First Monday in October

I have never made my opinion of censorship unknown. In fact, of all things to float through my mind, censorship comes as the one I hold most dear. This is either liberal, or it’s the truth and the price of real freedom. Justice Snow stated something along the line of “It doesn’t matter if it’s crap – it has the right to be crap”. I concur. My personal offense to the material of certain products and developments is irrelevant to the legal standing of said products. Offense is subjective, and you cannot base a legal principle upon what is effectively subjective. Law, in and of itself, is intended to be objective. For personal morality to infringe upon the rights of an individual is to establish that one person, or set of persons, opinion is more valid than that of another. Government, law, is set into play to protect the rights of the minority, not to appease the consensus of the majority.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

There has been a lot of argument regarding what the meaning of ‘speech’ is. Speech is often understood to be synonymous with expression. On public property, a man is free to do as he wishes provided his actions do not infringe upon the rights of others or violate legal statutes. In the case of the movie in question, a legal statue was violated – but that raises the question of constitutionality of the statue, does it not? The question posed to the court is not whether or not a pornographic film had violated the law, but whether or not the film was within its realm of constitutionality, and whether or not the statue infringed upon the right of free speech. I believe that the statue did, as it effectively barred the existence of something based on the moral consensus of the majority. The majority’s objection to pornography is irrelevant. Is there a practical reason for the ban? Is there a scientific, statistic-based study proving that the existence of films such as The Naked Nymphomaniac somehow cause harm to society, and should therefore be outlawed? There’s a lot of concern over dignity and the effects of porn, yet I raise the question: how has anyone’s dignity been affected by the existence of porn? Have the actors been degraded? I believe not, and certainly if they had been taken advantage of that raises an onslaught of different legal issues. However, what we are speaking about involves an action between two adults who may consent to an action. Two legal adults can consent to having sex, being filmed, and having that film distributed.

I, however, support a rating based system. I believe the rating system in place is adequate, though its enforcement is slack. As the rule goes, no one under the age of 17 can see a film that is rated ‘R’, and, likewise, a pornographic film cannot be purchased by someone under the age of 18. I have no issues with this arrangement; it ‘protects children’ while simultaneously allowing first amendment freedoms which may be disagreeable to exist harmoniously with dissent of its existence. As the rule goes: if you don’t want to see it, don’t watch it.

This raises me into other inquisitions and concerns. Pornography distinguishes itself as sexual exploits for sexual gratification and viewing. It’s the equivalent of watching two chimps go at it in a zoo – minus the chimps, plus the humanity. This, surprisingly, does not offend me. I’m not startled, shocked, or sickened by the object of sex – if anything, I’m passive. Maybe this is a product of the new age, but I can’t recall ever being raised to comprehend or believe such things. Sex, censorship, obscenity, never touched my home – which is something I’m grateful for, as it’s a mark of educational freedom on my behalf. Regardless, sex is not offensive. Nudity is not offensive. I have never understood the public outrage of the human body, or of natural human action. However! I have always been confused about the passive viewing of extreme violence. Torture-films are becoming popular with the innovations of Saw, Hostel, so forth and so on. The Slasher genre of horror films has evolved to become something bloody, grotesque, to the point in which graphic images resembling war time horrors can be wagered. For the love of anything, Hostel featured an eyeball dangling from a socket, as well as a man drilling through the legs of a teenage boy with a power drill. When I pit this acceptable form of entertainment expression against porn, I wonder why porn requires an NC-17 labeling in most cases. Hostel and Saw passed the marker for an R rated film. All of the Saw sequels have passed the rating for an R rated film, including one featuring an individual whose rib cage is torn to shreds. These images, I feel, are more detrimental to the morality and well-being of society than the projection of sex on a movie screen.

Even so, I stand by my thoughts: it’s a movie, and I have the right to see it or not to see it. I choose not to see it, because I find the images disturbing, if not traumatic. However, I have friends who get excited and start laughing because they like a good thriller movie and have some grotesque senses of humor. No offense taken – I have no business barring them from their gory escapades, just as I have no business barring them from porn – and vice versa. We’re legally consenting adults.

If the concern is about accessibility to children, then regulation and distribution need to be addressed. I feel the rating system does it well when cinema managers actually do what they’re supposed to and check I.Ds while telling parents they can’t take their five year old into the theater to see an R rated film. Accountability to manage the accessibility to minors, or parental responsibility. I felt the same about Mature rated games – parent buys game for child, the parent is responsible, because the labeling is correct.

Ahem, this is getting rather long, isn’t it? Jolly good, because it’s important that it be said: parents need to be accountable for their kids and the material their kids are sifting through. If they’re concerned about pornography on the internet, monitor your child’s bloody internet activity until they are of legal age, by which time, even as a parent, you have no authority to prevent them from the action. For the sake of time, I’m going to stop swimming in circles. Point in case: I don’t believe in censorship. I believe in ratings and distribution regulation. Even the most grotesque, disgusting, loathsome of films, artwork, statements, deserve to be stated. They do not infringe upon the rights of anyone, but preventing their existence infringes upon the rights of not only the creator, but the viewers.

As an edited afterthought, yes, I would also be inclined to support the legality of prostitution. Again, I see no reason behind barring consensual acts between legal adults. If a woman, or a man, wants to sell their sexual service and status, so be it. I have no authority or right to prevent a consensual act between legal adults, and I see no reason why the State should either.

The second half of this question was in regards to the importance of a female Supreme Court Justice. I have mixed feelings about the specific importance of women on the court – but I feel that there is an importance regarding ‘minority’ or ‘suspect classes’, as some define it. It’s my opinion that the court should have representatives of suspect classes. It should have diversity – ethnic diversity, sex diversity, so forth and so on. Then again, I guess I’m one of those bloody hippy-liberal folks who believe in equal representation. The significance of a woman on the Supreme Court is a mark for feminism, and it’s the object of hope for other suspect classes. That’s how I view it. It’s a sign of progression.