'Nuremberg' blows

So much for freedom...

The hot topic of the week appears to be the recent court decision with regard to the status of the Nuremberg Files - a deceptively named website advocating (apparently) violence toward doctors who perform abortions. The topic is particularly hot because it is one of the few censorship positions endorsed by the 'liberal' faction in the country. The result: liberals leave themselves open to the charge that they desire censorship only of positions opposing theirs.

This charge is entirely grounded. The website offers personal information about doctors who perform abortions. As distastful as this is, it is no less than the current release of personal information on previous sex offenders by law enforcement, an activity endorsed by liberals across the country (though not by myself). And gloating about the demise of a political opponenet, as telling as that is, does not amount to a crime.

In the public arena, prior to this newish medium for dissemination called the internet, the question of censorship was largely mute. A person who wrote a racially prejudiced book, for instance, found it difficult to find a publisher. A columnist writing anti-immigrant columns would not be carried by most visible newspapers, because the papers want to sell papers, not lose subscribers. Censorship, in this earlier age (1975 - 199?), occured tacitly through editors and publishers and underwriters, and was not often called censorship.

One result of this tacit censorship was that unpopular ideas were buried, leading to the belief that unpopular ideas didn't exist in any relevant way. This belief, obviously, was not related to reality, and these unpopular beliefs simply grew in seclusion and secrecy, becoming insidious. Just one example: Mexicans in California have had and do have a serious problem convincing anyone they are the subject of discrimination, because racially divisive beliefs are censored by the mainstream. Yet it is also certain that millions in California simply don't like Mexicans, believing them to be inferior, unintelligent, morally bereft, etc.

Censorship, like any other punative measure, makes some feel good - as though eradicating an evil force. The opposite is actually the case. Laws which would require fairness to Mexicans are not demanded, because the hatred for them grows in isolation. Laws protecting the security of women and their doctors could be passed, but instead a symbolic move to censor a website makes everyone feel satisfied - and when the Nuremberg Files are censored, who will be able to argue for the more relevant issue of protection? Who will be able to say that the threat has not passed?

Sound unlikely? I am given to understand that America was taken by surprise at the problem of 'uppity niggers' in the 1950's, but weren't we equally surprised at 'black power' in the '70's? Why didn't we know what was going on? My generation of film-makers have spent a great deal of time on what they call 'deconstruction', by which I take them to mean an exposure of prejudice (subtle and not-so-subtle) lurking behind and even embedded within the blinders of media society.

The internet offers the opportunity to right that wrong - to allow a more comprehensive view of the landscape of ideas. It is to disgusting to watch those who would otherwise defend this view, instead succumb to the temptation to destroy it for the sake of a personal struggle against an opposing political position.

February 11, 1999