The Slippery Slope of Censorship

My last post was on the censorship of the human body. The issues there reflect a bigger issue: when is it justified to censor? Certainly the argument in favor of legalizing nudity isn’t that everyone looks good naked or that there are those that everyone will enjoy viewing. The idea is that one’s actions don’t have to conform to others wishes. But isn’t there a right not to be offended? Imagine the girth of such a legal code. Some people are offended by leisure, others by overworking. Some people are offended by the consumption of alcohol, others by the lack of consumption of alcohol. Some people are offended by sexual intercourse, others by children—so much for the continuation of the human race. The standards for censorship are not based on a coherent understanding of rights: there is no right to impede on the rights of others. If we allow censorship for such reasons as “majority rule,” then we justify further and further censorship on the same grounds (as is often the case with nudity and/or “decency”).

The argument for a lack of censorship is not an argument for overall tolerance. There is no coercion to accept or agree with others’ words, expressions, or actions. We have the right to disagree, to be angry, et cetera. We have the right to deny friendship, to socially ostracize, to make up our own minds on our own actions. That is the standard. Our freedom is limited only to the point at which it infringes on the liberty of others.