[luqmaninbmore]

I believe that this debate will be advanced by clearing up a conceptual confussion that has been implied but not clearly stated thus far. This is a confusion between the legal and the ethical. The pro-censorship party is especially prone to this. We should all be able to agree that not everything that is unethical should be illegal. Insulting someone's mother, for example, while not illegal (at least in the US), is something that, as civilized people, we can agree is unethical. We can reach this agreement by appealing to one or more of the ethical systems that our civilization is heir to: consequentialism, deontological ethics, virtue theory, etc. All things being equal, the state of affairs in the universe will be worse if I insult the mother of person X than if I refrain from doing so. By insulting person X's mother, I am not regarding them as an end in themselves, but as a means to the gratification of my own anger and frustration (or desire to amuse myself). I am also using X's mother as a means to insult her/him. The habit of insulting other human beings in such a visceral way is not conducive to virtue; it does create conditions necessary for human flourishing. Insulting someone's mother is clearly unethical. But why shouldn't it be illegal? Because the consequences of enforcing such legislation would be such that enacting such a law would lead to a worse state of affairs than allowing the status quo to continue. For this reason, the book in question should not be banned.

I argue that distributing the book in question is immoral. If it is at all effective in its purpose as a guide, the state of affairs in the world would be worse then if it were not distributed. The very premise of the book is predicated on treating children as means to the gratification of the Paedophile, not means in themselves. True, if the reports we have received are accurate, it does argue that children are able to consent to the acts described in the book. This, for reasons which it would be off topic to discuss here, is not tenable, however. To commit these acts without consent is to treat someone as an end not a means. Clearly, these acts are not conducive to human flourishing; there have been many comments about the mental status of the author.

If distributing the book is unethical, shouldn't it be illegaL? No, for the same reason that insulting someone's mother should not be illegal. The consequences of a law or legal principle allowing this book to be banned would thoroughly negative; it would lead to a worse state of affairs than if the status quo continued. This is because there is no clear legal principle which would allow this work to be banned while still safeguarding other works that, all things considered, ought not to be banned. The consequences would lead not only to the banning of worthwhile works but would create a chilling effect that seriously injure the health and vitality of our culture. The very real experience of repression that would result, when added to the legalized persecution of offending offers, would create a state of affairs considerably worse than the status quo. This work, therefor, should not be banned.

The position that we have no right to "force our morality on others" is untenable. Every society has laws or, at the very least, rules which ought to reflect the views of that society regarding ethically acceptable behavior, although, in practice, they reflect the power relationships (social, economic, sexual) in that soicety. These laws evolve and change according to the principles of ethical deliberation acceptable to that community. Consequentialism, because it is concerned with aggregate well being, is the major ethical framework appealed to in the process of legislation, with Divine Command theory comming a significant second. The recognition that a system of ordered liberty, the vision of Enlightenment thinkers, does not equal a moral free-for-all in no way detracts from the argument against censorship. It strengthens it by providing a theoretical grounding necessary for making a cogent case.