Censorship
Sir: Patrick Marnham 's ill-researched article under the satirical title 'In defence of porn' (18 November) needs correction of substance and severe refutation. What, Pray, does he mean by 'the latest medical opinion' which states that 'pornography can produce psychological disturbance. . . in certain adults' and why can't he say What he means? Does Marnham think the latest opinion is always the best? Does Marnham think medical men are better at deciding these issues that other socialhuman scientists? Does he, perhaps, refer to the work of Professor Eysenck (no Medical man) in making his assertions — or to that diehard of the Festival of Light, Dr John Court, of whose anti-porn surveys Professor Eysenck writes, 'it is difficult to draw any conclusions'?
More serious than mere journalistic sloppiness is Marnham's incredible stateMent: 'Censorship does not rank very high among the enemies of English literature'. The only sense in which this utterance has any meaning is that, due to the smug triviality of contemporary liter.arY sensibility in this country, the novelists we read haven't the wit to offend as they should. But, that apart, it is the profoundest misjudgment to suggest that censorship is divisible. By itself, in the abstract, censorship does not exist: to censor is to act, to act against unacceptable messages, using means, con!Eructs, tolerated fictions, laws, misinterpretations of laws, abuses of laws an. d ultimately physical violence to silence disconcerting opposition. „ Already the evil vagueness of the `-'bscene Publications Acts has allowed the incidental seizure of a wide variety of Publications among them, appalling novels by Georgette Heyer and mediocre novels by Issac Asimov. But the quality at issue is entirely beside the point. As we have seen from the homophobic resurrection of the blasphemy laws against the appearance of a mildly interesting poem about a centurion, any means is sufficient unto the end ordained. So far this year, over a million popular Publications in Great Britain have been destroyed (at staggering expense) by fatchninistrative procedures which insist llat the vendor is guilty until proved 1.11tiocent and permit no access to trial by Jury nor to assisted expert testimony. The ScIle criterion for this action is a deranged belief that sex is sinful. That belief can, ac,nd one day will, be extended to the °PeCtatOr'S small ads column purveying contraceptives, to Mr Waugh's persistent references to Ugandan activities, to Mr Bernard's commentary on the 'lowness' of his life and to your reviewers' undoubted desire to refer, from time to time, to private parts. The justification will be that you are depraving and corrupting the standards of contemporary life. And then they'll start on your political columns. They won't even have to revise the legislation. It'll be no loss to 'Literature', but novels, of course, will have been banned earlier.
Philip Hodson Editor, Forum, 2 Bramber Road, London W14
Previous page
