"If we truly believe in decency... surely the least we can do is protest the use of taxpayers' money to reward and subsidize utterly filthy, so-called art." -Sen. Jesse Helms, Republican, N.C. "Where does it end? When do these people reach into the Bible and ban the Song of Solomon?" -Rep. Major Owens, Democrat, N.Y. Hi all. Wanted to make this post in the 'ethics' forum, but couldn't figure out how [there's no 'Post a New Question' link], so I am posting here in the philosophy forum. First off, I am a 17 yr. old grade 12 photography student. I need your help on the topic of censorship. All you philosophers out there, feel free to make a stand on these very controversial statements. A) Is censorship necessary in our society to protect the rights of individuals? <OR> B) Is censorship not necessary, and people should have the freedom of expression? Two very hard questions to answer, and I need to make a stand on one of them during my grade 12 photography exam - on Monday the 21st! One of the components of the exam is an essay dealing with the topic of censorship, and I need to right about, and answer, one of the two questions above. My teacher handed out an article with the above quotes to get the class thinking... and after reading the entire article I am still undecided about whether censorship is a "good" or "bad" thing. Some more quotes from the artcle [Newsweek: July 2, 1990]: "Who is to judge what art is worthy and what is not? How are conflicts between decency and free expression to be sorted out? What role should the government assume in supporting the arts? Who works, who plays, who pays?" "Supreme court rulings on obscenity present the artbusters with a problem in strategy and tactics. Under the 1973 Miller v. California decision, any work that has 'substantial literary, artistic, political or scientific value' is not obscene." Your help, thoughts, and opinions are all very much appreciated, thanks for your time ---Matt Vardy.