Ehrlich:
Now whether Howl is or is not "obscene" is of little importance to our world, faced as it is with the threat of physical survival, but the problem of what is legally permissible in the description of sexual acts or feelings in arts and literature is of the greatest importance to a free society.
What is "prurient"? And to whom? And the material so described is dangerous to some unspecified susceptible reader. It is interesting that the person applying such standards of censorship rarely feels as if their own physical or moral health is in jeopardy.
The desire to censor is not limited, however, to crackpots and bigots. There is in most of us a desire to make the world conform to our own views. And it takes all of the force of our own reason as well as our legal institutions to defy so human an urge.
The battle of censorship will not be finally settled by your Honor's decision, but you will either add to liberal educated thinking or by your decision you will add fuel to the fire of ignorance.
Let there be light. Let there be honesty. Let there be no running from non-existent destroyers of morals. Let there be honest understanding.
|
亨力克律師:
無論「哀嚎」是否為污穢的,對我們的世界並沒太大影響,因在這世界還要面對生存的威脅。但,問題在於什麼樣的性愛或情感描述,是被合法允許在藝術和文學當中,極大影響著一個自由社會。
什麼是「淫穢」?那又是對誰而言?所描述的內容,是危險的,對於某些未明說的讀者來講。有趣的是,那些申請審查標準的人很少感到他們的身體或心靈道德被侵犯。
想要審查某事的慾望,並不只限定在自大狂或偏執狂身上。而是,在我們之中,有種慾望想要讓世界遵循我們自己的意見,這讓我們使盡所有的理性和法律途徑,來對抗人類的這種渴望。
審查的戰火並不會因法官大人的決定而熄滅,但您將有可能提升自由的教育思想,抑或是決定助長無知的火苗。
讓亮光存在。讓正直存在。讓世人免於躲避無形體的道德糾察。讓真實的理解存在。
|