> In an ideal world, where moral lines are clearly drawn, I'd agree with you. I agree that there exists a moral standard by which some media is unequivocally immoral and should not exist.
>

Thank you for correctly perceiving the limits of what I was saying.

> I do not agree that any human effort to perceive this absolute moral standard and act upon it in any way can possibly result in anything but a severely worsening manner. And so I can't condone advocation of censorship efforts -- and not pay other society's censorship efforts respect.
>

That's fine, and the more I turn my thoughts to the way instances of censorship play out in the real world, the more I'm inclined to agree with you. As usual, I'm more interested in getting people to rethink the idea that freedom is an Ultimate Good, to be pursued at any price, than in bashing our Constitutional liberty just to be contrary.

> If it were even *possible* for a community to be of one mind against something, then I'd be for it -- in cases where the community was of one mind on it. But if that were the case, the censorship would happen automatically, wouldn't it? Nobody wants American Psycho to influence their lives, then nobody buys it, so nobody sells it, so the author gets nothing, so that's *already* out of that community's lives.
However, this kind of unanimity is just not possible.

No, not in America at any rate, and probably not elsewhere either. I'm glad you said this; it needed saying.

> Even in the case of American Psycho. (I join you in denouncing it, but not in doing anything about it beyond simply doing my part as a private citizen in campaigning for a change in social values that would have nothing whatsoever to do with legislation or bureaucracy.) When in the history of the world has one community been of one mind about anything?

Even if you don't require unanimity but merely vast majority, the answer is still probably "almost never". Yet if the majority of a community's members really *did* agree together to ban from the public library, say, propaganda literature from the Ku Klux Klan, don't they have the prerogative to do so? Communities are voluntary; we have long since grown accustomed to the idea of the "social contract" and the agreement that members of a community shall defer to the decision of the majority. Still, as you pointed out later on, this is more a theoretical than a pragmatic discussion.

> The short of it is that I think it's very dangerous to be even so much as sympathetic to censorship efforts, because what they lead to is foreboding indeed.
>

I won't dispute that.

> What I *would* support is a rating-type system such as we have for the MPAA. As screwed up as the MPAA rating system for movies is, it at least does fulfill its primary purpose, which is to fend off efforts to instantiate a government-regulated ratings or outright censorship program. ...Such a plan would also have the likely benefit of putting a stop to local book banning efforts that, as said article points out, are rampant and out of control.
>
> It would also put the control of material that people consume where it should be: on a personal level. God gave us the freedom, right, and responsibility to choose to do the right thing. We should keep that freedom, right, and responsibility, because that's where it belongs. With us. Not some arbitrary censorship board.

Yep. I like such a ratings system as well, and you're exactly right that the control of harmful media has to happen on a personal level. I've been envisioning a community decision that is basically the sum of many personal decisions, which just isn't the way things happen in reality. But I still find it profitable to think about.

Iss