creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Mona Charen
Mona Charen
14 Feb 2012
The Free Lunch Is Back

Leaving aside the blatant assault on religious liberty that the Obama administration's contraceptive mandate … Read More.

10 Feb 2012
Do You Speak Conservative?

Newt Gingrich knows the lingo. He makes conservative audiences roar with approval when he compares the … Read More.

7 Feb 2012
Removing Planned Parenthood's Fig Leaf

Planned Parenthood would appear to have won this latest skirmish in the abortion wars. The Susan G. Komen for … Read More.

Look Who's Censoring Now

Share Comment

Well, well, well. Look who's censoring the Internet. It's Andrew Cuomo, attorney general of the Empire State. On June 11, Cuomo announced an agreement with three of the nation's largest Internet service providers — Sprint, Time Warner, and Verizon — to block access to child pornography and eliminate such content from their networks wherever possible. Negotiations are ongoing with two other, as yet unnamed, service providers.

You might think that these companies would have cracked down on child porn purveyors without the assist of New York's attorney general. But apparently not. Undercover agents from the attorney general's office first posed as subscribers and complained to Internet providers about the availability of child pornography. The companies ignored them. Only then did the attorney general drop the mask and switch to intimidation mode, threatening the companies with charges of fraud and deceptive business practices.

The aptly named website Gawker is alarmed. "As despicable and exploitative as child porn is, blocking it this way is a terrible move. This is apparently the first time these ISPs have agreed to censor certain web content…. And once that line is crossed, theoretically it could be pushed to block more and more porn." Imagine! Get the smelling salts.

As Irving Kristol so wisely observed several decades ago, "...If you care for the quality of life in our American democracy, then you have to be for censorship." Most liberals in good standing profoundly rejected Kristol's insight then and continue to resist it today. They believe themselves to be anti-censorship — yet they practice censorship informally and most assiduously. Liberals who publish magazines and newspapers scour them for any hint of racism or homophobia. No one in the United States today would produce a sympathetic play about apartheid or Nazism (the same cannot be said, of course, for plays expressing sympathy for communism, but that's an old story). Moviemakers are at pains to eliminate images of cigarette smoking in films, lest they lend support to an undesirable behavior.

And college campuses, in the hands of the tenured radicals, have become playgrounds for speech codes and other forms of liberal authoritarianism.

So while liberals think of themselves as anti-censorship, they aren't at all. This is not to scold them for their hypocrisy (or not entirely) but rather to attempt to move toward a consensus. Liberals tend to argue that child porn is a special case. If it involves real children, the very act of making the stuff is a crime. Children are obviously not consenting adults.

But I'm for censoring child porn even if it is produced with computer generated children. That's a much harder case for most liberals, who worship personal autonomy above virtue or (an old word) decency. In 2002, the Supreme Court invalidated a federal law criminalizing the production of virtual child porn. But that law was poorly drafted. A more narrowly tailored alternative might well pass constitutional muster even with the present court.

Andrew Cuomo is to be commended. It's a little shocking that he has not yet been excoriated by the ACLU or the editorial page of the New York Times. Would they be so biddable if the New York attorney general were a Republican?

We censor because we find certain kinds of stimuli reprehensible and corrupting. Note the gerund. It isn't just that bad or corrupt individuals choose to trade pictures of children being sexually abused. It's that we fear that many people who would otherwise not have indulged such sick appetites are moved to do so by the availability of the filth (Cuomo actually used that word!) online. Culture has consequences. Kristol was right when he argued that "Bearbaiting and cockfighting are prohibited only in part out of compassion for the animals; the main reason is that such spectacles were felt to debase and brutalize the citizenry who flocked to witness them." We do, as Kristol held, have a proper concern with the way people entertain themselves in public. I would go further and suggest that viewing child porn — even in private — should be as difficult as we can make it. Censor away, Mr. Attorney General — and broaden your net.

To find out more about Mona Charen and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.


Comments

3 Comments | Post Comment
The hypocrisy of avowed liberals with regard to censorship makes a good case for libertarianism. Libertarians reject censorship of material sympathetic to Nazis or the Ku Klux Klan, or censorship of politically incorrect speech on college campuses, for the same reason they reject censorship of pornography: Adults have the absolute right to read, see and hear whatever they choose.
Child pornography is, as you point out, a special case. When real children are abused, that's where the law comes in. But if we criminalize even the private possession of computer-generated pornographic images of children, where does this slippery slope lead us? What about pornographic drawings of children? What about written descriptions? What about a book like Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita, which is universally considered a literary classic?
The idea that normal people may turn into pedophiles simply because of the availability of kiddie porn is, to put it mildy, simply preposterous. Do people become murderers after reading detective novels? And if "certain kinds of stimuli" are "reprehensible and corrupting," then how do we know that the censors themselves aren't corrupted by constant exposure to "filth"? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Comment: #1
Posted by: Scot Penslar
Sat Jun 14, 2008 1:56 AM
Let's try a different spin. The three ISPs want to get out of the Usenet business. The load of binaries (mostly copyright violations) is tremendous. Dropping the binaries would cause some customers to switch and that was just unacceptable, They couldn't all decide to do it at same time since that would bring the illusion of collusion. So what to do? Answer: find a way to force the government to shut us down (for the children, of course). All you need is a willing government type who isn't afraid to look like an overbearing jerk. .... and as they say, the rest is history. The ruling will probably not stand a Constitutional challenge - how can a New York state ruling legitimately prevent my access to the Usenet in California - but the precedent will be set to have government "force" companies to do what they want to while shrugging their collective shoulders and saying "Can't help it, it's the law"!
Comment: #2
Posted by: Bruce M
Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:34 AM
Ms. Charen would have done well to research the matter before fitting this into her usual brainless template of feigned surprise at the defense of "moral virtue" expressed by- Oh my God!- a
"libb-uh-wuhl."
This is the act of a grandstanding fool of an Attorney General named Andrew Cuomo. Fresh from his brilliant stint at HUD, which left thousands of foreclosures in the aftermath of his stewardship. Mr. Cuomo is now aiming for the governorship, and doing it loudly. So he came up with this rubbish.
There were 88 sites found on the Usenet system with child pornography.
THERE ARE OVER 100,000 USENET SITES.
Used by millions of people who are not perverts, covering ever subject from biblical archeology to cooking recipes. They have now been silenced, and Ms. Charen squeals with delight.
Ms. Charen, in her usual parroting tone, may cheer this censorship. However, it is the intellectual equivalent of shutting down the phone system because someone was heard using a four letter word in a conversation. But leave it to Ms. Charen to make it a moral issue and delight in infantile glee over this.
We in the tech community are appalled at this move.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080616-alt-blocked-verizon-blocks-access-to-whole-usenet-hierarchy.html
Comment: #3
Posted by: max
Wed Jun 18, 2008 3:49 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Mona Charen
Feb. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Judge Napolitano
Judge Andrew P. NapolitanoUpdated 16 Feb 2012
Austin Bay
Austin BayUpdated 15 Feb 2012
Michelle Malkin
Michelle MalkinUpdated 15 Feb 2012

5 Oct 2007 But Why Is He So Angry?

12 Sep 2008 What Obama Could Destroy

26 May 2009 Are We at Peace?