Prohibition Rules and Censorship

I have a confession: I don't eat beef or pork.

It's a personal choice, but apparently, that position alone is enough for some folks to tell me that I am no longer worthy to be a Texan. (My typical response to their obviously humorous exclusionary statement is equally humorous, and unprintable.) My wife and children all love steak (usually medium rare, sometimes with a specific brand of steak sauce), and I am pretty certain that the grandkids would each eat an entire slab of bacon at one sitting (if it were available and if the "responsible" adults would allow it).

It's not that I think that beef or pork are bad for you - all things in moderation, after all - but I have a condition that makes me physically ill if I eat them. Just like anything else, it's something that I have become adapted to living with. The fact that I have this condition only seems to bother me when the number of restaurant menu choices are significantly curtailed (e.g., at a steakhouse), or when everyone else wants pepperoni, sausage, and/or Canadian bacon on their pizza. Bleck, and double bleck! However, unlike vegans or Crossfit enthusiasts, I don't force my family - or anyone else - to avoid eating beef or pork because of my discomfort. And that's what this most recent foray into "prohibition rules" and "censorship" appears to be about: someone's discomfort.

"It's not the heat, it's the inhumanity plugged into the sweat of a summer street. Machine gun images pass like malice through the looking glass."

Prohibition Laws Don't Work

Libertarians define "prohibition laws" as crafted pieces of legislation designed to perform one singular task: make criminals. We refer to the people who have run afoul of these laws has having committed a "victimless crime", or a crime in which no one other than the individual (and sometimes not even them) was harmed, threatened, or even inconvenienced. To Libertarians, laws against cannabis possession (not use, just possession) are just as ridiculous as would be a law against possessing potpourri or mulch. There are no laws against consensual sexual acts between adults ... unless there is an exchange of money. Speaking of exchanges of money, betting on a March Madness bracket or Super Bowl pool at work may technically be against the law, but I seriously doubt that the local constabulary are going to show up at your office to cart you and your co-workers down to the hoosegow.

If we've learned anything from the American Prohibition Era, it's that criminalizing something does not eliminate the act or product itself, but merely drives it underground. For instance, within a couple of years of passing the 18th Amendment prohibiting the sale, distribution, and consumption of alcoholic beverages, bootlegging became widespread, and organized crime took control of the distribution of alcohol. Distilleries and breweries in Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean flourished as their products were either consumed by visiting Americans or illegally exported to the United States. In short, if enough people want it, someone will find a way to provide it; that's just the economic law of 'supply and demand'.

Censorship

Recently, a school board in Tennessee voted unanimously (10-0) to remove the graphic novel "Maus" from its eighth-grade curriculum citing that the graphic novel "was simply too adult-oriented", that it used profanity, nudity, and depictions of violence and suicide, and that it was deemed inappropriate for eighth-graders. For any who have not read it, the graphic novel's author, Art Spiegelman, examines the horrors of the Holocaust and his parents' journey of survival, depicting the Nazis as cats and the Jewish people as mice. The nearly 300-page graphic novel, in two parts, received a special Pulitzer Prize in 1992.

"The vacant smile of true insanity dressed up in the mask of Tragedy programmed for the guts and glands of idle minds and idle hands."

As a key point to this discussion, please remember that eighth-graders are 13-14 years old. Most of them are probably more adept than anyone over the age of 30 on the various social media platforms, in skirting cyber-security, and generally finding the most obscure content that the internet has to offer. To a 13-year-old, "vulgarity" and "inappropriate content" are what they live for, and just like the economic law of 'supply and demand', if they want to get to it (whatever "it" happens to be), they will find a way to do so despite any barriers that we might try to put in their way.

Not that I have anything against the people of Tennessee, but giving them the benefit of my considerable doubt, if they secretly wanted these kids (and others) to read this book, this was a genius foray into reverse psychology because not only did it guarantee that these kids would read the novel, but as a direct result of their decision (and the multiple news outlets reporting on the decision), sales of the graphic novel on Amazon have pushed it to the top of their bestsellers list decades after its initial release. If, conversely, their unanimous decision was in earnest, it seems to me that they are simply foolish at best, and authoritarian at worst. Either way, it seems to me that they didn't learn the lessons taught to us in American History classes about the Prohibition Era.

"I rest my case, or at least my vanity dressed up in the mask of Comedy if laughter is a straw for a drowning man."

Finally, The Point!

Here's my point: we cannot, in good conscience, force other people to think or feel the way that we do about a subject, and we certainly should not be trying to do so through law. Until an actual crime has been committed - one in which someone is harmed other than the perpetrator - prohibition laws and other restrictive rules only serve to empower authoritarians. Like those of us who keep my grandkids from eating an entire slab of bacon at one sitting, authoritarians think and believe that they are the "responsible adults" in the room who know better than you do how to run your life and the lives of your family, and who (like vegans and Crossfit enthusiasts) insist that everybody would be better off if you just did things their way.

As Texans, we should be setting an example for the rest of the country. As long as they don't harm anyone else, we should allow everyone to pursue life, liberty, and happiness as they see fit without interference from the government. We should state unequivocally that authoritarianism has no place in Texas.

We need to be better.

Wall Street Journal: "Maus" Tops Bestseller List

American Library Association: Frequently Banned and Challenged Books