Back in college, there was an exhibit put up in one of the school's gallery areas. There were posters all over campus, asking people to come and "draw the line". The exhibit was of erotic artwork and photos, and the idea was that you would go into the exhibit with a marker and draw a line at where you thought the images went from artwork into pornography.
It was a heavily discussed exhibit. Several of my friends went down to check it out and draw their lines. There was a bible group that staged a protest of some sort: I heard they all went to the front door of the exhibit and drew their lines there, without entering. Some people complained that pornography, even in this context, shouldn't be allowed on campus. A particular English professor (who had been arrested for tearing up copies of Playboy) let everyone know her opinion of the thing loudly in the hallways of the English department.
I chose not to go. I had no interest in the stuff that was being exhibited, and I didn't see the point of drawing more attention to it if I didn't like it. Why be counted as an attendee if I objected to the stuff inside? I figured then, as I do now, that as long as the stuff wasn't directly hurting me, and was not likely to develop into something that would hurt me, then I would leave it to others.
To my dismay, lots of people feel that it's ok to limit what other people see and read, even when those items do not directly impact anyone but the consumer in any way, shape or form. While it's difficult to argue that true pornography has any merit whatsoever, I don't feel that it's in society's best interest to start prohibiting it just because one group of people doesn't like it. And, unfortunately, what one group of people might consider obscene (like the Hentai in the Castillo case) is considered culturally significant art by another group of people (the people in Japan who produced it and made it a bestseller). Suddenly we get into a situation where people are not allowed to explore other cultures because those cultures go against their social mores... sounds downright Victorian to me.
And we also get the claim that such works cause improper behavior. But the arguments for this are the same as Frederic Wertham's: juvenile delinquents read comic books, therefore comic books cause delinquency. Any comic book fan knows what utter nonsense that is.
Then there is another problem with such censorship. Who decides what is proper or not? Do you let these folks decide, or do you let someone like me choose? How do you know for sure what the community standards are without asking every soul in the community what their opinion is? And, even if you do find a consensus, are you willing to block any outside viewpoints, culturally closing yourself off? Do you really want to trust your ability to buy books to a jury of twelve people who may not represent their community at all? After all, "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" by Mark Twain has consistently been banned despite its strong moral message... apparently by people too stupid to understand what the author was writing about. Do you really want those people deciding for you what you are allowed to read and see?
And yet it goes on. People are willing to give up their basic rights for a monster that disguises itself as "security", they are willing to stop thinking for themselves if the government is willing to do it for them. While I'm not inclined to defend "obscene" works on their merits, I am inclined to defend the basic right to free speech and expression which is constantly being eroded by people who seem to think that they know what is best for everyone. I got news for you, once people are adults, they are capable of deciding such things for themselves. You trust them with cars, driving on the roads with you, but you do not trust them with the contents of their own minds. Seems backwards to me.
I guess that's what bothers me most about the Castillo case. A piece of work that has cultural value in another country was sold by an adult to another adult, with no children involved at all. No one was hurt. It was a victimless crime. And yet Castillo was punished dearly and will have that conviction on his record for the rest of his life. And worse, Castillo didn't know at the time he sold it that his community would deem the work "obscene". In fact, based on the history of the work and the fact that it was offered for sale via a major distributor, he could be fairly confident that it wouldn't be declared obscene. I don't know, but I keep thinking he was punished ex post facto, which is illegal in the United States. I not sure any law professor will agree with me, but when something is declared illegal after the fact, it sure sounds that way to me.
I am rambling a bit now, so I'll finish this up. Censorship is morally draining. Censorship destroys your culture, and lessens all affected by it. Being against censorship does not require a person to like, or support, works that they find disgusting. It simply requires them to not ban those works for everyone because of their own views. I'm surprised when otherwise intelligent folks can't handle that. Maybe they are too busy drawing lines to realize that they are limiting themselves.
0 comments:
Post a Comment