Lord Radcliffe could speak as well about the apparent indifference of censors of all kinds to the depiction or portrayal of mindless violence and brutality, that witless rejection of civility that threatens to be the Black Death of the twentieth century. Thus, it is not usually noticed today that Mill recognized that a people has to be trained properly to make use of the considerable liberty he advocates. If, for example, a community believes that video games are corrupting the young and generally playing havoc with education and the public character, is it really helpless to do anything about it? Would it be censorship to abolish altogether such a baleful influence? And if abolition of video games should be considered censorship, may not that suggest that censorship is not altogether bad? What, in short, is the popular character presupposed for effective self-government, and how is that character properly to be developed and maintained? <\/p>\n
Such questions reflect the fact that censorship and freedom of the press problems depend for their sensible resolution upon more general considerations of liberty, of the common good, and of the rights, virtues, and duties of citizens entrusted with self-government. Thus, Tocqueville could observe in Democracy in America (183540): <\/p>\n
It cannot be repeated too often: nothing is more fertile in marvels than the art of being free, but nothing is harder than freedoms apprenticeship. The same is not true of despotism. Despotism often presents itself as the repairer of all the ills suffered, the support of just rights, defender of the oppressed, and founder of order. People are lulled to sleep by the temporary prosperity it engenders, and when they do wake up, they are wretched. But liberty is generally born in stormy weather, growing with difficulty amid civil discords, and only when it is already old does one see the blessings it has brought. <\/p>\n
Among the blessings of liberty may be found the philosophical pursuits that have sometimes appeared so threatening to public order. Laurence Berns has reformulated the ancient dilemma posed by the trial of Socrates, the greatest hero of freedom of thoughta dilemma that exposes one of the roots of the perennial censorship controversy: <\/p>\n
Is philosophy, the intransigent quest for truth (including the truth about politics and religion), inherently subversive? Does it necessarily undermine political society and conventional morality, or, on the contrary, is a good society impossible without freedom to philosophize? <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Read more from the original source:<\/p>\n