A Libertarian Approach To Censorship

Posted by Joshua White on 04.04.2007

In this column, I propose a way to protect the freedom of speech, censor some speech, and in the process correct some of what is wrong with this country.



One of my best friends has to remind herself daily that she isn't too fat. She can't weigh more than 125 lbs. Many days she has to actively force herself to sit down and eat three meals. Even worse, after those meals, it takes an extreme amount of effort for her to resist the temptation to rush to the bathroom to throw up. She has been battling anorexia for almost two years. And let me tell you, in the fight between anorexia and my friend, while she may be winning now, anorexia has taken a toll on her, both emotionally and physically. Obviously, she has a very tormented relationship with food. But she also now has brittle teeth and bones, a weak immune defense system, and her liver is irreparably damaged. (If, God forbid, you or anyone you know is struggling with any sort of eating disorder I highly recommend reading her blog. Inspiration, community, humor...it's all there in an extremely intelligent and very well written blog.)

Recently, a friend of mine, who has a two year old girl, showed me a present that the child's grandmother gave to her. The grandmother, in her infinite wisdom, decided to give her toddler granddaughter a Bratz doll. (If you don't know what a Bratz doll is, please click on this link to see what I'm talking about.) These dolls have plump lips, small waists, perfect make-up, and in this case, an exposed stomach. The girl who plays with this doll is starting to be exposed, from a very young age, to the fact that girls are supposed to look a certain way.

Nobody can now deny that there is a trend towards the over-sexualization of children nowadays. Little girls perform in beauty pageants while wearing swimsuits. They wear skirts that aren't long enough to cover their entire butt when they sit down. They start worrying about "looking fat" at younger and younger ages. (I have heard about 7 year olds complaining that they look "chubby.")

This is just the start of it. When girls become tweens and teens things get even more complicated. They start reading the teen magazines that tell them how to "look their best." This can include pants that make your behind looking smaller, chest looking bigger and tummy looking flatter. Most likely these girls are also reading adult magazines, like Cosmopolitan, where they are learning diet and exercise secrets.

Now, all of this is not to say that boys/men are not affected by all of this. They, too, are being influenced by the Cosmo-like magazines, ads on tv, and toys on the shelves. They are seeing what a woman should look like, and when their little classmates don't look like this paradigm, they (the girls) feel the consequences.

Now this may sound like a feminist rant to a lot of you, but there are real world implications to all of this.

When women see how they're "supposed to look" they then try and look like that. And as the boys give more attention to those girls who actually do look like they're supposed to, they then engage in almost any activity they have to to achieve their goal.

How does this affect society? It is estimated that up to 4% of females (and in other studies more) have an eating disorder. With about 100 million American females aged 15-64, there are 4,000,000 women with eating disorders. Millions more try out these harmful eating practices, and even more are affected emotionally and socially.

I don't think that these girls necessary think that being a size 2 is what is best for their lives. Something makes them value it above almost everything, including their own lives. Somehow messages about how a woman should look (or what a woman should look like in the case of boys) get into our public consciousness.

I think that it is possible that the the ever presence of these ads, magazines, models, movies, actresses, etc. act on our minds in two ways. Obviously, we see what is being shown to us and we respond intellectually. We see an actress in the movie and we rationally think about whether or not she acted well in the film. But I would argue that on another level, subconsciously, we are being fed information about women and how they are to be. These pieces of information are acting on our minds like subliminal messages. These ideas get into our minds without our control making us think things that we wouldn't normally think.

Allow me to offer a hypothetical example: Imagine a politician erected a large speaker in the town square. He gains the citizens permission to play classical music during certain hours on specific days. What the citizens of the town don't know is that the politician isn't just playing music. He is playing a track that contains subliminal messages that suggest the townspeople vote for him.

If the politician's scheme was found out, it would most certainly be stopped. But why? He got permission to play the music didn't he? He told them he was going to broadcast music from a speaker. The townspeople allowed this. Clearly the problem is that the citizens were duped in a sense. The music was permitted, but the hidden message was not. Not only is the added political statement immoral, but it is most assuredly illegal.

This is what is happening within our country. When we see a lingerie ad on tv, a men's cologne ad in a magazine, or the like we not only are being introduced to the new product in the store, we are being taught a lesson about being a woman. This lesson doesn't teach us reality. It only sets us up for our own downfall. This downfall includes our children having sex at earlier ages and our adults skipping a meal or four because they fear that extra pound.

But there is a way to come back to reality. There is a way to allow women and men to not fear eating or letting children be children. Unfortunately, the solution is going to be a bitter pill to swallow. The solution is censorship.

As someone who typically leans toward the Libertarian ways of thinking, this sort of answer would normally be thought unacceptable. I, along with most people, value the freedom to say whatever it is that you want. I'm a big fan of the First Amendment. You want to say something negative about Republicans? That is fine. Jews? Blacks? Gays? Communists? Scientologists? Women? Canadians? All of this is fine. As long as you don't violate any of their rights, I'll defend yours.

However, the types of "speech" that I have talked about in this column are different. They don't just deliver a piece of information and allow the receiver to decipher it. They certainly do do this, but as I have explained above, they do more. And this is what we should be concerned with. The fact that these ads, movies, magazines, etc. have this effect on us, without our permission (you can't help but look at a sign or see an ad), makes it permissible to be stopped.

Admittedly, the hard part is objectively picking out what to censor and what to allow. This is an issue with which this column cannot deal. I will say, though, that while it is empirically hard to determine what to censor and what not, it isn't theoretically impossible. Of course we want to be as careful as possible when taking away any freedom of speech, but that is not to say that we can't restrict the most flagrant violators against us.

As always I want to hear what you, my readers (my followers?), have to say about this topic. If you have an opinion one way or another, email me.

You want more?

Since I started writing for 411 I have always been a trendsetter. It is ok. I accept this role. The new trend? Let's plug Greg Allen's columns. That is the new cool thing to do.

A Puff Daddy reference. (I refuse to call him "Diddy.") A terrible name that isn't Joe Rivett. And it includes a column within a column. Read the Rivett Report.


Until next time…believe nothing unless you read it here.