What's freedom got to do with it, anyway?
R.P.writes: I'm doing an essay on the topic, "Howard Stern is being criticized for his amoral or immoral views. Argue whether or not censorship of artistic expression should be permitted." In 1997, you wrote a short letter regarding censorship of Howard Stern. Are you still in favor of the "freedom of speech" idea? If you are, my question to you is, "How do parents shield their children from his offensive words when they are on the radio? A parent can't be protective of their children all the time and with the radio it's next to impossible."
Here's my reply:
In answer to your first question, the answer is most emphatically 'yes'. I have been a firm believer in free speech for all of my adult life.
In answer to your second question, first a bit of background ...
I am the father of two boys, currently aged 10 and 14. My wife and I have taken great pains to ensure that they are subject to as many positive influences as possible. They spent the first 9 years of their school lives in a parent-run private school. We homeschooled one boy for one year, and the other for two. Our elder son is now in a private academy, at a cost that has necessitated our giving up a lot of other things. We have never had television in our home because we feel it is a time-waster and a negative influence. (This is despite whatever good quality programming does exist. Overall, my experience of TV has been a negative one.)
You refer in your letter to Mr. Stern's amoral or immoral views. In my view, the primary purpose of morality is not as a tool to repress others, but rather as a means to one's own right living. With the moral education of our children, we have tried to take advantage of whatever “teachable moments” life brings us. To do that, we have not tried to shield them from every negative influence that might come their way, but rather to be alongside them when they encounter these things, and, through example and discussion, to help them build their own moral sense. So, for instance, together we have watched many movies that contained themes others might have found mature. The operative word is “together”; this allows us to have some influence in shaping our children's own morality and discrimination.
In my view, using the government to suppress material that they deem “unsuitable for children” is to start down a dangerous road. One reason it is dangerous is that it gives us parents the false sense of security that we need not concern ourselves with helping our children come to grips with the world they are growing into. In my own experience, many of the most immoral or amoral themes that my children are exposed to are found in PG-13 movies, in the daily news, or in the government education system. To count on the censorship of Howard Stern to protect my children from immorality is to fall prey to a dangerous illusion.
Over the years, I have come strongly to believe that nurturing one's relationship with one's children, thereby protecting one's influence over them until adulthood, is the single most powerful way to help them build character. Parenting is not a matter of shielding children from the thoughts of others, but of exposing them to one's own culture and morality. Often this is best done while reflecting on the behaviour of others around you. Governments have not always been supportive of this parental influence; in many cases, they have actively campaigned against it. One of the most pernicious ideas they have championed is compulsory mass education, which seems now to be degenerating into upbringing by peers.
One person whose views I share on the importance of maximizing parental influence is Vancouver psychologist Dr. Gordon Neufeld. I don't know whether he shares my views on government censorship, but on the subject of parenting, he is “spot on”. He is currently working on a book entitled “Hold Onto Your Kids: Parenting and the Peer Problem”. I am honoured to be among a small group of parents and educators who are helping to review the writing in progress. This work is reinforcing my view that, as parents, we need to take on more responsibility for our children's upbringing, not less. Letting government take responsibility for vetting what our children are exposed to will in practice only mean that they exposed to these things when we and other responsible adults are not present.
It is the business of government to protect us from physical interference by others. In particular, we empower it to protect us from those who would force their morality upon us. When we begin to give government the responsibility for enforcing morality, we start to give up the right to make our own moral choices. At the end of this road lies a society whose members are subject to the morality, or immorality, of the powerful. The ultimate price we will pay to live in a world without Howard Stern, will be to live in a world without the exercise of free will, a world such as the former Soviet Union or modern-day Iran. I am not willing to trade my children's legacy of freedom for a world without moral choices.
Regards,
Paul Miniato Email me.
Internet reference: Dr. Gordon Neufeld: “Hold Onto Your Kids: Parenting and the Peer Problem” http://www.gordonneufeld.com/home.html
October 5, 2002
Copyright Paul Miniato 1997-2002.
Back to Random Scribblings
Last Updated: 05-Oct-2002