he Porn debate
thr: Messrs Peters and Unwin intimate 10t David Holbrook's opinions 3 Dt4Present so insignificant, ignorant and erile a minority, so jejune and im becilic an attitude, that space in so august a publication as the New Statesman, let alone valuable television time, should certainly not be wasted on him or them.
It is conceivable that differences of opinion may arise in the agitated conditions of any epoch, such that efflux of time will enable posterity alone to evaluate the relative validity. We may however benefit from the judgement of our forbears, since diligent research has revealed that pornography was a subject not altogether unknown to them.
We need not bury ourselves in musty files to select from the intellectual firmament of the past, many dazzling luminaries, whose light still glimmers in the humblest of foyers despite the passage of time and to consider what their opinion might have been on the burning issue of compulsory pornographic indoctrination, whether of the basest variety favoured by 'young liberals' or any other sort.
In philosophy, we may fairly commence with Plato and Zeno, skip the Fathers of the Church (lest we give offence) to continue with Berkely and Hume, Leibnitz, Spinosa, Kant, Hegel and Marx. Turning to religion, we should not overlook Zarathustra, Moses, Pythagoras, Jesus and Muhammed, nor even Fox and Wesley; men of letters may be represented by Goethe, Pascal, Dr Johnson and for mischief's sake Voltaire, while the scientific fraternity should be satisfied with such gentlemen as Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Max Planck and Einstein, with Aristotle thrown in for good measure, that we may end where we began.
Illustrious names, that have won the supreme accolade of favourable mention in the New Statesman alongside the glorious prophets of socialist realism; they cannot therefore be all bad.
Yet a moment's reflection suffices for the conclusion that each and every one of these would have considered Mr Holbrook's views more palatable and nearer the truth than those of Messrs Calder, Peters and Unwin. Must we conclude that so fearful a conundrum is but another product of that cerebral degeneration to which G. Reichardt refers?
However that may be, if society has managed to survive and even to benefit from the contributions of so weighty a phalanx, few qualms need
be entertained for the susceptibilities of New Statesman readers or the innocent television watching public being ruthlessly exposed to the opinions of Mr Holbrook.
In any case, censorship is so very detestable, isn't it? Especially when it is usually done for profit!
Nils Bohr
Chateau Mafroi, 1260 Nyon Vaud, Switzerland.
Previous page
