The Futility of Censorship

Here's the great irony: There's more censorship -- all kinds, everywhere, involving more media and culture -- than ever before. But it's doomed to fail. As the Net and Web become more commercial, and as parents, government, schools, politicians, churches and corporations have belatedly grown interested in controlling networked computing and the speech and intellectual property therein, battles over censorship and content -- from school blocking filters to music wars to efforts to curb sexual imagery -- have raged throughout cyberspace. That's why Chicago artist Antonio Muntadas' website "The File Room" may be one of the most significant sites ever created on the Web. Despite relentless efforts to curb art, speech, software, writing, thinking and the free flow of ideas, censorship as a contemporary idea is virtually impossible. The Net killed it, and now the Web is becoming a living, global archive of ideas people want to kill.

Artist Muntadas created "The File Room" (discussed in Steven Wilson's book Information Arts: Intersections of Science, Art and Technology as an archive of censorship, a living record of society's ceaseless efforts to control culture and values. The site uses the Web's global scope to collect and store essays, speeches and artistic works from all over the world which have been subject to censorship, from the Republic of Korea's criminal code to high school newspapers to art exhibits in rural areas city halls. "The File Room" classifies its growing holdings by location, date, media and so-called grounds for censorship.

Anybody can contribute new examples of censorship by filling out a short form on the site, which is also part of an art gallery in downtown Chicago.

The strange dichotomy is that the more censors try to curb information, the bigger and richer "The File Room" grows. Sadly, the site makes clear that the United States -- the creator of the modern idea of free speech -- has become one of the world's most ubiquitous censors. "The File Room" literally feeds off censorship, its archived categories growing all the time -- explicit sexuality, language, nudity, political/economic/social opinion, racial and ethnic, religious, sexual/gender orientation and numerous others. Many of these battles involve the so-called protection of children. The access to information and opinion the Net has given kids is one of the most terrifying ideas of the 21st century.

Beautifully organized -- with sections on visual arts, film/video, print, broadcast and electronic media, public speech, personal opinion, even commercial advertising -- the site has become a trove of ideas, opinions and artworks. It also carries an emotional punch. It's truly moving and outrageous to see some of the works (and thoughts) people and institutions are still trying to kill off. What a curious time -- the most sophisticated and open information machinery in history spreading like wildfire, and narrow-minded idiots all over the planet trying to turn back the clock. There are countless governments and institutions who still believe they can impose their views and values on their children and the rest of the world, if only they can practice censorship.

Online rights is a seminal issue, but the smaller fights sometimes obscure the new and much larger reality. Censorship as we used to know it is no longer a viable option as long as there is a World Wide Web.

Cool..

[sandidge]

Anybody can contribute new examples of censorship by filling out a short form on the site, which is also part of an art gallery in downtown Chicago.

Cool... so how many people are going to report that whole moderation mess in the Oracle thread where the editors kept bitchslapping people who posted in there?

Re:fp

[ringbarer]

Motion Picture Ass. of America (MPAA) President Jack Valenti has made a veiled pitch for copy-control PCs in a letter to the editor published by the Washington Post.

While much of the letter is devoted to incoherent ranting about some dastardly cabal of "professors" who are trying to rip the guts out of Hollywood, and hysterical claims such as "some 350,000-plus films are being downloaded illegally every day," we do get an interesting wrap-up where the industry Ass. President alludes to the need for the PC to be transformed into a secure content-distrbution device along the lines of a set-top box.

"Computer and video-device companies need to sit at the table with the movie industry. Together, in good-faith talks, they must agree on the ingredients for creating strong protection for copyrighted films and then swiftly implement that agreement to make it an Internet reality."

Otherwise, the industry just can't make movies available for download and viewing on the PC.

The problem, we're told, is that Hollywood can't make a profit on its theatre showings and simply has to make it up on the aftermarket, with video and DVD rentals and such. The insecurity of Net distribution would simply choke off too much of that desperately-needed revenue stream.

"Only two in ten films ever retrieve their production and marketing investment from domestic theatrical exhibition," Valenti whines.

Well of course; but that's because they're ridiculously expensive cartoons that no one over the age of fifteen really wants to watch. But the obvious solution isn't hijacking people's computers and turning them into set-top boxes, but rather making cheaper movies that adults actually care to attend. And the great thing here is that the two go hand-in-hand. It's not an either/or proposition. Movies that involve such grown-up elements as good writing and dialogue and an imaginative story don't require spending of hundreds of millions on infantile whiz-bang special effects.

On top of that, good writers, being largely unknown in Hollywood, will be cheaper than the unimaginative alchemists who chuck together the stock blockbuster ingredients according to the same exhausted formula; and good actors, similarly rare, will be likely to work for a lot less than the no-talent beautiful people we're supposed to accept as plausible characters in these showy fiascoes Hollywood keeps turning out.

Now isn't that a fine remedy? Better movies that more people actually wish to attend, made more cheaply, equals bigger profit margins for the studios and more enjoyment for the public.

So there's really no need to get bent out of shape over 350,000 illegal downloads a day (chump-change at video rental prices in any case), or to re-engineer the personal computer either. All we need is for Hollywood to stop wasting such vast quantities of money as it's accustomed to doing.

as long as there is a World Wide Web

[wiredog]

But how long will that be? If people are getting locked into proprietary [msn.com] interfaces [aol.com] with built in censorship, and lawsuits flying all over the place against ISPs who allow content that might offend someone, will the WWW, as we know it, last?

And what about spam? Is there any way of effectively controlling spam that doesn't also allow the effective controlling of other content? Can we have unrestricted free speech without spam?

Off-topic, this is my one thousandth slashdot comment...

Doomed to fail?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't be so quick to assume that the 'net makes censorship "doomed to failure"... that sounds a lot like a recipe for complacency. It's far better, I believe, to assume that threats to free speech are real, and to work within the system to make sure they are promptly squelched.

What is free speech? A question.

[nakhla]

One of the things I love most about America is our right to free speech. The ability to live in a country where we can publicly speak out against injustice and oppression is priceless. Where would our nation, and even the world be if Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was not free to challenge his people to practice nonviolent protest?

However, the issue of free speech is not so cut and dry. I hope that most people will agree with me that COMPLETELY free speech is NOT a good thing. For example, what if a witness was free to lie when testifying at a trial? Laws against purgery are technically "curbing" free speech. However, these kinds of restrictions are necessary in order to promote justice and freedom for all. Laws against slander, libel, death threats, and the proverbial "yelling fire in a crowded theater" fall into the same category. These laws are designed to protect the general public from the misuse of free speech.

So where do issues like pornography and hate speech fall? The question is, if purgery is prohibited in order to protect the public, could hate speech be prohibited for the same reason? And, exactly what constitutes "free speech"? I'm certainly no expert on the Constitution, but I believe that the first ammendment was put into place not to allow citizens to say and act whatever and however they please, but rather to act as a guard against the kind of oppression that was found in England at the time.

"Free speech" was intended to allow citizens to protest the actions of government when government overstepped its bounds, or was acting improperly. A prime example of this is the civil rights movement. I don't believe that the first ammendment was intended to protect individuals who want to post child pornography on the Internet.

And, although it's rather controversial these days, I don't believe it protects those who want to make copies of DVDs and CDs and distribute them over the net or to their friends. That is an issue of "Fair Use", not free speech.

Get real

[heyetv]

There's more censorship -- all kinds, everywhere, involving more media and culture -- than ever before.

Um?? Are you forgetting the 50's era, when you couldn't even show a belly button on TV? How about other eras, like when you couldn't vote because you were a woman, or black? Just another form of censorship. Go tell your "oh my god" stories to CNN, they'll post 'em, too.

Spanish Inquisition

[RazzleFrog]

The Spanish Inquisition joke would be appropriate now. How can he think that we are more censored than ever before. He has obviously never even picked up a history book let alone read it. maybe he's never heard of slavery, Salem witch trials, Spanish Inquisition, McCarthy and the Red Scare, Hitler, Stalin. I could go on for hours. I don't know why I even start reading a Jon Katz article. I see more intelligence out of my cat. At least he knows who feeds him.

Re:To quote Princess Leia

[goldspider]

An interesting observation, but I don't think you can QUITE call Slashdot moderation 'censorship'.

Moderating posts down and letting users filter lower-quality posts (by their own definition) lets people read what they want to, not what Slashdot wants them to. If a person wants to read at -1, it's his/her choice to do so.

If Slashdot truly practiced censorship, the lower-quality posts (and there are PLENTY of them) would simply be deleted.

Your thesis is WRONG

[foo fighter]

. . .censorship as a contemporary idea is virtually impossible.

This is so untrue. So very, very untrue.

Mr. Katz, if you would read Professor Lessig's book _Code_, or even just think about this for a minute, you would realize that the technologies that enable unprecedented freedoms of communication also enable unprecedented censorship.

Technology makes it easier and easier to intercept communications and to punish those who initiated the communications and their intended recipients.

As a community, we (the well education, rich, techno-savvy, elite) like to think we have the moral high ground, and because we have the moral high ground we can sit back, complacent in the knowledge that the good guys always win. Or, we can sit back knowing "someone else" will take care of the problem.

That attitude will result in things getting worse before they get better, if they ever get better.

The lack of activism, the unwillingness to study the basics of law in our society, the hypocrisy, and the complacency shown by this community makes me very sad and I worry about the type of society in which my children will live.

The bottom line: censorship is more of a threat now than ever, and it is only vigilance and activism on our part that will stop it.

USA leading the way?

[GMontag]

The strange dichotomy is that the more censors try to curb information, the bigger and richer "The File Room" grows. Sadly, the site makes clear that the United States -- the creator of the modern idea of free speech -- has become one of the world's most ubiquitous censors.

This criticism does not sound very well founded.

1. If the USA was actually a big censor state it would not allow the posts to get to "The File Room" in the first place, no matter where the posts originated. The Soviets, Chinese, Cubans, Germans and North Koreans (insert others here) were all very well skilled at this type of prevention. It is well documented that it is possible to some extent and it is obvious when it is happening.

2. In the USA one is protected from GOVERNMENT censorship ONLY, not the censorship by one's next door neighbor nor the censorship by the contributors to the local art gallery.

Misinformation...

[brogdon]

Personally, I find misinformation and omission much scarier than censorship. They're both far more of a threat to us here in the US.

Foucault used to say that he who controlled and influenced the way people think had the real power in the world, because he could control what is true and what is false, since the concepts really only exist in our minds. Media companies and governments know this, and not just in China.

For a modern example, think about Iran. Most Americans, when asked about Iran, would respond that they don't like the Iranian people, and think they're a bunch of terrorists. Why? The average American doesn't know any Iranians. How you can you hate them when you don't know the names of more than one or two at most? Because all you see on Television is Iranians burning flags, holding up pictures of militants, and holding guns. You never see the average Iranian farmer, or baker, or homemaker. You never see the normal, decent people of that country. Same thing goes for North Korea. People have these amazingly harsh opinions about people and countries they don't know anything about simply because of what they've been told by the media.

It works both ways too. Most of what those people see of us is our President saying mean things about them that get repeated over and over by their media, and the business end of our military photographed onto their front page. They never see the average Joe working his construction job, or Mom baking an apple pie.

So now you have two groups of people that barely know each other, but hate the other side with wild abandon.

Like I said, misinformation scares me more than censorship.

Spam

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't the same be said for spam? For all that people scream and yell about censorship, it seems that when spam is involved, they become just as tolitarian as those in the religious right.

Re:as long as there is a World Wide Web

[shawnmelliott]

It's true. The number one place to kill ideas now is not the offender but the ISP of the so called offender.... Imagine "Hello Mr Bush. My name is Steve Johnson Legal Counsel of North Korea. After your State of the Union Address you have left us with no recourse but to contact your backbone provider Sprint to report your abuses of it's services. Consider this your Cease and Desist letter.

Good Day"

it's pathetic but anybody who disagrees with anything you say just has to contact who is hosting/providing/carrying your traffic with a big scary legal letter and voila... you're shutup without so much as a word in sidewise. Of course I have no objection to blocking child pornographic sites.... there's a not so fine line between art and child porn.

-----Notes for those who want to censor this ----
contact the site admin for Slashdot.org as that is your fastest route to shut me up

Thankful for the Constitution

[pmz]

The importance of the U.S. Constitution cannot be overemphasized when trying to regulate websites in the U.S.A. When people post material onto their website, they are making a willing expression of their ideals, which are protected under the First Admendment.

I know that I will encounter material on the Web that I find offensive, bigoted, and hateful. This is no different than walking through the wrong part of town or watching day-time talk shows. However, restricting the people behind this material will only restrict me in the long run. This is the irony of free speech, but we must not let it sour our attitude towards content on the WWW.

Censorship is never the solution. We just need to know when to avoid the dark alleyways of the Web.

There are none so blind...

[shilly]

...as the Katz that cannot see.
He writes "Sadly, the site makes clear that the United States -- the creator of the modern idea of free speech -- has become one of the world's most ubiquitous censors."
1. The site makes no pretence of being a full or comprehensive view of censorship around the world.
2. The site is a US project based on the web. It is not surprising that many examples of US censorship are submitted
3. Even a moment's cursory attention or thought (we could only wish for such a thing) would have led our dear scribbler to the blindingly obvious fact that the US doesn't even get *close* to the top of the censorship list when the following countries and regimes are/have been around:
Syria
Afghanistan
China
the USSR
Zimbabwe
Each of these regimes has/had engaged in systematic and comprehensive efforts to control free speech. The scale of these efforts far outweigh anything seen in the US. Buying a copy of the Talmud in Syria, or hardcore porn in Afghanistan, or looking at a anti-government Tibetan website in China, or reading the Koran in the USSR or listening to the BBC in Zimbabwe--these are all illegal acts. *This* is the sort of censorship that should terrify us.

Censorship at schools a good thing

[Wizard of OS]

I've already posted this comment today at another story, but it seemed relevant again :)

In the Netherlands, a big project is going on currently called 'kennisnet' (or, translated, 'knowledge-net'). The idea is to put all elementary schools (I hope I translated that good, schools for children from 4 to 12 years old) on a 'subset' of the internet. They will be linked together and have access to the internet too, but on a filtered basis. Every school may choose which filter they want to have activated (Filternet [schoolfilternet.nl] is the biggest one that claims 99% filtering), to ensure that the children don't see pr0n and such when the teacher is unaware of it.

Frankly, I find this quite a good idea. Ofcourse, I'll have a bunch of people replying on this that information shouldn't be censored and that filtering is evil, but think of this: how would you react if your child, aged 9, interested in technology, viewed this page and accidently clicked on a goatse link?

Re:Meta-mod

[bdumm]

>too many voters don't take advantage of their meta-mod capabilities

not true, they just vote based on emotional instead of logical reasons

Re:What is free speech? A question.

[waxmop]

Where would our nation, and even the world be if Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was not free to challenge his people to practice nonviolent protest?

Wait - he wasn't free. Go read "Letter from Birmingham Jail" which he wrote while in Birmingham Jail.

The "system" fights every reform and then when it loses, and progress is made, it says "see - the system works!" and we all get taken in by it.

It is NOT TRUE.

[Ian_Bailey]

Slashdot addresses the question of censorship in moderation in their FAQ [slashdot.org].

The very definition of the word "censorship" is "to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable" (dictionary.com [dictionary.com]). As is demonstrated by the other posts in this thread, the concerned posts still exist on the slashdot servers!

All that happened was the editors chose to draw attention away from these posts. While this could be a questionable practice, it is not censorship!

Everyone should get on the same wavelength and figure out what they're fighting before they start fighting it.

change

[Em Emalb]

It's hard to censor something that changes so often. Broad sweeping generalizations will get you no where. Sorta like sterotyping people. It doesn't work.

I believe if a large company, say AOL or MS, starts censoring information, people will do one of two things:

1) complain heavily, gaining the attention of the government

2) not care.

I am betting on #2.

Moderation is not Censorship

[Ian_Bailey]

The very definition of the word "censorship" is "to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable" (dictionary.com [dictionary.com]). Moderation does not remove or supress information, it merely highlights parts of the information. I know this one is just a joke, but I think slashdot readers should be aware of this fact.

Re:Get real

[bigmouth_strikes]

I don't know what Katz's sources are, but I can surely think of numerous examples that would qualify as more censorship than we have today.

* The whole eastern block during the cold war
* One word: McCarthy-ism
* No one expects the Spanish Inqusition
* Galileo Galilei had problems in his line of work

If we go further back in time, you'd be lucky if you were censored. That meant that you had the freedom to express yourself, which has not been the case for most people throughout history.

Re:World Wide Web

[Irvu]

Sadly it's not that difficult at all. Take, for example the case of China [weeklystandard.com] where the government Allows international Access but still manages to filter out most (but not all) 'offensive' materials. Other governments such as France [eff.org] have chosen to use Legal actions or simple thuggery (see here [indymedia.org] and here [indymedia.org]

I agree with you about the Megacorps. AOL has caved in in the past and even smaller non-gvernmental groups can have a Big Effect. [indymedia.org] This ruling [alternet.org] will only make that easier for them.

Much as I like some of JonKatz's prose, and much as I support the efforts of the File Room I think he overlooks just how weak the net potentially is. It's not just about my ability to put up a server (for all its abstractness the net depends upon physical objects), its about other people's ability to get to that same server. If I get sued out of business or simply attacked by thugs the server goes down. If a government or large media company chooses to deny their people/customers access to my server it might as well be. Either way I have been effectively silenced.

Re:USA leading the way?

[CodeMonkey555]

Finally someone else recognizes that censorship is something that only a government can do. Magazines are often said to censor material they do not approve of, however, this is impossible since a snubbed writer could simply publish their views in a different magazine or publish them by themselves.

Censorship requires the use of force and, in a civilized society, we have traded away all of our rights to use force in exchange for a promise from the government that it would protect us and dispense justice.

Re:I want to censor Jon Katz

[raddan]

The problem is that we dislike JonKatz's drivel enough to want to censor him for all of humanity. Funny that this particular article should make me want to censor him ;^)

only the method of control changes

[satsuke]

"Despite relentless efforts to curb art, speech, software, writing, thinking and the free flow of ideas, censorship as a contemporary idea is virtually impossible. The Net killed it, and now the Web is becoming a living, global archive of ideas people want to kill. "

It maybe impossible to completely censure everyone. However the ability to squelch the vast majority is undiminished as it has always been.

Just now instead of speech being heard - being more a function of political or monetary abilitym now on the internet it will be ones technical ability to circumvent censorship filters or knowing where to go to see all the available information, rather than just someone elses view of what should be seen or not.

Example might be, in Kansas City there are multiple library systems in the metro area. 7 counties, city libraries, colleges, etc. One area decides to only make available filtered internet access. Another does not filter any content, a third asks a question of what type of access is desired.

The technical knowledge of what library offers what access determins what can be seen.

Re:It is NOT TRUE.

[t_allardyce]

The slashdot FAQ and real life differ. Since slashdot is hosted in the United States, they are subject to US law. As we all know, the US isn't exactly the holy grail when it comes to free speech. Slashdot has therefore been _forced_ to actually remove comments because of what is effectively censorship laws. As far as i know its happened twice because of the DMCA, and once because of a threat (in jest) to the president of America. I know this, because I posted that last one, (3 seperate comments) and they were deleted a couple of days ago:

slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=28127&cid=3023341

Re:What About Slashdot Censorship?

[hyacinthus]

No, I don't agree. Everyone knows that Slashdot is a moderated forum before they post here. If you want to mouth off to your heart's content, there are plenty of unmoderated forums out there; don't pick on this one and whine "censorship" because of the moderation. (Complaining that the moderating isn't doing its job is another matter.)

hyacinthus

Re:Your thesis is WRONG

[Shade, The]

> Any technology that does +A also does -A.

No. No it doesn't. If it did, there wouldn't be public key encryption. Some things are easy to do, but difficult to reverse.

Finding ways round censorship are easier than blocking them. What could seem like perfectly ordinary internet traffic, could, in reality, be discussing some censored work. How would anyone decide which was which if it took several weeks of continous processing power to check each time?

The only perfect way of internet censorship is to shut down the internet.

Double standards by internet zealots?

[Malc]

Why is stopping my children going in to strip clubs not considered censorship, and in fact the correct thing to do, but blocking adult web sites and getting upset about pornographic spam viewed as being bad?

Well, I don't have children yet, but they're on the horizon. I find much of the spam I get offensive and certainly wouldn't want it in my child's inbox. I'm against censorship and I will do my best to educate my children properly. But I can't hold their hands the whole time, and unlike the real world, none of the crap on the internet has a bouncer on the door to keep minors out.

It's easy to see why so many people have become rabid and sponsored the installation of censorware. I'm very computer literate, but I'm not sure yet how I will deal the issues. With that in mind, how are the great unwashed masses supposed to handle it?

Until somebody finds a way to give children the same protection on the internet that they have in the real world, then what Jon is calling "censorship" is not going to go away. Without any kind of self-restraint and moderation by the offensive parties on the internet, the censorware lobby will not show any either. The battle will not end, and I suspect it will only get worse. Yet again, your head is in the clouds with your idealism, Jon.

If you want to cut to the chase...

[istartedi]

...try: http://www.thefileroom.org/FileRoom/documents/Cate goryHomePage.html [thefileroom.org]

It will save you some mindless clicking.

As for the USA being #1, let me offer several observations.

1. Many of the USA incidents were artists feeling "oppressed" because the owner of a private space refused to show their work. What would it say about censorship in the USA if owners of private spaces were compelled to show works they did not like? Isn't my blank wall or un-defiled Madonna also freedom of expression? Now, if the gallery is public it's a different story, but it's still not censorship. After all, you take a government hand-out, you play by the governments rules. True censorhip is when the government refuses to allow you to publish that which you are capable of publishing yourself, or takes your money to support views opposite yours. So, why isn't the public school system listed as a form of censorship? I takes money from Christians, and refuses to allow the preaching of Christianity in the school. Anybody who opposes censorhip must support vouchers for this very reason.

2. Reports for countries that are genuinly oppressive cite fewer incidents because the censorship is against broad classes of speech. For example "no religion". This type of censorship is far more damaging than the single localized incidents cited in the USA. If you took all the USA reports on libraries and simply wrote a brief "Libraries are often pressured by community groups over sexual material" the result would be "people who really want it use their own Internet connection". There would be a lot fewer incidents in the USA category.

3. Reports from other countries are harder to obtain. Duh! They're censored. This also proves the point

4. People in other countries won't even try some of the things that people do in the USA. The flag thing is a great example. The penalty for desecrating the flag in some of these other countries is probably death. No wonder nobody has tried such "art" over there.

Distilling things down to the number of reports and saying the USA has the most is unscientific to say the least.

Re:Hold on there, idealist

[Anonymous Coward]

In the USA one is protected from GOVERNMENT censorship ONLY, not the censorship by one's next door neighbor nor the censorship by the contributors to the local art gallery.
---
Re:Hold on there, idealist (Score:) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 25, @07:00PM (#)
the government is by the people. If you are the only one in town who views pr0n as art and the other 99 people view it as filth, and the town leadership represents the 99%, you will have to defend your right. This may take your time, your money (in hiring an attorney to defend you, or to fight whatever local statute you've had your collection siezed, possibly court fees) and you may ultimately lose any goodwill among your neighbors. So it's not just a matter of law, it is financial and political.

---
Slow down there, pal, leave some cycles unused, and listen to what's being said. What he's saying is that private citizens can censor you out the wazoo.

For example, if the parking lot of the local supermarket is the only place in town to demonstrate, perhaps because its right across the road from City Hall, and you get out there with you pickets and everything, and then the supermarket owner comes out and says "scram" - you can bleat about the First Amendment all you like - it has no effect on the supermarket owner.

Same for the ISPs. Since they're not legally common carriers, they can pull the plug on your sorry ass, if it suits their fancy, and you have no free speech defense.

Re:What is free speech? A question.

[kilfarsnar]

"Just because YOU don't think a particular thing is porn, doesn't mean that the group as a whole does not think it is." -- And just because the group as a whole thinks it is does not make it so either. Right now in the United States, the group as a whole might say that being homosexual is a sin against nature and therefore should be purged from society. And much personal pain has come from that view. By your logic, it seems that gay people should defer to the majority. It is a fallacy to belive that the more people think a particular thing the more that idea becomes correct. I will defend a Klansmen's right to express his views, even though I don't agree with him. Child pornography should be stopped not because the images are distasteful (I'm sure the consumers of it would disagree), but because one must harm a child to produce it. The idea that outlawing the product will stop it's production is laughable. You can't legislate demand. You are correct in saying that we must make concessions to live together. But what concessions are made should be up to the individual. Actually, it is a self policing system. If someone makes no concessions to anyone, that person will not have many, if any friends. If a person spews extreme rhetoric, not many will listen thereby limiting the effect that rhetoric will have. Basically, I am an adult and I don't need anyone telling me what ideas or images or whatever are harmful to me. I can make that decision for myself. we must stop seeing ourselves as separate from "society". I am society. And so are you.