+-+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|S|--------[The Holy Bible © 1997-1998 Self-Induced Negativity]------------| 
+-+----------------------[My Thoughts on Censorship]-----------------------+ 
|I|----------------------------[By: Delirium]------------------------------|
+-+--------------------[Released: November 6, 1998]------------------------+
|N|----------------------[http://www.sinnerz.com]--------------------------|
+-+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Thousands of articles and essays have been written on the subject of censorship. 
This makes the task of writing about such rather intimidating; reiterating 
the same valid points does seem ludicrous (repetitiveness is my job. my job. 
my job...). But anyway..

No matter what idea, what opinion one expresses, one must realize there is 
always going to be an opposing force. Everything in life falls on a spectrum. 
One chooses an aspect of an issue and applies a value judgement- making a 
concept either "good" or "bad", "wrong", or "right", and so on. We use reason 
and experience to justify our choices. Yet there will always be someone on the 
other end of the spectrum, someone with an opposing point of view. This is 
human nature and this accounts for our differences in thought and personality. 
This is why communication is so crucial, such a powerful force... it is inherent 
human nature to want to express to others our way of thinking. We want others to 
crawl into our shoes and see something the way that we see it. In order to do 
this, we write songs, we paint pictures, we make poetry. And so on.

  So how can one restrict the ideas, the thoughts of that other force, how can 
one set a universal standard of what opinions and ideas are acceptable? Even if 
99% of a society believed that a certain opinion was wrong, does that negate 
the right of the 1% minority to let themselves be heard? Human expression is so 
basic, so fundamental a right that it should not be restricted unless it 
directly violates the freedom/rights of another human being. By saying that "we 
don't recognize your right to express so and so, you cannot write this, you 
cannot depict this, and you cannot let it be communicated" are we not indirectly 
imposing  the mindset that some people should not be permited to be heard, that 
some people are less deserving of basic human respect? This is the same 
degradation that occurs through racism and prejudice- it's dehumanization. We 
cannot hold it as our responsibility to enforce or restrict ideas without 
becoming tyranical. Since there are always two opposing opinions, one group 
will have to end up the victims of persecution. Who decides which group is 
right? Merely those with power? Majority? We cannot place chains of silence on 
that which is offensive- there shall always be the antithesis that may take 
offense. Everyone should be able to express what may be considered a 'vulgarity' 
by someone else; no one has the power to force his point of view on another, 
either directly (through force) or indirectly (through censorship, not 
permitting the other voice to be heard). The attempt to control ideas is the 
most loathsome form of slavery- enslavement of the mind. One does not have to 
accept another idea, one does not have to like a revealing piece of artwork or 
read a nasty piece of literature, but one does have to recognize the right of 
the other to make his art and write his trashy novel. Reading/viewing that 
material should by no means be mandated, but it should be available for those 
who choose to.

There are of course restrictions; everything comes in moderation. Libel/slander 
laws hold true to these standards since it's obvious that libel and slander 
violates another person's rights- it crosses the line since it does indeed 
impose on another's person liberty to pursuing happiness directly. Libel is 
written with this very intent; to ruin a specific individual's reputation 
through lies. One can still be critical of another person's faults or actions 
however, and express this in a satirical manner- as long as truth is used as a 
backing (or one does not state lies and blatantly suggest they are truths). 
However, people should still have the right to be critical of whatever they want.

The bottom line is, why fear a tiny little word like "fuck"? If you don't like it, 
don't read it. If it's not true, why should it affect your conviction, unless your 
convictions had no solid base? Don't let it affect you. You've got to keep your 
mind open to questions and answers, it's part of the process of learning. 
Restricting the flow of ideas restricts learning. It is morally wrong. If one 
refuses to learn, refuses to open his mind to something new, then that is his 
personal decision. But the opposing force should not be silenced because one may 
disagree with it or loathe it, because there are those who do want to learn, who 
want the experience. Stop censorship; stop trying to justify it by merely muffling 
the chains of slavery. If tyranny is going to be imposed, be fucking honest enough
to bring the shackles out into the open. But if not, if we are going to be granted 
the basic human rights that so many have fought and died for, then let it be done. 
Without our voices, we are fucked.