Critical thinking can be aided by law:
Critical thinking tells me there's not a lot of point in writing this down. I sure don't think I've convinced anyone so far that limited censorship is worthwhile. I guess I don't have a lot of self control :-) Now if Max suggested we LIMIT our posts to three per day, that would probably have given me the extra self control necessary to just sit back and let some other people do the talking for a while. All I'm saying is critical thinking helps, but often needs help. Laws can often BE that extra bit of help.

Critical thinking can often make things worse:
Another drawback on relying on critical thinking is: what if the individual doesn't care at all about the common good? A few people don't. Most people care a little more about themselves than the common good, but what if the individual cares MUCH more about his personal good than the common good? Lots of people are like this. Critical thinking will lead them to act immorally WHENEVER they can do so with impunity (i.e. whenever they expect no penalties will follow)...simply because they are capable of enjoying themselves despite the suffering they cause. Here is where I'd agree with Chet -- laws are not enough to keep this tendancy in check. We must harrass the worst of those who harm the common good for personal gain, or their critical thinking will show them ways to furthur harm society.

Ethically empty law can be effective:
Ever notice that the most likely time for a speeding ticket is on dry pavement with excellent visibility on a Sunday afternoon with almost no traffic along a non-residential stretch of road? It's the cops again, being asked to act according to the letter of the law in order to fill the city coffers. So if we're not rich, we drive more slowly than conditions demand. Laws can be effective, even when we don't follow them for moral reasons.

Cops shouldn't routinely follow their consciences:
Wouldn't most of cops' consciences tell them to simply execute or produce false evidence against a large proportion of the criminals they encounter? Don't they *already* do this a little too often?

Censorship reduces distribution of an idea:
Tim - Our censorship laws have changed a lot. Maybe bomb-making books are now legal in Canada. I think individual customs officers still have a HUGE say in turning away FOREIGN books though, and they ABUSE this right, for example by harassing a Vancouver Gay and Lesbian bookstore (a good example of badly delegated censorship authority). Back when there were all sorts of anti-pornography laws in Ontario, pornography was much scarcer (in towns that didn't border the US). Agreed, the porn business had higher profit margins, but it was much, much smaller. While I don't advocate a crackdown on porn, the former crackdowns are an example that censorship is fairly effective in modern times.

Censorship just publicizes?
Censorship the press regards as unfair is well publicized. The Barenaked Ladies (thrown out of an early free concert beside Toronto City Hall) and Salmon Rushdie are good examples. But what about routine censorship the press and public accept as deserved? I don't think it gets much publicity or generates many sales.

Government vs. corporate and private censorship:
Anyone - I don't know all that much about the McCarthy era in US history. Wasn't it private companies' actions that hurt various artists more than the government's investigations? As far as I know, the government never moved to actively censor the artists. Am I wrong?

Minorities:
Tina - If homosexuals gain equal rights it's mostly because the politically active majority think they ought to have (or don't object if they have) these rights. Laws can give you *some* protection, but they can't grant you acceptance into a community. Your contributions and your lengthy *recognized* presence grant you acceptance. If you already have that acceptance, then censorship laws AREN'T going to significantly hurt you. You may even be granted protection through anti-descrimination laws.

The idiot principal who turned down a free Indigo Girls concert (what was his name, Goliath - the biggest Philistine of them all?) isn't the federal or state government. They're not as dumb, or as easily swayed by 30 parents as he is. Amazing his critical thinking didn't tell him the students might turn destructive over the issue -- I wonder if he still drives his car to school?

Chet - I don't understand the your reference to Havel as an inspiration to the choir.

Almost time for "Objectionable Material, Part 3"?