An essay on censorship

[Wednesdays]

The following was written by my nephew. Comments?

--------

Bowling for Columbine, censorship, and the Right and Left who are guilty of it

Let me first state that I am extremely anti censorship. However, my opinions are mostly irrelevant here. I just want to make a few points about consistency.

This quote is from George Carlin:
The FCC, a non-elected body, answerable only to itself, appointed by the President of the United States, has taken it upon itself to decide that radio and television in this country are the only aspects of American life not protected by the first amendment of the Constitution. I’d like to repeat that because it sounds vaguely important!

The FCC, a non-elected body, appointed and answerable only to the President of the United States, has taken it upon itself to decide that radio and television in this country are the only aspects of American life not protected by the first amendment of the Constitution.

You know why they did it? Because they got a letter from a reverend in Mississippi. A reverend (I forget the name) heard something on the radio that he didn’t like. Well, Reverend, did you know there are two knobs on the radio? One of them turns the radio off and the other one changes the station. Imagine that, you can actually change the station! It’s called freedom of choice, and it’s one of basic ideals this country is founded on. Look it up in the library, Reverend, if you have any of them left when you get done burning all the books.


This is a bit unfair of Carlin, because, like so many others, I'm certain this reverend was trying to do what he felt was right. However, the fact that the FCC exists at all is a mockery of the free speech amendment to the constitution. The fact that both political parties tinker with it makes it even worse. Like I said before, I'm just looking for a little consistency.

Bowling for Columbine is a Documentary by the (some say infamous) director Roger Moore. I was initially turned off from seeing the documentary because of the title. But the title is done in satire, and it is extremely appropriate if you will watch the documentary. I highly recommend it, it is fantastic. The documentary mainly focuses on gun control and violence in America. Conservatives, don’t take this at face value; Moore is a lifetime member of the NRA. He isn’t trying to say that gun control is the answer. His documentary focuses on many things, and at one point, he interviews Marilyn Manson.

As many of you may or may not know, Manson is an extremely eloquent, intelligent individual who had, incidentally, nothing but sympathy for the students at Columbine High School. Yet, it was Manson who caught most of the flak over the tragedy because the students who did the shooting owned several of his albums. Several groups held rallies trying to keep Manson out of the area afterwards. Moore asked Manson if he could say anything to say to the students of Columbine, what would it be? Manson replied that he wouldn’t say anything; he would listen to the students, which is the one thing that no one did.

The reason I write this is to give some background into my way of thinking.

The documentary shows the second jet crashing into the second tower of the World Trade Center. As it did, I had a dawning realization; Why is it we cannot show gratuitous violence, sex, swearing, and the rest of the things we have bans placed on the media, and yet we can see the jets crash into the towers over and over? Quite literally, every time we see the jet crashing into the tower, we see over 100 people die. DIE! Horribly, in fear, and most likely burned alive!

There was another such clip that was shown time and time again of a man plummeting from an upper story of the building to his death, no doubt. It shows him pin-wheeling his arms and legs in desperation, and all you can hear from around the camera are the sobs, screams, and gasps from the crowd.

Let me see if I can get this straight: We cannot show violence on TV, cannot say the word “Fuck,” cannot show the act of sex, even though it is the second most important reason we exist, led only by survival, but we can show these real, very real people die over and over?

To summarize this point, we can only show these things if they’re real?

Right and Left wings are both guilty of this though.

The censorship debate is completely without logic and consistency on both sides; Conservatives gripe at liberals because of Al Gore and his wife about the censorship that they lauded, particularly in violent video games. Liberals themselves ban books like Huckleberry Fin, one of the most socially important pieces of literature written in the last two hundred years. The reason they ban it? Derogatory language.

This is foolishness. You don’t ban books because of bad words, even if they are derogatory words dealing with an ethnicity.

History is not nice; much of it is bloody and horrible. The reason, however, we read of it is to LEARN from it. He who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it. When you find a book that is of questionable morality, read it and learn from it, use it as a guide of how NOT to do things. I find it highly, if bitterly, entertaining when critics and liberal book bashers try to get Alex Haley’s masterpiece “Roots” banned for the same reason. Not only is Roots a fantastic book, it is a bare, no glamour look at slavery from the 1700’s forward, and its author is black!

Let me reiterate, history is horrible, but we should read and learn from it, not ban it just because it’s not pretty.

Conservatives are just as guilty of this mentality, however. We have a huge problem with teenage pregnancy in this country, and yet we have hard-line conservatives pushing an abstinence only sexual education program. If kids were given all the facts about sex, and if it weren’t such a boogeyman in this country, I have a feeling there wouldn’t be this huge problem. Entertainingly, it is conservatives that bitch about welfare in this country, and many of them are also the one’s who won’t allow thorough education about sex.

I’m just looking for a little consistency here. That’s all I want. I’m sure you and I could go on all day finding things on both sides are guilty of.

I suppose what I’m really getting at is that we should operate off a common sense ideal. Something that seems to be sorely lacking in both political parties. (Thanks Diane for this analogy)

Common sense, perhaps it’s the rhetoric of a new American Political Party.

[Maddy McCall]

1. No, the reverend is EVIL

He does things to raise money. He promotes boycotts of Disney because it provided benefits to the partners of gay employees. This is just ONE of his actions. He creates social crises so that he can raise the dander of his radio listeners, and then he bombards them with requests for funds to fight these fights.

His name is Tim Wildmon, and before your nephew uses Wildmon for an example, he needs to know A LOT more about him. Carlin is not being unfair; Carlin is completely correct.

www.afa.org

[mark0rama]

2. A correction:

Bowling's director is Michael Moore, not Roger Moore.

[Wednesdays]

3. Yeah, he was probably thinking

of "Roger and Me" when he wrote that.

[mark0rama]

4. A lot of people jumble them together.

And, by the way, good essay.

[tkmorris]

5. Boy oh boy oh boy

A few random disjointed comments.

Michael Moore is the man responsible for Bowling for Columbine. If he intends to show that essay around he'd better correct that because it kinda wrecks the credibility to get that wrong. Nitpicky perhaps but that is what would happen.

Another thing. What on earth gives him the idea that Liberals ban Huck Finn? That is just silly. I am as Liberal as they come and know a LOT of people with similar political ideals to mine own. Not one of them would ban ANY book, from Huck Finn to The Anarchists Cookbook to the Holy Bible.

The only restriction I would put on the free dissemination of information is the access given to children. I do not believe that a child is born ready to deal with everything, all things in due course. Furthermore I believe in a parents right to raise their children as they see fit (within a very few limits) and that means they will introduce their children to more controversial materials when they think they should. I respect that right.

[Wednesdays]

6. Huck Finn is attacked by liberals, too.

Another thing. What on earth gives him the idea that Liberals ban Huck Finn? That is just silly. I am as Liberal as they come and know a LOT of people with similar political ideals to mine own. Not one of them would ban ANY book, from Huck Finn to The Anarchists Cookbook to the Holy Bible.

Perhaps he's talking about things such as this:

http://www.janaedwards.com/huckfinn.html
Since The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn was first published in January 1885, it has always been in trouble...
Still controversial today, many school districts across the country have banned it from their curriculum for being racist.

http://archives.thedaily.washington.edu/1996/100296/censor10296.html

"At Decatur High School in Federal Way, trouble is brewing over one of the most often challenged books, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Mark Twain's classic story is being contested once again for it's 211 uses of a racial slur and its general treatment of African-Americans, since it's set before end of slavery. Their reasoning doesn't acknowledge that the racism is seen in historical context. It's a literary device meant to reveal the foibles of mankind through dark satire. But the censors overlook that and gripe about the use of the epithets in any context."

[tkmorris]

7. Yeah yeah, I hear ya

I guess I've always felt like those people aren't really liberals. They are Mother Hens with too much time on their hands. I see the point though, I rescind the comment.