The Case for Censorship

Jewish World Review ^ | David Lowenthal

[JoeMomma]

In light of all of the anti-Potter craze going around all of the 'religious right' and their efforts to ban the HP books from libraries, I remembered an article in the conservative 'Weekly Standard' that promoted a state-sponsored censorship.

This worries me -- a conservative promoting state-sponsored censorship of media and entertainment? It may make some of the anti-Potter folks happy, but is it really American to promote censorship?

Furthermore, are conservatives who promote censorship really for smaller government? Or are they just for a right-wing big government?

[Big Banana]

Isn't the argument whether family's should be exposed to endless sex and violence, or is this just a pacification, preparing us for the future.

[ThinkDifferent]

Parents should take responsibility for making sure their children aren't exposed to material they don't approve of. The concept that we are incapable of taking care of our own families and running our own lives is a fundamental plank of liberalism and collectivism.

[steve-b]

government, and government alone, has a chance of blocking this descent into decadence

This is the stupidest statement I've read here in weeks, and that's saying something. Any serious student of history recognizes that government usurpation of the roles of social institutions has been the principal cause of decadence.

Never before in the history of mankind have the moral restraints and aspirations necessary to the fullness of our nature, and to civilization itself, been subjected to so ubiquitous and persistent an assault.

Well, I suppose that someone who has evidently never heard of fascism, communism, national socialism, etc hardly qualifies as a student of history, much less a serious one....

In a word, the Supreme Court, the law schools, and like-minded opinion leaders have replaced the thought of the Founders and Framers with a radical understanding of individual liberty

When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans.

David Lowenthal and Bill Clinton: Has anyone ever seen both of them in the same room at the same time?

our moral corruption has other sources, including excessive wealth

David Lowenthal and Karl Marx: Has anyone ever seen both of them in the same room at the same time?

I remembered an article in the conservative 'Weekly Standard'

Kristol & Co. will be contacting their lawyers and having a nastygram sent to whichever band of conservatives is using their trademarked name.

Furthermore, are conservatives who promote censorship really for smaller government? Or are they just for a right-wing big government?

Door #2.

[alpowolf]

Quite true. Although they shriek "there's a war on" to justify themselves, they never liked freedom to begin with. I think some of them really believe that 9/11 happened because we're "too free".

[dr gene scott]

Oh - from the title I thought this might be a thread asking why so many threads on FR are being deleted. But then if it was this thread probably would not be here long would it?

sorry, but I am upset that I get interested in a thread about former FReepers and when I come back from lunch, its gone. no trace. no explaination of what happened, and you wonder if someone else has gotten banned.

[NicR]

This authoritarian nitwit's call for fascism is beyond nauseating.

[Solson]

you and I both.

[headsonpikes]

And then there's the case for crushing the skulls of state-sanctioned buttinskis with large rocks.

But that's too easy!

[JoeMomma]

I figure it this way -- JimRob owns FreeRepublic.com and he can have discretion over its content. I censor what my children can read or watch. JimRob can censor what's on the webspace he bought and paid for.

However, I question the motive for someone to claim that state-sponsored censorship is a-ok. Some of the pro-government-censorship ilk erroneously call themselves 'conservatives' -- they're really just fascists.

[NicR]

I find appeals for rightist authoritarianism to be obscene. I demand that this man's writings be universally banned!

[dpwiener]

Mr. Lowenthal's proposal is politically obscene. "Recourse to a reasonable but rigorous system of censorship" aimed at repressing his and other people's politically obscene ideas "will signify that the country understands what has happened and is determined to survive as a civilized and free society."

"Today, it should be possible to enlist some of our most distinguished citizens ... to serve as censors" to prevent publication or dissemination of Mr. Lowenthal's politically obscene and dangerous ideas.

Censoring Mr. Lowenthal should not be a problem, since he cannot construct a self-consistent argument against such censorship. And even if he could, no one will ever know about it.

[dpwiener]

Okay, you beat me to it.

[ThomasMore]

but is it really American to promote censorship

I thought our founding fathers censored all kinds of things? I remember all the so called "blue laws". It seems to me that the reason for states rights was specifically for this reason.

[JmyBryan]

I'll agree to govt censorship over all manually operated, non-electronic printing presses.

[JoeMomma]

Did anyone suggest Lowelthal be banned? Please enlighten me. He's an idiot but certainly entitled to his Talibanesque opinion.

[steve-b]

Did anyone suggest Lowelthal be banned?

The point is to demonstrate the self-refuting nature of his scriblings.