Philo Christi (original) (raw)

"The purpose of an open mind is to close it on particular subjects. If you never do, you've simply abdicated the responsibility to think."

~~William F. Buckley

I think what is sort of at play here is an institutional disavowal of any knowledge of a public moral standard, and that this development is actually quite recent in American history.

For the record, while I'm not necessarily in favor of systemic "book bannings", I am in favor of more proactive controls on what type of material is made accessible to children--much in the same way we already regulate film, television, and video game content. In fact, the American Library Association is pretty much alone in its refusal to acknowledge some minimal standard for content, which understandably makes it an attractive rallying point for left-of-center ideologues to promote books with anti-conservative themes. It wouldn't be difficult to argue that this is perhaps one of the stronger reasons why the ALA enjoys promoting "Banned Books Week"... a sort of thumbing-the-nose gesture at the rest of America for daring to think that the ALA should be responsive to what most parents may find objectionable for their children. Central and undefended is the assumption that all views put in print are to be assumed equal and worthy of the same respect.

I understand there may be degrees of variation between people on what is to be considered taboo, and while these variances tend to receive the exclusive attention of theorists in academic lecture halls, that there are such material in existence does not seem to be a matter of great controversy in actual everyday life. Maybe we might conceive of a few examples--however implausible they may seem--to test whether or not, in principle, there could ever be a case when regulation of content would be permissible.

Suppose a child asks to view at some pornographic Computer Generated Imagery of a particular sort (think Final Fantasy movie graphics). Could we imagine a series of explicit and "positive" portrayals of pedophilia?

In a slightly different twist, Dr. David L. Riegel published a work entitled "Understanding Loved Boys and Boylovers". The following is an excerpt of one glowing review of this particular work.

"As a boylover, I found this book extremely helpful. But it is not intended for the boylover community: it is meant for the general public who fear the phenomenon of pedosexuality. As such, it sets out to explain in plain language what this phenomenon is about. I would strongly recommend this book to the non-pedosexual public because it offers a valuable insight into a world totally foreign to them. By explaining what 'pedophiles' really are, it may help parents to understand that there may actually be benefits to such relationships."

Again, should the ALA be willing to take responsibility for making this material accessible to young children, or potential child molesters?

Or suppose a young boy requests books or video describing in detail the most entertaining ways to pass the time by capturing and torturing animals? Is there any point at which the ALA should be willing to take a stand, or is this libertarian policy rather absolutist in its own right?

We might conceive of more such examples, and I suspect that they'll just continue highlighting that something like a philosophical incontinence and a warped sense of "tolerance" could be at work here rather than actual enlightened policy.