Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, April 1, 1990 TAG: 9004020214
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: F3 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: CAL THOMAS
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
So far, those who claim the right to say anything, print anything, record, film, paint or sculpt anything, are demanding an absolute right to be free of any and all restraints. Some even demand the assistance of tax dollars. But the focus is in the wrong place. In matters of air and water pollution, regulators put the consideration of companies that would foul the environment far behind the rights of people to be protected from the risk of pollution.
Similarly, in matters of moral pollution (and who doubts that the moral atmosphere is full of toxic substances which have led to behavior that is universally decried?), the focus should shift from those dumping their effluent into the cultural mainstream to those who are being adversely impacted by it.
Artists who last week lobbied in state capitals and in Washington against various bills to curb tax funding of what some would describe as pornographic art and obscene lyrics, like those of 2 Live Crew, consistently reject any suggestion that they should place limits on themselves or on anyone else. They say that even warning labels on albums containing anti-social and explicit language could lead to severe censorship of all artistic expression.
It is a silly argument, something akin to saying that placing limits on how fast cars can go means the government might someday forbid you from driving at all, or that slander and libel laws could lead to a suppression of all speech.
A culture defines itself by the limits it sets for its people. If men were angels, no restraints would be needed. But, as history has shown, men are not angels, and if they will not be made good, or reasonably acceptable, by a higher power outside of themselves, they must at least conform to a standard that is in the best interest of the culture's preservation and health.
The nation's most forceful experience with censorship came out of the Production Code Administration, established by the motion picture industry in 1934, following public pressure to do something about the perception that movies were going beyond acceptable boundaries.
The code outlined a clear purpose: "No picture shall be produced which will lower the moral standards of those who see it. Hence the sympathy of the audience should never be thrown to the side of crime, wrongdoing, evil or sin." The code specified that films were to avoid brutality or sexual promiscuity. It forbade the criticism of any religious group, required proper treatment of the American flag and outlined appropriate standards for modest costumes and dance movements.
Yes, it does sound "puritanical" by today's standard of no standards, but it was during this period that Hollywood had its Golden Age, producing some of its most acclaimed and popular classics. The code forbade moviemakers from showing the techniques of murder in any detail, evidently to keep people from using movies as a "how-to" manual, so the word "arsenic" was struck from many scripts. Electrocutions were forbidden, so an opening scene was cut from "Double Indemnity." Showing childbirth was off limits, so Scarlett and Melanine were forced to silhouette in "Gone With the Wind." Mention of prostitution was condemned, so Donna Reed was turned into a bar girl in "From Here to Eternity." Married couples were invariably placed in twin beds.
The point is not to resurrect every restriction of such a code. Rather, it is to say that at one time most people realized there was a connection between the artistic expression of a few and the acceptance, even emulation, of that expression by the many.
What are the three major social problems in contemporary America? Are they not sex, drugs and violence? What are the three main themes of much of the hard rock and heavy metal music, and R- and X-rated films? Are they not sex, drugs and violence? One would have to be blind and deaf not to draw a comparison.
In Florida and in several other states, vice squads are pulling from store shelves albums that contain the most obscene and anti-social lyrics. They are setting a bottom line, a standard. Those who make their living from the "sexploitation" of teen-agers are screaming censorship. Let them scream. The rest of us can yell louder about common sense and decency if we can remember when such things were the norm, not the exception. Los Angeles Times Syndicate
by CNB