"Let children read whatever they want and then talk about it with them. If parents and kids can talk together, we won't have as much censorship because we won't have as much fear." - Judy Blume
Can't the same be said for the American people? Are we right to try to censor PT911?
The
ACLU defines censorship as:
Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.
They recognize that the issue is not a simple one:
Two fundamental principles come into play whenever a court must decide a case involving freedom of expression. The first is "content neutrality"-- the government cannot limit expression just because any listener, or even the majority of a community, is offended by its content. In the context of art and entertainment, this means tolerating some works that we might find offensive, insulting, outrageous -- or just plain bad.
The second principle is that expression may be restricted only if it will clearly cause direct and imminent harm to an important societal interest. The classic example is falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater and causing a stampede. Even then, the speech may be silenced or punished only if there is no other way to avert the harm.
The American Library Association defines censorship as:
Censorship is the suppression of ideas and information that certain persons--individuals, groups or government officials--find objectionable or dangerous. It is no more complicated than someone saying, "Don't let anyone read this book, or buy that magazine, or view that film, because I object to it!"
Censors try to use the power of the state to impose their view of what is truthful and appropriate, or offensive and objectionable, on everyone else. Censors pressure public institutions, like libraries, to suppress and remove from public access information they judge inappropriate or dangerous, so that no one else has the chance to read or view the material and make up their own minds about it. The censor wants to prejudge materials for everyone.
Demanding that the movie not air is censorship. You certainly have the right to demand censorship - that's freedom of speech. But at least be honest about what you are doing. You want to censor a movie that you haven't seen because you heard that it disagrees with what you consider to be the truth. If the republicans were doing that, wouldn't you be pissed?
I understand that these are public airwaves but that does not forgive censorship. First, look back at the ALA definition of censorship. "Censors pressure public institutions, like libraries, to suppress and remove from public access information they judge inappropriate or dangerous, so that no one else has the chance to read or view the material and make up their own minds about it."
Public institutions - like public airwaves. The argument about public airwaves is no different than the argument used by those who attempt to ban books from libraries. Ultimately, it comes down to protecting the public from a message that you have prejudged as being too dangerous for them.
Second, if airing the message violates the law, then they are punished under the law. If they violate their license agreement, then they should lose their license. If they violate elections laws, then they should suffer the penalties. If they violate libel laws then they should be sued.
The message is aired and then punished. That is the way it works in this country. We don't silence the message first. We especially don't silence messages that we ourselves haven't even heard. We shouldn't. And this is why:
Imagine for a moment:
It's 8pm tonight and people all over America gather in front of their TVs to watched the now infamous PT911. Instead they see the intro for Desperate Housewives and a crawl across the screen reads, "ABC has canceled tonight's airing of PT911. This movie will no longer be aired."
Now those of us who know the movie is bullshit may be thrilled. But are we our audience? No. We are trying to educate the people who either don't know the truth at all or people that believe the lies. And how do you think those people will respond upon seeing that the movie has been canceled? I'd bet they'd be pretty upset. They may wonder what we are trying to hide, why they can't see the movie themselves, why we are trying to protect them, and who do we think we are. If this movie does not air, the left will be the losers.
Now imagine it runs, and the left keeps screaming and the people portrayed sue ABC, maybe they are also sued for violating election laws, and maybe there is a demand for their license to be revoked. If it airs and the left keeps fighting then this issue stays in the news for months and months - if not years. I think we'd come out the winners in that case.
"Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime." - Potter Stewart, U.S. Supreme Court Justice
I know many people here are afraid that if this movie runs, people will believe the lies. And they may. But is that really up to you to decide? I know the future of this country is at stake, I've been fighting along side of y'all for over a year now, but is that a good enough excuse?
When I hear people justify calling for censorship by saying that "everything has changed under this administration," I can't help but equate that with, "everything has changed since 911." Nothing has changed so much that I am willing to give up my principles.
"As to the evil which results from censorship, it is impossible to measure it, because it is impossible to tell where it ends." -Jeremy Bentham, philosopher
So, I hope it airs tonight.