Our Threatened Freedom

Who is Censoring Us

Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject: Political Studies

Lesson: 86-169

Genre: Conversation

Track: 086

Dictation Name: Vol. G - Part 08 - Who is Censoring Us

Location/Venue: Unknown

Year: 1980’s – 1990’s

[Dr. Rushdoony] Who is censoring us? This is R.J. Rushdoony with a report on our threatened freedom.

Recently Inquiry Magazine carried an interesting article by Nat {?}, on censorship threats. Without agreeing with his thesis in its entirety, Hentoss{?} comments were very relevant to the question of film and television censorship. The fact is that such censorship exists, and it existed before the moral majority or Pastor Wildman’s movements were born. A variety of minority groups have long exercised a veto power over what is filmed. Hentock{?} cites a particularly telling example of an instance of self-censorship in a film production. In the final scene of a film, a key line was cut out for fear of offending every lesbian in America. It is very obvious that in any and every film production, a number of forces are at work. Simply in terms of economics, it does not make sense to offend a large segment of the population. A variety of groups exercise a direct and indirect censorship. This should not surprise us. We are influenced in our speech and action by a particular situation. In certain settings we inhibit ourselves in order to be able to function better in that place and to accomplish our social goals. Out of good sense, for example, we censor what we say around our boss and around our children. In so doing, we are not cowardly, but rather responsible. All too much talk about censorship assumes a social vacuum. The courts have made clear that to cry fire in a crowded theater is not an exercise of free speech but of irresponsibility. Now this is an extreme example, but it makes the point. Civil censorship is a dangerous thing, personal and social censorship can be either good or bad, depending on the circumstances. To express our disapproval of film and television fare is itself an expression of free speech, not of censorship, unless we seek legislation. Clearly much of our television fare is stupid and vulgar, embarrassing to look at. Much of it runs contrary to, and is an assault on the moral and religious values of most of us. For most of us there is little worth watching on television. Now the producers have the freedom to produce what they want, and we have the freedom to tell them that we think it stinks, and to boycott them if we choose. This is what a free society is all about. It means that freedom is a two way street and we cannot deny people the freedom to object to what they regard as objectionable, if we want the freedom to express ourselves.

This has been R.J. Rushdoony with a report on our threatened freedom.