C A R L B. G A R N E R
BOOKS, MOVIES AND TV: DO THEY INFLUENCE US?
The first amendment to the Constitution insures the right of the people to freedom of expression. Many of the great constitutional battles that have raged since then have centered on this basic issue: What is and is not protected by this amendment? Can no restrictions be placed upon the population because of this amendment? The view that has prevailed limits our speech and writing in some ways: slander and libel are prohibited. You cannot shout "Fire! Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. These limits are generally accepted and recognized as valid and necessary.
However, other questions of responsibility have received a less favorable review. In 1957, the U.S. Supreme Court vaguely defined obscenity as material in which "applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme as a whole appeals to prurient interests." The meaning of those words has been so evasive that obscenity laws are seldom, if ever, enforced in most communities. The argument made by so-called "civil libertarians" is that any limitation is a form of censorship, and that books, movies, and TV programs do not negatively influence our society.
This writer would like to give rebuttal to the "Censorship" charge that has been thrust upon us. And I want to refute the hackneyed "just-turn-off-the-TV" and "you-cannot- legislate-morality" responses that have become standard fare for defenders of current sexually explicit programs.
- First, to deny that one can ever by harmed or corrupted by a book or a play or a movie is also to deny that one can be benefited or improved by them. Literary and artistic representatives would promptly deny the latter, but this is indeed a two-edged sword. If any artistic endeavor has the capability of helping, it must be agreed that such a medium also has the capability of harm.
- Anyone can see a danger in complete political or artistic restriction, but applying the word "censorship" to this subject is a smoke screen. To restrict or limit one person's right to libel or slander another's name or reputation is one way in which the overall rights of a population can be protected. Freedom that is unlimited eventuates in a "might makes right" mentality. My right to swing my arm ends where the other person's nose begins. If such reasoning cannot be seen to fit these other matters, then I must ask, Why not?"
- The "You can't legislate morality" philosophy is sheer nonsense. We legislate against bribery, rape, murder, sexual harassment and theft. That legislation does not insure morality, but it does serve as a means of protecting individual rights, and we recognize the need for such legislation.
- To require each person to be his own censor sounds as though it just might work. If you are offended by the language or violence or sexual innuendo on TV - just turn it off - that's the civil libertarians' view. That may keep me and my family from being offended, but that is like suggesting that the solution to a neighborhood's drug problem is for me to refuse to buy any drugs. The problem is that those who continue to use drugs may come and rob my house in order to get money for what they want. Mark it well: Society is affected by pornography and similar material.
Note the following:
...A Boy Scout leader pleaded guilty to raping two members of his troop, and was sentenced to 30 years in prison. A search of his house produced over 600 lewd pictures of children.
...A man convicted of molesting over 100 young boys in a major U. S. city admitted using pornographic films to break down the children's resistance to his advances.
...A Wisconsin man, convicted of molesting 15 young boys and girls, admitted that the ideas for his activities came from pornographic magazines like Hustler and Penthouse. Gary Bauer, President of Family Research Council, correctly states, "The whole concept of advertising is based on the notion that powerful television images can affect what a person buys. It follows that if kids are getting messages that out-of-wedlock childbirth is fine, or that the way to solve problems is through violence, it is going to have an impact in a society that is media-dominated." As Christians, we will need to turn off the TV occasionally, but that won't solve the nation's moral problems. We will need to write some letters, confront some store-owners, and refuse to patronize some establishments. Such action may be unpleasant but necessary before some realize that we really do believe what we are saying. Eventually, perhaps, the world will see that Jesus was right when He said, "By their fruits ye shall know them" (Matt. 7:16,20).
|
