A conservative case for censorship

I am posting these extracts as points for discussion.  They are not necessarily my views.  The full article is here

At this point it may be useful to depart briefly from the convenience of the word censorship, with all its undertones, and emphasise the positive influence one seeks by referring to ‘quality control’. The term is no euphemism but genuinely approaches the question of constraint from a constructive viewpoint.

Quality control is readily understood in industrial settings where production is involved. Commodities are produced which must meet a minimum standard of quality or be rejected. A good factory will set its own standards and enforce them; others may seek to flood the market with inferior products. If there is any danger to the purchaser, external standards of control may be applied to which the producer must conform or be subject to prosecution. The emphasis throughout is not on rejection of the sub-standard but on preservation and protection of the quality product. In order to achieve this, rigorous rejection of sub-standard products is necessary. Those who speak for censorship as a positive influence are, in effect, seeking quality control of books, films etc. in just this way. It is assumed that there are some prevailing community standards worth preserving. It is assumed that judgements about acceptability are possible even though difficult. Moreover, the responsibility for such discriminations is best left where possible with the producers themselves, be they authors, publishers or film producers.

At the same time it is recognised that unscrupulous producers will enter the field and market sub-standard material. Pornographic material is the obvious example. When this happens, if the producer is prepared to exploit the market, there is a case for quality control being in the hands of an agency responsible to the community.

To argue that the setting of standards is difficult is no reason to stop trying. It has proved possible not only in such fields as engineering: we also have complex requirements in food and drug laws which provide protection and periodically come under review. It has been possible in the past to operate standards in censorship and it remains possible even at a time when many values are changing. The contemporary problem is not to identify a standard but to retain it in the face not only of natural shifts of emphasis in society but also in the face of pressure from those who will deny any basis for standards…

That society is slow to act in both areas can be explained in many ways:-

“It would seem that to justify a censorship law one would have to establish a danger—the usual one put forward being moral danger. This concept, however, is not an easy one to define or establish. One might well consider the analogy of pollution. For some hundred years we have polluted the atmosphere and seas with industrial, chemical and household waste. Only recently it has become possible to measure the amount of pollution in the atmosphere, and it is even more recently that the alarms have been sufficient to move to action governments with an eye and a half on the industrial sector of the community”. (Haynes, 1970.)

This comparison with the environmental pollution problem draws attention to several reasons for inadequate censorship provisions:
(a) The difficulty of being sure a danger exists.
(b) The very gradual increase in the size of the problem which lulls people into a false sense of security. Every student of elementary psychology knows that provided levels of stimulation are raised by small enough intervals, people will fail to avoid even quite dangerous levels of input.
(c) The further problem of persuading responsible bodies to act when such action risks the unpopularity of the electorate. In addition to the simple power of the vote, which may discourage courageous legislation, financial interests are also at work. It is obvious enough in the field of physical pollution that controlling legislation relating to smoking and car exhausts, for example, will have enormous repercussions on the economy. Resistance from vested interests will clearly deter legislators. By the same token, there are large sums of money to be made by exploiters out of sexually salacious and other potentially censorable material…

Traditionally the law has accepted this responsibility for interpreting community standards even at the risk of infringing individual freedom. As long as the majority was prepared to accept that it was proper for the law to act in this protective way, censorship and similar constraints on freedom of action operated with little question. Today, however, personal freedom is often prized more highly than the good of society more generally, so politicians and legislators are being forced into the position of extending the boundaries of personal freedom so widely that those least able to object suffer most. The law must surely recognise a human right to protection from offence that many anti-censorship enthusiasts have forgotten. In the words of Ruth Brine (1971), ‘If some have the right to pornography, others have an equal right not to have it foisted on them’. Or, as Haynes (1970), has put it: ‘If individual freedom demands that person x can read document A, it also demands that person y may avoid reading it if he so desires. Thus, there must always be restrictions on the display of material.’

Strangely enough, it could easily happen that the minority group seeking the complete abolition of censorship for the sake of personal liberty if successful would bring about the very opposite of their intentions. Reo Christenson (1970) puts the arguments for the American scene succinctly when he says: ‘Paradoxically, the existence of censorship probably assures greater freedom in America than its absence. If, somehow, the tiny minority (Gallup estimates five to six per cent) which wants no censorship were to have their way, it would be an open invitation for vigilante groups to take over. Outraged at the irresponsibles, the Middle American would employ extra-legal pressures as a substitute for law. And a sorry substitute they would be. Controlling pornography by legal means and orderly institutions gives us the best assurance that society’s concern will be dealt with in a civilised manner’.

That prediction came true in 1973 when it was reported that the Klu Klux Klan had moved into the area of pornography control. Clearly the ideal of individual autonomy operating runs into problems when there are groups who are prepared to exert control for their own ends. This is why the control must rest with the legitimately established authority, yet at the same time be open to public scrutiny. It was the warning of Lewis in the Riddell Memorial Lectures (1943) that we should not ‘be deceived by phrases about man taking charge of his own destiny. All that can really happen is that some men will take charge of the destiny of others. They will simply be men; none perfect; some greedy, cruel and dishonest. The more completely we are planned the more powerful they will be. Have we discovered some new reason why, this time, power should not corrupt as it has done before?’ ...

To this point the censorship-issue has been examined in terms of evidence and lines of argument that are open to general discussion. It is apparent, however, that in the last analysis scientific evidence is inadequate to establish the criteria for quality control. The values which are to be preserved in a society rest rather on moral and ethical judgements.

Necessarily those who reject censorship are invoking value judgements about the society and the nature of man just as much as those who advocate controls. The difference is that the former group does not have to defend any one set of values, whereas those who seek controls must propose criteria and a basis for them.

Differences in approach towards what should be available to people spring from quite fundamentally different views of human nature. The humanistic position is characteristically optimistic about man’s potential for good if only he is freed from restraints; the Christian view is not the opposite of this in the sense of being totally pessimistic. It does, however, adopt a realistic view of human nature in recognising man’s fallibility and failure. From the viewpoint that people do not always judge wisely; that disturbed people can be a menace both to themselves and to others; that children deserve a degree of protection from some material in their formative years; it follows that total freedom for all adults to read, see and hear what they please will in reality lead to a loss of true freedom. The controls will simply move into unscrupulous hands and multiply the exploitation already inherent in material which has traditionally been censored.

Posted by jonjayray on Tuesday, March 1, 2005 at 08:52 AM in Social Conservatism
Comments (0) | Tell a friend

Comments:

Next entry: Caesar’s Entourage

Previous entry: World War II is not Inviolable