savethehumans.com
Shock therapy for planet Earth.
Back to: home last page

by Jason Roth

Ten years ago, I quoted the following in an article for a high school newspaper:

"I think the most evil part about the PMRC [Parents' Music Resource Center] and people like Tipper Gore and Jesse Helms is they play on the fears of parents who are too chicken to talk to their own kids."
- Jello Biafra (former lead singer of the Dead Kennedys)

I've since graduated high school, and Tipper's back. This time, she's got her husband's balls in one hand and Lieberman's in the other. They're all ready and eager to "save the children". But from what are they going to save the children this time, and by what means do they plan on doing it?

The new "save the children" clan wants to "protect" children from violence by threatening the use of violence against those who market violent films to children.

You might question my use of the phrase "threatening the use of violence". Good for you. You're thinking.

Whenever members of the government talk about the content of a movie, there's one underlying theme. And unfortunately it ain't gratuitous sex.

Government makes laws. When you break these laws, you get fined or you go to jail. If you get fined and don't pay your fine, you go to jail. If you politely disagree with the arresting officer, you go to jail. If you have philosophical differences with the judge about the morality of the law he's enforcing, you go to jail.

The power of government is ultimately based on force.

This is fine, as long as the force is being used against people who take your stuff or molest your relatives or invade other countries and take your oil. But when the use of force is threatened against those who do not initiate force, we have a problem.

And that is exactly what is happening in the movie marketing "debate". (Notice that the media loves to call it a "debate" so you'll forget that it's an issue of right and wrong, and think it's just an issue of subjective preference. Like less filling versus tastes great.)

The threat of violence underlies every statement made by government. The government does not ask movie studio executives to tone down the marketing of violent films to children. It threatens them. Movie producers know damn well that there might not be a law on the books today, but if they don't "voluntarily" do as they're told now, they'll be forced to do something eventually. It's the threat of force that makes a government "suggestion" a regulation.

Movie execs are just hoping that if they jump through some hoops now "voluntarily", they won't have to jump through one of those flaming circus hoops later.

Tipper Gore and the PMRC got record companies to "voluntarily" put warning labels on albums for the same reason that the movie studios are going to "voluntarily" alter their marketing. Because the gutless executives in both industries think they can postpone their limousine and red-carpeted entrance into the fully-regulated government-sponsored Academy Awards by one more year.

But the executives' very compliance with the government threats, or more specifically, their belief that such compliance is beneficial, proves that censorship is already here. If government's suggestions about the content of a Scream 8 commercial translates into action, we have censorship.

Now we're ready to address the beloved fine line. The fine line between censorship that's good censorship, and censorship that's bad censorship.

"Bad censorship" is when you tell an artist or journalist what he can or can't include in his work. "Good censorship" is when you help the motherfucking children.

It's "bad censorship" when you tell Robert Crumb to stop drawing pictures of Fritz the Cat getting pussy. It's "good censorship" when you tell the Evil Tobacco Company to stop drawing pictures of Joe the Camel taking a fucking cigarette break.

It's "bad censorship" when you tell the New York Times that they have to report the story about Al Gore accepting bribes from Texas personal injury attorneys for the Democratic National Committee. It's "good censorship" when you tell a television network that they have to hire more black actors. (Like what the world needs is more UPN sitcoms.)

The crucial question is: why do people believe in the existence of "good censorship"? Because, they believe, it's perfectly fine to sacrifice the rights of some people, as long as you do it for the sake of others. This is otherwise known as altruism, the non-virtue of committing human sacrifices for the benefit of others.

As philosopher Ayn Rand wrote:

"Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one's own benefit is evil. Thus the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value - and so long as that beneficiary is anybody other than oneself, anything goes."
(The Virtue of Selfishness, Introduction, p. x)

According to altruists - the Tipper Gores, the Joseph Liebermans, and the Pope John Paul the Seconds of the world - any action is permitted as long as it's taken for the sake of others. To altruists, there is no such thing as an idea like "censorship is wrong". There is only the idea that "sometimes censorship is required, and sometimes it isn't."

The group of "others" whom we are currently using as the fashionable excuse to fuck over the rights of others is, of course, the children.

Let's remember one little detail about the children. The children have parents. Or more accurately, the parents have children. The parents have them, not you. If you have children, you have your children. Stay the hell out of other parents' business. And if you can't see the difference between actual child abuse and letting your kid watch Friday the 13th, then it's about time you took a vacation at Club Med Beijing and learn the difference. China protects its citizens against the mental kind of "child abuse" every day. If that's the kind of "protection" you believe in, then put your proof of citizenship where your mouth is.

But beside the children, there's another reason why people are willing to tolerate the censorship of movie marketing. They're evading both the nature of marketing, and that it's a necessary part of having free speech.

What is marketing? In simplest terms, marketing is the process of getting a product to the market, which includes communicating to the market the nature of the product. It's this second aspect that most people understand as "marketing". (Technically, that part is advertising and promotion.)

There is no force involved in a movie commercial. There's inanity, clichés, and bad acting, but there's no force. The act of seeing a commercial doesn't force a child into a movie theater. A child needs permission to leave his home, a means of getting to the theater, a means of paying for the movie, and the permission of a theater employee to enter the theater. A piece of film cannot compel these things to happen. Since there's no force involved, government has no business making laws in this area.

It should be obvious that comminuting the existence and nature of a product, such as a movie, newspaper, or book, is a necessary part of having free speech. If the government says "You can say anything you want, but we'll decide to whom you can say it," it's clear that the speech is not "free".

Right now, government is trying to tell us that they're not interfering with free speech, just who hears the speech. That's like saying you're allowed to place a phone call to whomever you want, but you're not allowed to have the call answered. Since when does a phone call consists of dialing numbers and talking to yourself?

If "freedom of speech" meant the freedom to talk to yourself, no one would have free speech except winos and the mentally retarded.

Freedom of speech is the freedom to communicate with others. Finally, let's just note that there's a reason the Founding Fathers did not specify that free speech is only permissible "amongst other adults". Parents have control over (and the right to control) their children's access to speech.

The most ominous aspect of the latest "gag the adults to save the children" campaign is that again (like Tipper and Jesse's "offensive lyrics" campaign), it's being led by Democrats. This is ominous because if there were ever anything decent about the Democrats, it was their belief in civil rights. It seems they're scrapping any pretense of rights and are going straight for the punch.

This is a very serious turning point in American politics. Now that Republicans and Democrats are on the same side in the censorship issue, we are in very deep you know what.

I would be more specific, but according to Tipper and Lieberman, evidently sticks and stones aren't the only things that can hurt you.

Back to: home last page