I've been thinking about censorship some more since I wrote my last post on the subject of "Censorship and Child Pornography". I was also to some extent inspired by an article by Albert Mohler on Pornography, where he quotes Roger Scruton, a British Philosopher, as saying that "[t]he idea that pornography is 'speech', ...and thereby protected by the [American] Constitution, is ...absurd...". Yet, we all naturally seem to refer to it as if it is. The purpose of the US' Constitution's first amendment was not to protect people's "right" to pictures of naked chicks, but rather to protect their right to communicate ideas the government disapproved of. It's purpose is the free flow of ideas, not of pornography, nor of "art" for that matter.
The Free transfer of ideas is essential for protecting the people from the government, but it's simple to see that the same does not apply for art or pornography. Now, it is true that the censorship of such things may be one of the very dangers you wish to protect against, but they are not, in and of themselves, required for the protection of other freedoms. Our continued freedom may very well depend on Freedom of Speech, or the free communication of ideas, but it most definitely does not depend on Freedom of Porn.
