TWAIN-L Archives

Mark Twain Forum


Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Headly Westerfield <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Mark Twain Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Sat, 10 Feb 1996 17:11:18 -0500
text/plain (24 lines)
Not that this forum should become a discussion group on the subject of
censorship, but I feel I must comment.

"Indecency" is in the mind of the beholder.  It's such a nebulous word that
it could be used to to attack almost anything.  At one point this bill had a
provision in it which would have banned the distribution of information on
abortion.  I don't know if that amendment survived, but one could still call
abortion "indecent", if that were your point of view, and an attack could be
launched on that point as well.

We don't need laws (and, yes, I realize I'm in Canada, but I'm an American
in Canada) that have nebulous terms big enough to drive a truck through.
Sure, it may be used today to ban the distribution of bomb making texts
(which, by the way are perfectly legal), but could in the future be used to
attack any diverging point of view.  Isn't that what the Revolutionary War
all about?

*ALL* censorship is bad.  There are all ready laws in the law books which
deal with pornography.  Why not let these laws work against what's already
been deemed illegal and allow free speech to remain the cornerstone of The
United States of America's democracy?

Thomas Head