September 17, 2008, 12:03 am by Ian

The idea, concept, and practice of censorship frustrate and divide me. Reading Kristol’s idea of “noble censorship” for the sake of a good quality of life sounds appealing and makes a certain sense; however, a part of me cannot see how there can be a rationalization for censorship when we live in a free and open society that has Freedom of Speech the very first item in the Bill of Rights. There comes a point in any discussion for or against censorship where a side must be solidly chosen. But choosing one side in the censorship debates opens a line of questioning from the real possibility of rampant censorship or some sort of run-away debauchery. Personally, censorship is the greater evil to me. It is my fervent hope that as a society, we can rationally regulate and decide for ourselves which expressions can maintain a good quality of life. But, I also can see the other side of the debate with the same clarity I do with the anti-censorship side.

The Kristol argument sees both sides with utmost clarity as well. Mr. Kristol seems to understand what choosing one side completely would mean, and being wishy-washy on either side would deflate his argument completely. As such, I feel that his argument is confused and somewhat uncertain. I certainly didn’t want a vitriol-laden polemic on why noble censorship will improve our society, but still, in the midst of reading the article, I hoped that Mr. Kristol would come to a more pronounced conclusion rather than the weak one he eeked out.