November 1, 1995
The naked human body, per se, does not cause sexual arousal. For you who doubt this, let me invite you to the autopsy room.
...I value freedom; and have never expected freedom to be anything less than indecent.
... e e cummings, i: six nonlectures
Slose heads a committee to that purposes to suppress the obscene plays performed in the public [houses] here... Slose opposes them because they are trivial, vulgar, and blasphemous.
To oppose something is to maintain it.
They say here "all roads lead to [Rome]." To be sure, if you turn your back on [Rome] and walk away from it, you are still on the [Roman] road. To oppose vulgarity is inevitably to be vulgar. You must go somewhere else; you must have another goal; then you walk a different road.
... Ursula Kroeber LeGuin, The Left Hand of Darkness
[certain words altered in this excerpt for the
sake of clarity and to avoid long explanations]
Although the presumed work of art, "Piss Christ", a photograph of a crucifix immersed in a jar of urine, presented by some "artist" supported by the National Endowment for the Arts, is certainly an outrage and, to some, a blasphemy, one can be assured that it has not caused anyone to commit even the smallest sin (see Gospel).
But to require Catholics (or anyone, for that matter) to pay taxes in support of this blasphemy is indeed a terrible sin.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
... Amendment I, Constitution of the United States
Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.' (Mark 7:15)
... Jesus of Nazareth
If the first amendment assurance of freedom of the press does not apply to the Internet, what on earth do the words mean? As a technoid, I attach a special significance to words: words are at the heart of what I do, and they always have a definite, ascertainable meaning. If the meaning is mutable, applying to some cases and not others, then it is not a meaning at all but an interpretation. Some would have us believe (in fact, I was taught in school) that the Constitution of the United States is just such a collection of words, mutable to suit the whims of current political fashion, a so-called "living document", a salubrious fiction concocted by politicians who want their way whether it is constitutional or not. But the Constitution is not a "living document"; it is the contract among the States and the people of the United States for the governance of the land. The meaning of the words of the Constitution can be ascertained through an understanding of contemporary word usage and also through the other works and writings of its authors. It is clear that the authors intended speech, the press, the practice of religion, petition, and assembly to be free, that is, unregulated and unrestricted by government.
Of course, the meaning of certain politicians' self-righteous seizures on this subject is obvious. If I can publish a magazine simply by typing it into a transmissible file and sending it to the various Internet resources, all for the cost of an Internet access account, it means that I cannot be silenced. Nor can you. Power-hungry politicians cannot accept this, because it threatens their monopoly on public thought. Since they care nothing for our rights or the securing of them, they mean to stop it if they can.
The root of "decent", decens (La.), means "fitting", and it is a very old word. If the authors of the Constitution had meant that they intended the press to be free to publish only that which is decent, they had the word for it and were perfectly capable of using it. But they did not. They were tacitly affirming the right to publish the indecent.
The conclusion is clear: Work to defeat Sen. Exon's bill, oppose prior restraint, and support Phil Zimmerman's cause. Let the Internet be free.
The sight of a congressman (Rangle) embracing Castro at functions associated with the UN's 50th anniversary was as consoling as it was revealing, assuring me that I have been correct about the congressman all along. Of course, his embrasure of Castro was sincere: his vision of the future is the same: he wants to rule us the same way Castro rules Cuba.
I picked up another recording of the six Sonatas and Partitas for Violin Alone last month, expecting to experience once again a museum piece, a still life from that old, wonderful composer, J. S. Bach. I found instead a rich banquet, fresh and piping hot, prepared by the late violinist Arthur Grumiaux. The entire disc soars with energy, light, flair, and a profound sense of the robustness of these immortal compositions. It appears on Phillips 438 736-2.
All contents © Copyright 1995, 1996 by Redmon Barbry ¶ 11:49 PM
Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home
<< Home
