A couple of points. The Encyclical does not specify how the bad books are to be suppressed. State censorship is indeed one idea, and it is pertinent to us as we, quite unfortunately, have ourselves a state that does everything. But if we can instead convert the faithless and the idolaters and get them to burn their own books, that would work fine too, and that is the example with St. Paul. Failing that, perhaps we can buy out the copies and destroy them. The methods of suppression are not of importance to Pope Gregory; if they are all you want to talk about, you are on a wrong thread. In real life most suppression is both state and private: we have moderators on FR, Hollywood used to have an effective professional mutual-censorship system now discarded, the state censors some forms of pornography tofay and monitors the radio and TV to some rudimentary extent. That forms of speech suppression naturally emerge in the free market shows that nothing is wrong with the state modeling suppression of speech as well.
In modernity, education and pornography come in the forefront, hence we discussed that. In early 19c, and especially in late 18c the ideas of so-called enlightenment were in some part evil and likewise deserved suppression. Those ideas were fine so long as they remained in the academic sphere; when they were fed to the masses, they lead to the blood bath of the French revolution. It would have been fine to fight the Jacobines and the rest of the rabble with a sword, and in fact they were eventually put down, at least for a while, with military force. But it all started with ideas — with bad books — that agitated the breadth of the society. We have a very similar situation today.
The sewer in the water analogy is correct to the extent that the entire stream of information the American consumer gets is 90% sewer. He can turn off TV, filter the Internet, homeschool the kids (thus limiting their fighting potential when it comes to it) and be choosy about books he buys. And the water consumer can buy a water filter. But it would have been better to simply have clean water. Good analogy.
This is the dumbest statement I've seen on FR this year, and that's saying something.
By this reasoning, the fact that the free market naturally generates (for example) hospitals shows that nothing is wrong with the government running (for example) the health care system. Obviously, the implications go well beyond the specific example; your assertion is a one-stop justification for any and all forms of socialism and communism.
Those ideas were fine so long as they remained in the academic sphere; when they were fed to the masses, they lead to the blood bath of the French revolution.
LOL. The ancien regime ran France into the ground, and it was the fault of a few chattering academics that the people got fed up and cut their heads off?
(Oh, and given that the American revolution was likewise the result of Enlightenment advances, this is hardly the sort of argument that will be well-received on a patriotic forum. Again, I can only suggest that you try DU.)
He can turn off TV, filter the Internet, homeschool the kids (thus limiting their fighting potential when it comes to it) and be choosy about books he buys. And the water consumer can buy a water filter.
Yes, if one prefers capitialism to socialism. You, evidently, do not share that preference.