What does freedom mean? Does freedom mean that the things you like are untouchable but things you hate are not? That seems to be the prevailing attitude in america today. My freedoms are sacrosanct, yours on the other hand, those we are not true freedoms, just something I let you do from time to time. Wake up america, freedom does not have usage clauses, you have freedom or you don’t, simple as that.
Lets define freedom shall we. Freedom in a practical sense means just what it sounds like, you are free to make the choices you wish in the areas of your life within the (unfortunately necessary) boundaries of legality. In the truest sense of the word freedom SHOULD allow you to do anything you want but that fails to take into account the freedoms of others so as contrary as this sounds freedom does require some limits lest we engage in anarchy. One person could define freedom as being his right to rape children, another may define it as going into your house and taking what you have because simply they want to… obviously these types of “freedom” are there but with the associated consequences that go along with them. You CAN do these things, but you will pay for them in the long run and these are not things that are acceptable to society at large. To me, my freedom should not infringe on your freedom but even that can get lost in logistics. Some might claim that the music I like is offensive to them and therefore my music is encroaching on their freedom. I disagree as you can choose NOT to listen to, not to read, not to watch, not to look at something that you do not wish, on the other hand, if you hold down a child and thrust your cock into their ass you are taking away their right to not be raped. Far to many confuse the terms, and inherent ideas of, freedom and anarchy. These things are not the same and they mean very different things in practice yet I can see how on the surface they can seem like they go together, yet in reality they do not. Anarchy would be the very definition of one persons freedom masking and overtaking that of another’s… which kind defeats the purpose of freedom does it not?
Do you see how even terms like true freedom must (by their very nature) be confined yet the ideals behind them must not? When I speak of true freedom I am speaking in terms outside that of the criminal, outside that of the immoral (another subjective term) and outside that of the realistic. To me true freedom within these cordoned off areas means you can NOT tell me what I can read, what I can view, what I can listen to, what I can think and what I can care about. You have no right, no one has the right, to push their ideals onto me nor do I onto them… with the exception being of my ideal that freedom is absolute and yours perhaps that it is not. Churches like to go about telling others what they can and can not think about, governments as well. These are people that fought for their right to be free to restrict the freedoms of others. Kind of oxymoronic huh?
So much of today’s society is built around restricting what people can mentally ingest. You have limits and ratings on movies, TV, music, books, comics, games and any form of work that is the expression of thoughts and ideals from one person to another. I have to show my ID to buy a video game or I get put on a “watch list” for reading a specific book*. How is that freedom? Should it, in a “free” society, matter if a rock band wants to put an unclothed minor on the cover of their album? You are just as free to not purchase that album as I am to do so… yet YOU get it banned and force them to compromise in an effort to conform to your ideal of freedom. No one was hurt, no child was exploited beyond that of any model. (Scorpions – Virgin Killer
) So why the outrage? Why not simply let that cover go out and let the free market decide the outcome? There is a very thin line when it comes to censorship and morality but it is a necessary line. As established many times, I do not endorse any kind of censorship and that will not change BUT that is the point of freedom… is it not your right to censor something that you find reprehensible? Indeed it is, so in that regard censorship is part of the price we pay for freedom. No!! I do not accept that and this column is the first in a series looking at how we do not actually have freedom here in the US, only the delusion of freedom clouded by false ideal that only specific freedoms are part of a free society (again, staying within the confines of legality for now). It’s censorshit time again people and no, I am not repeating previous works, I am going to give you all the dirt on things you didn’t even know were censored from the past.
You can not silence me, you can not silence us and if you actually think freedom matters you should never even have considered it in the first place. America is built upon the notion that freedom of speech and freedom of expression is the uttermost of importance, we made it the first amendment for a reason, it is that important and many in this society see that amendment as an obstacle rather than a stepping stone to something greater. What is the point of free speech and freedom in general if everything we do is restricted? Does popular speech need protection? Of course it does not, the protections given to us are there for the unpopular speech, yet those are the main targets. If you have ever thought to yourself “I better watch what I say” then they have gotten to you.
*In this case it’s The Turner Diaries which I had to read for my investigation of neo-nazi’s for Hustler magazine.