The Case for Censorship

Jewish World Review ^ | David Lowenthal

[ssterns]

What idiots like Lowenthal don't seem to grasp is that once you start down the path of "reinterpreting" the Bill of Rights to limit what they see as "abuses" in excersizing those rights, that door can't be closed again. If the First Amendment is interpreted to mean that free speech is restricted to what the "majority," the politically powerful, or the folks who have the money or clout to influence policy, then you also have to allow "reinterpretations" of other amendments.

If idiots like Lowenthal are successful, they can't complain when Second Amendment rights to bear arms are restricted to only actively serving uniformed personnel or military reserves. Or the First Amendment could be reinterpreted to mean that free excersize of religion is restricted to only those Protestant sects that are "approved" by the government. Or that unreasonable search and seizure could be redefined to mean whatever an FBI agent personally thinks is reasonable...no wait, they've already done that with the USPATRIOT ACT.

To some conservatives, unfortunately, tyranny only means oppression they don't like; oppression they like is only "good common sense".

Cheers.

[Big Banana]

The government should not be in the business of censorship. That does not mean that people, societies, or industries can not impose a moral standard. Not everyone, wants to see Porno/Chainsaw movies on their public TV channel. The government also should not be in the business of deciding moral issues, it causes a conflict of interest. The interests of the people, are not always the same interests of Big Business and Big Government.