The Censors Among Us
One of the odd things about the freedoms that we cherish in this country is that they need to be defended all the time. Victories do not endure, and must constantly be refought. That is because otherwise clear-thinking people sometimes forget that the freedoms of speech, press, thought and expression must protect distasteful ideas and expressions as well as popular ones. But in the pursuit of worthy goals some people would encroach on these freedoms. This is a bad idea that must be rejected every time it comes up.
The latest instance involves the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors, which has been urged by the county Commission for Women to pass an ordinance declaring pornography to be sex discrimination and allowing individuals to bring civil suit against publishers of pornographic material on the grounds that it degrades them as a group. Under this proposal virtually anyone could sue the publishers, distributors or retailers of printed material or films.
Left to their own devices, Supervisors Kenneth Hahn and Mike Antonovich would have adopted this ill-conceived measure post haste. Fortunately, Supervisors Pete Schabarum, Ed Edelman and Deane Dana said nothing doing, and ordered the board’s lawyers to study the constitutionality of the proposed measure. That should be the end of it. For the lawyers, if they are worth their salt, will declare the idea unconstitutional faster than you can say Corpus Juris Secundum. They won’t have to look far to do it. A federal judge has already thrown out a similar ordinance in Indianapolis on the grounds that it was too vague and a violation of freedom of speech.
We are sympathetic to those who find pornography repugnant and believe that it contributes to violence against women. But prohibiting the publication or distribution of such material is far more dangerous than the material itself. The proponents of this measure should know better. One of the reasons the women’s movement was able to grow so quickly over the last decade or two was its access to an unfettered press, which helped spread its ideas. It is in everyone’s interest to keep that freedom alive and vital, even if it means allowing publication of offensive material.
No government should initiate or facilitate efforts to restrict free expression. No government should set itself up as the arbiter of what people may read or think about. Our society’s strength is in its unyielding devotion to these principles, and to the pluralism that it spawns. If pornography can be restricted, so can other thoughts.