Incompetence Inc.

Rebuttal — Censorship: What Is It Good For?Sunday, August 20th, 2006

Recently, a colleague of mine posted this argument in his wordpress blog http://www.incompetence.tk/ . It is an argument not without merit, however there are some important aspects of the subject, censorship, which have been wholly overlooked. I wil attempt to point out the irruglarities and perhaps the hypocrisy that is evident in the piece. I have taken the liberty of summarising it, please visit the site for the whole post:

Censorship is a tool by which the government controls the people. This is directly linked to greed and the love of power. It suppresses alternative viewpoints to that of the goverment. Censorship is useless because humans should be able to intellectually “consume” that which other humans present them with. Governments want us to believe that words hurt people; this is incorrect. Words do not kill, shoot and harm people. Australia does not acknowledge freedom of speech, and it has no legal support. Governments that seek to impede freedom of speech are going down the path to an Orwellian society. Censorship has no place in society. Pornography, violence etc should be allowed on TV free of legal restriction. Children should be allowed to watch something as natural as sex, and parents have a responsibility to instil them with values.

That is about it. Please have a look at his extended article, I hope you will find I have accurately reproduced it. I will now attempt to destroy it…

Censorship is as much a tool to control the people as taxes, laws, town planning and education. Every single one of these government controlled activities is a restriction upon our liberty. What is the point of having a government if you do not allow it to have a degree of control over the people? I am not advocating a totalitarian state, but I do believe that when we vote for a government, we want them to do some governing.

Censorship is not directly linked to greed. Junaman, the author, attempts to create a vision of powerhungry old men, desperatley likiting the public’s free speech so as to better their personal position. I would point out that there is more than just a man in a chair looking at TV shows, movies and newspapers pressing YES or NO. There are huge review boards and panels that determine what you can or cannot see. And even then it is not a YES or NO. We have rating classifications, so that adults can watch violent bondage and rape scenes, and children can watch more suitable shows. Does Junaman advocate a society where children can watch an actress be brutally gang-raped and choked to death without being forwarned of the gruesome display? Is that right? Also, the government is not in direct control of these independent institutions, and cannot therefore suppress opponents views. As to Junaman’s “fear of retribution” if he presented his opinions on a more mainstream medium, that is complete and utter trumped up garbage used to gain sympathy for an illogical and impractical philosophy. A person can say whatever they want, so long as it does not directly harm another person or incite hatred, the reality is that nobody will publish or air his thoughts because very very few people agree with him.

Words can harm people. The pen is much greater than the sword. A frontpage advertisement in a newspaper is greater than gun. A 2 hour long film can do more damage than a tank. Imagine a society with complete freedom of speech. Imagine if a neo-nazi, obsessed with eradicating the jews gets hold of one of these mediums, just once. His advertisement promotes an anti-jewish rally in the city. He conjures all sorts of demonising fiction designed to spread the hatred of the jewish race. A day/month later, 4 jews are killed in hate crimes.

The neo-nazi is free to say ANYTHING he wants: where certain jews live, how to build a bomb or a gun, lies about crimes committed by jews, and defame jewish businesses. These all serve to directly and indirectly cause hatred of a minority; just substitute “jew” with “muslim”, “aborigine”. That is why every single democracy in the world limits freedom of speech; it can be abused at the complete detriment to society.

Australia does not acknowledge freedom of speech, and it has no legal support.

After reading that line in Junaman’s article, I realised how blind and bigoted the author had become in the pursuit of his agenda. In 1992, the High Court held that a right to freedom of expression was expressed in the Constitution. Australia is part of the UN, and abides by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which enshrines freedom of speech. Visit: http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/pubs/rn/2001-02/02rn42.htm for more info.

In conlusion, I believe that censorship does have a place in society. Censorship reflects the morality and ethical choices made by society – such as not letting 5 year olds watch a person be shot in the head or a neo-nazi not naming jews and spreading hate. Too much censorship is bad, but on the other hand, too little censorship can rapidly lead to the erosion of society and perhaps even morality. The vast majority of people want a society whereby they can live a happy life, and a degree of censorship contributes to the stability of the society. However, too much censorship and we will not be exposed to “truths” and other events that might be deemed to disruptive. It is a balance. I believe that at the moment Australian censorship is about right. I disagree with Junaman that it has no place.

Cheers,

Jack

A reply can be found here