Argument Against Censorship.

The problem with censorship is that it imposes politics upon a field of study that is meant to transcend politics.

Argument: But every thing is political!

Counter-argument: were every thing political, supposing that the judge self-identified as a Far-Right Authoritarian, he could vote you down for how you look and then cite the relativism of your moral involvement. In other words, he would simply be acting out of a political position towards which he is entitled because all morals follow from politics, not the other way around. If all morals follow from politics, they are not absolute, for they are relative to the position of the moralizer. Supposing that circular reasonings were out of the question, the morals could not be used to identify any one position on the political Compass as The Correct One, for any one reasoner’s arguments would only reflect that reasoner’s biases and would PROBABLY lead back to the point of departure, or other wise render invalid the point of departure to begin with. Though this sort of self-transcendence of a corrupt paradigm, as depicted in the latter case, is possible and admirable, resolving such quandaries as how to justify the products of Manifest Destiny and Slavery, it involves an escape from politics into the DEEPER realm of philosophy, which would give us the tools to make such a moral transformation work. Aside from that, politics in general can be dispensed with in the consideration of what makes Good Art, and the people who insist that they (politics) will INEVITABLY influence these decisions are only trying to employ extortion in favour of their OWN ideological convictions.

Dm.A.A.