> > 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.

True, I suppose, and however it may appear, I'm not in the habit of drawing conclusions based on hearsay. But please quote me in full: "...which I haven't read but whose contents I know about by way of reviews." First-hand experience is a more authoritative position from which to speak, yes, but a) I'm not especially interested in attacking this particular book, just using it as a general example; and b) part of what this is all about is the question: is the experience gained from reading a "bad" text first-hand, enough of a benefit to counterbalance its detrimental effect on your integrity? I'd say "not always", and probably not in the case of this particular book.

> 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.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that the author *is* most likely appealing to readers to enjoy sadism for its own sake? If so, that's fine -- I preferred to give the author the benefit of the doubt, but your take on the intention of the book will serve just as well or better.

Here, then, is a book that seeks to affirm and even buttress those elements of sadism and misogyny that taint every society (excepting, of course, Pixie Land). If this is so, and we still insist on permitting the book's wide distribution, then our commitment to freedom as a value must be *incredibly* fierce. That is the main idea that I want to hold up for evaluation.

> > ...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.

Agreed. I don't wish to "pick on" this one particular book or author, especially since, as you observe, I can't put the force of first-hand experience behind a critique of it.

> > 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.

Arguments that go away often return in a clarified form, as is the case here. I'm looking at the "net" effect of the book/movie -- the degree to which it has, *on balance*, benefited or injured society morally. And I'd be interested to know what you learned. Something along the lines of, "there are shockingly sick and wicked people out there who do terrible things to women and deserve punishment for it"? Was it worth having the images of those actual crimes put into your mind's eye, just to draw that (correct) conclusion? Couldn't another experience have done you the same service without exacting such a cost?

> > 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.

Yes: so that I don't have to deal with it. I can't think of any reason why a person should have to "deal with" an influence that offers zero edification and non-zero corruption. Mind you, most things don't fall in that category, and of course people aren't going to agree on what does and what doesn't. But I vehemently deny the legitimacy of claims by morally reprehensible agents on my attention and innocence (such as remains of it). Whatever "wisdom" and "maturity" can be gained from watching a sex pervert brutalize his victims on the big screen, I can better acquire in some other way.

> 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.

Presenting vicious acts of brutality as a positive form of entertainment is bad, period, too. What's a community to do? I'll say it again: I don't urge censorship as a good solution to the problem. But I don't see every censor as a benighted soul and a fool, because the community that chooses to censor demonstrates a sort of wisdom of its own, in identifying a threat to its integrity and dealing with it. It pays a steep price for taking that approach, and too often the decision to censor is motivated by prejudice and fear, and people suffer unjustly under such a system. With sufficient maturity, maybe, a solution could be achieved that is better than both censorship *and* unrestrained libertarianism.

> When you want to be free, you have to prepare yourself for what others might do.

Agreed. Hence the choice: How free do we want ourselves, and others, to be? This is a decision that every community makes. America is a Great Experiment. By my estimation, the experiment has been a great success. But there is also room for adjustment and improvement (not that I propose to prescribe in what way those improvements should be made).

> > 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.

That is an historical judgement rather than a universal one; it is a product of the Enlightenment. It is not wrong for being "merely" historical, but it is worth considering the long stretches of world history during which the prevalent belief was that a person does *not* have the right to do harm with what s/he says.

> > 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.

I agree. And when "a little" becomes "a little more" and later becomes "quite a bit actually", I occasionally spend time pondering the wisdom of the tradeoff.

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

Sorry; it would be better if I stuck to plainer English. Proselytizing is just trying to persuade someone to adopt a particular belief (usually a religious belief).

> > 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.

Or for saying "Ni" to old women at will. :-)

> > 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".

Heh. Okay, I may be alone in not having answers.

> > 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.

Taking "the norm" to be "those things that are established by holy God", then I would say that a person "can" think against them, but *must not* think against them. But it's no use arguing about that; it's a matter of faith commitments, and at any rate it doesn't have much bearing on the debate at hand.

> > 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.

You and me both.

Iss