Editor's Note: Letters submitted to the paper will be edited to meet standards, including the 250-word limit. Letters posted on the Web are posted “as is,” unless they contain defamatory or profane material.
Dear Editor:
At the May 6th meeting, the Southlake City Council could endorse a local, state, national and international movement toward a filtered, aka censored, internet.
Aside from the merits, or lack thereof, in the plan, I have to wonder why a politician would even consider such a move. I can only come up with two answers.
One, he or she naively believes it will work, and it is his or her self-appointed duty to save the world. In which case, some politicians are more intellectually shallow than I thought previously.
Two, it’s the politically expedient thing to do because the community will feel good, hold me in high honor, vote for me again, or support my bid for a higher office.
Look, I detest pornography as much as any sane person would. I want to protect my grandchildren from it. I want them to know it is morally wrong. I expect their parents to instill the values that would have them turn their backs to it. I trust them to do the job. I didn’t need government interference when my morally stable children were raised, and I don’t want it now.
But wait a minute, this filtering, aka censorship, is a good thing, isn’t it? Does not the end justify the means? Look how well it worked for Hitler’s Germany and how well it works for the Chinese. The Russian Communist Party loved it. Censorship is a hallmark of despotism. But wait another minute, we not talking about any thing on that grand of a scale, or are we?
Censorship is censorship. It’s like being a little bit… well; you know where I’m going. Then, there is the question of who is going to be the censor and what will they censor. Are you comfortable with the belief that pornography is the end of the road?
Or, would you be more comfortable knowing it’s not a perfect world and no politician is ever going to make it a perfect world, and perhaps be more comfortable knowing you have an intact Constitution that protects your basic rights and prevents government intrusion into your home, as the founding fathers planned. Yes, that precious First Amendment right to free speech that sadly protects the pornographer also, and more importantly, protects your individual right to speak out for or against issues.
The city of Southlake is going through a painful election. I say painful because what should have been a fair campaign has turned ugly. We have seen those in fear of losing power engage in economic fear mongering, political demagoguery, and the vandalism of political signage, the very essence of free speech. Can you imagine the power censorship would have provided?
Whoa, I forgot something. Under the plan the council will probably endorse, we would have the benevolent choice between the filtered, aka censored, internet and the uncensored version. That would be true, at least in the beginning, and that could be a very long beginning depending on the angle of the slippery slope, but is that not how all such things begin?
You really need to think this issue through in great depth.
-- Joseph J. Lanza, Sr., Southlake