> Even though I may completely disagree with something, I have a problem when books are censored. It might be ok to monitor how things are accessed, but it is definitely wrong to bar people from the ability to think about opposing ideas. Check out the link.

Allow me to dissent. I'm quite sympathetic to the practice of book banning, for reasons which I'll try to make understandable.

Let me arbitrarily choose a book as an example, one which I haven't read but whose contents I know about by way of reviews: _American_Psycho_. In this book, women are raped and brutalized in some of the most horrific ways imaginable and in vivid terms. It strains credulity to suppose that these scenes are in the book for any reason other than to titillate the reader's imagination. Without going so far as to expect any reader to actually enjoy the portrayal of sadism for its own sake, the author nevertheless exploits the worst part of the soul, the part whose interest is piqued by shock and scandal.

I don't have many qualms about asserting that society has benefited neither corporately nor individually from the availability of _American_Psycho_ to its members, young and old. I would go still further and say that it would be a good thing if many such books, which have no redeeming value and instead tend to erode the conscience and integrity of their readers, were no longer available to read. If many of you do not agree with me in the particular instance of _American_Psycho_, I would still expect that most of you can think of at least one book about which you have little trouble thinking, "This book is reprehensible enough that no sufficient moral or ethical reason can be found why anyone should read it." And if that is so, then the question arises: why do we permit the dissemination of expression that is recognized to be morally harmful?

The usual answer is that Americans voluntarily sacrifice a measure of order and social control for the sake of freedom, which we hold to be the higher good. To have an open society like ours, we say, you just have to take the stuff you don't like along with the stuff you like, or risk losing both. It is a short step from banning a book to forbidding, let us say, a missionary from proselytizing indigenous people, as happens today in many countries less free than ours. We seek to restrain any one ideological group from gaining the upper hand because we do not trust ourselves, corporately, to define rightly what a person must or must not believe and say.

Now, the BIG question: does upholding the ideal of free expression render a community unable to also act in the defense of its commonly-recognized moral standards? Is it possible to set foot on the slope of controlling media without sliding inexorably down into fascism? If it is possible to act to preserve *both* free expression *and* common values, where must the line between them be drawn?

I don't have answers to these questions. I have respect for communities and nations that draw the line so as to restrict freedom more than morality, even though in many instances I would find my *own* speech and beliefs to be the ones proscribed. Some communities will invariably make poor judgements as to what poses a moral threat; I still sympathize with their intentions and perspective. I do not champion book banning, but neither am I persuaded that "it is definitely wrong to bar people from the ability to think about opposing ideas." Would that humans had never considered the very first "opposing idea": "You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of the tree your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

Iss