If persons in a public place engage in sexual acts, or take off all their clothes, or relieve their bodily functions, they will be arrested — and should be arrested. They may be in violation of several laws; at the very least, they would be a public nuisance. Those acts may be all legal and proper in private, but we do not permit them to happen in public. Why, then, is it not likewise against the law to sell a picture of any of the above? Do these acts become socially acceptable just because they are preserved on paper or film? Those who answer “yes” to that question invoke the First Amendment to clothe their public nuisance. They cry “censorship” to intimidate anyone who wants to stop their public display of and commercial profiting from these very private acts.
If persons in a public or private place commit rape, assault or battering, they will be arrested — and should be arrested. Rapes, whippings, beatings, and touchings of another’s body are against the law, and society will and should punish the offender. Why, then, is it not likewise against the law to show a picture of these illegal acts? Do these acts become socially acceptable just because they are preserved on paper or film? Those who answer “yes” to that question invoke the First Amendment to clothe their illegal acts. They cry “censorship” to intimidate anyone who wants to stop their public display of and commercial profiting from those illegal acts.
Now add another element to this latter question. Suppose all the persons who are the target of these illegal acts are blacks, or Jews, or Native Americans, or children. The strong arm of the law would move swiftly to prosecute the offenders. The entire array of civil rights legislation and litigation that has been developed in the last 25 years would move into merciless action. Even if we are just talking about pictures of these acts against blacks, Jews, Native Americans, or children, our prevailing social mores find such recordings on paper or film to be socially unacceptable. Publishers, periodicals, entertainment houses, and retail establishments would not risk releasing written or filmed presentations which portray violent race discrimination — even if the cry of “censorship” were raised, which it would not be. Why, then, are these acts not likewise against the law when the group targeted for rape, assault, battering, degradation, humiliation, or other abuse is women? Can these things be socially acceptable just because women are the victims? Those who answer “yes” to that question invoke the First Amendment to clothe their targeting of women, individually and collectively. They cry “censorship” to intimidate anyone who wants to stop their public display of and commercial profiting from the use of women as specific targets of abuse. The “civil liberties” of the abusers are ranked higher than the “civil rights” of the abused.
America has been moving relentlessly to clean up the quality of our air and water. No matter how legal or proper or necessary your business, prevailing social mores dictate that you may not pollute the air we breathe or the water we drink. The polluter is squeezed between legal action on the one hand and social condemnation on the other. Why, then, is pollution of our minds and spirits by pictures of violence and perversions not likewise against laws and social mores? Those who defend such pollution cry “censorship” at the mere suggestion that society may try to protect itself, its families, and its children from mental and moral pollution and destructive anti-social behavior.
Who are those who cry “censorship”? They are the $8 billion-a-year pornography industry, plus all those who are making money out of any of the acts listed above. This includes the media (especially television), the entertainment industry, the abortion clinics, and the immense array of service providers whose careers are advanced by increasing the numbers of persons with broken lives. The Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography, for the first time, gave a platform to the victims of pornography to tell their first-hand accounts of how pornography was used as a tool to abuse them. But, funny thing, the giant news media closed ranks and did not report these testimonies of pornography’s victims. Some of those who have been the noisiest in hurling epithets about “censorship” even tried to get the courts to stop the Attorney General’s Commission from publishing its own report! Fortunately they failed in that act of real censorship, but they have succeeded in making copies so scarce that most of the American people are blissfully unaware of the existence of pornography’s victims. It seems that the people who complain about “censorship” are not really against censorship after all. Indeed those who defend pornography are themselves the most implacable censors of all.
