop [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: Carannillion ]

[Aiwendil]

So in response to your hypothetical I would, of course, respond that any form of banning is wrong no matter the majority or minority position.

Okay, I understand now. On this main point, then, we are in complete agreement.

We can not in this day and age discuss religious principles without recourse to “rights language” which is inadequate in regards to issues that suggest absolute truth.

I'm not sure how inadequate it is. You are right that one cannot make a rational argument against someone who holds onto a truth for non-rational reasons. Certainly, there is no system of rights that would not contradict some religious system. If a person claims that his or her religion requires, for example, the banning of books, there is no way to argue with him or her short of arguing against the religious principles. There are few religions, however, that explicitly demand such action. Certainly (as I'm sure you agree) Catholicism does not demand the banning of Tolkien. In the absence of such a clear demand, rights language may be succesful in arguing against an ultra-evangelical stance (by which I mean banning books, etc.).

However, what one person considers mere exposure, another is inclined to think of as imposition.

This is indeed a problem in putting the theory of tolerance into practice. I would argue, of course, that these people are wrong. But I know that doesn't help in practice.

The only adequate solution is to argue against the primary principles upon which their position rests.

Agreed.

Would you also hold that tolerance includes the willingness to decline any argument on its own faults? If you do, then we are in agreement.

Then we are indeed in agreement.

What are the principles that would determine “clear harm”?

This is definitely one of the areas where it becomes difficult to apply theory to reality. I don't have a clear definition of clear harm, and I acknowledge that one is needed. Yet there are some situations where there are not so many shades of grey. Committing hate crimes causes clear harm. Arguing concerning the nature and role of tolerance (as we're doing) does not. Everything in between - that's where the theory is incomplete. But incomplete does not mean incorrect.

This is a good example of censorship. Your stance that there is a proper theory of evolution implies that there are improper theories. That implication means that you have censured these theories, or, in other words, judged them as faulty or inadequate.

It is censorship in that it is the rational censure of inadequate theories. It is declining an argument on its own faults. It is not banning. It retains the freedom to discuss ideas such as creationism, but it does not restrict the arguments that may be used to prove that creationism is false. To make an analogy: there is no ban on discussion of the idea that 2+2=5; but logical arguments can be used to prove that idea false.

It also implies a certain level intolerance for these improper theories, in as much as you would argue against them in favor of the proper theory.

But you said yourself that we must be willing to "decline any argument on its own faults". You seem to be suggesting that we ban arguments in favor of evolution and thereby bring the debate to an end. Or perhaps I misunderstand you and you are in fact making a syntactical point about intolerance: in which case, I can only say that I have already defined tolerance, and that my definition allowed one to make arguments.

There’s nothing in the least wrong with your censorship and intolerance, unless, of course, some paleontologist comes along and proves your proper theory wrong.

Ah. I should have read ahead. You were indeed making a syntactical point. This depends on our different definitions of intolerance.

As for censorship: if censorship means making arguments and expressing opinions, then I'm completely in favor of it. It is more typically used to mean the opposite: the banning of arguments and the repression of opinions. I'm against the latter, not the former.

[ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: Aiwendil ]

[Bill Ferny]

Now, the irony here is that the leading followers of this famous man's teachings soon began to fall into the pattern of the previous priesthood; banning oppoosition.

This may be true of some individuals (a few who, no doubt, found themselves in positions of authority) throughout history, but to characterize them as “the leading followers,” which I would assume you mean the leaders of organized religions, is ungrounded in its generality. However, if you consider the censure of an idea based on the principles of a given religion banning the opposition, then all us religious types are guilty of it. But censorship and banning are two different things. It is just as valid for a religion to practice censorship based on their principles as there are valid reasons for individuals to practice personal censorship upon personal principles, or for a movie critic to practice censorship upon her principles.

If you as a principal have a hard time accepting what Tolkien wrote, first you have to read him and get to know him yourself.

This is exactly what book burners, generally speaking, of course, do not do, and ironically enough its something that they will not be able to do if they get their way. If someone does thoroughly investigate a book or idea, and then decides to ban it… well, that’s a huge inconsistency, and it begs the question: so what’s good for the goose isn’t good for the gander?

[Kalessin]

Aiwendil

In discussing the censorship of alternative scientific theories, with evolution as the example, you say -

It is censorship in that it is the rational censure of inadequate theories. It is declining an argument on its own faults. It is not banning. It retains the freedom to discuss ideas such as creationism, but it does not restrict the arguments that may be used to prove that creationism is false. To make an analogy: there is no ban on discussion of the idea that 2+2=5; but logical arguments can be used to prove that idea false.

To me this implies that logic can be used definitively to prove that any theories are false, as if all knowledge could be reduced to mathematical abstraction. Elsewhere I mentioned Xeno's Arrow as a fairly ancient example of how logic can be the basis for absurdity, and again in other posts we have seen Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of God, which in it's own terms is as irrefutable as 2+2=4.

I would consider a rounded approach to evolution one that cited Mendel, Darwin, Stephen Jay Gould and Dawkins etc., but also looked at Lamarcq, Eysenck etc., and the flaws in inductive arguments that are inevitable in such an incomplete theory, as well as carefully reviewing the traditional creationist myth and its various metaphorical interpretations, and in more general terms at the 'design' argument and the hard science behind teleological hypotheses, whether divinely-rooted or otherwise. The idea that there is one accepted certainty, and all others can be dismissed with a sweep of logic, is untenable in this example - and as a general principle I would suggest not ideal as a way of teaching children or adults to properly exercise reasoning, judgement and insight.

Bill

I have to say that whilst I am still loyal to your polemical indictment of modern society, genuine tolerance and willingness engage is RARELY evidenced in the history of the church. From the ghettoes of Prague to Torquemada, from the Crusades to the genocide and repression of indigenous populations around the world, the established Christian church has a deeply tarnished report. It is pretty hard to suggest the leaders of Catholicism (or Christianity in general) have exemplified tolerance, debate or an aversion to 'banning' of any kind.

This, however, does not have to reflect on the messages of the Scriptures, or the mission of the Church in principle. It is merely that men of the Church must take their place in history along with others, and (inevitably) be judged by today's standards. Like others, some men of the Church have indeed fought against oppression throughout history. But considering the Church as an institution, one cannot ignore the various and numerous acts of banning specifically legitimised by that institution.

Everyone [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Given the nature of today's global culture, in most cases censorship is at best an act of deferment. Despite the best or worst efforts of educators and the media, it is quite feasible to find almost any view or theory discussed at length on a website somewhere, from things I might find deeply offensive, such as neo-Nazi propoganda, to perfectly run-of-the-mill current cultural phenomena, such as woolly new age mysticism. Once-banned books are now a genre in themselves ... and if Tolkien finds itself out in the cold at one school or another, well, there's a Hollywood film and a whole range of the printed books in circulation everywhere.

The issue is about the principles involved, and that was the basis of my original question. Censorship as deferment - waiting until a child is ready or able to discuss an idea (or its antithesis) or cope with powerful images or concepts - is something, I believe, that can be undertaken on a case by case basis with a modicum of good conscience. Censorship as concealment on principle - whether it be censorship of pornography, racialism, religion or anti-religion, or revolutionary politics etc. - is I would say more problematic, for the individual and for the institution.

But hey, who said life was simple [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Peace.

Kalessin

[ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[Aiwendil]

To me this implies that logic can be used definitively to prove that any theories are false, as if all knowledge could be reduced to mathematical abstraction. Elsewhere I mentioned Xeno's Arrow as a fairly ancient example of how logic can be the basis for absurdity, and again in other posts we have seen Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of God, which in it's own terms is as irrefutable as 2+2=4.

Indeed, and I would add Heisenberg and Schroedinger to the list of refutations of knowledge. No, logic alone cannot tell us anything, because logic does not give us first principles (save for cogito, ergo sum). And empirical observation cannot tell us anything due to error and uncertainty. However, logic can establish connections between propositions and give us new statements as output, dependent of course on those with which we begin. And empiricism can tell us certain things with near 100 percent certainty. One thing that empiricism confirms with near certainty is that 2+2=4. Now if we take this proposition and couple it with other propositions based on near-certain empiricism, we can arrive at conclusions that have roughly the same certainty as the propositions (actually the certainty would be the certainty of proposition 1 times that of proposition 2, minus a negligible amount due to possible human error in the logic). So, based on the empirical observations that 2+2=4 and that 4x2=8, we can conclude that (2+2)x2=8.

When I say that evolution is a fact, I am doing so within the limits prescribed by Hume, Descartes, Heisenberg, and anyone else you want to throw in. There is of course no such thing as an absolutely certain fact. The possibility that evolution is incorrect is, however, incredibly small.

I certainly have no problem with the discussion of the ways in which current evolutionary theory is incomplete, nor in addressing creationist ideas. But basic evolutionary theory is as nearly certain as is necessary.

If we disagree on this point, however, that disagreement lies outside the scope of the present discussion. We seem to agree that schools should be open to logical arguments on their own strengths and weaknesses, and should not repress any argument without addressing it.

[Bill Ferny]

Kalessin, Aiwendil

Thank you for your measured and erudite responses to the PMs, however, for some reason I am unable to access the “my profile” page. I keep getting a Software Error message. So, I am unable to read or send those PM threads, though I did read your responses in the email notification. Thanks again, and I guess that, at least in this case, other factors besides undue censorship has brought debate to a close.

Bill

[Kalessin]

Aiwendil

But basic evolutionary theory is as nearly certain as is necessary

As you say, there is a whole discussion on what, or who, dictates something is as true as necessary. While a debate on evolution theory (which need not deconstruct to the level of cogito ergo sum) might be something we could engage in, I agree it is not central to this topic.

However, what your assertion highlights is the inevitability of subjective judgement when any of us attempt to synthesize what we hold as true into actions based upon that assessment. Banning a book for religious or secular reasons invariably involves at some point, at some level, a personal, individual judgement that can rarely be arrived at unequivocally from an empirical or logical basis. This is perhaps why finding a precise consensus on the boundaries is far from easy.

The banning of Tolkien remains a mystery if based upon religious reasons, and the banning of Farenheit 451 seems equally unwarranted. The mechanism by which such censorship might be applied to one work as opposed to another - keywords, narrative theme, morality, imagery - is notable more by its absence (or most vague invocation) ... and as has been pointed out, if the censor imagines himself/herself immune to the negative effect of art, yet assumes that others will be vulnerable, there is arguably a false premise at work.

Still, our comfortable liberal consensus (which encompasses all the posts in this thread) is perhaps not as representative of the wider world as we would wish or hope. And in the end, we all have a part to play, however small, in the way things turn out. End of sermon [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img].

Bill, keep trying. I look forward to hearing from you.

Compliments to everyone for responding to my questions with such articulate and thoughtful contributions [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img].

Peace.

Kalessin

[ December 09, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[HerenIstarion]

Up up it goes
It'd be good if it grows

[Lalwendë]

I think censorship is about two things: power and fear.

Power because it is such a strong tool to be used by those in control. If we are denied the knowledge of something then we are being controlled. A good example of this I have seen in the real world is where school children who are streamed according to ability are sometimes denied the chance to study Shakespeare, as it is deemed 'too difficult' for them. In this example, the only difficulty lies in the ability or inclination of the teacher to make the effort to teach such kids Shakespeare. In the same way, much knowledge is denied children by dint of their age, blanket fashion. This takes no account of the emotional or intellectual maturity of that child. I was lucky in that few teachers denied me the chance to learn something that was 'beyond my age' - my Chemistry teacher told me about fission and fusion because I wanted to know; others might have told me to wait two years.

I also see this in the workplace - censorship of information is often confined to the higher echelons because it would not do for junior staff to know that x number of jobs are under the axe lest 'morale' slip. This is merely control as we are given the information as and when it is deemed fit by those in power.

Fear comes in because anything which we do not automatically understand can provoke a fear based reaction. There is much controversy over certain video games, and the arguments often fail to recognise that such games are marketed at adults who spend a lot more money on these products than do children. The existence of age certificates is again a use of power in controlling who uses such products - but it is hard to argue against it.

In the same way, many people are afraid of things as diverse as the internet, tarot cards, young men in trenchcoats, and Harry Potter. So they automatically turn that fear into the control of restriction and censorship. It's a case of "I don't understand it, so it's obviously bad". Take the film Battle Royale - it's a veritable bloodbath, and I've heard many criticisms of it, but it makes a valid point. If I understand it, and want to watch it, why should someone else's fear deny me from watching it? But it could do quite easily.

Luckily in the UK censorship is not as pervasive as in other countries, many of them in the west. I think that culture produces only those products which result from its nature - so if we have a violent culture, we will naturally have violent products. In many cases, there are 18 cert films I would far rather a child watch than the negativity of Eastenders or Popstars (where, exactly is the fun in seeing someone's dreams ripped apart on national TV?). It is the context which is important.

Some from of censorship is inevitable where the state is in strong control, as it then has the power to do this; the same goes for micro-states such as school boards, right down to families. It is intriguing that schools still ask permission for children to do sex education - this shows that the home itself is still an important hotbed of control in society, and begs the question of whether we need any state directed censorship. This brings the whole thing full circle, and if we have parents who are knowledgeable enough to identify what is and what is not appropriate for their children, then we would not need such censorship, but as they were probably denied the knowledge to make these choices, they cannot do this.