Censorship - "Good" and "Bad" Art...

"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.

Surely the correct phrase for you to be using in your Google research is "Entartete Kunst".

The general rule of ethical behavior is "your rights t end where my nose

begins."

 

So I dont think the issue of A vs. B as you posit it is quite as clear cut as you

present it.

I believe in 'free speech' etc... but public funding for anything that only interests a small part of the public is another matter. Why should Joe Bloggs contribute via his taxes towards art which he probably thinks is crap? Note that I'm not saying that this art should be banned, only that it shouldn't be funded by public moneys. Many people need to self-fund their own art projects (or else develop their own markets to buy it)...

<p>

I don't know where Helms was coming from; I myself wouldn't say "Ban this art!" - I would just say "Stop funding this art via the public taxes."

<p>

Another example, twisted around: if a group of rich businessmen managed to get themselves public funding to have artworks installed in their offices, wouldn't there (shouldn't there?) be a public outcry? Why spend public funding on something that only interests (or is only available to) this small group of business men?

This is not at all about censorship (although Jesse would probably be all for it), but the more complicated issue of what art should be funded with taxpayer money, who decides which artists get grants, and if the government should be in the business of funding any art.

 

I don't have any answers, and given the tiny % of the federal budget spent on the arts, there are far bigger issues that need to be addressed. Jesse is simply playing to the "good old boys" back in NC who get worked up over this type of crap.

http://www.cfif.org/5_8_2001/Legal/issues/ranchers_release.html

 

Think about it.

Running joke in the nineties was that Sen. Helms and Sen McCarthy were siamese twins separated at birth...NOT known widely is that McCarthy and one of his clones traveled to Europe in the early fifties to check out overseas American-sponsored libraries to "root out communist literature" They made total asses of themselves and soon took off back to the US. Fear of communism allowed them to exploit a situation in which checks and balances had been removed. Ultimately, an attorney with some fortitude, An essay by a famous correspondent on TV and quiet action in Congress brought him under control. However, by that time tremendous damage had been done and free speech/freedom of expression as we know it, didn't return to the US until the sixties. What allowed Helms to get away with his behavior is that nobody in Congress had the fortitude to hold him accountable, and that a large part of his constituency consisted of disgruntled whites with residual hatred of anything "not like us" who were easily manipulated. While I am totally against Censorship, offensive or hate speech or imagery(expression) relating to hate could be subject to debatable censorship. As an example, our local community cable channel was intended for the use of the public, i.e. folks with some assistance, could put on their own shows. As I expected, this opportunity was exploited by numerous human "worms" who were able to put on shows relating to hatred of others, anti-semitism and homophobia being major subjects. In such cases I feel that the cable channel management should pull the plug, because it is no longer an issue of free expression, but one of borderline criminal activity...However, to return to your premise, I remember the Helms outburst being over art that he happened to dislike, Homophobia also being a major topic in his behavior. As noted by another party, I think that Helms would have loved Hitler's concept of art which consisted of cartoon statutes and Norman Rockwell-like paintings. As far as your premise/question is concerned, most assuredly (B) is the one.

Matt wrote<p>

 

<i>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?</i><p>

 

Neither of these statements goes far enough to garner an insightful answer. Why? They're sort of an all or nothing pair of questions with no room for a wide spread, all inclusive answer.<p>

 

Is censorship a valid form of protecting a groups sensitivities? Of course but who's sensitivites are considered valid and who's sensitivities are going to be violated?<p>

 

Are we trying to protect Larry Flynt's sensitivites or are we trying to protect a radical Taliban's sensitivity?<p>

 

How does one go about making everybody happy and to what responsibility do our leaders have towards hitting a happy medium point as everybody is attempted to be made happy in the process?<p>

 

Well the Supreme court decided to protect Larry Flynt's sensitivities but for the most part, all chain stores stopped carrying his "Hustler" magazine; self-censorship. The point, skin magazines can still be purchased but at fewer venues and most of these venues are self-limiting by the nature of their character; liquor stores, sleaze parlors and a couple of broad based news stands that don't care if you're offended or not. But it's still a form of limiting access; a form of societal censorship.<p>

 

The courts have ruled on the matters of libel (written) or slander (spoken), both are forms of character assassination and the courts have said in these cases, where intentional harm is intended, one can rightfully sue for personal and punitive damages. This is a form of legal censorship. Mom and Dad can censor their kids behavior and speech to help pass the parent's morality to the developing child. A cop can stop you from mouthing off as a teacher can kick you out of class for similar, "inappropriate" behavior and the Supreme Court has ruled, no yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater because of safety concerns. The point, we live with censorship, common sense or otherwise, on a daily basis and think nothing of it but when these same rules are applied to art, everybody gets crazy. Go figure.<p>

 

What really gums the works up, is the question; Who do you want to make the final decision on these matters? Do you want Clinton's, Anything Goes, Liberal Left Wing Army making the censorship rules or do you want Bush's Right Wing Conservative, Constitutional Bashing, You're Now Incognito, Marauders making the rules:)?<p>

 

Hope this helps you and good luck with your project.<p>

tough challenge youve been handed out there matt... the reason i suspect you are striving to decide whether censorship is a good or bad thing is that there really is no clear cut answer here. tis neither bad nor good ... it just is.

 

Censorship is really not about being good or bad tho - its about how we keep the majority happy and in a democracy its the majority that gets their way. one might argue that where there is no censorship ...there you will find anarchy and we dont want that do we ...lol.

 

Good and bad art which you also mention falls into a silmilar catagory, usually named as such by the majority, very subjectively and is often dependant on the mood of the times. jackson pollack's work may seem like childish splatter paint to some but many would pay dearly to own an original today and i suspect that even if you are not a fan you wouldnt turn one away yourself - why? becuase at present it has been decided that jp's work has more merit than others of its genere and that gives it *value* appeal today - this would certainly not have been the case for jp had he showed his work during the renaissance. so maybe they just didn't recognise "good art" back then - hmmm.. i think not!!

 

in short these are questions with no fixed answer - one thing is for sure though - good or bad, we do need art as a form of expression and there is much to be gained from it both cerebrally and physically. men (and women i suspect) have been drawing on cave walls since time began and i bet they came up with a catchy tune or two as well while they were out there trackng down the prey.

 

my conclusion - we need art good or bad - and i guess censorship - for the good of us all.

 

hope my late night ramblings have helped some matt...

Take A Stand. What do you believe in your heart. Do you believe it is the governments responsibility to protect you and your children from pornography?

 

If so, would this include tracking your web surfing habits in order to root out porn users?

 

 

If the answere is no, is it ok to put nude images of women on billbords alongside the highway?

 

 

Why do we as a society choose to censor?

 

I believe it is out of fear.

 

What are we afraid of seeing?

 

I believe we are afraid of seeing the truth: ourselves.

 

Why can the parents not be the censor for their children?

 

I believe it is because both parents (most) must work in our society to make ends meet. Children are being raised by the public schools and tv(some say they are being raised by their Uncle Sam).

 

 

I would agree that your question is far too simple to have an honest answere. You must have balance in everything. Just remember to err on the side of FREEDOM and not censorship. Repression leads to bad things. ......;)....J

You got a tough issue. To censor is to put legal force behind preventing people or some people or youths from seeing a presentation, which the individual creating it calls "art" and free expression of ideas. On the other side there are laws prohibiting the exhibition,or limiting the exhibition of what is called obscene,or pornographic. Then that leads to definition of what is obscene or pornographic. And the law has tried,one has to hand it to the Supreme Court for trying, to do just that. It aint easy. Then Matt,one gets into things like 'community standards,' 'no redeeming social value' and maybe a bunch more that I have come across in readings. We live in a Constitutional society which has rights under First Amendment. These have to be interpreted over the years. Your quote of a court case leads you to part of the answer. Our judicial branch often decides. Our community and legislature inevitably influences the decision on who gets to decide. We parents like to think we have some control of what is censored. (Lately it seems Sex is In,Violence is less forgivable, a change from my early years). When William Bennett,who was head of DOE asked the moguls of Hollywood if they were ashamed he was setting himself up to be a moral leader. That is what happens when things get out of control. Yet I did not elect MR Bennett to decide for me. So I guess if I had the essay I would waffle between a and b. Give a for instance before we can make a generalization. In other words,what is the context,who gets hurt,where is the lesser of two evils if someone gets hurt.In other words the morass of moral problems which you will get when you hit college Matt. It hurts few people when Walmart doesnt carry Hustler. It hurts more when under 17 y/olds can't get to see valuable discussion worth movies like,well, In the Bedroom and Traffic come to mind. See what I mean,and I know ya do...

My view on your questions:

 

(a) Censorship is not only a valid tool to defend the rights of individuals, it's a necessary one. The argument that you can 'just switch off the televison' or 'not look at the magazine' is over-used and over-simplistic. In order that people can live together in reasonable amity, it is always necessary that they submit to some form of censorship. What's at stake is the degree of that censorship.

 

(b) Freedom of expression should not be the freedom to harm others. If someone claims that their racist/misogynistic/perverted rantings should be permitted under the heading of freedom of expression then it appears not unreasonable that performance art based on burning their house down about their ears should also be permitted. However, the latter is unacceptable in civilised circles so it seems reasonable that the former should also be considered unacceptable.

 

The real answer is that you cannot sensibly take a stand on censorship any more than you can take a stand on breathing. Censorship is an inherent feature of people living together and is seen in every society from the tribesmen of Papua New Guinea to the streets of London or Washington. What is censored and how will vary with time and the changing concensus of each society.

Matt, I think you can avoid a lot of confusion when you debate censorship if you can differentiate between two different types of censorship that are routinely confused -- often deliberately in order to win arguments.

 

(1) One form of censorship (that Thomas describes very well) is the prohibition of harmful content. This is where speech is banned by law because it does harm without sufficient redeeming value that could justify it. This is where the first amendment right conflicts with other rights. Obscene material where children may see it is a good example of this.

 

(2) Another form of censorship is when an institution chooses what to support or permit on behalf of its constituents. For example, an art gallery has every right and obligation to choose the content that it wants to promote. This web site has a right to decide what content is inappropriate, and it is under no legal requirement to grant anyone freedom of speech here.

 

I see that Harvey has already made this point, but I will go ahead and echo what he said. Both types of censorship are certainly valid and necessary functions within a society. But they are both subject to value judgments as to where the line is to be drawn. A key point is that harm is done if censorship is either much too weak or much too restrictive.

 

So the answer to your question, "whether censorship is a good or bad thing," is that it is not only a good thing, it is absolutely necessary for a society to function. However, when censorship is misguided and abused, it is bad. --Joe

I also think it would be good to study The Great Debate about whether the NEA has a right to discriminate in awarding grants to artist based on viewpoint. A law passed years ago gave the NEA the authority to discriminate against certain artist because their subject matter doesn't fit "standards of decency and respect", which the NEA is free to define as they please. The law was passed in response to the NEA's funding of Mapplethorpe's portrayal on homosexual acts and Serrano's portrayal of a crucifix immersed in urine.

 

One camp argues that the NEA, as part of the Federal government, is obligated to be viewpoint-neutral in situations when the government is not specifically promoting a particular viewpoint. An example often sited is that the government cannot discriminate against who gets a permit for a parade based on the viewpoint of the paraders. This is true even though the government will have to use city resources for the parade and the taxpayers may prefer that the resources go to some parades and not others.

 

The other camp (Helms) argues that the NEA has a constitutional right to decide on behave of the taxpayers where the funds will go, and to not pay for art that is flagrantly indecent and disrespectful of society's standards. They argue that this in no way abridges the artist first amendment freedom to express himself, just not at the taxpayer's expense.

 

This debate went to the Supreme Court, and the court ruled that the NEA can choose based on the viewpoint of the artist. So the censorship debate goes on. --Joe

I think that the person who attributed censorship to fear was largely correct, and the one who equated offensive speech to arson has never suffered both. Too many people cloud the issue by confusing free speech with criminal activity. Free speech is our most precious right, and a little censorship is as good for our society as a little cancer is for our bodies. To say that government funding of art is wrong because only a few appreciate it, or only a few are offended by it misses the point entirely. If our society's artistic legacy is to be determned by mass apeal, or private funding, it will be of little interest or value to anyone, ever.

Thank you all for your EXTREMELY helpful responses.

 

I have to answer and write about one of two questions, whether I agree with it in reality or not does not matter. It seems to me that Joe put it best:

 

'So the answer to your question, "whether censorship is a good or bad thing," is that it is not only a good thing, it is absolutely necessary for a society to function. However, when censorship is misguided and abused, it is bad.' --Joe

 

I think that is the stand I will take: that cesorship is necessary in order for society to function (could be my thesis?). In paragraphs I could give examples and explanations of why and how censorship keeps society functioning.

 

Thanks again.

Matt wrote<p>

 

<i>In paragraphs I could give examples and explanations of why and how censorship keeps society functioning.</i><p>

 

I might be saying what you're saying in your above, in my below:)<p>

 

You might want to expand on the idea of the need for censorship and why it comes about in the first place. To leave the reasoning of the need for censorship out of the conversation gives an incomplete argument on the question.<p>

 

Many people, in their innocents think that censorship, on it's face, is a bad thing such as to simply keep someone from cussing in public. Somewhat I would agree with this shallow reasoning. But even constraining a persons public use of language is a good thing, as the setting of reasonable limits is the glue of society so everybody can get along when in the close quarters of a crowded city environment. People's sensibilities, to a degree, need to be considered. So if you look deeper and the why there's a resonable need to constrain behavior of others, then reasonable censorship, begins to make logical sense.<p>

 

Remember, the purpose of the First Amendment to the American Constitution was so people/press could speak out against the government, not so people could cuss in church or a shopping mall:) The Founders of the US Constitution figured that maturity was the reasonable watch word. They gave credit where credit was due and didn't figure it was necessary to write down rules of social engagement on what was considered to be common sense thinking. The subject of social engagement was a subject that was universally understood and accepted; norms. Laws were created to cover those few who didn't understand this thinking:) Laws, the codification of ethics and morality; "Thou shalt not kill."<p>

 

Most censorship takes place around hateful, offensive or sexual behavior and for good reason. So one needs to think about where or when does censorship take place as is this censorship societally beneficial? Is it being done to protect troops who've been sent into harms way on a field of battle? Is it being done to keep people from getting in fights on the streets? Is it being done to protect undercover operatives spying on a mortal advisary such as a druglord who's selling heroin or crank to high school kids? Is it being done to protect corporate trade secrets; the purpose of patent laws? Is it being done for reasons of simply helping people get along as offensive behavior has sensibility boundries put on it. Is it being done to protect one's little brother/son/sister/daughter from a sicko perverted child porn king? The list can be expanded upon to your heart's content as to content and reasoning behind the resonable need for censorship.<p>

 

It's not an innocent world out there and people, without social or legal constraints would run amok in a heart beat if given the chance. If only ten percent of the population were to eschew laws of decency or conduct because of no legal controlling authority, the courts and cops were all retired, life as we know it would end immediately and anarchy would become the watch word of the day and kill or be killed would become the norm. Extreme logic? Yes, but no law or censorship and many would take advantage in a heart beat as that's part of human nature.<p>

 

So the point of the above is to carry to the logical conclusion of why there's the need for reasonable censorship in our daily lives, examples of daily censorship and how censorship helps keep "society functioning" (as you pointed out), as opposed to how excessive censorship can unreasonably constrain society and thereby become the strangulator of a free flowing society of thinking people. This as opposed to what would happen if there wasn't any censorship, no law, anything goes, anarchy; the open range, Wild West attitude of the 1880's American West.<p>

 

Remember, in the beginning, there wasn't such a thing as censorship. Society created censorship for a reason, to help us get along, a la Rodney King.<p>

 

Hope the above gives you some ideas. Wishing you the best and we'll all look forward to reading your diary as to how things went.<p>

There is no "Good or Bad Art"What I think is trash may be the next Monet or A.Adams in a frame and vise versa.

"Ellis Vener" said it most correctly.

Helms wasn't playing to the good old boys in N.C. but to the Ashcrofts of our country.

Look at the art of the Romans 1500 years,how much of this would be censored?

For "Kenneth Katz":In S.F.,Calif there is a large advertisement seen from the public streets and I will quote"Visit Asheville,N.C.,S.F. of the East coast".How much more liberal can the state where Helms lives get?

 

Ron Crowder

Lets start with Taxpayers money and art. <p>

 

Some art is popular, so people will buy it (or reproductions of it) and it is self funding. Some isn't. The point of a government funding art is that it is to avoid being philistines. However the government is spending tax payers money to subsidize art which most of them think is crap. How much they should spend, and on what, is a proper topic of discussion because no single individual can say what is worthy art, and what is unworthy. There are some people who beleive all nudity is obscene so can't distinguish between MichealAngelo and Larry Flint. I'd say that makes them philistines, and badly qualified to be making funding decisions. If the government only subsidized stuff that everyone liked it would defeat the point. <p>

 

Now the government failing to grant a subsidy is not censorship. Going and closing a gallery is censorship, banning a publisher from putting a book on the shelves and so on... that is censorship <p>

 

To some extent freedom of expression is a myth. (Doubly so in America, where lobby groups work hard to prevent some classes of people from expressing things they don't like ). Consider these points:<br>

* No-one prevents you from writing in your exam that the examiners are morons to even ask such a question. Saying such a thing has consequences - but that is not the same as saying that examiners apply censorship.<br>

* You can't shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre and argue freedom of expression.<br>

* Laws of defamation and in some places race relations laws criminalise the publication of certain views, and that is a form of censorship, and it does act to protect the rights of individuals. No official of the government comes to stop the presses printing such a thing, but a law suit afterwards is a deterant it leads to practice self censorship. <p>

Since there is a means of redress if one person's expression violates another persons rights, there is no need to curtail expression itself. Put another way, all three points show freedom of expression has limits. Go beyond those limits and you encounter "censorship" of one form or another<p>

Statement (B) implies that if there is ANY censorship there is NO freedom of expression. <br>

Imagine a world where censorship was ABSOLUTELY forbiddn. Would you allow someone the freedom of expression to express any belief ? Including the belief that there should be censorship ? Or is that the one view which is itself censored ? <p>

Imagine the a store owner who finds the views in a book repugnant, by refusing to stock it he is expressing his view, and curtailing the freedom of the author to express <i>his</i> view. Whose right wins ?<p> Of the two statements I disagree less with A than B.

But A would be more correctly expressed in the form <br><I>

"Although most people believe in a right to free expression, totally free expression can violate the rights of others. A newspaper can not defend publication a false story which ruins someone's reptuation on the grounds of freedom of expression. Without some curtailment of the freedom of expression, other rights will be violated, and such curtailments are censorship, even if self practiced."</I><p>

 

Good luck !

John McCain promulgated legislation, Congress passed it, George Bush signed it, and the Supreme Court upheld it; that severely limits the manor that citizens can band together and criticize their government and elected officials within 90 days of an election. For example under the new law, Thomas Paine and his friends couldn?t have spent their money to print and distribute ?Common Sense?. (It was against the King?s law then.)

 

Therefore, isn?t it pretty much a moot point to debate what rights that we had under the, late and great, First Amendment?

 

However, debate we will so; I will add that the reason I posted the link to the ?Beef it?s what?s for dinner? article is that the Supreme Court has held TWICE that it is a violation of a persons First Amendment rights to force them to pay to disseminate ideas that they don?t agree with. Isn?t art, an idea?

 

Note:wheather the ads were right or wrong wasn't even an issure, just that some of those forced to pay for them didn't agree with them.

Personally, I disagree with the notion that any art intrinsically deserves federal, or government, funding.

 

To not fund art is not the same as censorship.

 

Sure, there are those who will argue that to not provide economic incentive is the same as censorship.

 

Art should compete in the public realm like any other aspect of our culture. As much as I dislike consumerism and commercialism, it sometimes beats the elitism that allows the art community to be out of step with the culture in general. I feel that somehow unbridled government funding promotes the continuance of elitist art.

 

OTOH, I'm not prepared to resign all art to the role of decor. Its important that there be intellectual underpinnings. The problem I see is the general public has been left out of the intellectual discussion surrounding art, as its (generally) been unapproachable to the layman.

 

That's where the responsibility lies with artists: to make their work, and the concepts behind it, approachable and accessible. And not hide behind the apron strings of government funding.

Matt: here is an experience that you might be able to relate to..in my Junior year in an American Overseas DOD school (Munich) one of my teachers spoke out against the war in Vietnam. (This was 1966). Until this time all we heard were positive statements coming from Uncle Sam. Some of my friends had already enlisted. The statements from this teacher were shocking, but factual. We knew the war had been going on too long already, and disciplinary problems with local GI's that had returned from a tour of duty were also evident. Within a week, this teacher was transferred out of the school. But unrest increased. In my Senior year, the school became disorganized and huge student/Army behavior problems developed including rock throwing at MPs, MPs going after kids, GIs not answering alerts, MP jeeps disabled by kids as revenge, and finally, watching an officer lose it completely and forcing troops to attention by firing his pistol into the air. The cause of the whole mess was anger by being fed misinformation and frustration over not being able to effect change in processes. The exercise of freedom of expression in such situations on base/off base was risky because if you made trouble, the father would be called into a meeting with his commanding officer to apply leverage (career damage)to the offending teenager...glad those days are over.

Sorry John, your example doesn't quite ring a bell. Maybe you could explain why the dismissal of a teacher paid by DOD ( who chose to be agovernment employee on a military base) is appropriate to preach to students(if that is what he did)that he opposes the mission their parents have signed on to do.Not OK. There was no lack of dissent to the Vietnam War-as I well recall,quite the contrary on campuses not government funded. And others who honestly supported it and our troops and POWs. Senator McCain stands as one I have heard and trust.Others left the war and then changed their minds ( egKerry). In retrospect we might think our expeditionary force to France in WWI was misguided,our Spanish-American War was improper,the Confederacy of the South was misguided,and maybe a lot more wars. But to use a military teacher example is pushing the envelope. Soldiers vote. Teachers vote. Both have rights to petition Congress and the administration. If this teacher taught civics I trust he taught the proper way to protest policy. Civil disobedience and obstruction of public property gets to be iffy at best. Individuals may judge,but protest has to have some boundaries. I am thinking now of an activist environmental group that blocked a cement pour for a highway,costing taxpayers fifty grand. Its a sticky wicky is all I say. Teachers have to tread carefully,as they are parent surrogates in many ways. Confining their classroom speech is not exactly the insidious,stifling,authoritarian,anti Bill of Rights form of censorship we worry about. The Helms type pushed to its limit. It cuts many ways. The debate lately is over religious expression in public places. I will let Thomas take that on another time:-)

Oh oh, please notice my statement merely cites facts directly observed and experienced, not pro/con. Yes the teacher did pay the price (and she did so courageously, knowing what would happen when she made the statement) But many young men in our generation also paid a price. The draft sucked up a disproportionate number of working-class non-college bound males who couldn't get deferments, and note that our current super-hawk President conveniently "got lost" when his turn came, making a good comparison with John McCain, who has more fortitude in his shirt pocket than Bush has in his entire "team"... Regardless of the pro/con views of that war, a common consensus should be that it didn't turn out like any of us hoped it would, and that the US entering into this conflict which we had already subsidized since the late forties to the tune of at least 1.5 Billion Dollars was with good intent...

The important thing we agree on John F,-I think-is need to lasso the tail of the dragon with the big stick,i.e. our Fearless Leaders in DC and the Pentagon:Re: Telling the facts,timely.Who sorts it out, Who interprets the picture and stands up to the censors? I still have feeling its up to a free press to sort this for us who sit at the end of the TV remote control... Matt,don't forget in your essay to mention that there has been since last two decades a Freedom of Information Act and more. So,your conclusion, if it says censorship is sometimes necessary for a society to keep working,ought to mention that there are checks and balances to the black-magic-marker- censors. We hope. Its a dynamic thing.Good luck, have a restful Summer break after all the mind busting work,good lad...GS