Blog Archives

Censoring censorship: Amazon’s pedophilia problem and the ambiguity of “free speech”

You’ve probably heard by now Amazon’s problems with pedophilia. As CNN describes the situation:

An e-book for sale on that appears to defend pedophilia has sparked hundreds of angry user comments and threats to boycott the online retailer unless it pulls the title.

And, according to the most recent updates, Amazon has pulled the title. But, before they did so, they apparently defended selling the book based on the premise that it would be “censorship not to sell certain titles because we believe their message is objectionable.” And, of course, they’re right that this would be censorship. But, they’re wrong about this being a problem. Amazon is a for-profit company with every right to exercise censorship over the products that they will put up for sale. Indeed, their own publication policy prohibits selling “pornography” on the site. That is also censorship. And, it’s also okay. The problem is that we’ve turned “censorship” into a bad word that is necessarily wrong in all its forms, which is absurd. Unless a business is going to sell everything imaginable, it necessarily exercises some level of censorship.

And, of course, in this case censorship is very much called for. As CNN reports,

The author of “The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure: A Child-Lover’s Code of Conduct” said he published the controversial tome to address what he considers unfair portrayals of pedophiles in the media.

So, the author’s explicit purpose is to make pedophilia more acceptable. And, as he explains in an interview, he thinks he can do this by making clear which sexual acts with children are inappropriate and which are perfectly fine. If there’s a book worthy of censorship, this would seem to be an obvious candidate. And, while “free speech” may cover the author’s right to say such things, there is no “right” that says Amazon has to sell it.

Thoughts on human dignity

The Acton University confernce opened this evening with approximately 400 people from more than 50 different countries. At dinner I sat next to a young woman from Myanmar who is studying contextual theology in the Netherlands. I have to admit that I had no idea that Acton had such a global draw. It was impressive. And the attendees appeared to be similarly diverse in race, gender, and denomination (approximately 50% Catholic, 50% Protestant, and 5% Orthodox; I realize those numbers don’t add up, but he added the Orthodox at the end and I’m not sure how it affects the first two numbers).

Rev. Robert A. Sirico, the president of the Acton Institute, gave the openening address entitled “Thoughts on Human Dignity.” Apparently this is his standard first-night presentation, introducing all of us to some of the basic principles of the Acton Institute.  It was an engaging presentation, but it did leave me with a number of questions that I hope to pursue further over the next few days.

  1. Several key terms went without clear definition. Most importantly: liberty, virtue, dignity, image of God, right, and nature. All of these were used repeatedly in the presentation, and I’m sure they’ll be key to many of the seminars as well. So, I’m hoping for much more clarity in how these terms are being used.
  2. Although Sirico repeatedly referenced the “complexity” of the human person, he tended to emphasize the rational/intellectual aspect of humanity. He often referred to the importance of “ideas” for shaping human life and indicated that it is primarily our rationality that separates us from the animals. That left me wondering if there wasn’t an implicit rationalistic anthropology driving some of this despite the occasional mention of other dimensions of human existence – relationalty, physicality, etc.
  3. There seemed to be some ambiguity in the presentation on the relationship between the individual and the corporate aspects of humanity. Sirico said at one point that “we are not individuals,” emphasizing the relational dynamic. But later he also said that a human person was an irreplaceable particular (or words to that effect). I’m sure the tension between these two was mostly rhetoric, but it did cause me to wonder if sufficient thought has been given to both of these dynamics and how they are related to one another.
  4. One of the more interesting moments came during the question/answer time at the end. Someone asked Sirico if he could talk about the resources that the Trinity or Christology might have for addressing some of the issues that he’d raised in his understanding of anthropology and how it relates to dignity, liberty, and society. Now granted, these areas may not be Sirico’s strong suit. But I was still surprised to see that he had little to offer by way of response. He did indicate that he was sure the answer was yes. But he clearly had not spent much time reflecting on what those resources might be or even significant thinkers who might be helpful for understanding this. Given Acton’s premise that a theologically robust understanding of the human person is fundamental for an adequate approach to issues of economics and governance, this apparent lack of trinitarian and christological reflection is more than a little concerning.
  5. And, finally, toward the end of the presentation he brought up the “right to personal property,” and he argued that this right is grounded in the imago Dei and that protecting this right is essential to establishing and maintaining a flourishing society. I knew coming into the confernce that this was going to be a significant point of emphasis. But, apparently I’ll need to wait for one of the seminars to unpack this assertion more because Sirico did very little to support the contention.

Those are five of the questions that I left this evening’s presentation with. Since this was merely an introduction to the main ideas of the Acton Institute, I expect that many of them will be unpacked further as the week progresses. At least, I hope they will.