> Allow me to dissent.

Ok.


> Let me arbitrarily choose a book as an example, one which I haven't read

Maybe you should read the book. Basing an opinion on hearsay is unwise at best.


> ..._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,

I'd like to visit your country sometime. I've never been to Pixie Land.
If you think that the world is so good and true that there are no sadists, self-haters, and people who revel in pain, you need to get out more.


> ...the author nevertheless exploits the worst part of the soul, the part whose interest is piqued by shock and scandal.

So do thousands of daily print magazines and newspapers. It's a fact of life.


> 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 learned something from the movie. There goes that argument.


> 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.

Why? So you don't have to deal with it? Shock, to an extent, is very good for you. As well as making you wiser, it makes you more jaded, and less of a child.


> 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."

Voltaire said, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Censoring people is bad. Period.
When you want to be free, you have to prepare yourself for what others might do.


> And if that is so, then the question arises: why do we permit the dissemination of expression that is recognized to be morally harmful?

Because we know that that person has the right to do so.


> 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.

I'm not American, but sacrificing a little order for a little freedom is a good thing.


> 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.

I don't know what proselytizing means, so I won't comment on that.


> 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?

No. Things can still be handled on a case-by-case basis; for example, I could be jailed for screaming 'balls' at old ladies for no reason, even though I'm expressing myself. I could not be jailed, however, for making art out of cow dung.


> Is it possible to set foot on the slope of controlling media without sliding inexorably down into fascism?

No.


> If it is possible to act to preserve *both* free expression *and* common values, where must the line between them be drawn?

We've been doing it for a very long time. What's to say that we'll suddenly lose that ability?


> 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,

I do not respect them. I say, "Screw 'em".


> ...even though in many instances I would find my *own* speech and beliefs to be the ones proscribed.

And that's why I say that.


> Some communities will invariably make poor judgements as to what poses a moral threat; I still sympathize with their intentions and perspective.

True. Accidents happen.


> 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."

If there's even the *slightest* doubt in your mind that someone can't *think* against the norm, then to me, you need help.


> 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."

I know of good and evil, and I'm not like God.

> Iss

Wormwood

Footnote: the terms used on both posts are very broad, and will most likely be interpreted incorrectly. Before you start a flame war, post some questions.